MedEwok wrote:
tax rates across the EU need to be harmonised, preventing a “race to the bottom”
Blue eyed I’m afraid. What this ends up doing is that it forces those countries who have a good financial management and are exemplary in their spending, therefore have low taxes to artificially rise those taxes so that they will not profit from their own skill and success. The excess money then goes where? Back to the people? Then it is a tax haven yet again. To countries who can’t make their economy work? Then it’s a re-distribution, which is wrong. There is NO entitlement for any money unless you work for it. The only exceptions to that rule is welfare with the goal of re-integration and pensions, which you actually HAVE worked for.
MedEwok wrote:
wages need to rise. The public sector can do this directly, thus putting pressure on private companies. These companies need to be incentivised to invest in their employees first and shareholders second (“stakeholders before shareholders”)
What the public sector actually does is the opposite. At least in this country. And companies follow suit. It’s not out of financial need, they are well enough off, it’s because they can.
MedEwok wrote:
austerity needs to end. If tax incomes aren’t high enough to finance public infrastructure and social services then someone is not paying their fair share (see above ). Wealth needs to be taxed because to become wealthy you always benefit from public resources.
Austerity needs to end, yes. And there are places in which some people do not pay their share (Greece for instance) which got them in the mess in the same place. And this has to change. But rising the taxes until everyone is at the same low level is stifling an economy. Likewise, it is injust to tax people who have achieved a high income due to hard work and advancement more than you tax everyone else. This policy for decades has actually CAUSED the tax haven problem.
The world is not so easy MedEvok. You are in your profession set out for a career which will make you the target for exactly what you are asking for. So in 10-20 years maybe you’ll be happy to contribute 40-60% of your hard earned cash to people who prefer sitting on park benches playing in dark places with their fingers? Not me I’m afraid. If I have to work for my money, then so should everyone else unless there is a darn good reason for it. And for those people, yes, we do need a social net. But not for folks who are just too stupid or lazy.
Peter, the word that you were looking for on page one of this thread that started with a “C” and ended with a “T” is “Clot”
For what it’s worth, I have enjoyed reading the whole of this thread.
It shows that one man’s ideology is another man’s social and economic disaster. I’d love to live in a world where there were no gaps that could not be crossed with some effort, indeed it could be argued that my own hard work has enable me to cross some of those gaps, but I don’t believe it will ever happen and Churchill was right.
@Mooney_Driver
I already pay 42% tax, which is the top rate in Germany. On top of that comes 15% health insurance and 19% pension payments. Both of these are shared between the employer and the employee, so it amounts to about another 18% for me. Effectively 60% of what I earn never even reaches my bank account.
And you know what? I don’t mind if all the public infrastructure is in place and working for the common good thanks to my tax money. Just ask our Scandinavian colleagues such as LeSving here. Their countries are all high-tax countries. They also have very high standards of living and usually top all International league tables of human development and happiness.
MedEwok wrote:
And you know what? I don’t mind if all the public infrastructure is in place and working for the common good thanks to my tax money. Just ask our Scandinavian colleagues such as LeSving here. Their countries are all high-tax countries. They also have very high standards of living and usually top all International league tables of human development and happiness.
Different cultures have different approaches. The Scandinavian model wouldn’t work in the UK. European countries have different views on work vs leisure. I work a lot but have flexibility about where I work but am never truly on holiday. I like it that way. But others like to be completely offline when they are on vacation.
I think what we are discussing is not the average standard of living but the variance. In some parts of Europe more people are near the average both up and down.
Personally I think paying more than 50% of what I earn to the government is symptomatic of inefficiency and waste rather than supporting a high level of safety net (which I support as well)
JasonC wrote:
Personally I think paying more than 50% of what I earn to the government is symptomatic of inefficiency and waste rather than supporting a high level of safety net (which I support as well)
I pay about 36% of my salary in tax (however my marginal tax rate is 58%). In addition my employer pays about 50% of the salary value in “salary tax” (basically social insurance fees) and pension payments. So my situation is similar to MedEwok in that about 60% of what my employer pays for my salary never reaches my bank account. And I also don’t mind at all. I am well payed, substantially above the national average.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Silvaire wrote:
social mobility is by definition the opportunity to make more money so you can do more versus sitting around doing nothing, which is very economical … Why the heck else would you work hard to advance yourself?
Why indeed… Quality of life, self-satisfaction, pride?
How does income as a social reward for useful work fail to promote individually chosen advancement in quality of life, self-satisfaction or pride? I have precisely zero attraction to a world in which income and social advancement are divorced. It tends to repress diversity (in other words repressing different definitions of quality of life coexisting in the same society) and often creates a wasteful class system with inappropriate barriers to advancement. I want to live where there is a direct, unambiguous and non-culturally specific system of reward for useful work. It provides more opportunity for everybody, regardless of their potentially diverse values. If you were an immigrant to your country, you might feel the same way 
JasonC wrote:
Different cultures have different approaches. The Scandinavian model wouldn’t work in the UK.
Or almost anywhere else.
Silvaire wrote:
It tends to repress diversity (in other words repressing different definitions of quality of life coexisting in the same society) and often creates a wasteful class system with inappropriate barriers to advancement.
Do you have any facts to support that claim? From what I’ve seen research says just the opposite.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you have any facts to support that claim? From what I’ve seen research says just the opposite.
One fact is that I’ve spent decades of my life watching successful advancement of immigrants within the relatively diverse US society, doing it myself and viewing it in the context of my own European background and that of my wife, we being immigrants from two quite different foreign cultures. With that fact in mind, my observation and firmly held belief is that the reason immigrants integrate well in the US is because it’s a society that integrates people based on ability and work, with social status advancing with income and not much else. Culture, social class identification and shared values are relatively unimportant to social mobility, unlike in the relatively closed mono-cultures that exist in many European countries. I think current events in Europe highlight a growing problem and frustration in that regard.
You didn’t answer my question, BTW.
research says just the opposite
It would do, due to the funding sources. This is always a big problem with European research. The majority of it is EU funded (even if a particular job is not EU funded, most researchers basically live off EU grants, and all the institutions have well lubricated departments for applying for the next one) and you never bite the hand that feeds you.
If it is something like technology, that is usually OK (except that, due to political correctness, funding is awarded mainly to collaborative ventures regardless of any synergy between the collaborators) but as soon as you get into any social research, the outcome will be fairly predictable…
Culture, social class identification and shared values are relatively unimportant to social mobility, unlike in the relatively closed mono-cultures that exist in many European countries. I think current events in Europe highlight a growing problem and frustration in that regard.
I believe the one thing the US does better is integration. But I would not say it is for the reason you mention but because the US is, basically, a nation of immigrants so attitudes are different. As LeSving pointed out, social mobility in general is actually higher in Scandinavia than in the US.
You didn’t answer my question, BTW.
You mean
How does income as a social reward for useful work fail to promote individually chosen advancement in quality of life, self-satisfaction or pride?
Why…? Because they are different things. I have a well-paid job (and I’m glad I do), but that has never been my goal. I have, in periods, worked very hard (including starting my own business “from nothing” together with some colleagues) but I have not done it to get paid more, but because I felt the work was fun and meaningful and – I must admit – it afforded me some status. One of my most important career moves came with a (permanent) 20% cut in salary. I’ve also spent lots and lots of unpaid time working for non-profit organisations.
