EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4075
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4564 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2591 Posts
What the fairy tale is, is that the poor people believe they could become rich, and they certainly don't want the perks of being rich to go away, when they finally claim their rightful spot in the rich, even though right now they are "temporarily embarrassed". | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6144 Posts
On September 29 2023 19:37 KwarK wrote: Now look at the micro governments Americans create and see if you can identify those. Look at condo HOAs for example. The answer is unremarkable, American exceptionalism is a lie, Americans are made of the exact same stuff as their brothers who didn’t get on the boat. They have the same biological needs and they have the same societal challenges. Europeans will, when confronted with a clear social need for the provision of X, address that need by working collectively to provide X. Whereas Americans will, in the same scenario, do the exact same thing because it turns out they still need X. And X still needs to be paid for and the people will still need to be compelled to pay. Nobody is disputing that Americans need the same services as other people and that it has to be paid for. That does not make it a tax and it does not tell you what method is better. How Europe does certain things proves nothing. On September 29 2023 23:52 EnDeR_ wrote: What fundamental needs do you believe that the private sector can satisfy more efficiently than a well-run, i.e. appropriately funded, public sector option? What do you consider fundamental needs? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4655 Posts
On September 30 2023 13:14 gobbledydook wrote: The American system works very well for rich people. Privatised healthcare costs less for them than public healthcare would because that would be a fixed percentage of their vast income, for example. The lower tax rate suits them, and they don't really need public services as much as poor people. (For example, they probably don't use the public library or the public school.)". I think in most public health care systems there is a cap, and You don't pay anything towards public health past a certain income threshold. Also, it's mainly salary that's considered when Your contribution is calculated, Your income from stocks etc. wouldn't count. At least not here. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2445 Posts
On September 30 2023 15:30 RvB wrote: Nobody is disputing that Americans need the same services as other people and that it has to be paid for. That does not make it a tax and it does not tell you what method is better. How Europe does certain things proves nothing. What do you consider fundamental needs? I left it vague on purpose, but I'd argue anything that if you didn't have it, you'd have serious problems. E.g. waste water collection, transport infrastructure, healthcare, etc. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28442 Posts
I mean, I'm not saying that anti-tax attitudes are inherently irrational (some degree of it, anyway), but rather that if the cause of anti-tax attitudes was that people weren't getting back their investment (which is clearly the case for states like california, illinois, washington and new jersey), we'd see a reasonable flip in the red/blue section of the states in that link. Republicans are clearly more opposed to taxes than democrats are, yet there's a very strong trend (granted, you'll find individual states that fail to fall in line with this) towards republican states being the ones who get back more than they put in. Basically I'm saying that people aren't rational. And I think more than anything, if there's a tax aimed at discouraging a certain behavior that someone is fond of, that tax will cause far more outrage than what the amount of money, in isolation, would warrant. Like if there's a scenario where party X wants to enact labor policies that will see your profession earn $1000 more per year but party X also wants to increase taxes on steak and driving cars in a way that will impact the same voter with an additional 600 dollars yearly and this person happens to be fond of driving cars and eating beef then my experience is the latter part of the equation ends up mattering more to that voter. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2591 Posts
On September 30 2023 17:30 Silvanel wrote: I think in most public health care systems there is a cap, and You don't pay anything towards public health past a certain income threshold. Also, it's mainly salary that's considered when Your contribution is calculated, Your income from stocks etc. wouldn't count. At least not here. In Australia we have a progressive tax rate for our Medicare levy, and is not capped at a certain contribution amount. The maximum is 1.5%, so imagine you earn a billion dollars a year, you'd be paying 15 million dollars for public healthcare. If you were that rich, or think you'll be that rich, you probably don't want the percentage levy. Also in Australia capital gains, dividends and such are all counted as income, so you get taxed on that, not just your wage. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6144 Posts
On September 30 2023 18:30 EnDeR_ wrote: I left it vague on purpose, but I'd argue anything that if you didn't have it, you'd have serious problems. E.g. waste water collection, transport infrastructure, healthcare, etc. Broadly, I think there are 4 categories: 1. Private sector works best 2. Private sector is best at providing the product/service but public funding is appropriate 3. Public and Private both viable 4. Public option works best. I'd then divide them the following way. The list is not exhaustive since I do not know every market out of the top of my head and I am not familiar with every market. E.g. I'm not sure about waste collection: 1: Agriculture / food, clothing, housing, banking, utilities (excluding the infrastructure required to distribute the utilities) 2. Infrastructure 3. Education, Healthcare 4. defense, policing, firefighting Healthcare might be surprising since the discussion surrounding it is often ideological with the left preferring public provision and the right preferring market mechanisms but both can work. The oecd compared groups of countries with similar institutions ranging from market mechanisms and private provision to heavily regulated public systems and concluded the following: Efficiency estimates vary more within country groups sharing similar institutional characteristics than between groups. This suggests that no broad type of health care system performs systematically better than another in improving the population health status in a cost-effective manner. Still, within-group comparisons allow the spotting of strengths and weaknesses for each country and identifying areas where achieving greater consistency in policy settings could yield efficiency gains. The quote is from the executive summary. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1840 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28442 Posts
Anyway, to me, the discussion isn't 'can private actors offer this service in a satisfactory manner', it's 'is this service one where I can accept that wealthy people get a superior product', and there, health care and education are definite nos for me. The equation to me is more like a combination of 'is this essential'?, 'is the government capable of providing a good service', and 'is there a natural monopoly for this particular service'. More yesses makes me think the public option is preferable. So food ends up being a private service even though it is essential, however, I prefer my trains to be publicly owned despite not being all that essential- we can't just let private actors set up their own tracks whereever they want, so there's a natural monopoly, and then my experience is that any sort of increased efficiency or lowered prices isn't due to competition between different private actors, but due to workers having worse conditions/something being skimped on. Lots of stuff has become privatized in Norway during my lifetime. Imo it yielded great results in exactly one area - telecommunication- and mediocre or negative results elsewhere. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1840 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41383 Posts
On October 01 2023 11:26 gobbledydook wrote:Also in Australia capital gains, dividends and such are all counted as income, so you get taxed on that, not just your wage. This is as it should be. Unearned income should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income. Otherwise the tax code is penalizing people for earning a wage and rewarding people for leeching off of others. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
On October 01 2023 19:05 Broetchenholer wrote: I would agree with that. In Germany, we "privatized" the public rail transportation company, even though the state us still majority owner, but is not allowed to dictate terms. It's really stupid. The rail network itself is also not privatized, which leads to a system where DB is a for profit company, that gets bailed out whenever it wants to do something expensive while reducing connections everywhere, because those do not create profits. Nothing about this works as it should. If you think that’s bad you should see how the U.K. did it… Well, same principles just, worse. I struggle to think of a worse sector to privatise than rail, no company is going to develop parallel infrastructure and is just going to use what’s there, and tends to just get assigned a particular region to operate in. So you get none of the benefits of competition you’d get elsewhere, all the negatives of de facto monopolies and none of the positives of a non-profit state monopoly. Energy and utility provision are in a similar boat | ||
|
Slydie
1843 Posts
On September 30 2023 17:30 Silvanel wrote: I think in most public health care systems there is a cap, and You don't pay anything towards public health past a certain income threshold. Also, it's mainly salary that's considered when Your contribution is calculated, Your income from stocks etc. wouldn't count. At least not here. No, this is not how it works. The point of public health care is that the government takes care of it. I have never heard about specific "health care taxes", it can be financed by tolls, taxes on rich, taxes on poor or other government income. The users typically pay some themselves too, but not the entire cost, and that part IS capped. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6144 Posts
On October 01 2023 16:53 Broetchenholer wrote: I don't think this talks about the financing of Healthcare though, just if the provider of the Healthcare, eg, your hospital, is a for profit institution or state owned. And the difference lies in the former. As long as society as a whole decides the guidelines of Healthcare, acceptable prices for treatments linked to the money provided by public Healthcare for example, it doesn't really matter if the hospital is private or not. It takes into account funding mix. And it has to since a system with private health insurance will always have more private funding than a system where the government does everything. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania8945 Posts
On October 01 2023 22:44 Slydie wrote: No, this is not how it works. The point of public health care is that the government takes care of it. I have never heard about specific "health care taxes", it can be financed by tolls, taxes on rich, taxes on poor or other government income. The users typically pay some themselves too, but not the entire cost, and that part IS capped. It works however you set it up to work. We do have specific health care taxes, as do many countries with public health care (or public pensions for that matter). The general purpose income tax is applied after those contributions. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4655 Posts
On October 01 2023 22:44 Slydie wrote: No, this is not how it works. The point of public health care is that the government takes care of it. I have never heard about specific "health care taxes", it can be financed by tolls, taxes on rich, taxes on poor or other government income. The users typically pay some themselves too, but not the entire cost, and that part IS capped. The fact that You never heard of this means nothing really. That's how it works in some countries around the world. In Poland a contribution for health care is compulsory and is not considered tax (at least not from legal point of view). I pay 12% tax on my salary and also have 9% deducted towards health care. Two separate positions going into seprate budgets. Countries around the world have different systems. See for example here: https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/index.php/public-health-textbook/organisation-management/5d-theory-process-strategy-development/financial-management-health-services | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17653 Posts
On October 01 2023 22:44 Slydie wrote: No, this is not how it works. The point of public health care is that the government takes care of it. I have never heard about specific "health care taxes", it can be financed by tolls, taxes on rich, taxes on poor or other government income. The users typically pay some themselves too, but not the entire cost, and that part IS capped. Didn't you live in Spain? It's part of the Seguridad Social here, and you pay a monthly contribution from your wages. Your company pays another part. It isn't part of your income tax, so calling it a separate healthcare tax (among other things) seems reasonable. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1009 Posts
On October 01 2023 03:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: Ren, doesn't your 'https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/' link do a pretty good job showing that anti-tax attitudes are less rational than what the rest of your post claims? I mean, I'm not saying that anti-tax attitudes are inherently irrational (some degree of it, anyway), but rather that if the cause of anti-tax attitudes was that people weren't getting back their investment (which is clearly the case for states like california, illinois, washington and new jersey), we'd see a reasonable flip in the red/blue section of the states in that link. Republicans are clearly more opposed to taxes than democrats are, yet there's a very strong trend (granted, you'll find individual states that fail to fall in line with this) towards republican states being the ones who get back more than they put in. Basically I'm saying that people aren't rational. And I think more than anything, if there's a tax aimed at discouraging a certain behavior that someone is fond of, that tax will cause far more outrage than what the amount of money, in isolation, would warrant. Like if there's a scenario where party X wants to enact labor policies that will see your profession earn $1000 more per year but party X also wants to increase taxes on steak and driving cars in a way that will impact the same voter with an additional 600 dollars yearly and this person happens to be fond of driving cars and eating beef then my experience is the latter part of the equation ends up mattering more to that voter. Oh, I'll never claim that people are rational. There are many different reasons to have pro or negative views on taxes and many different reasons to support one party over the other. The fact that my state's residents get screwed over on federal taxes is a pretty poor reason in general to be anti-tax or pro one party over the other. However, my previous post should help people understand a little bit of the anti-tax attitude. If people don't see what their tax dollars are actually buying, they feel like it's being wasted. Or in my state's case, not even getting back what we put in. The bigger indicator of which party someone is affiliated with is whether they live in a city or more rural area. People that live in close proximity to other people tend to like rules and regulations. People who have a lot of space would rather be left alone. Right now, the Democrats are more associated with rules and regulations while the Republicans are more associated with removing rules (although they seem to love making rules based on their religious morality, but somehow get a pass). So city people tend to vote Democrat and rural people tend to vote Republican. On September 30 2023 08:09 Acrofales wrote: So this seems to be a new take on American Exceptionalism, in which you are arguing that America isn't exceptional because it is better, but rather than America is exceptional because it is incompetent. Somehow American bureaucrats are just more incompetent than bureaucrats elsewhere... and that elsewhere includes France, Italy and Spain, so it has a pretty high bar for incompetence! + Show Spoiler + Bureaucrats in America, we will argue, are so incompetent and inept that it is far better to have everything at as local level as we can possibly imagine, because then only a few people get fucked by the local incompetence, while if we were to deal with this at a higher level, the incompetence would affect more people, just look at the national debt ceiling debacle! Now just as an aside, I don't think home owner organizations are something unique to the US. They may be even more awful in the US than elsewhere, but we were met by a surprise similar in kind if not in scale when we bought our apartment a few years ago. In fact, one of the selling points was that the community contributions were (and still are) very low. Those low quarterly contributions are because we (and with we, I mean the first home owners) decided that the monthly contributions cover the cost of basic maintenance and cleaning, and everything else will be paid for ad-hoc. That includes retiling the roof at whatever point that will become a necessity, and has already included replacing the sump pump that pumps our sewage out of the tank we have and into the muncipal sewer. Now I've lived here for a few years and I've come to terms with the fact that at some point our roof will need retiling for a few thousand euros, but if I were to be hit with that bill the moment I bought the place I would be quite upset. At the last home owners meeting, I argued for increasing the community contributions (ahem, taxes), so that eventually we'd build up funds to cover this kind of thing and it was voted down. So mostly my take-away message is that we need to move out before the roof needs retiling  But from having seen the John Oliver bit about HOAs, they sound particularly malicious in the US, where it seems that for every instance of Tocqueville's lauded association, there is a corporation behind it squeezing a buck out in whatever way they can, because while you may want to associate for any little thing, either nobody wants to, or if Ren is right, nobody is capable of, actually running the association and performing its basic tasks, so a corporation is pulled in to manage it, and then the fun really starts! Anyway, coming back to the main point: I don't think the US is exceptionally incompetent, and obviously there are things that are better run at hyperlocal level (such as having a building association that is in charge of retiling the roof when it is needed) and there are things that are better run at national level. I don't think pointing at taxes and saying "for every $1 we pay in Illinois, we only get $0.6 back, so the federal government is shortchanging us" when that is kinda the whole point of a national tax: the rich people of Delaware, Massachusets and apparently Illinois, pay for the social security of poor people in New Mexico and Mississippi. Now I'm sure New Mexico and Mississippi have other redeeming qualities, but having a functioning economy is apparently not one of them, but they are part of the USA, and thus you need to buckle up and ensure that they aren't left by the roadside. If you don't want to do that, then what you probably actually want is to secede. That's what Brexit did. The Brits said they were tired of paying for Poland. Or something. And left the EU. It dumped them seriously in the shitter, that did. And the British economy is far less entangled with the EU overall than Illinois's economy is with the USA, so good luck with seceding! I tell the same to my Catalan colleagues who still want independence from Spain. Now there is clearly an argument to be had about whether it's fair Illinois only gets 60 cents back for every dollar of federal tax. Maybe it should be 80 cents. Or $1.20, or only 40 cents. I don't know. In theory that's what you elect your conressmen for, to figure that shit out. Of course, I'm also happy to agree that your congress is in a particularly deplorable state right now and couldn't figure their way out of a wet paper bag, but I don't think that is due to exceptional American incompetence. Rather it is due to an archaic constitution and an inordinate amout of faith placed in people who already hold a position for the simple fact of holding it. I really cannot imagine that anybody in Georgia is benefited by MTG representing them, but there's a good chance she will keep her seat merely because she already has it. And her presence (or if you prefer a similarly problematic Democratic example, Steve Manchin) has an inordinately large effect on national policy. Once again, not a uniquely USian problem. We currently have a kingmaker situation here in Spain, where a small independentist Catalan party can play kingmaker to either a left-wing or a right-wing coalition. It's ironic, because they align politically with the conservative and populist policies of the right, but the Spanish national right are fascist, and absolutely LOATHE Catalan nationalism. Meanwhile, the left are open to at least discussing the idea of granting a blanket pardon for everybody involved with the 2017 referendum, including the political leader of aforementioned Catalan independentist party, so he gets to hold the government hostage until he is given a pardon. But at least the other parties have the option of saying "nope, fuck it, we'll risk new elections", and that's why relying on a 250-year-old constitution probably isn't the best idea either. This is not a uniquely American problem. Bureaucracy everywhere sucks. A necessary evil. However, the bigger it is and the longer it is entrenched, the worse it gets. European countries may be older than the USA, but most have newer Constitutions than ours. Most European countries also got a bureaucratic reset after World War 2. Our bureaucracies have been unbroken for longer and lots of stupid shit got entrenched in the government and its bureaucracies. Many could use a rebuild. The least destructive way would be to shrink them to their essence and then build them up from there. Also, the USA was supposed to be like the European Union, not one of the countries in the EU. The states were supposed to be like the countries of Europe. That's how the states viewed themselves when the US constitution was written. How would you feel if the EU took the majority of your tax dollars and your country only had a minimal income tax? Would you be okay with the EU taking the lion's share of your tax money and only returning a fraction of it in your country because some other EU country needed it more? It may seem odd to some, all humans being equal, but I prefer to take care of my own. I'd rather give someone struggling in my neighborhood a dollar than someone in the next town over. I'd rather give someone in the next town over a dollar than some guy on the other side of the state. For me, that pattern repeats in wider and wider circles. We humans can only give so much of a damn. We can cry over the loss of a family member, but not feel a thing for the other 116 people who die every minute on planet Earth. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28442 Posts
But anyway - here's a list of 2014 numbers You can see that a wealthy country like the Netherlands contributes with 8,372 million euro, while only 2,014 million euro of EU funds are spent in the Netherlands. Germany contributes with 29,143, receives 11,484. Meanwhile a country like Poland contributed with 3,954, received 17,436, and Hungary gets more than 6x their contribution. Norway actually pays a significant amount to this redistributive fund as part of the deal that gives us access to the common markets, too. Honestly, this, the redistributive aspect, is one of the things I like the most about the EU. And I do believe there's a pretty strong parallel in the sense that for example Hungary, being one of the countries to receive the most funds from the EU, has one of the populations most negative towards the EU, because the EU also insists that they should adopt certain 'western liberal values', which receives a lot of pushback from socially conservative forces. (Strongly reflected through seeing that leftist voters across europe are generally, (although countries like Spain and Norway are exceptions) way more positive towards the EU than right wing voters. It's not that the leftists are the ones who benefit economically from the EU funds, or that they contribute with less of them, it's that they also support those western liberal values. I think Clinton's 'it's the economy, stupid' seems significantly less true today than it was 30 years ago, and that a whole lot of voters, across all western countries, vote contrary to what would benefit them economically, because of (normally exaggerated and sometimes downright invented) social issues. *to be fair to Poland this arguably doesn't apply to how polish people vote in their own national elections but rather in attitudes towards the EU. | ||
| ||
