Magnus Itland ([info]itlandm) wrote,
@ 2008-05-03 09:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:Nodeland
Current mood: amused
Entry tags:economy, politics

Tax
A recent poll by Synovate on behalf of the Norwegian Taxpayer Union shows that seven out of ten Norwegians don't mind paying their taxes and think they get plenty back from them.


(Post a new comment)


[info]jeffkun
2008-05-03 03:06 pm UTC (link)
I doubt you'd ever see such a result in the US. Different mentalities and all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]itlandm
2008-05-03 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Well, part of it is that we actually do get a lot back from it. Much of what is called taxes here are actually collective pension schemes and medical insurance. I assume people consider these to be fair in the US too, otherwise they would opt out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jeffkun
2008-05-03 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Many prefer to invest their own money instead of having pensions and insurances. Of course, many of those are also rich.

The real issue in the US is why the poor tend to be the ones who vote against their economic interests. (Particularly poor Christians)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]itlandm
2008-05-03 09:40 pm UTC (link)
That makes sense, but it would make even more sense if the relatively few rich Christians voted against THEIR economic interests. In Norway, the Christian Democrat party (the only explicitly Christian party) is obsessed with poverty. They are conservative on stuff like abortion and monogamy, but they are like socialists when it comes to economics. Sharing with the poor is like the Christian Value No 1 here. I largely agree with that, but I think one should share one's own money and not other people's money. But of course that is much easier.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jeffkun
2008-05-03 09:51 pm UTC (link)
American Christianity was Puritan influenced- Poverty is a form of sinfulness, Wealth a sign of blessing from god.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cerebresque
2008-05-04 09:10 pm UTC (link)
...because they have other interests that are more important to them than their economic interests?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jeffkun
2008-05-04 09:45 pm UTC (link)
Guns, God, and Gays.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cerebresque
2008-05-04 09:52 pm UTC (link)
Well, that's certainly a fashionable answer, yes.

On the other hand, what this formerly-British (and so gunless), atheist, and really quite utterly indifferent to other people's sexuality chap would have told you, during my period of poverty, is that while bad decisions (mine) and incompetent management (theirs) and unfavorable macroconomic conditions (neithers) could make me poor, only my own moral defect could make me a parasite.

I might not have been able to afford a pot to piss in at the time, but since when does that entitle me to anything of other people's?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jeffkun
2008-05-04 09:58 pm UTC (link)
Does it entitle you? No. However, if the pot did not exist, there would likely be a collective greater social cost, as you would become a bandit. The reason social welfare is in place is for a combination of two reasons

a) For the benefit of the upper classes- so they can not see poverty, and

b) To make sure poor people are content enough that they see it as worthwhile to seize wealth rather then live within the system.

b) is why I worry about a new wave of fascism happening in my lifetime. We may get hosed enough by globalization that we decide that destruction is better.

I understand what periods of poverty are like. I was forced into a tough decision, and then another tough decision which I hope will pay out soon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cerebresque
2008-05-06 11:07 am UTC (link)
Does it entitle you? No. However, if the pot did not exist, there would likely be a collective greater social cost, as you would become a bandit.

Well, that's a gross libel on the entire set of poor people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jeffkun
2008-05-06 11:28 am UTC (link)
It's also economic truth supported by history, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's the mechanism that ensures social justice.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cerebresque
2008-05-06 11:30 am UTC (link)
Clearly the history with which you are familiar is not the same history as the history with which I am familiar, so I think I shall bow out at this point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]itlandm
2008-05-06 11:46 am UTC (link)
I think history shows that many - even most - poor people accept their fate, while some strive to get out of poverty by acceptable means, and others turn to crime. Of course the criminals get the most press. They always do. There is nothing sensational about people who give up, and not very much about those who work hard and smart, unless they go on to become rich and famous.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jeffkun
2008-05-06 11:55 am UTC (link)
I'm also referring to rebellions. You anger enough people, they'll get organized and take it out- be it for economic, religious, or social reasons. The areas that drew a lot of rebellions tend to be the ones with the most liberty, and the areas with the least amount of rebellions tend to have the least, though it's not a perfect correlation. The US and Western Europe have a huge history of rebellion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…