People in highly taxed countries better off: report

[Saturn]

Here is an interesting article on the costs of tax cuts:

The study compares four high-tax Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland) with six low-tax Anglo-American countries (the U.K., U.S., Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand).

The four Nordic countries scored better than the lower-taxed countries on most of the 50 indicators measured in the report, including:

Rate of poverty, equality of income distribution, and economic security for workers.

GDP per capita.

Rate of household saving and net national saving.

Innovation, including percentage of GDP spent on research and development.

Growth competitiveness as ranked by the World Economic Forum.

Rates of secondary school and university completion.

Rate of drug use.

Leisure time.

The more lowly taxed countries came out on top in seven of the 50 indicators, including their sense of freedom, their suicide rates and the number of people reporting they are very happy.

Americans also have one of the lowest life expectancies among industrialized countries, two years behind Finland and three behind Canada.

"The United States spends over twice as much of its GDP on health care than Finland (15 per cent versus 7.4 per cent), and yet U.S. health care outcomes remain far worse — indeed, worse than most other industrialized countries," it says.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/...ternatives.html

[Charles Anthony]

Without knowing what biases went into the calculation of their "indicators" it is ridiculous to interpret or even believe this study.

From the little details supplied in the article, all we can see is that they are comparing apples and oranges. The population dynamics of the two groups of countries are not the same.

[Saturn]

Without knowing what biases went into the calculation of their "indicators" it is ridiculous to interpret or even believe this study.

Most of these indicators are reported by the OECD. Or maybe 1 finnish year = only 0.95 american years, so the OECD got it all wrong?

[normanchateau]

Without knowing what biases went into the calculation of their "indicators" it is ridiculous to interpret or even believe this study.

From the little details supplied in the article, all we can see is that they are comparing apples and oranges. The population dynamics of the two groups of countries are not the same.

In other words, you don't believe the conclusions even though you haven't seen the details...

[Canadian Blue]

I generally agree, I don't mind paying higher taxes if they do make society better, and if people will get more access to post secondary, health care, better environment, closing the income gap, etc. However I don't support giving more money to the government if it's destined for softcore porn, grants to government friendly companies, and only destined people who vote for the government.

[Charles Anthony]

In other words, you don't believe the conclusions even though you haven't seen the details...

Correct.

However, let us look at this brilliant study.

Here is a shining example of bias:

Economic Equality

One of the pressing issues facing every democracy is how economic resources should be distributed. Large economic inequalities hold adverse consequences for the personal well-being of the citizens of a country: Inequalities erode social cohesion; they lead to worse health and personal security outcomes; they lead to the withdrawal of the haves from the life of the community and the exclusion of the have-nots; and, generally, inequality diminishes the richness and flourishing of a society.

page 16 of the original study (PDF!!!)

Sounds poetic but I can not find in their "study" any defense for all those assumptions.

I do not trust these statisticians. Now, let us look at their numbers.

In the United States, where income is distributed more unequally than in any other industrialized country, the richest 10% of families receive almost 16 times as much of national income as the poorest 10%. In Finland, by contrast, the richest 10% receive only 5.6 times as much of the national income as the poorest 10%, about one-third the American multiple. Once again, Canada finds itself on this indicator in between the United States and the Nordic countries. In Canada, the richest 10% receive 10.1 times that of the poorest 10%.

same page 16 (PDF!!!)

An honest person could also look at those same numbers and simply say: Finland has no rich people. Everybody in Finland is equally poor.

Maybe all of their high taxes are helping even out the playing field!

[geoffrey]

Equality isn't a measure of a societies success, but instead a measure of how great their economic oppression is.

In my opinion, of course.

[Saturn]

I generally agree, I don't mind paying higher taxes if they do make society better, and if people will get more access to post secondary, health care, better environment, closing the income gap, etc. However I don't support giving more money to the government if it's destined for softcore porn, grants to government friendly companies, and only destined people who vote for the government.

What you need to recognize is that grants to government friendly companies are the last thing that is going to go. The first thing that will go is services. That's how human organizations work.

If a company is not doing well, the first people to go are the front line workers and those who provide the actual services/produce the goods. The next people to go are low-level management. The last to go are top management but that happens only in very rare situations when the company is on its last legs.

The same goes to government - the first thing to go is the services provided by the front lines, then management, and finally the politicians' friends. So if you cut taxes by $100, the amount that will come out of services is $100. The politicians' friends will go only when there are no services left to cut.

Another way to look at it is suppose you run a business. If the business is not doing well and you have to layoff workers who is going to go first? Joe, who you don't know, your friend, or your kid? Chances are that Joe will go first, your friend next and your daugher/son will go last. No?

[Saturn]

Equality isn't a measure of a societies success, but instead a measure of how great their economic oppression is.

In my opinion, of course.

Hey, most third-world countries have perfectly free economies and no or close to no taxes. Are they extremely successful?

[geoffrey]

Equality isn't a measure of a societies success, but instead a measure of how great their economic oppression is.

In my opinion, of course.

Hey, most third-world countries have perfectly free economies and no or close to no taxes. Are they extremely successful?

The opportunity is there.

I don't see why you have any more entitlement to my money than I do. Taxes to create financial equality beyond keeping enough food in you to prevent death is completely theft.

Earn your own damned money.

The culture of entitlement in the western world is just disgusting.

[Charles Anthony]

Equality isn't a measure of a societies success, but instead a measure of how great their economic oppression is.

It could also be a measure of how boring the economy happens to be. It seems like everybody in Finnland is the same.

One thing I tried to search for in this study is comparing how open these different countries are to immigration and refugees. None of their "indicators" seemed to explore that. [before this issue develops into bigotry, I want to say that I think a country that does accept immigrants is a much more free country than one that does not.]

I wonder how open Finland is to refugees and immigration?? Let us take a look:

Finland meets only one tenth of refugee quota for this year

Ministry disagreements slow selection of refugees

Disagreements between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Interior have significantly slowed down the selection of refugees to be settled in Finland on the basis of the annual refugee quota.

So far this year Finland has taken in 75 "quota refugees" - exactly one tenth of the allotment of 750.

"Our problems are national. The world has not run out of refugees", observes Mervi Virtanen, head of the political section of the Ministry of Labour.

---SNIP---

The 75 refugees that Finland has taken so far this year are so-called emergency cases, who have had to be moved quickly from a refugee camp to a safe country because of pressing concerns involving security or health, for instance. Finland plans to bring in another 75 refugees in a similar predicament.

Finland would not be in violation of any treaties even if it fell far short of its original refugee quota.

Helsingin Sonomat

Oh! How magnanimous of the Finns!

Canada's refugee statistics alone are in the thousands. Sorry, guys. I think there is more to the big picture of what makes a country great and honorable.

[Saturn]

In other words, you don't believe the conclusions even though you haven't seen the details...

Correct.

However, let us look at this brilliant study.

Here is a shining example of bias:

Economic Equality

One of the pressing issues facing every democracy is how economic resources should be distributed. Large economic inequalities hold adverse consequences for the personal well-being of the citizens of a country: Inequalities erode social cohesion; they lead to worse health and personal security outcomes; they lead to the withdrawal of the haves from the life of the community and the exclusion of the have-nots; and, generally, inequality diminishes the richness and flourishing of a society.

page 16 of the original study (PDF!!!)

Sounds poetic but I can not find in their "study" any defense for all those assumptions.

I do not trust these statisticians. Now, let us look at their numbers.

In the United States, where income is distributed more unequally than in any other industrialized country, the richest 10% of families receive almost 16 times as much of national income as the poorest 10%. In Finland, by contrast, the richest 10% receive only 5.6 times as much of the national income as the poorest 10%, about one-third the American multiple. Once again, Canada finds itself on this indicator in between the United States and the Nordic countries. In Canada, the richest 10% receive 10.1 times that of the poorest 10%.

same page 16 (PDF!!!)

An honest person could also look at those same numbers and simply say: Finland has no rich people. Everybody in Finland is equally poor.

Maybe all of their high taxes are helping even out the playing field!

I don't see what exactly is incorrect here. The fact is that the greater inequality is - the more everyone has to lose. Very poor people have nothing to lose. They are much more likely to end up involved in criminal activity and make things bad for everyone else (rich included).

An extreme example is feodal Russia, where over 90% of the population was effectively "owned" by a small minority of rich people. The owners would take most of the peasants' produce in taxes and many people ended up starving even though they produced enough food to feed themselves. The result was that the poor got fed up with it and one day decided to hack the heads of the entire royal family and a large number of their "owners". Most of the remaining "owners" ended up in Siberia. So did the rich do well after all?

Another more recent example is Palestinian suicide bombers. They are poor, unemployed, have no house or car to lose and effectively they have nothing to lose by blowing themselves up. Those who have a lot to lose are the modernized, relatively wealthy Israelis, who have property, families, and lives that are worth something to them.

The conclusion is that if there are people who are so poor that they don't care whether they live, they will screw up your life too. Everyone benefits when everyone else has at least a bit so that they have something to live for.

[Saturn]

Equality isn't a measure of a societies success, but instead a measure of how great their economic oppression is.

It could also be a measure of how boring the economy happens to be. It seems like everybody in Finnland is the same.

One thing I tried to search for in this study is comparing how open these different countries are to immigration and refugees. None of their "indicators" seemed to explore that. [before this issue develops into bigotry, I want to say that I think a country that does accept immigrants is a much more free country than one that does not.]

I wonder how open Finland is to immigration?? Let us take a look:

Finland meets only one tenth of refugee quota for this year

Ministry disagreements slow selection of refugees

Disagreements between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Interior have significantly slowed down the selection of refugees to be settled in Finland on the basis of the annual refugee quota.

So far this year Finland has taken in 75 "quota refugees" - exactly one tenth of the allotment of 750.

"Our problems are national. The world has not run out of refugees", observes Mervi Virtanen, head of the political section of the Ministry of Labour.

---SNIP---

The 75 refugees that Finland has taken so far this year are so-called emergency cases, who have had to be moved quickly from a refugee camp to a safe country because of pressing concerns involving security or health, for instance. Finland plans to bring in another 75 refugees in a similar predicament.

Finland would not be in violation of any treaties even if it fell far short of its original refugee quota.

Helsingin Sonomat

Oh! How magnanimous of the Finns!

Canada's refugee statistics alone are in the thousands. Sorry, guys. I think there is more to the big picture of what makes a country great and honorable.

Right, it's the refugees that cause all the trouble. I don't know - India and Namibia don't have many refugees but they somehow don't come out at the top of the developed countries list.

[Saturn]

Equality isn't a measure of a societies success, but instead a measure of how great their economic oppression is.

In my opinion, of course.

Hey, most third-world countries have perfectly free economies and no or close to no taxes. Are they extremely successful?

The opportunity is there.

I don't see why you have any more entitlement to my money than I do. Taxes to create financial equality beyond keeping enough food in you to prevent death is completely theft.

Earn your own damned money.

The culture of entitlement in the western world is just disgusting.

Give it up. I have more money than you do and I don't want any of your money. It's goint to take you 20 years to pay others for the education, health-care and other services you've used up in the first 20 or so years of your life. You are not yet entitled to complain about paying for others because you haven't paid for yourself yet. In 20 years you may have a point but not yet.

[Charles Anthony]

Right, it's the refugees that cause all the trouble.

No. I am saying that the study is comparing apples and oranges with respect to populations.

I am also saying that Canada is a better country. Our willingness to share our country with foreigners is not reflected in your biased statistical study.

Give it up. I have more money than you do and I don't want any of your money.

What do you want? You want higher taxes.

You are right: he should give up and maybe move to Finnland!

[Michael Hardner]

Obviously, there's a set of income distribution graphs that corresponds to equal opportunity and rewarding excellence and success.

[geoffrey]

Give it up. I have more money than you do and I don't want any of your money. It's goint to take you 20 years to pay others for the education, health-care and other services you've used up in the first 20 or so years of your life. You are not yet entitled to complain about paying for others because you haven't paid for yourself yet. In 20 years you may have a point but not yet.

Good. I think I have a right to your money ok, thanks?

See how silly it sounds... I have no right to your money, your labours... just as you or anyone else has no right to mine.

[Michael Hardner]

See how silly it sounds... I have no right to your money, your labours... just as you or anyone else has no right to mine.

If you do business in my country then I have a say - through my vote - in how you do business.

[Technocrat]

The Wage Gap

Hourly wages rose just 0.2 percent in August, half of what economists had projected. A private study on wages released this week, however, showed dramatic wage increases for one group: Top corporate executives. The result, the report said, is that the average U.S. C.E.O. now makes more than 400 times what the average worker does.

(I admit the numbers are from 1999 but the gap has not really gotten any smaller since)

I havn't found a source yet but I know japan has a wage cap for a company CEO something in the order of 40 times the salary of an entry level employee for a company. I like this system... if a CEO wants more money... spread the wealth with your workers as well, they helped earn it.

IMHO that helps build a better society. It would sure burn my ass working @ disney and asshat Eisner cuts out their animation studio's along with the creative talen of the company and earns himself a phat paycheck in the order of $576million... even if most of that was exercising stock options... nobody is worth that much cash. Cerntainly not on an annual basis.

[geoffrey]

See how silly it sounds... I have no right to your money, your labours... just as you or anyone else has no right to mine.

If you do business in my country then I have a say - through my vote - in how you do business.

Then, do you through your vote, believe in majority tyranny over other rights, like abortion and capital punishment? Or who you extend rights to?

Why are you, and others, so quick to limit economic freedom while demanding freedoms of other types extend beyond majority tyranny?

Perhaps you are a believer in complete majority tyranny, and I'm off base with that comment. But I somehow doubt it.

Does your vote give you a right to my property? Why? Does your vote give you a right to tell me how to live? Why/why not?

[Michael Hardner]

Then, do you through your vote, believe in majority tyranny over other rights, like abortion and capital punishment? Or who you extend rights to?

I believe that that is the best system.

Why are you, and others, so quick to limit economic freedom while demanding freedoms of other types extend beyond majority tyranny?

Which rights are we talking about ?

Rights take on different characteristics if they're used on a different scale. To discuss the right to free speech in an individual is different from the right for someone to monopolize media and broadcast false information, for example.

Where these rights are balanced is decided best through democratic means, balanced with the courts.

Perhaps you are a believer in complete majority tyranny, and I'm off base with that comment. But I somehow doubt it.

Does your vote give you a right to my property? Why? Does your vote give you a right to tell me how to live? Why/why not?

You have the right to your property, but on a large scale your rights to your property affect my life.

If you want to hire someone to rake your lawn, I don't much care about that arrangement. If you employ thousands of workers, however, then your arrangements might affect my life in other ways.

I disagree with the arguments that have been made on this board, that such rights should be unregulated no matter what the scope of their impact.

[Saturn]

Give it up. I have more money than you do and I don't want any of your money. It's goint to take you 20 years to pay others for the education, health-care and other services you've used up in the first 20 or so years of your life. You are not yet entitled to complain about paying for others because you haven't paid for yourself yet. In 20 years you may have a point but not yet.

Good. I think I have a right to your money ok, thanks?

See how silly it sounds... I have no right to your money, your labours... just as you or anyone else has no right to mine.

No, you don't have the right to my money but I'd rather pay more to keep kids in school for example than to have them run on the streets shooting at each other and killing bystanders. You ought to realize that you live in a society and you cannot isolate yourself in some sort of a bubble where nobody can affect you. If you really cannot stand paying taxes than you are always welcome to move to another country that has no taxes or very little taxes. You can also quit your job and live on my taxes (welfare). It's your choice. But don't complain that you can't make ends meet because most Canadians live on less than what you claim to make - I really don't feel bad for you.

[Saturn]

See how silly it sounds... I have no right to your money, your labours... just as you or anyone else has no right to mine.

If you do business in my country then I have a say - through my vote - in how you do business.

Then, do you through your vote, believe in majority tyranny over other rights, like abortion and capital punishment? Or who you extend rights to?

Why are you, and others, so quick to limit economic freedom while demanding freedoms of other types extend beyond majority tyranny?

Perhaps you are a believer in complete majority tyranny, and I'm off base with that comment. But I somehow doubt it.

Does your vote give you a right to my property? Why? Does your vote give you a right to tell me how to live? Why/why not?

No, my vote does not give me a right to your property but it gives me a right to demand from you to take on a minimum number of responsibilities. For example I can demand that you don't kill, steel, or damage my or other persons' property. I can demand from you that you live in peace with others and that you give others the respect they deserve. I can demand that you pay for your share of the roads (because you use them too), for your share of education, health-care, policing, defence, and many other services which you use whether you realize it or not. I can even demand that you cannot dump toxic waste on your property which will contaminate my property. There are a lot of things I can demand that are quite reasonable and necessary for people to live with each other reasonably well. The fact that you live with others means that you have to restrain yourself from actions that affect others negatively. Or you ought to get yourself some spot in the NWT far from civilization and live on your own. Basically, there has to be a balance between your rights and other peoples' rights. I don't agree that you should be allowed to do anything you want at the expense of others. Because others will attempt to do the same and this can only lead to anarchy.

[geoffrey]

Most of your demands are quite reasonable... your simply saying I can violate another's rights in my own freedom. I agree.

Taxes to pay for roads are acceptable too, like you said, I use them. Even if I don't drive, society's transportation is based around them and if I'm not completely self-sufficent, I use the roads.

I'm talking about equalisation. Taking my wealth (ultimately by force, the state will eventually kill you for it) and giving it to others. What right is that?

In fact, is the polar opposite of all those demands you make of me. It is a complete violation of my freedom, for another to benefit financially.

I say it's as simple as those that earn money, should keep it. Flat taxes are the only just measures, and that money should only be applied to things that everyone uses.

[August1991]

The study compares four high-tax Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland) with six low-tax Anglo-American countries (the U.K., U.S., Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand).

Saturn, have you ever been to Finland or Sweden?

Comparing Finland to the United States is like comparing Jonquière to Toronto. It's almost meaningless.

The simple response to this study is to say that correlation does not mean causation. Because some high tax countries have good standards of living does not mean that if a country raises taxes, it will have a high standard of living (and in effect, that's the argument you're making Saturn). It's like the little boy who decorates a Christmas tree in July and is then surprised to learn he gets no gifts.

The Soviet Union had high taxation rates (the government took most of what people produced and used it for the collective good) and yet it had a dismal standard of living.

This is the kind of mindless nonsense the CBC occasionally regurgitates.