Date: Wed, 29.12.10 18:01
RC> anyone would object..
And do you? Do you really see anything remotely in that direction? I think
RC> The Problem Bjorn, is that to pay someone at a level to offset taxes,
RC> would place that wage into cost prohibitiveness.
No Ross, the problem is that some people care more about the amount on their
pay check, and less about how much money they have left when the next salary is
about to come.
If I give you $10k a month and tax away $5k or if I give you $20k per month
and tax away $15k, why would you care? You still get the same $5k net each
BF>> entire world? Who do you think will pay your debts eventually?
RC> There is that.
Yes, there is that. And I'll admit that we have "that" almost all over the
rich world now -- albeit not to such an incredible degree as you guys. Mostly
thanks to you military expenditures. If you had the same pro capita military
expenditure as most of the western world, you could have the best welfare
system in the world.
RC> I think the unemployment rates over there are higher, and where does the
RC> burden fall?
You think totally wrong. The unemployment rate in e.g. the entire EU is far
below that of yours. As Ward already stated, USA would be laughed at if they
were to apply to an EU membership. Not even the worst European countries are
even close to your red numbers.
BF>> And the reason for that is? Jeezzz, Ross, I really thought more
BF>> about you than that...
RC> See my comment to Ward on this.
See my comment here:
What do you think your telephone system would look like if it had been
turned over to "The Market" a century ago? Do you think that every USAian would
have access to telephone now? Or maybe it would be the same situation as with
internet access? Only the big (profitable) cities have full access, and all the
rural areas have access to smoke signals from the nearby Town Square?
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20101207
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)