[NickRW]

 billw55, on 2015-April-23, 08:16, said:

From discussions mainly in these forums, I have often drawn the impression that citizens of some western European nations, on the whole, trust their governments much more than I trust the US federal and state governments...

Erm. Maybe. Probably somewhat so. Probably the more so the more left leaning and/or pro European Union you are. Not that I count myself in either group.

[barmar]

 gwnn, on 2015-April-22, 08:27, said:

Defining manslaughter and self-defence is also difficult, yet somehow still lawmakers bother to define them somehow and for better or for worse, judges (juries) use those definitions every day.

No one is running on a platform that claims they can simplify the laws on murder. But politicians like the Pauls have tax simplification as a cornerstone of their platforms. The point is that just the basic definitions will result in a complicated system, although arguably not nearly as complex as the current system. But it's still not going to be just "Multiply your paycheck by X%, send that in".

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2015-April-23, 07:49, said:

In many countries, gifts to charity are tax deductible. I told my children that the tax office is probably one of the best charities that you can donate your money to if you consider what they do with our "donations":

The difference is the level of control you feel in one case or the other.

If you give to charity, you get to decide which charities get your money, and you will usually choose charities commensurate with your values. When you give to the government, some fraction of your money will go to purposes you agree with, but it's likely that a large portion will go to activities you would rather not support, as well as general government waste.

Some of the difference may be illusory, though. Many charities have very high overhead, so much of your money goes to administrative expense rather than actually helping people; on the other hand, that overhead may be unavoidable.

[barmar]

 mike777, on 2015-April-23, 00:14, said:

Keep in mind the goal is to reduce non compliance not to make taxpayers do more,. often.

Is that it?

I think what attracts people about a flat tax is that it seems more "fair". The Warren Buffett Effect seems like the ultimate in unfairness, up there with the fact that rich people often get away with crimes because they can afford better lawyers than poor people.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2015-April-22, 12:57, said:

Give the government the power to tax, and it will tax. Inevitably, eventually the taxing rises to the level of abuse. There is no way, as far as I can see, to avoid that.

I do not understand the apparent fixation that redistributing wealth is inherently bad or wrong. It can be a plus to both rich and poor alike. If one takes 10% from the wealthy - who save that money - and distribute it to the least wealthy - who spend everything they earn - the end result is that demand increases, provoking increased production and thus increased velocity. The increase in economic activity increases the value of investments, thereby paying back the wealthy with increasing capital gains.

Instead of being a take and give it is actually a win-win.

[helene_t]

 billw55, on 2015-April-23, 08:16, said:

From discussions mainly in these forums, I have often drawn the impression that citizens of some western European nations, on the whole, trust their governments much more than I trust the US federal and state governments. Government waste is rife here, with corruption and theft often not far behind.

Yeah, we have an amazing trust in our politicians. A recent example: A woman discovered that the man (an MP) whom she had been dating for a long time and who claimed not to be married was, in fact, married. A tabloid paper quoted her for saying "It never occurred to me he could be married. I mean, why would he lie? He is an MP!".

As a civil servant (at the moment in the UK but earlier in Denmark and the Netherlands), I must say that while I don't think corruption is very widespread, the civil service is horribly inefficient. It is the disease of a big organization and government is a very big organization, even in a small country. Part of the reason why it works so relatively well in Scandinavia is that they delegate a lot to local municipalities (of typically less than 50000 inhabitants) so at least part of the government consists of organisations of manageable size.

Sometimes I wish the politicians would stop messing with us and just leave it to us to make sure the laws are enforced. But of course, at the end of the day it will, in a democracy, be politicians who appoint top bureaucrats, and it will inevitably go to the ones who have been best is licking the politicians butts. This is a bit different in the US where top bureaucrats are politically nominated and replaced every time there is a change of power in Washington. Not so here. If you want to make career you keep your political affiliations private. You are suppose to be good at licking anybody's butt regardless of party.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2015-April-23, 11:09, said:

I do not understand the apparent fixation that redistributing wealth is inherently bad or wrong. It can be a plus to both rich and poor alike. If one takes 10% from the wealthy - who save that money - and distribute it to the least wealthy - who spend everything they earn - the end result is that demand increases, provoking increased production and thus increased velocity. The increase in economic activity increases the value of investments, thereby paying back the wealthy with increasing capital gains.

Instead of being a take and give it is actually a win-win.

It's hard for most people to take such a big-picture view. What they see is that when they pay more taxes, they have less in the bank. And even if they understand how redistribution can eventually pay back, it may take a while -- maybe even longer than their lifetime, so they don't see how it actually benefits them.

Trickle-down economics is much more attractive to the rich, because it claims that the same economic growth will occur by NOT taking money away from the rich people immediately. It assumes that they'll use this money to buy things and invest in companies, which will increase economic growth and provide more jobs for the poor.

There are credible economists arguing both cases. If you're a rich guy, and you can't determine on your own which to believe, you'll naturally go for the approach that gives you the best short-term benefit.

[ArtK78]

 barmar, on 2015-April-23, 11:58, said:

It's hard for most people to take such a big-picture view. What they see is that when they pay more taxes, they have less in the bank. And even if they understand how redistribution can eventually pay back, it may take a while -- maybe even longer than their lifetime, so they don't see how it actually benefits them.

Trickle-down economics is much more attractive to the rich, because it claims that the same economic growth will occur by NOT taking money away from the rich people immediately. It assumes that they'll use this money to buy things and invest in companies, which will increase economic growth and provide more jobs for the poor.

There are credible economists arguing both cases. If you're a rich guy, and you can't determine on your own which to believe, you'll naturally go for the approach that gives you the best short-term benefit.

Really? There are creditble economists who argue in favor of trickle down economics?

[Winstonm]

 ArtK78, on 2015-April-23, 13:47, said:

Really? There are creditble economists who argue in favor of trickle down economics?

[Winstonm]

Some may be interested in this discussion concerning supply side economic results and demand side economic results.

Quote

Rarely in matters of public policy do we have the luxury of such starkly clear, repeatedly proven, empirically founded contrasts. Demand Side economics, as we saw in the 1990s, while far from perfect, produces robust growth, budgetary surpluses, and broad based prosperity. Supply Side economics produces middling growth, soaring deficits, and broad based debt. Mountains of debt. And the mountains are growing

.

[NickRW]

 helene_t, on 2015-April-23, 11:44, said:

Yeah, we have an amazing trust in our politicians...

Helene, I normally agree with a lot you say - but "trust in our politicians" - really???? Have you not listened to the news this past 20 years?

[Trinidad]

 NickRW, on 2015-April-24, 01:51, said:

Helene, I normally agree with a lot you say - but "trust in our politicians" - really???? Have you not listened to the news this past 20 years?

The news is not really representative of what is happening in the world. (This morning I, and many other people, went grocery shopping. I don't think it was mentioned.)

All joking aside (and keeping in mind that nobody will ever admit to trusting a politician):

At the elections we turn up in large numbers to vote for the same people over and over again. In many European countries, new parties pop up continuously. They get air time on national TV and radio. They get exposure in newspapers and talk shows. And yet, over and over again, the same old politicians win the elections, and very few new parties have any success. (Remember that in most European countries, there are no candidates tied to districts and elections are decided by popular vote. So, the fraction of seats you get is essentially equal to the fraction of the votes you get. That means that, other than in e.g. the USA, it is relatively easy to get a seat in parlement. In the Netherlands, getting a mere 0.67% of the votes gives you a seat.)

I can see two possible explanations why we keep voting for the established parties and new parties don't make it:
- The electorate is reasonably happy with the ruling politicians. Something like: "Nobody is perfect, they manage all right." and "I reserve the right to complain about politicians because it is our national hobby."
- The electorate is scared to death of the new parties and we turn out in large numbers to prevent "these morons that are even worse than the incumbent politicians" from being elected.

I would think the first explanation is correct.

Rik

[kenberg]

 Trinidad, on 2015-April-24, 03:12, said:

I can see two possible explanations why we keep voting for the established parties and new parties don't make it:
- The electorate is reasonably happy with the ruling politicians. Something like: "Nobody is perfect, they manage all right." and "I reserve the right to complain about politicians because it is our national hobby."
- The electorate is scared to death of the new parties and we turn out in large numbers to prevent "these morons that are even worse than the incumbent politicians" from being elected.

I would think the first explanation is correct.

Rik

Something like the first, but maybe not exactly, applies to me. I don't actually think that they manage all right. But how much effort am I willing to put into addressing this? If I really wanted to contribute some time and effort for the betterment of society, I would probably volunteer to tutor mathematics somewhere. Well, I haven't done that. I did some volunteer work helping an adult learn to read. It was rewarding in its way, but I am not doing that now. I think I have Elizabeth Warren's book (or one of them if she has more than one) somewhere but I haven't read it. So I try to be a concerned citizen, but my concern has its limits.

There are times (not often but sometimes) that I write in a candidate. Usually the intended message is something along these lines: "Look Dems and Reps, I vote. I even learn how to do a write-in. I am available as someone who might vote for your candidate. But not either of these two losers you put up this time. If they told me the time of day I would check with someone else before I acted on what they said. So get your act together and put up someone I can vote for." But this is fairly rare. Usually I make my choices from the candidates in front of me.

I have known conservatives who seem to be brain dead. But I have known many who are not, nor are they particularly selfish, no more than I am. And I have known some liberals whose love of the common man seems to be only theoretical. At the personal level that are arrogant and condescending. Generally I think government at least can do some good and sometimes actually does do some good. , I personally have benefited from tax supported education for example, So I vote Democratic. Usually.

[NickRW]

 Trinidad, on 2015-April-24, 03:12, said:

...(Remember that in most European countries, there are no candidates tied to districts and elections are decided by popular vote....

The UK isn't like that. Indeed we had an opportunity to change to a more "proportional" system a few years ago, but the proposal was rejected. (Quite why I don't know - I couldn't figure out the rationality of the arguments being presented by either side!!)

Quote

I can see two possible explanations why we keep voting for the established parties and new parties don't make it:
- The electorate is reasonably happy with the ruling politicians. Something like: "Nobody is perfect, they manage all right." and "I reserve the right to complain about politicians because it is our national hobby."
- The electorate is scared to death of the new parties and we turn out in large numbers to prevent "these morons that are even worse than the incumbent politicians" from being elected.

I would think the first explanation is correct.

Rik

Well, I'd agree that democracy (or what passes for it) is the least worst option compared to absolute monarchies and dictatorships etc.

Nick

[helene_t]

 NickRW, on 2015-April-24, 08:27, said:

The UK isn't like that. Indeed we had an opportunity to change to a more "proportional" system a few years ago, but the proposal was rejected. (Quite why I don't know - I couldn't figure out the rationality of the arguments being presented by either side!!)

Actually the referendum wasn't about a move towards a more "proportional" representation. It was about alternative votes which is completely different. If it had succeeded it would probably have made it more difficult for a small extremist party to get into the house, but it could have made it easier for a small moderate party. So it is a little bit relevant to Rik's point, depending on which small parties you have in mind.

[y66]

I'm not a political scientist. But it is news to me that most people in the U.S. are reasonably happy with their elected representatives in Congress



Personally, I'm quite happy with my congressman, my senators, my governor and my local county board members. They are not perfect. But like Jules in Pulp Fiction, they all seem to be trying hard to be good shepherds.

Unfortunately, they are also all failing. You should see their staffers. As bright and earnest and hard working as anyone here in the water cooler. And totally outgunned by the mushroom-cloud-layin' mother*****ers and guns-of-Navarone-packing corporate lobbyists who now own the company store and the souls of way too many elected officials.

It's time to call The Wolf.

[gwnn]

Congress Less Popular than Cockroaches, Traffic Jams

http://www.publicpol...atl_010813_.pdf

Quote

When asked if they have a higher opinion of either Congress or a series of unpleasant or disliked things, voters said they had a higher opinion of root canals (32 for Congress and 56 for the dental procedure), NFL replacement refs (29-56), head lice (19-67), the rock band Nickelback (32-39), colonoscopies (31-58), Washington DC political pundits (34-37), carnies (31-39), traffic jams (34-56), cockroaches (43-45), Donald Trump (42-44), France (37-46), Genghis Khan (37-41), used-car salesmen (32-57), and Brussels sprouts (23-69) than Congress.

Congress did manage to beat out telemarketers (45-35), John Edwards (45-29), the Kardashians (49-36), lobbyists (48-30), North Korea (61-26), the ebola virus (53-25), Lindsay Lohan (45-41), Fidel Castro (54-32), playground bullies (43-38), meth labs (60-21), communism (57-23), and gonorrhea (53-28).

Yikes, even Nickelback!! OK Lindsay Lohan was beat but by only the tiniest of margins!

[Winstonm]

I would think gerrymandering is the crux of the problem with Congress. In the House, if a strongly libertarian voting district is created, a strongly libertarian candidate will surely be elected, which pleases the local crowd but does nothing to foster compromise and genuine governance.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2015-April-23, 13:47, said:

Really? There are creditble economists who argue in favor of trickle down economics?

I suppose you could say that it's an oxymoron -- if they believe in it, then they're automatically not credible.

But I was just assuming that Reagan didn't hire charlatans as his economic advisors, and Reaganomic made many people wealthy (I started working full time, and investing my earnings, during his administration, and did pretty well).

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2015-April-24, 10:26, said:

I suppose you could say that it's an oxymoron -- if they believe in it, then they're automatically not credible.

But I was just assuming that Reagan didn't hire charlatans as his economic advisors, and Reaganomic made many people wealthy (I started working full time, and investing my earnings, during his administration, and did pretty well).

Yes, supply side economics is quite profitable for those who have money to invest - for the other 90%, it sucks.