Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65
Thanks Tree98Thanks

Thread: Greetings from Finland

  1. #41
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    49

    From
    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Up to you where you want to take it, its just a simple discussion.

    My issue of course, as most of us on the right have, is how many taxes to pay. Of course some are necessary but hell if we go 100% then the government would pay for everything.
    100% taxes - now that's a novel idea. As a small business owner in Finland, I very much appreciate the question of taxes as seen from the right. In total 63 cents in every euro that I earn goes to the government, either through income tax or value added tax, insurance etc., on both what I earn and what I spend. That to me, for a small business owner, who carries an awful lot of risks, is way too much. There is little room to grow without outside capital and yet more risk, much less diversify. So I really do appreciate the question of who gets what from your hard earned cash, and why I should be left with so little from what is effectively the result of my own hard work and nobody else's.

    I get that. I also get that government is notorious for waste. I've worked for government agencies and institutions, so I've seen it first hand. I've seen how the culture is different to the private sector - lazy sometimes, and even frivolous with 'other people's money'. But those are not problems that cannot be fixed through better management culture and steering. And if the bigger question is, do we need these government institutions, then clearly we do, because that's the key difference between a 'tyranny' as you put it, and a healthy democracy - healthy and independent public institutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    So how much should an individual pay before we get into tyranny?
    Good question and a difficult one. Care to offer an answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Should we tax the rich more than the poor?
    When you say tax the rich more, then that's a question that most definitely has to be unpacked. A millionaire paying just 5% tax on a million annual income is clearly paying 5 times more tax than someone paying 20% on an income of 50,000. But as a percentage of his income, he's paying far less. For that reason, it's easy to say that the wealthy pay the biggest share of the tax burden. Which makes me smile. Oh what a burden it is to be rich.

    It has been said that wealthy people are more experienced in creating wealth, their wealth being held up as evidence. Well, it's not that simple. Usually, wealthy people invest in very diverse portfolios, which helps to insulate them against specific risks that the rest of us might face, hence increasing their wealth relative to those that have to live with higher risks. Is that the result of their successful entrepreneurship? Well no. As venture capitalists, they are quite likely to take control of new innovations in the market quite quickly, and to siphon off a disproportionate level of profits as a result, simply by having hold of the capital, not through any specific skills that they have. Likewise, many wealthy individuals employ other very smart people to manage their money and risks, so increased wealth is not necessarily the result of their merit, but just being in a position to exploit other people's merit. That's a cynical picture, but it's also fairly realistic too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Isn't that defining our nation by groups and isn't that the basis for discrimination in the world?
    I like how your final comments tend to turn into leftfield

    Usually, these kinds of leftfield comments deserve the longest replies, as much to make sense of the question as to give a reasonable reply, but as you are putting up just one sentence replies that mainly ask more questions, I'm going to limit this to the absolute minimum.

    By implication, taxing the rich more is discrimination for being rich. I've already dealt with the question of whether more is by quantity or by proportion. Often people use the quantity figure to mean more, when the proportion shows they pay less. Should they pay less?

    In an equal world, as a healthy individual, I would be given the same amount of tests and treatment as an individual with several chronic diseases, even though I don't need them. Or, I could be simply given the same value in a cash credit. That's equality. But that makes a mockery of an insurance system. So when it comes to economics, it's better to talk in terms of equity. In other words, we start from saying that people receive according to their need, and likewise give according to their means. That is the only way an insurance system can effectively function. It's not equal in terms of individual variation, but we actually don't want it to be. We want equity, otherwise the insurance principle loses its value.

    Discrimination by group is a fundamental of any democratic system, or more to the point, any system based on needs. We discriminate that someone who sits in a hospital bed due to illness isn't required to pay taxes, because it's obvious they are in no position to pay. We are not seeking absolute 'equality', yet that test of equality seems to be applied without thought in so many arguments, such that we apply a rule that doesn't even work in normal practice.

    Discrimination as it's been described as a negative social force that interferes with social cohesion and creates expensive problems that we would otherwise not have is based on the notion that minorities can and often are bullied by the majority. Minority typically implies difference of some kind, but it can also imply different needs, such as with people with disabilities, or individuals who face more challenges than the average to be successful and productive. The majority can quite logically claim that any 'extra' help for these minorities is unfair, while at the same time ignoring the fact that they themselves don't have the same challenges and so don't actually need any extra help. A bit like arguing that a man with heart disease shouldn't get heart medications because this is unfair because all us healthy people don't need them, so why should they get 'more' than us anyway? Well, that's the insurance system - that's how it's supposed to work - it distributes risk, which reduces the risks for all of us. But it's based on the principle of equity, not equality.

    Likewise, discriminated groups usually have less political power, because they are in a minority, so unless they achieve the 'kingmaker' role in politics, they don't have a lot of room to advocate for any special needs they may have, so they are always vulnerable to being ignored, and worse, actually discriminated against on the basis of rather ludicrous superficial features, like skin colour, accent, clothing, smell or otherwise. I'm not sure that you can compare this kind of discrimination, especially as it operates in job markets, to the 'discrimination' that looks to wealthy individuals to pay an 'equal' or 'fair' share of their wealth to preserving the system of government and rules that enable them to continue being wealthy.

    That's the oddest kind of discrimination I think I've ever heard of. And anyhow, if I asked you, are you a discriminating person, I would hope you would answer yes, so the question is not to avoid being discriminating, but to understand when and how to discriminate.
    Thanks from OldGaffer, Hollywood and BigLeRoy

  2. #42
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10874

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernLight View Post
    100% taxes - now that's a novel idea. As a small business owner in Finland, I very much appreciate the question of taxes as seen from the right. In total 63 cents in every euro that I earn goes to the government, either through income tax or value added tax, insurance etc., on both what I earn and what I spend. That to me, for a small business owner, who carries an awful lot of risks, is way too much. There is little room to grow without outside capital and yet more risk, much less diversify. So I really do appreciate the question of who gets what from your hard earned cash, and why I should be left with so little from what is effectively the result of my own hard work and nobody else's.

    I get that. I also get that government is notorious for waste. I've worked for government agencies and institutions, so I've seen it first hand. I've seen how the culture is different to the private sector - lazy sometimes, and even frivolous with 'other people's money'. But those are not problems that cannot be fixed through better management culture and steering. And if the bigger question is, do we need these government institutions, then clearly we do, because that's the key difference between a 'tyranny' as you put it, and a healthy democracy - healthy and independent public institutions.



    Good question and a difficult one. Care to offer an answer?



    When you say tax the rich more, then that's a question that most definitely has to be unpacked. A millionaire paying just 5% tax on a million annual income is clearly paying 5 times more tax than someone paying 20% on an income of 50,000. But as a percentage of his income, he's paying far less. For that reason, it's easy to say that the wealthy pay the biggest share of the tax burden. Which makes me smile. Oh what a burden it is to be rich.

    It has been said that wealthy people are more experienced in creating wealth, their wealth being held up as evidence. Well, it's not that simple. Usually, wealthy people invest in very diverse portfolios, which helps to insulate them against specific risks that the rest of us might face, hence increasing their wealth relative to those that have to live with higher risks. Is that the result of their successful entrepreneurship? Well no. As venture capitalists, they are quite likely to take control of new innovations in the market quite quickly, and to siphon off a disproportionate level of profits as a result, simply by having hold of the capital, not through any specific skills that they have. Likewise, many wealthy individuals employ other very smart people to manage their money and risks, so increased wealth is not necessarily the result of their merit, but just being in a position to exploit other people's merit. That's a cynical picture, but it's also fairly realistic too.



    I like how your final comments tend to turn into leftfield

    Usually, these kinds of leftfield comments deserve the longest replies, as much to make sense of the question as to give a reasonable reply, but as you are putting up just one sentence replies that mainly ask more questions, I'm going to limit this to the absolute minimum.

    By implication, taxing the rich more is discrimination for being rich. I've already dealt with the question of whether more is by quantity or by proportion. Often people use the quantity figure to mean more, when the proportion shows they pay less. Should they pay less?

    In an equal world, as a healthy individual, I would be given the same amount of tests and treatment as an individual with several chronic diseases, even though I don't need them. Or, I could be simply given the same value in a cash credit. That's equality. But that makes a mockery of an insurance system. So when it comes to economics, it's better to talk in terms of equity. In other words, we start from saying that people receive according to their need, and likewise give according to their means. That is the only way an insurance system can effectively function. It's not equal in terms of individual variation, but we actually don't want it to be. We want equity, otherwise the insurance principle loses its value.

    Discrimination by group is a fundamental of any democratic system, or more to the point, any system based on needs. We discriminate that someone who sits in a hospital bed due to illness isn't required to pay taxes, because it's obvious they are in no position to pay. We are not seeking absolute 'equality', yet that test of equality seems to be applied without thought in so many arguments, such that we apply a rule that doesn't even work in normal practice.

    Discrimination as it's been described as a negative social force that interferes with social cohesion and creates expensive problems that we would otherwise not have is based on the notion that minorities can and often are bullied by the majority. Minority typically implies difference of some kind, but it can also imply different needs, such as with people with disabilities, or individuals who face more challenges than the average to be successful and productive. The majority can quite logically claim that any 'extra' help for these minorities is unfair, while at the same time ignoring the fact that they themselves don't have the same challenges and so don't actually need any extra help. A bit like arguing that a man with heart disease shouldn't get heart medications because this is unfair because all us healthy people don't need them, so why should they get 'more' than us anyway? Well, that's the insurance system - that's how it's supposed to work - it distributes risk, which reduces the risks for all of us. But it's based on the principle of equity, not equality.

    Likewise, discriminated groups usually have less political power, because they are in a minority, so unless they achieve the 'kingmaker' role in politics, they don't have a lot of room to advocate for any special needs they may have, so they are always vulnerable to being ignored, and worse, actually discriminated against on the basis of rather ludicrous superficial features, like skin colour, accent, clothing, smell or otherwise. I'm not sure that you can compare this kind of discrimination, especially as it operates in job markets, to the 'discrimination' that looks to wealthy individuals to pay an 'equal' or 'fair' share of their wealth to preserving the system of government and rules that enable them to continue being wealthy.

    That's the oddest kind of discrimination I think I've ever heard of. And anyhow, if I asked you, are you a discriminating person, I would hope you would answer yes, so the question is not to avoid being discriminating, but to understand when and how to discriminate.
    OK, you are going to be a great poster.

    I will pick out the two main questions.

    How much tax is too much, I don't believe you can set a number, I believe you need to have a basic philosophy and take it on a case by case basis.

    Your point about waste was right on point.

    For the money we collect, if we spend it better, would be more than enough. I find it hard to justify raising taxes when we waste so much of it.

    That may not be reality but its my philosophy.

    As for your discrimination question well I am black so I don't think I discriminate but I do.

    Not in a hurtful way, at least I think, but I do take different actions when I come across different people. I believe we all do that at some level.

    For instance, if someone says they are a liberal all my defenses go up and I automatically pre-judge them.

    That may not be fair but it happens. However, once in awhile I do get surprised and try to keep myself in check.

    Thank you for your honest and insightful post.
    Thanks from NorthernLight

  3. #43
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    49

    From
    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Isn't that defining our nation by groups and isn't that the basis for discrimination in the world?
    Thinking that you may get lost in my typically long-winded answer, so just to summarise, do we want an insurance system that is blind to risks? Do we give cheap insurance to a blind overweight man working in a china shop? The obvious answer is 'no', but actually the real answer yes, he should get cheap insurance, assuming he isn't wealthy, because he's the person that actually needs the insurance, and he cannot help his disabilities.

    Is it sensible for him to work in a china shop? Well probably not - but it illustrates how insurance should actually work. In practice, it often works the opposite way - we individualise the risks, make the blind man pay more, which undermines the whole benefit of an insurance scheme in the first place. Still, if he was a wealthy man, insisting on doing a risky job, then one might think that he should pay the full proportionate amount necessary to cover that risk - then he might think twice, since he might not be wealthy for long.

    My point is that an insurance system depends on us having our eyes open, and that means seeing risk and wealth at the same time. It depends on discrimination. Equality, as a bare bones principle, applied universally, is like putting a blindfold on the insurance agent.

  4. #44
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10874

    From
    By the wall
    he should get cheap insurance
    This would be our basic philosophical difference.

    Its entitlement.

    We understand we have to pay for fire and police and national defense but you need to draw a line somewhere.

    Its where we draw that line that comes into question.

    I worked very hard for my insurance and I don't think others are entitled to it if they haven't worked as hard.

    If we follow that then I should quit working to get the same benefits I would get from working so hard.

    What is the point of working hard and gaining success if its just stolen to support those that didn't?

  5. #45
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    49

    From
    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    This would be our basic philosophical difference.

    Its entitlement....
    I'd love to answer this now. My example is counter-intuitive, I know. But I'm pretty sure that we can find room for agreement on it after a few examples of how things work in practice. A lot of this comes down to predictable and unpredictable risks. But needs must I do something else right now, so I'll come back to this at a later point, today or tomorrow. Thanks for your comment.

  6. #46
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,463
    Thanks
    10874

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernLight View Post
    I'd love to answer this now. My example is counter-intuitive, I know. But I'm pretty sure that we can find room for agreement on it after a few examples of how things work in practice. A lot of this comes down to predictable and unpredictable risks. But needs must I do something else right now, so I'll come back to this at a later point, today or tomorrow. Thanks for your comment.
    Have a great day and thanks for the chat.

    Look forward to more of it.
    Thanks from NorthernLight

  7. #47
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    44,251
    Thanks
    31539

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Northern Lights,you need to understand you are dealing with a negative poster that thinks any entightlement for others is wrong. Totally blind on that.
    Thanks from NorthernLight

  8. #48
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    49

    From
    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Northern Lights,you need to understand you are dealing with a negative poster that thinks any entightlement for others is wrong. Totally blind on that.
    I will respect the forum rules of addressing the points and not the poster. I know it can be difficult if everything thrown at you seems like a negative misrepresentation of your words or ideas, but if I get too much negativity, I will go after the poster's negative ideas more strongly rather than waste time defending my own ideas. On the whole, I try to treat questions respectfully, but i do draw the line on certain kinds of negativity. I will simply stop engaging that poster.

    Thanks for your concern. Spooky has been polite to me so far, so I've no beef with him.

  9. #49
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    49

    From
    Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Hi, NL guy. You will find plenty of conservative Social Darwinists here who don't think society should have ANY 'safety net', not in any way, shape, manner, or form. If people can't 'hack it', can't 'cut the mustard', can't take care of themselves, then screw 'em! Social safety nets are just plain EVIL! If people starve to death, even in the midst of a rich society, then that's just natural selection at work. Best not to interfere with such a natural process.
    I've blogged on immigration before for some years, so had to deal with plenty of knuckleheads. It was educational, shall we say!

    I honestly salivate when you say there are lots of Social Darwinists here. I think there are some serious issues to discuss in politics, but when it goes to that kind of political and social narrative about how natural selection should inform our politics, I literally lick my lips and with an evil sneer say 'pull up a seat my friend, we have much to discuss'.

    As a background, I had two doses of Richard Dawkins at university, one in the biology lectures (selfish gene), and one in the communications lectures (meme theory). I was inclined to agree with his most vociferous American critics (e.g. Stephen Jay Gould)on the scientific value of his personal contributions, and history seems to have proved that his contributions surprisingly lack a certain scientific rigour. So, from the point of view of understanding neo-Darwinism, I think I'm well-placed to pick some pretty big holes in the whole edifice of Social Darwinism. Dare say, I even enjoy it. Perhaps that's because I suffered for my insights.

    EDIT: clarity
    Last edited by NorthernLight; 12th August 2017 at 03:50 AM.
    Thanks from MaryAnne and BigLeRoy

  10. #50
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    44,251
    Thanks
    31539

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernLight View Post
    I will respect the forum rules of addressing the points and not the poster. I know it can be difficult if everything thrown at you seems like a negative misrepresentation of your words or ideas, but if I get too much negativity, I will go after the poster's negative ideas more strongly rather than waste time defending my own ideas. On the whole, I try to treat questions respectfully, but i do draw the line on certain kinds of negativity. I will simply stop engaging that poster.

    Thanks for your concern. Spooky has been polite to me so far, so I've no beef with him.
    I did not intend to interfere. You are right on the politeness. But carry on,you are doing fine.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. #12--MS. FINLAND. Trump groped her too....
    By cpicturetaker12 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 28th October 2016, 12:05 PM
  2. What's so special about Finland?
    By bajisima in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 7th July 2016, 08:50 AM
  3. Finland: The sick man of Europe
    By bajisima in forum Economics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 1st March 2016, 05:47 AM
  4. Finland is overhauling their schools
    By bajisima in forum Education
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 30th April 2015, 09:50 PM
  5. Finland the model for Ukraine.
    By Dr.Knuckles in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 9th September 2014, 11:09 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed