Rich Germans Demans Higher Taxes

[Spitfire175]

Only the Germans could do such a thing.

 

[TDM]

I think the Germans are on the right track here. It is like when the nobility had the wealth, but in this case they are truly being Noble, very laudable.

A great part of the German wealthy are part of the nobility from the Imperial time, and with one of their own now being minister for economics (he's even married to Bismarck's greatgranddaughter), they may get more involved in a bid to strengthen Germany (and with that Europe) in getting out of the crisis, I mean a 100 bn is a whole load of money, and with that being spend, economic growth would be ginormous

 

[Alphavillain]

I think higher taxation is a more Continental European way of doing things, as opposed to the British and U.S. way of lower taxation but inferior public services. As a Brit I actually prefer what the Germans are co. are doing, but then again I don't have to pay their taxes
I think a large part of it comes because of countries like Germany, France and Italy's experience in WW2, where the infrastructure of their countries was basically wrecked (especially in the case of Germany and Austria in Western Europe): in my opinion they have got their priorities correct since then, because they are more aware of what is important to a functioning society.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I've always liked the German people. They're always so...how do I put this...well, they think differently than other civilizations. High-five to them.

 

[Nimbus]

I think higher taxation is a more Continental European way of doing things, as opposed to the British and U.S. way of lower taxation but inferior public services. As a Brit I actually prefer what the Germans are co. are doing, but then again I don't have to pay their taxes
[snip]

Just be glad that you don't do things the Irish way; higher taxation AND inferior public services

 

[RetiarySword]

I have so much respect for Germany. First I was amazed at their extraordanary green power production figures (30% total power is from renewable resources) and now this. It shows that citizens do care. I want to move to Germany.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Germany just gained 120 points of respect in my eyes.
Keep goin'!

 

[Alphavillain]

I think higher taxation is a more Continental European way of doing things, as opposed to the British and U.S. way of lower taxation but inferior public services. As a Brit I actually prefer what the Germans are co. are doing, but then again I don't have to pay their taxes
[snip]

Just be glad that you don't do things the Irish way; higher taxation AND inferior public services

Yeah, that's a good point: there's no guarantee of good services because you pay more tax.

 

[ZSF]

A sentiment like that makes me feel like Germany would be a great place to live

IT'S A TRAAAAAAAAP!

 

[ben---neb]

Haven't they heard of charity? What a bunch of idiots. Surely they are clever enough to realise that private enterprise (invest or give money to charity) will always achieve far more than the beaurcratic meddlings of the government. Sigh, I dispair of the this economically retarted world.

ps. Yes, I am the only Libertarian in the whole of Scotland.

There are no charitable institutions that give money towards unemployed people, one parent families, general health services, law and order etc.

Then they should set up one. Honestly, they should stop being so damn lazy.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Haven't they heard of charity? What a bunch of idiots. Surely they are clever enough to realise that private enterprise (invest or give money to charity) will always achieve far more than the beaurcratic meddlings of the government. Sigh, I dispair of the this economically retarted world.

ps. Yes, I am the only Libertarian in the whole of Scotland.

There are no charitable institutions that give money towards unemployed people, one parent families, general health services, law and order etc.

Then they should set up one. Honestly, they should stop being so damn lazy.

Who should stop being lazy?

Charities are there usually to offer support to those structures which fall outside the remit of a society. Animal welfare, foreign aid, etc. Not shore up essential public services.

 

[Kollega]

Well,now that's what i call social responsibility. Only in Germany.

 

[Branovices]

Here in Michigan, we've just cut funding to our public education by 40%. It seems that people would rather live in something resembling a third-world country than pay a few extra percent in taxes.

We have the highest unemployment in the entire United States; there are huge swaths of Detroit that look like screenshots of Fallout 3, I wish I were exaggerating. The tax base of Michigan is all based on shrinking revenues and the conservatives have made it their absolute mission to not create any new taxes at all. As such all our public services are only barely getting along thanks to Obama's stimulus money but it obviously won't last forever. I fear for my state's future as it stands.

 

[Nickolai77]

Hell, i respect them Germans a lot. If only there government wasn't so fussy about video games...

Ayn Rand would be very confused.

I love how these rich Germans have basically stuck two fingers up in the face of her and the entire republican parties philosophy.

Haven't they heard of charity? What a bunch of idiots. Surely they are clever enough to realise that private enterprise (invest or give money to charity) will always achieve far more than the beaurcratic meddlings of the government. Sigh, I dispair of the this economically retarted world.

ps. Yes, I am the only Libertarian in the whole of Scotland.

I don't think your giving enough credit to public services, which do, as a whole, can do a good job. Trains run on time and go to places where you would expect them to go and not where it is only profitable. Not everyone can afford a private education, and the standard of state education is pretty decent. Not as good as a private education, but it's enough to get many state educated individuals into university. Similarly, not all Americans can afford health insurance, whereas in the UK everyone is guaranteed basic and comprehensive health care regardless if they can pay or not. People in the EU and other countries are protected from employers taking unfair advantage of their employees and consumer's, and everyone is guaranteed minimum standard of living.

Charity alone can not support all these public services, it's founded on the assumption that a libertarian system will create enough rich people who will be charitable enough to provide enough cash to provide everyone with health care, education and a basic infrastructure, as well as fund regeneration projects and grants for businesses and students. I think it will generate a lot more rich people, but i doubt it will be enough to fill the vacuum the state left behind. What will happen is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. If you want to look at a libertarian system in practice, the closest example we have historically the Middle Ages.

 

[darkless]

And when the rich Americans where asked to pay more taxes they threatened to cut all ties to America and start there own society. Not bad mouthing just a bit of contrast.

EDIT: Just found out a few rich British did the same thing when i goggled it to make sure.

Note to self: Google then post you fool!

 

[bjj hero]

And then you get arse holes like Tracey Emin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin] saying she will leave Britain if tax is raised for the wealthy.

She did?

QUICK! DOUBLE THE FUCKING TAXES!!1!

She annoys the piss out of me. Apparently she will move to France before paying 50% tax. the French are welcome to her.

 

[ben---neb]

SNIP

I don't think your giving enough credit to public services, which do, as a whole, can do a good job. Trains run on time and go to places where you would expect them to go and not where it is only profitable. Not everyone can afford a private education, and the standard of state education is pretty decent. Not as good as a private education, but it's enough to get many state educated individuals into university. Similarly, not all Americans can afford health insurance, whereas in the UK everyone is guaranteed basic and comprehensive health care regardless if they can pay or not. People in the EU and other countries are protected from employers taking unfair advantage of their employees and consumer's, and everyone is guaranteed minimum standard of living.

Charity alone can not support all these public services, it's founded on the assumption that a libertarian system will create enough rich people who will be charitable enough to provide enough cash to provide everyone with health care, education and a basic infrastructure, as well as fund regeneration projects and grants for businesses and students. I think it will generate a lot more rich people, but i doubt it will be enough to fill the vacuum the state left behind. What will happen is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. If you want to look at a libertarian system in practice, the closest example we have historically the Middle Ages.[/quote]

I am afraid there is no easy way of putting this: holding up the Middle Ages as a standard of libertarianism is as wrong as it is amusing. The Middle Ages were full of Guilds, Lords and restrictions that hampered the ordinary man from bettering himself. Governments granted monoploies even more so that they do now, most men were not free but under a Lord and therefore had their life dicated to them and guilds kept prices high by wiping out all competition.

The closest example you will get of a libertarian society is during the 19th century in America/Britain. A time of great technological advancement, social movement, the appearance of the Middle classes, tourism, prosperity in every level of society and mass production.

In short, Capitalism worked its magic. Goods of all kinds were produced in greater varity and cheaper price. The poor were not so poor and the number of rich people grew and grew. And that leads on to your second facilcy which is that "the richer get richer and the poor get poorer". Actually what we see in the 19th, 20th and 21st century is that the rich get more numerous and the poor get fewer. There are less poor and more rich people in Britain today than a hundred years ago. What do we have to thank for that? Capitalism.

How did Alan Sugar work his way up from a low income family to a multi millionaire: hard work, entruprenurial skill and a keen business eye. And that is the essense of capitalism, anyone, regardless of race, creed or income can start up a business, can innovate, can be an entrepreneur and can be successful.

And what does the government say: "Oh well done Mr Sugar, you have worked you're way out of poverty now had over more taxes to us as your "reward"" Over the past ten years the gap between rich and poor has failed to decrease. Not because of capitalism but because of the so called "Welfare State", that ruining state of dependance and laziness that creates no impulse for self improvement in the poor.

So don't lecture me about the evils of liberalism when the evidence of history suggests that it is you who has to explain to me how state intervention is not evil.

ps. I would love to debate private vs public ownership with you but I have no time. Visit www.mises.org for more.

 

[A Weary Exile]

While I don't like doing something because you feel like 'It's your duty to serve your country.' If they aren't paying the same percentage or their fair share in taxes go for the tax raise.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

And what does the government say: "Oh well done Mr Sugar, you have worked you're way out of poverty now had over more taxes to us as your "reward"" Over the past ten years the gap between rich and poor has failed to decrease. Not because of capitalism but because of the so called "Welfare State", that ruining state of dependance and laziness that creates no impulse for self improvement in the poor.

So unemployment is not the result of credit crunches, the elite gambling with everyone elses money and needing bail outs, recession, or economic depression.

It's lazy people.

I think you have been eating too many tabloids sir. Unemployment is not pleasant. And certainly allowing people to starve is more evil than the state taxing rich people to make sure the poor can eat.

 

[ben---neb]

And what does the government say: "Oh well done Mr Sugar, you have worked you're way out of poverty now had over more taxes to us as your "reward"" Over the past ten years the gap between rich and poor has failed to decrease. Not because of capitalism but because of the so called "Welfare State", that ruining state of dependance and laziness that creates no impulse for self improvement in the poor.

So unemployment is not the result of credit crunches, the elite gambling with everyone elses money and needing bail outs, recession, or economic depression.

It's lazy people.

I think you have been eating too many tabloids sir. Unemployment is not pleasant. And certainly allowing people to starve is more evil than the state taxing rich people to make sure the poor can eat.

[Bangs head against large brick wall] No, laziness plays a part but the real reason for the large unemployment level at the moment is the minimum wage. Basic economic theory states that a if the government imposes price controls on a market you end up with excess demand. In the case of labour this is called unemployment.

Previously the minimum wage did not cause that much unemployment because we were in a boom period (caused again by state intervention). Now we are in the bust, prices and wages historically fall during busts. Except this time wages can't fall for those on minimum wage therefore resulting in unemployemnt.

In addition let's say we have a poor person who unfortuantly has little skill to offer the economy. His (or her) skill is only worth £4 an hour but the minimum wage is above that. It is now effectivly illegal for that poor man to find work.

The minimum wage is excellent for those in employment (I myself can testify to that). But for the really needy, the poor, the uneducated, the unskilled, the mimimum wage creates an insurmountable barrier that stops them finding smployment and working their way out of poverty. As such I view it as immoral and evil.

As you say allowing people to starve is evil, dis-allowing people to find a job and therefore avoid starvation is evil as well. I hope that you also spot the hyprocracy of the state that gives money to the poor and starving while at the same time making it impossible for them to be anything but poor and starving.

So I say charity and no minimum wage. And the brillaint thing is if this policy was implemented and people complained then all I'd have to say is: "put your money where your mouth is and give to charity."

ps. Daily Telegraph reader, tabloids generally take an anti-liberalism stance anyway as well as being badly written and at no pint did I say that umployment was anything but unpleasant.