Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[kandrathe]

No doubt the standard of living in Minneapolis is enviable, though remember we are comparing it to one of the most liveable cities in the entire world. You get a hell of a lot of intangibles from living in Copenhagen - low crime, high equality, great public transport, etc...

We are also a high tax state (relative to other states), with the amenities you cite. But no where near 60-85% on the top end, including VAT. From what I've read, most (60%) of the money gets spent on health care, and transfer payments (i.e. giving the money from those who earned it to those that didn't).

Now, some of the differences perhaps here are that we have a large influx of immigration to deal with, and being a high welfare state, we maintain a perpetual under class who don't need to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Maybe they have that problem as well. Our federal taxes (4.7% of GDP) are used to police the whole world, and Denmark spends about 1.2% of GDP for defense.

[Taelas]

For example, housing in Denmark - rental homes were between $4000 and $8000 per month. Here in the MSP Metro area - $1000 to $3000

Okay, this is completely wrong. Rental homes are in the $1000-$3000 price range in Copenhagen, which is generally considered the most expensive place to live in Denmark. I have never seen $4000 (though admittedly I haven't been looking), and $8000 is insane.

[LavCat]

For example, housing in Denmark - rental homes were between $4000 and $8000 per month. Here in the MSP Metro area - $1000 to $3000

Okay, this is completely wrong. Rental homes are in the $1000-$3000 price range in Copenhagen, which is generally considered the most expensive place to live in Denmark. I have never seen $4000 (though admittedly I haven't been looking), and $8000 is insane.

The rent on my (fairly large) one bedroom apartment is $1375.

[kandrathe]

For example, housing in Denmark - rental homes were between $4000 and $8000 per month. Here in the MSP Metro area - $1000 to $3000

Okay, this is completely wrong. Rental homes are in the $1000-$3000 price range in Copenhagen, which is generally considered the most expensive place to live in Denmark. I have never seen $4000 (though admittedly I haven't been looking), and $8000 is insane.

The rent on my (fairly large) one bedroom apartment is $1375.

I was looking at single family homes. Apartments are harder to compare due to the variability in size. I was trying to compare by similar size (sq. m), so I chose a commodity that would be comparable. The single family home.

You can get a 1 bedroom apartment with 1 bathroom around here for under $300.

Here is a sample of rentals; http://www.expatriates.com/classifieds/d...available/ But, you have here everything from ultra tiny studio, to luxury condo. Still they are cheaper than the SFH.

[Jester]

Here is a sample of rentals; http://www.expatriates.com/classifieds/d...available/ But, you have here everything from ultra tiny studio, to luxury condo. Still they are cheaper than the SFH.

That's a poor sample. Expats are a somewhat segmented market, catering especially to short term rentals and pre-furnished places. It wouldn't be representative of what an average Dane pays.

-Jester

[Taelas]

For example, housing in Denmark - rental homes were between $4000 and $8000 per month. Here in the MSP Metro area - $1000 to $3000

Okay, this is completely wrong. Rental homes are in the $1000-$3000 price range in Copenhagen, which is generally considered the most expensive place to live in Denmark. I have never seen $4000 (though admittedly I haven't been looking), and $8000 is insane.

The rent on my (fairly large) one bedroom apartment is $1375.

I was looking at single family homes. Apartments are harder to compare due to the variability in size. I was trying to compare by similar size (sq. m), so I chose a commodity that would be comparable. The single family home.

You can get a 1 bedroom apartment with 1 bathroom around here for under $300.

Here is a sample of rentals; http://www.expatriates.com/classifieds/d...available/ But, you have here everything from ultra tiny studio, to luxury condo. Still they are cheaper than the SFH.

I don't see a single one over $3000. In fact, the highest one on that list is still below that (13,500 DKK ~ $2700).

[kandrathe]

I don't see a single one over $3000. In fact, the highest one on that list is still below that (13,500 DKK ~ $2700).

Yes, sorry. We are talking about houses, and I showed you apartments.

[Taelas]

Very well, since you insist.

From lejebolig.dk, when searching for "hus/villa" (house/villa) in the Copenhagen metropolitan area:
-2 rooms, 75 sq. m.: 7,000 DKK/month (~$1150)
-3 rooms, 67 sq. m.: 7,500 DKK/month (~$1200)
-5 rooms, 160 sq. m.: 8,000 DKK/month (~$1300)
-4 rooms, 100 sq. m.: 8,000 DKK/month (~$1300)
-4 rooms, 115 sq. m.: 10,200 DKK/month (~$1650)
-4 rooms, 90 sq. m.: 10,800 DKK/month (~$1750)
-3 rooms, 99 sq. m.: 10,800 DKK/month (~$1750)

And so on and so forth. The most expensive house on that site costs 24,800 DKK/month, which is around $4,000. The second-most expensive costs 16,000 DKK/month, or around $2600.

There is no way you'll find that most houses in Denmark rents for between $4000 and $8000.

EDIT: Corrected my numbers; I was using 5 DKK per USD, whereas it's 6 DKK per USD.

[kandrathe]

There is no way you'll find that most houses in Denmark rents for between $4000 and $8000.

With you actually being there, I have to go with your numbers. For comparison though, here are some home rentals in the Minneapolis Area... You can see why I have the impression of double to triple...

[Taelas]

Eh, I'm not disputing that Denmark is more expensive than Minneapolis, but Copenhagen is also probably the most expensive place to live in Denmark. I'm sure you could find houses for considerably less (though probably not $350/month...).

I have seen some quite decent 3-room apartments for around $500/month, though. They were large enough to house 4 comfortably, at least, though they were still small. (50-60 square meters, I guess?)

[Jester]

With you actually being there, I have to go with your numbers. For comparison though, here are some home rentals in the Minneapolis Area... You can see why I have the impression of double to triple...

I think it's probably fair to say that housing in Copenhagen might be almost twice as expensive as Minneapolis. Now, today is at a pretty damn low tide for US housing prices, and the market is flooded with foreclosures and desperate sellers. But that's all part of the picture too, I suppose.

Comparing Denmark to the US average, I think you're looking at more like 150%. Compared with somewhere expensive like New York, it's either par, or just over. So, not cheap. Denmark, and Northern Europe generally, is an expensive place to live. But also a place with high salaries, high equality, and a fantastic standard of living.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, not cheap. Denmark, and Northern Europe generally, is an expensive place to live. But also a place with high salaries, high equality, and a fantastic standard of living.

I saw a survey recently of OECD Taxation, (vs take home pay). Denmark is not that different from some higher tax states in the US.

In answering an earlier jab you made at the insanity of Americans and taxes; I would define one kind of liberty (economic liberty) as the ratio of how much of your earnings you are allowed to keep. I believe that if the government (or some other land lord) takes 100% then we are essentially slaves to the State. If the State takes 56% away without recourse, then we are only partially enslaved. Our economic power is diminished by the same amount, and thereby our ability to divert our power in favor of change, or against the government is diminished by that same amount.

In fact, you have situations in the US now where the very money that special interests use to coerce political change are derived from taxes. This is a self feeding spiral of government decay and corruption. More government leads to more money being given to advocacy groups that build more government. An example of this is seen in California, with their government employees unions. We have a nursing strike going on here in Minnesota. I'm not sure where the unions think the money is going to come from, businesses are going bankrupt or leaving, people are bankrupt and about 1/7th of families in the US are losing their homes, and most of the States governments are swimming in red ink. In Minnesota, our legislatures did the very brave act of pushing off the problem into the next legislative session, where the problem will be twice as big.

[Jester]

In answering an earlier jab you made at the insanity of Americans and taxes; I would define one kind of liberty (economic liberty) as the ratio of how much of your earnings you are allowed to keep.

I see economic freedom as much more than that - it is certainly not defined by taxation, although taxes are a part of it. It has to do with all manner of restrictions on what you can and can't do, economically. What you can buy, what tariffs you pay, where you can build, how difficult licensing is, how the right to hire and fire works, and so on.

Some countries are tremendously free, in those senses, while having high taxes. Other countries, like the US, have relatively low taxes, but impose all manner of restrictions on economic activity.

I believe that if the government (or some other land lord) takes 100% then we are essentially slaves to the State.

If there was a 100% income tax, and no other obligations, then you would not be slaves - you would be, in practise, forbidden from employment. It would still not mean you could be bought and sold. It would still not mean your children would be owned. It would still not mean you would be denied your freedom of movement.

It would be an absurd situation, but it would not be slavery, at least not in the historical US sense.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I see economic freedom as much more than that - it is certainly not defined by taxation, although taxes are a part of it. It has to do with all manner of restrictions on what you can and can't do, economically. What you can buy, what tariffs you pay, where you can build, how difficult licensing is, how the right to hire and fire works, and so on.

Some countries are tremendously free, in those senses, while having high taxes. Other countries, like the US, have relatively low taxes, but impose all manner of restrictions on economic activity.

Yeah, we agree on that.

If there was a 100% income tax, and no other obligations, then you would not be slaves - you would be, in practise, forbidden from employment. It would still not mean you could be bought and sold. It would still not mean your children would be owned. It would still not mean you would be denied your freedom of movement.

It would be an absurd situation, but it would not be slavery, at least not in the historical US sense.

If you were mostly unpaid, then you would probably need to be forced to work as well, with consequences for not showing up. So, if they own your time, and the use of your mind and body for whatever they decide they should use it for, then you are pretty much a slave, from my perspective. Maybe that works in Europe, though.

[Jester]

If you were mostly unpaid, then you would probably need to be forced to work as well, with consequences for not showing up. So, if they own your time, and the use of your mind and body for whatever they decide they should use it for, then you are pretty much a slave, from my perspective. Maybe that works in Europe, though.

Where in Europe do they choose your job for you? Your employer does not literally own your time - your employment contract has limits. You cannot be hired as an accountant, but commanded to dig ditches instead.

This is very much at the core of the point: a slave (or indentured servant, or serf) is commanded by their master to do whatever job - they have no choice. A free worker chooses their job. They could choose to work for themselves, if they wanted. This is not just a trivial distinction, but is the very essence of free labour.

Yet, you seem immune to this distinction, or at least are stubbornly trying to bury it. Why?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you were mostly unpaid, then you would probably need to be forced to work as well, with consequences for not showing up. So, if they own your time, and the use of your mind and body for whatever they decide they should use it for, then you are pretty much a slave, from my perspective.

Then slavery is inescapable. In our proto-human days, we had to work searching for shrubs and grubs to sustain ourselves. Nature was our owner. As we spread from the tropics, we had to find shelter, maintain our fire, devise clothing. And nature was still our owner. You worked, or you died.

Getting paid? Highly overrated. It is said that when Washington took command of the army, he agreed to do so without pay as long as his expenses were covered. After a relatively short while, congress begged him to take a salary. I'll gladly work for anyone for 'free' as long as they give me everything I want.

I understand the principle, but I feel it is mistaken. I believe that you are taking something that may be correct in some situations and extending it beyond reason. Even a rational anarchist admits to the need for some government, and that that government needs to perform certain functions. History has shown us that to perform those functions, some form of income is necessary. Thus, the debate should not be about the level of taxes, but rather the quantity and quality of the services obtained because of those taxes. And, of course, just how many of those services should really fall under the control of the government.

But, to claim that a democratic system is slavery because it exceeds your comfort level of socialism is hyperbole. Especially since anyone not comfortable with that system is free to move to the Northwest Territory or the Amazon Basin and work for nature.

--Pete

[Jester]

Getting paid? Highly overrated. It is said that when Washington took command of the army, he agreed to do so without pay as long as his expenses were covered. After a relatively short while, congress begged him to take a salary. I'll gladly work for anyone for 'free' as long as they give me everything I want.

Speaking of slavery, it might also be pointed out that Mr. Washington also had other sources of income.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Speaking of slavery, it might also be pointed out that Mr. Washington also had other sources of income.

Yeah. Although it was more like other expenses. A common complaint of Virginia plantation owners was that it cost more to run the plantation than the plantation brought in. Now, that might be because they were too successful at spending, but it seems all of them where forever looking for other sources of income.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Even a rational anarchist admits to the need for some government, and that that government needs to perform certain functions. History has shown us that to perform those functions, some form of income is necessary. Thus, the debate should not be about the level of taxes, but rather the quantity and quality of the services obtained because of those taxes. And, of course, just how many of those services should really fall under the control of the government.

I would also support those things that are absolutely necessary and unable to be provided without the edict of government, and also benefit everyone equally. I deign to call them services, since inherently they should be things we have a right to have protected by our government. I believe this was the intention of the Constitution, and that intention has been convoluted over time. For example, the inequality in education did not justify a take over of the education industry by government. Government's role should be to govern, and to ensure equality of opportunity through the application of law. We've strayed so far away from any type of system where people earn things, that most people cannot conceive of it. In general, equality is wrong when it means taking away from those that earn, to give away to those that haven't earned. It is noble, when it is used to provide a level beginning, where those with ability are allowed to demonstrate their abilities. So, for example, I think it is wrong for colleges to give preferential treatment to the children of alumni. It probably denies a position to someone with better academic credentials. That is equality.

But, to claim that a democratic system is slavery because it exceeds your comfort level of socialism is hyperbole. Especially since anyone not comfortable with that system is free to move to the Northwest Territory or the Amazon Basin and work for nature.

I was thinking on the way home from work today, that pretty soon Gen M and X will begin refusing to drive the Boomers to the polls. My fear is that the democracy has been co-opted, by some type of oligarchy and is no longer a republic, or a democracy. Money buys the political advertising and propaganda machines which has become a daily cacophony of dissonance which results in a portion of the quivering mass of goo we call the American electorate to wiggle in a particular direction. This is why we get to choose between tweedle bad, and tweedle worse every election cycle. Who are the powers behind the puppets? You and I both know the US electorate are too disconnected, and too self absorbed to care about what is really happening. The American electorate hardly has a grip on current reality, let alone any sense of a future reality. Or, to actually remember what happens every 4 years, in that there is campaign speak, and then there is the reality of what happens.

Or, the government itself perpetuates the hustle. Seniors get a check for $250 bucks this week from administration as a dividend they received for voting away the futures of their children and grandchildren. Unions have started feeling the pinch of low raises, and dried up pension funds and are pushing their masses around to get their fair share of the peoples money in record fashion.

No. The government is not looking out for MY best interest. I don't have any lobbyists in Washington on my side. No one is willing to really tell the truth here. Our future will be filled with pain, tight budgets, and penny pinching. Or, maybe the whole thing will crash in some epic revolution, again.

We've put off paying the bills for our socialism and war debts for far too long, and we cannot afford to keep running off to fight in yet another war. Every time our nation gets to a point of being able to retract our WWII claws, and reap a peace dividend... I mean, how long have we been in Afghanistan? How long does it take? I think it is now the US's longest sustained war ever. So, are we there to win? It's not blood for oil... It's just blood, because I think we are addicted to war.

I found this article (from Daily KOS) interesting; “Industrial Democracy” vs. “Economic Liberty” Even though it is anti-Libertarian, it addresses your points on "slavery" as an abuse with both private and government coercion. I would address that as a libertarian by stating that private coercion disappears, when state sponsorship of that private coercion is turned around into government laws protecting the rights of individuals, including all minorities.

[Jester]

Yeah. Although it was more like other expenses. A common complaint of Virginia plantation owners was that it cost more to run the plantation than the plantation brought in. Now, that might be because they were too successful at spending, but it seems all of them where forever looking for other sources of income.

From what I understand, Washington was a rarity - a plantation owner who ran his business well, diversified out of reliance on tobacco, and made a profit.

-Jester