Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[eppie]

Can you share a common currency without having common practices in how other countries run their finances? What penalties should exist for a nation like Greece who breaks the rules, and juggles the books to hide their cheating or mismanagement?

I think you can. You just have to be very strict about abiding the rules, and indeed make sure there are real penalties for those that screw up.

That said, modern day banking and investing is a big part of the problem here. Take Ireland that went from one of the poorest countries in europe to the one with the highest average wages. (but to be fair those subsidies started before the euro existed ), and Spain that screwed up their real estate market.

Greece is another case....maybe more comparable to Italy.....if they just start being serious about actually collecting tax, and remove the mafiosi from politics they should be able to start doing fine. (where Italy is of course a much stronger economy).


The common currency should not mean every country is as rich as the other.....that is why the rules (60% debt and 3 % deficit) are in % (no surprise there ).........I think Greece will suffer for their mistakes.....pitty that it is often the normal citizens that suffer the most while the big bakers (Golmand Sachs buddies) keep being rich.
10 years under strict EU control is not a very proud thing.
When this is over (and it will be) the EU will come out stronger.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You believe it is a myth that the Government of a very large nation can spend public money to stimulate the economy in one tiny part of that nation by taking money from elsewhere? Because that's all I'm suggesting.

I think he just pulled out the wrong soapbox by mistake.

--Pete

---

Hi,

Can you share a common currency without having common practices in how other countries run their finances?

I think you can. You just have to be very strict about abiding the rules, and indeed make sure there are real penalties for those that screw up.

I think you misread his question. Your first sentence says that you don't think common practices are needed. But your second sentence says you think that rules and penalties are needed. OK, then where do these rules and penalties come from? If they come from the individual countries, then you've set the fox to guard the hen house. If they come from the EU. then they are external common practices.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

You believe it is a myth that the Government of a very large nation can spend public money to stimulate the economy in one tiny part of that nation by taking money from elsewhere? Because that's all I'm suggesting.

Temporarily, yes, a large productive economy can sustain a small drain to a tiny part. The net effect is still negative, even though the tiny part might thrive (or be relieved) for awhile. Ultimately, sustained handouts create an ever growing dependency.

The result, however, is that there is not just one, there are many tiny and yet needy spots. But, like my two kids, once one gets a treat, the other one wants his fair share. There are always many open hands, when money is being doled out, but never enough when the work needs to get done. Whenever our belts need to be tightened, their allowances are reduced or withheld due to lack of performance, the whining begins. The giveaways always start out tiny, or are described as revenue neutral, but we see time after time they are not. Even when they start out self sustaining, the process is bastardized to widen the spigots tipping the spending ever higher. They are usually based on outright forged numbers and assumptions of an ever productive economy.

It might have been kinder to dedicate the money to provide free college or vocational education for the destitute lumberjacks(jills) and their children, and watch them move out of the area to places where their productivity will contribute elsewhere to a growing economy. Or, perhaps, if they choose to stay, some or them will use their training to start new ventures, and regrow the local economy.

This area looks to be a victim of its distance from the interstate, and its distance from Seattle, Spokane, or even medium sized population centers. It really needs a hook. Sometimes its just a little thing that grows, like the Grand Marais Art Colony on the north shore here in Minnesota. Why should thousands of people from Seattle or Spokane go out of their way to go there and spend their money?

[eppie]

Hi,

You believe it is a myth that the Government of a very large nation can spend public money to stimulate the economy in one tiny part of that nation by taking money from elsewhere? Because that's all I'm suggesting.

I think he just pulled out the wrong soapbox by mistake.

--Pete

---

Hi,

Can you share a common currency without having common practices in how other countries run their finances?

I think you can. You just have to be very strict about abiding the rules, and indeed make sure there are real penalties for those that screw up.

I think you misread his question. Your first sentence says that you don't think common practices are needed. But your second sentence says you think that rules and penalties are needed. OK, then where do these rules and penalties come from? If they come from the individual countries, then you've set the fox to guard the hen house. If they come from the EU. then they are external common practices.

--Pete

Yes then I misunderstood.
I think you need to have rules (targets) controlled by the EU if you want to make a single currency zone work. How the countries reach the target is up to them.

[Jester]

Temporarily, yes, a large productive economy can sustain a small drain to a tiny part.

Why not permanently? That's certainly the situation, well, everywhere. There are no major countries without their more and less productive regions, and they all practise some form of regional transfer of wealth. The US has been doing it for its entire existence, which is about as permanent as politics gets. The big cities have always funded the rural areas. The rich states like New York, California, Texas have always funded the poor and remote states, like Mississippi, Kansas, and Alaska. Cut off that money, and regional inequality will spike - maybe that's not an issue for you, but it certainly would be quite the shock.

The net effect is still negative, even though the tiny part might thrive (or be relieved) for awhile. Ultimately, sustained handouts create an ever growing dependency.

Why does it have to be growing? Other than the need for this to somehow lead to the doom of civilization, in order to fit the narrative? Can't it just be an essentially constant-rate transfer of wealth from one place to another?

It might have been kinder to dedicate the money to provide free college or vocational education for the destitute lumberjacks(jills) and their children, and watch them move out of the area to places where their productivity will contribute elsewhere to a growing economy. Or, perhaps, if they choose to stay, some or them will use their training to start new ventures, and regrow the local economy.

This reminds me of a suggestion a certain prof at the LSE made, that the north of the UK should pretty much be abandoned, and its people retrained and given incentive to move to the south, where they'd be more productive, and we could all stop wasting tax money* trying to encourage development up there. The economic logic was good, but it certainly didn't do his reputation in the north much good.

-Jester

*originally wrote "tax dollars", but, naturally, the UK has no tax dollars. =)

[Taelas]

Denmark created jobs in the '60s and '70s, and it worked out rather well.

Personally, I'd love it if the various countries in Europe (as well as the rest of the world, for that matter) could get their heads out of their rears and work together to create a unified government. I doubt it'll happen, though.

I personally don't care about nationality -- you can't accuse me of being a patriot.

[kandrathe]

Temporarily, yes, a large productive economy can sustain a small drain to a tiny part.

Why not permanently? That's certainly the situation, well, everywhere. There are no major countries without their more and less productive regions, and they all practise some form of regional transfer of wealth. The US has been doing it for its entire existence, which is about as permanent as politics gets. The big cities have always funded the rural areas. The rich states like New York, California, Texas have always funded the poor and remote states, like Mississippi, Kansas, and Alaska. Cut off that money, and regional inequality will spike - maybe that's not an issue for you, but it certainly would be quite the shock.

Um, not always. But, yes, mostly since the civil war (~1862), the government instituted emergency powers to take money to defend the union. They were repealed by 1868.

"By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time. Form 1040 was introduced as the standard tax reporting form and, though changed in many ways over the years, remains in use today."

This corresponded with the rise of the progressive movement, and the philosophy that the government might solve all our problems. But,I think the current gravy train is reaching the cliff, with more people in the wagons, and very few pulling. And, the wagons, and all the gear in the wagons are purchased with funds borrowed from the hostiles. How can states be rich? Do you mean more people are rich within those states? Or, that they generate a larger portion of the nations GDP?

The net effect is still negative, even though the tiny part might thrive (or be relieved) for awhile. Ultimately, sustained handouts create an ever growing dependency.

Why does it have to be growing? Other than the need for this to somehow lead to the doom of civilization, in order to fit the narrative? Can't it just be an essentially constant-rate transfer of wealth from one place to another?

Civilization, probably not. WWII didn't end civilization, and its root cause was not a nation of homicidal maniacs. It's cause was the inter-tangled economic and defensive alliances in Europe, with a strong dose of inequality for some where force was seen as the last resort for those seeking justice for their perceived harms. But, the great depression brought the world to a desperation that expressed as a war. WWII saw the US implement a centrally controlled economy with massive rationing and perhaps even willing deprivation of the people. It was after WWII, where the US has never relinquished the federal power deeded to it temporarily to fight the socialists. Ironic, no?

Let's look again at Greece. When the last productive 10% who actually pay the taxes decide to not pay the taxes (either by moving away, quitting, or refusing), then it's system crashes. It will probably happen in the US again soon as the next bubble bursts. Our unsustainable deficit spending is being largely increased, without a commensurate increase in a means to pay for it. What starts out as temporary or small government corrections to perceived economic inequality usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which in turn, hinder the economy and eventually bring us the suffering we have today.

It might have been kinder to dedicate the money to provide free college or vocational education for the destitute lumberjacks(jills) and their children, and watch them move out of the area to places where their productivity will contribute elsewhere to a growing economy. Or, perhaps, if they choose to stay, some or them will use their training to start new ventures, and regrow the local economy.

This reminds me of a suggestion a certain prof at the LSE made, that the north of the UK should pretty much be abandoned, and its people retrained and given incentive to move to the south, where they'd be more productive, and we could all stop wasting tax dollars trying to encourage development up there. The economic logic was good, but it certainly didn't do his reputation in the north much good.

I'm not saying people shouldn't go live there, but we should stop worrying about having government force equitable living standards where it is unfeasible. I feel it is wrong for a nation to set a national average standard when applied across various local economy, geography and costs of living. Markets would make better decisions, but I wouldn't be against some organization of "tax free zones" for economic development purposes.

[kandrathe]

Denmark created jobs in the '60s and '70s, and it worked out rather well.

Hmmm, has their tax rate exceeded 50% of their GDP yet? Personal tax being at about what? 60% income tax plus 25% VAT? It sounds like semi-serfdom.

Personally, I'd love it if the various countries in Europe (as well as the rest of the world, for that matter) could get their heads out of their rears and work together to create a unified government. I doubt it'll happen, though.

Some have tried, and failed.

I personally don't care about nationality -- you can't accuse me of being a patriot.

You probably do care... How about Islamic Theocracy?

---

I think you need to have rules (targets) controlled by the EU if you want to make a single currency zone work. How the countries reach the target is up to them.

I think you should kick the offending nations out of the EU until they get their houses in order. By the time you all get together and make a decision on what the rules should be it will all be over, or we'll all be in a global depression.

[Jester]

It sounds like semi-serfdom.

This is the dictionary description of the word "serf". It refers to a specific historical class, characterized by two things: forced labour, and the inability to leave the land. They typically have no rights, political power, or any say in their lives whatsoever. Their plight directly mirrors their lords, who live lives of riches and splendour on the fruits of their serf labour.

In Denmark, they are not forced to labour, they are free to move wherever they please, and they live in a democracy. They are equal citizens in a country generally described as being one of the world's happiest, most equal, least corrupt, and most free, *including* in economic terms.

Stop hijacking words with an actual (and tragic) historical meaning in order to make histrionic comparisons with the tax rate. Don't like high taxes? Fine, be glad you live in the low-tax US, not high-tax Scandinavia. But it's not serfdom. It's not quasi-, pseudo-, or semi- serfdom. It's not slavery, or repartimiento, or corvee, or thralldom, or mita, or whatever else. It is what it is: a tax rate.

-Jester

[Jester]

Um, not always. But, yes, mostly since the civil war (~1862), the government instituted emergency powers to take money to defend the union. They were repealed by 1868.

The idea is what, that before 1862, the government didn't collect taxes? Or that they spent them precisely in proportion to how they were collected? It's not just income taxes that fall unequally. It's every kind of tax. Richer regions do more trade, purchase more goods, have higher-value land, and conduct almost every kind of revenue-generating activity to a greater extent. Unless they get proportionally more benefit out of, say, the military, they are paying in more, and getting out less.

But,I think the current gravy train is reaching the cliff, with more people in the wagons, and very few pulling.

Ah, the old Ayn Rand fantasy scenario. Just a few steps from the strike, eh? Who is John Galt, anyway? And why does he never seem to actually leave, despite threatening to do so for more than 50 years?

(Afterthought: This is, incidentally, a work of art in the medium of mixed metaphors. Just read it over a few times, conjure the image in your head. We have a train. A gravy train. The current one, I guess as distinct from past and future gravy trains. And it's reaching a cliff. So I guess it's a train where they build the rails off a cliff? And it's hauling wagons. It's a gravy wagon train, I guess? And it's pulled by people? Productive people? Pulling the wagon towards the cliff? Shouldn't we be happy if they stop pulling? What happens when they get there, do they jump off, sacrificing themselves to kill the ungrateful bastards riding in the wagons? Maybe the productive people are pulling backwards? But you can't pull from behind if the wagon is moving forward, you'd be swept off your feet... unless maybe you had an elastic rope? It boggles the mind, it does.)

How can states be rich? Do you mean more people are rich within those states? Or, that they generate a larger portion of the nations GDP?

Yes, states that generate a larger portion of GDP per capita. Massachusetts. Texas. New York. Y'know, rich states. Where people are richer. Where the tax base is larger.

Let's look again at Greece. When the last productive 10% who actually pay the taxes decide to not pay the taxes (either by moving away, quitting, or refusing), then it's system crashes.

Exactly backwards. The Greek problem is not that they tightened the thumbscrews on taxation to the point where the rich moved away, or quit, or refused. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Greek "last productive 10%" (...) is off gulching. They're just evading taxes, same as they always have. It's that they never had a functional tax collection system in the first place - evasion is so rampant that the effective tax rate is paltry at the top. And so, when they spend like they're Sweden, but collect taxes like they're Alaska. Thus, the whole system goes *pop*.

It will probably happen in the US again soon as the next bubble bursts. Our unsustainable deficit spending is being largely increased, without a commensurate increase in a means to pay for it.

You keep making these predictions. I hope you're wrong, of course. But mostly, I just think you're not keeping things in proportion. US tax revenue is low, relative to where it could be. Economic recovery and the expiry of the various stimulus packages will bring spending back in line with revenue. The world is not ending, the US is not Greece.

What starts out as temporary or small government corrections to perceived economic inequality usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which in turn, hinder the economy and eventually bring us the suffering we have today.

Were you hiding under a rock in 2008? The current crisis is hardly the result of creeping budget increases. If anything, current deficits are caused by the opposite, considering the Bush tax cuts. That's all a sideshow. Remember the housing bubble? The financial crash? The worthless derivatives? Government spending didn't drive this at all - although it has likely blunted the impact of a near-total flight to safety for private capital. This is a classic private sector financial meltdown, and if the government didn't ramp up spending to compensate, the pain would be far worse.

-Jester

[eppie]

In Denmark, they are not forced to labour, they are free to move wherever they please, and they live in a democracy. They are equal citizens in a country generally described as being one of the world's happiest, most equal, least corrupt, and most free, *including* in economic terms.

-Jester

I can add, one of the worlds richest, highest educational standards, attractive for companies etc.

A fact is that for countries without 'special circumstances' (like the US, switzerland, UAE) high taxes and good social welfare system is the recipe for succes.

---

I think you should kick the offending nations out of the EU until they get their houses in order.

And that would help in what way? May I remind you that countries like France and Germany also regularly had a deficit of more than 3 % (and that was before the economic crisis).
This crisis will be solved and europe will come out stronger and more stable. Maybe this is what the south of europe needed to become economically grown-up.

[Taelas]

Denmark created jobs in the '60s and '70s, and it worked out rather well.

Hmmm, has their tax rate exceeded 50% of their GDP yet? Personal tax being at about what? 60% income tax plus 25% VAT? It sounds like semi-serfdom.

Yes, we have the highest income tax in the world. Somehow, we make it work. Don't ask me how, though.

Personally, I'd love it if the various countries in Europe (as well as the rest of the world, for that matter) could get their heads out of their rears and work together to create a unified government. I doubt it'll happen, though.

Some have tried, and failed.

Yes, that's one of the reasons I doubt it will succeed.

I personally don't care about nationality -- you can't accuse me of being a patriot.

You probably do care... How about Islamic Theocracy?

I would have a problem with any kind of theocracy. Whether it is Islamic or not has nothing to do with that.

I wouldn't consider a theocracy a nation, in any case, so I don't really see what your comment has to do with anything I said.

[kandrathe]

I would have a problem with any kind of theocracy. Whether it is Islamic or not has nothing to do with that. I wouldn't consider a theocracy a nation, in any case, so I don't really see what your comment has to do with anything I said.

I think I understand where you are coming from. Some of my ancestors were from the Varberg area, which has been Danish, or Norwegian in the distant past. So would I identify with one, or all three? I think "nation" and a sense of "patriotism" does have to do with more than geography, but also with the collection of people with whom your efforts are committed. At the lowest level, it has to do with defending the ones around you that you care about.

In the US, the collection of people I co-identify with are those that believe in fundamental rights, justice and equality, through the application of law. I would stand against anyone who would seek to impose a different system. My view of patriotism is one of standing against tyranny, and injustice within my own nation. I'm not one for nationalism, which I view as often an unrealistic chauvinistic view.

"Such tears as patriots shed for dying laws." --Pope.

[kandrathe]

The idea is what, that before 1862, the government didn't collect taxes? Or that they spent them precisely in proportion to how they were collected? It's not just income taxes that fall unequally. It's every kind of tax. Richer regions do more trade, purchase more goods, have higher-value land, and conduct almost every kind of revenue-generating activity to a greater extent. Unless they get proportionally more benefit out of, say, the military, they are paying in more, and getting out less.

There were temporary levies, but they were limited to tariffs, and taxes on goods. The government didn't have the power to take income away from us until the ratification of the 16th amendment. The first implementation of the tax was deemed to be unconstitutional, since it was not proportional. We can thank Woodrow Wilson for income taxes and the IRS, our left turn into socialism, and America's legacy of "Wilsonianism" which is still evident in our foreign policy.

Ah, the old Ayn Rand fantasy scenario. Just a few steps from the strike, eh? Who is John Galt, anyway? And why does he never seem to actually leave, despite threatening to do so for more than 50 years?

Ayn didn't write a book on western wagon trains, did she? But, now that you mention her philosophies, they ring true to current events. Don't they?

(Afterthought: This is, incidentally, a work of art in the medium of mixed metaphors. Just read it over a few times, conjure the image in your head. We have a train. A gravy train.

Gravy Train: idiomatic expression that is used to refer to any lucrative endeavor. My meaning is the seemingly endless growth to GDP, based entirely on smoke and mirrors (or bubbles) which quickly evaporate when they are found to be without substance. I mean literally, our economy is the naked emperor.

The current one, I guess as distinct from past and future gravy trains. And it's reaching a cliff. So I guess it's a train where they build the rails off a cliff?

No, not actually a train. A wagon train is a historical US western event when many "green horns" headed out from St. Louis together, banding together for protection, and interdependence.

And it's pulled by people? Productive people?

When the oxen die, the people needed to pull the wagons. The people who got to ride in the wagons back then were the too old, and the too young.

Pulling the wagon towards the cliff? Shouldn't we be happy if they stop pulling? What happens when they get there, do they jump off, sacrificing themselves to kill the ungrateful bastards riding in the wagons? Maybe the productive people are pulling backwards? But you can't pull from behind if the wagon is moving forward, you'd be swept off your feet... unless maybe you had an elastic rope? It boggles the mind, it does.)

The people pulling are too focused on pulling, and cannot see the cliff. Perhaps they go over, and perhaps then just get to a dead end, and need to go back where they came from.

Yes, states that generate a larger portion of GDP per capita. Massachusetts. Texas. New York. Y'know, rich states. Where people are richer. Where the tax base is larger.

Hmmm. How about; "Gov. Paterson: New York deficit may balloon by another $1 billion if state doesn't get federal money"

Exactly backwards. The Greek problem is not that they tightened the thumbscrews on taxation to the point where the rich moved away, or quit, or refused. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Greek "last productive 10%" (...) is off gulching. They're just evading taxes, same as they always have. It's that they never had a functional tax collection system in the first place - evasion is so rampant that the effective tax rate is paltry at the top. And so, when they spend like they're Sweden, but collect taxes like they're Alaska. Thus, the whole system goes *pop*.

I wasn't trying to imply they are off gulching. I'm looking at the recent flow of cash out of greek banks to off shore accounts. Our biggest danger is that a crisis in Greece, then Ireland, Portugal, and Spain leads to a credit crisis for Germany, and France. The UK and US exposure to trouble in Germany and France is significantly higher. The risk here is an economic domino effect.

You keep making these predictions. I hope you're wrong, of course. But mostly, I just think you're not keeping things in proportion. US tax revenue is low, relative to where it could be. Economic recovery and the expiry of the various stimulus packages will bring spending back in line with revenue. The world is not ending, the US is not Greece.

I hope I am wrong. Our debt as a percentage of GDP is nearing 100%. This is bad. It will lead to at best very slow economic growth (<1%) until we get control of our deficits and debt. Of course, low growth leads to high unemployment, reduced tax revenues, and a higher need for public services (or suffering) resulting in even higher deficits.

Were you hiding under a rock in 2008? The current crisis is hardly the result of creeping budget increases. If anything, current deficits are caused by the opposite, considering the Bush tax cuts. That's all a sideshow. Remember the housing bubble? The financial crash? The worthless derivatives?

I see all the drama from 2008, and even the tech bubble before that as related to government/Fed manipulation that create the bubbles in the first place. The derivatives issue was not a problem until the economic asymptotes flipped negative. It was unfortunate result of hiding risk within a seemingly sound financial product ostensibly backed by the US government (thank you Fanny and Freddie).

Government spending didn't drive this at all - although it has likely blunted the impact of a near-total flight to safety for private capital. This is a classic private sector financial meltdown, and if the government didn't ramp up spending to compensate, the pain would be far worse.

I will repeat again; The government has no money. They take it from us, or borrow it (for us to repay later with interest) and then spend it. It is an illusion that the government can spend our way to prosperity, or contribute to the GDP in any way. They probably actually hurt the potential economic recovery, since their spending may not be on "productive" things (e.g. A bike trail).

[kandrathe]

It refers to a specific historical class, characterized by two things: forced labour, and the inability to leave the land.

Where would they go? How would they live without working? How do you opt out?

It is not voluntary. It is a force of law, punishable by force.

[Jester]

It refers to a specific historical class, characterized by two things: forced labour, and the inability to leave the land.

Where would they go? How would they live without working? How do you opt out?

It is not voluntary. It is a force of law, punishable by force.

First, they're EU citizens. That means they can go practically anywhere in Europe to live and work. Prefer the UK? Italy? Spain? Poland? Take your pick.

Second, nobody is forcing them to work, nor earn any given amount of income (which, by the by, is exactly what serfdom forces). If they want to be slackers and work at a cafe somewhere, getting by on as little as possible, that's their prerogative. If even that amount of tax is too much, then move elsewhere.

Third, if they have sufficient wealth, they can live without working just fine. I'm not sure Denmark is exactly where you'd want to hold a gigantic bank account, but if you did, you wouldn't have to worry about income taxes.

If the standard you're holding countries up to is a place where you can live without working, that's crazy. There is no such place on this ball of rock, and there wouldn't be even if governments collected no taxes whatsoever. But the ways in which you can opt out of any particular tax (by moving, by not earning, by not spending) are much the same in Denmark as anywhere else. The only difference is the rate of collection, which is determined democratically by the elected representatives of the Danes. It's not going to get much less oppressive than that.

-Jester

---

It astounds me that you're willing to stand behind that metaphoric mess - and pile on a half-dozen others while you're at it. It's now a bubbly smoke and mirrors train with an unclothed monarch. Or something.

A gravy train is a rail train, not a wagon train. The rest is garbled nonsense.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

First, they're EU citizens. That means they can go practically anywhere in Europe to live and work. Prefer the UK? Italy? Spain? Poland? Take your pick.

Which is probably worse, right? All the same taxes, with none of the benefits.

Second, nobody is forcing them to work, nor earn any given amount of income (which, by the by, is exactly what serfdom forces). If they want to be slackers and work at a cafe somewhere, getting by on as little as possible, that's their prerogative. If even that amount of tax is too much, then move elsewhere.

Right. The costs of most everything in Denmark are about triple what they are here in the US. Starvation is always an option, but I guess you only have to pay about 8% tax on the first 41000 DKK you earn.

Third, if they have sufficient wealth, they can live without working just fine. I'm not sure Denmark is exactly where you'd want to hold a gigantic bank account, but if you did, you wouldn't have to worry about income taxes.

If you have sufficient wealth, then no, you wouldn't be a semi-serf within the welfare state. So, no, there is not the same feudal land lord, per se., but the level of freedom and taxation is similiar, which is why I said semi-serf. Because the serf was required to work so many days of the week on the lords land, before he worked his own small parcel. Then, there was the Christmas goose.

If the standard you're holding countries up to is a place where you can live without working, that's crazy. There is no such place on this ball of rock, and there wouldn't be even if governments collected no taxes whatsoever. But the ways in which you can opt out of any particular tax (by moving, by not earning, by not spending) are much the same in Denmark as anywhere else. The only difference is the rate of collection, which is determined democratically by the elected representatives of the Danes. It's not going to get much less oppressive than that.

I'm not saying one should be able to live without earning, but to have the State take the majority of your earnings in income, and VAT is crazy as well. You have to remember that here in the US, the revolution began when we tossed the tea into the harbor AFTER Britain removed the taxes from all the other products, and that tax was only 1%. You want to talk crazy? Let's look at Latvia.

It astounds me that you're willing to stand behind that metaphoric mess - and pile on a half-dozen others while you're at it. It's now a bubbly smoke and mirrors train with an unclothed monarch. Or something.

A gravy train is a rail train, not a wagon train. The rest is garbled nonsense.

I was explaining my crazy metaphoric thinking. If you want to imagine railroad freight cars filled with gravy being driven over a cliff, then who am I to dispute it. "and if we tell you the name of the game boys, we call it ridin' the gravy train... "

I probably associate "Gravy Train" with Chuck Wagon, as they were both dog foods when I was a boy. So, mixing that in... We've made our bed, layed in it and now we'll need to eat our own dog food. We bought our meal ticket, a big old serving of Chuck Wagon, filled with gravy, going over the cliff, being driven by our naked emperor because he's distracted by the smoke, mirrors, and bubbles popping.

You can tell me to stop now...

[Vandiablo]

I probably associate "Gravy Train" with Chuck Wagon, as they were both dog foods when I was a boy.

I am of the age, too, where "gravy train" makes me think of "chuck wagon". It makes me think of 2 little guys riding a wagon through a kitchen and makes me wonder if the dog is going to eat them if they slow down.

"Gravy Train" is one that Wikipedia fails on. I found this on another site:

"Riding the gravy train": 'Gravy' has been slang for easy money since the early 1900s. In the 1920s railroad workers began using the phrase to describe a run with good pay and little work. Today the phrase also refers to living extravagantly while someone else foots the bill.

Of course, I am also of the age where I think: have a cigar, you're going to go far, you're going to fly, you're never going to die. (...which one is Pink?)

-V

[LavCat]

I'm not saying one should be able to live without earning, but to have the State take the majority of your earnings in income, and VAT is crazy as well. You have to remember that here in the US, the revolution began when we tossed the tea into the harbor AFTER Britain removed the taxes from all the other products, and that tax was only 1%.

Wait a moment. I don't think the amount of the tax had much to do with the revolution at all. We broke with King George for imposing taxes on us without our consent.

If the Danish subjects are being taxed without their consent, or consent of their legislature, then maybe they need to speak to Margrethe.

[Taelas]

First, they're EU citizens. That means they can go practically anywhere in Europe to live and work. Prefer the UK? Italy? Spain? Poland? Take your pick.

Which is probably worse, right? All the same taxes, with none of the benefits.

I don't see where you come to that conclusion.

Second, nobody is forcing them to work, nor earn any given amount of income (which, by the by, is exactly what serfdom forces). If they want to be slackers and work at a cafe somewhere, getting by on as little as possible, that's their prerogative. If even that amount of tax is too much, then move elsewhere.

Right. The costs of most everything in Denmark are about triple what they are here in the US. Starvation is always an option, but I guess you only have to pay about 8% tax on the first 41000 DKK you earn.

I have no concept of what things cost outside of Denmark (aside from books and computer games, anyway), but triple sounds completely off the wall.

A homecooked meal costs equivalent to 10-20 USD for 6-8 people. My rent costs just over 450 USD a month (for a very crappy one-room apartment).

Third, if they have sufficient wealth, they can live without working just fine. I'm not sure Denmark is exactly where you'd want to hold a gigantic bank account, but if you did, you wouldn't have to worry about income taxes.

If you have sufficient wealth, then no, you wouldn't be a semi-serf within the welfare state. So, no, there is not the same feudal land lord, per se., but the level of freedom and taxation is similiar, which is why I said semi-serf. Because the serf was required to work so many days of the week on the lords land, before he worked his own small parcel. Then, there was the Christmas goose.

There are other ways of living without working. We are a welfare state, after all.

If the standard you're holding countries up to is a place where you can live without working, that's crazy. There is no such place on this ball of rock, and there wouldn't be even if governments collected no taxes whatsoever. But the ways in which you can opt out of any particular tax (by moving, by not earning, by not spending) are much the same in Denmark as anywhere else. The only difference is the rate of collection, which is determined democratically by the elected representatives of the Danes. It's not going to get much less oppressive than that.

I'm not saying one should be able to live without earning, but to have the State take the majority of your earnings in income, and VAT is crazy as well. You have to remember that here in the US, the revolution began when we tossed the tea into the harbor AFTER Britain removed the taxes from all the other products, and that tax was only 1%. You want to talk crazy? Let's look at Latvia.

You have to remember the benefits we get. We don't pay for hospital care (though if you want super-specialized treatment, you might have to go elsewhere). We don't pay for college (and are in fact paid by the government to go to college, to pay for rent and other day-to-day necessities).

That is a large part of the reason for our high income tax.

I'm not saying one should be able to live without earning, but to have the State take the majority of your earnings in income, and VAT is crazy as well. You have to remember that here in the US, the revolution began when we tossed the tea into the harbor AFTER Britain removed the taxes from all the other products, and that tax was only 1%.

Wait a moment. I don't think the amount of the tax had much to do with the revolution at all. We broke with King George for imposing taxes on us without our consent.

If the Danish subjects are being taxed without their consent, or consent of their legislature, then maybe they need to speak to Margrethe.

Heh, Margrethe has absolutely no legal power. Well, she could make up a law and legalize it (the only power she has is legalizing laws, though this is only a formality), but then she'd get kicked out of office before the law was ever put into effect.

Not that it matters, since it is entirely with our consent (no matter how much individuals might grumble).