![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
foolsguineahttp://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html
I haven't read all of this. I have read some bewildered Yank reactions to the idea.
I think this is important:
"What we're doing when we are paying taxes is buying a product. So the question isn't how you pay for the product; it's the quality of the product."
(Some Norwegian entrepreneur)
In my country, we've had political propaganda denounce "big government," or especially expensive government, as bad in itself for so long that we forget that it's not always bad to pay a high price for a good product.
- -
I suppose some libertarian will come on here & bleat in the comments about the importance of consent. The standard argument that high taxes are a sin, because they are collected non-consensually on the individual level. But by that standard, all taxes are extortion, however low. If you're willing to accept the legitimacy of democratic processes establishing a low tax base, then you implicitly justify those same democratic processes' authority to set a high tax base.
So then one has to have an argument for why taxes at a low rate are hunky-dory while taxes at a high rate are bad. But that's not about consent, not really. The democracy consented collectively to do things this way. If you can't accept that, you can't accept law. All laws on the public restrain individual liberty in some way.
So really what does a low-tax advocate, say one that accepts 19% of GDP being taxed but not 25%, have to justify his position other than, "I don't like that number?"
- -
Of course there's no reason our tax code should be forcing us to buy a metaphorical overpriced Mercedes-Benz over a good Volvo or Toyota. But if forcing people a) to pay for a new Volvo & pay maintenance on it is contrasted with b) trying to sell them a car with no engine, which is the better deal?
I'm not arguing for big government for the sake of bigness. I'm arguing for laws that improve people's lives. Socialized medicine is a damn good place to start.
I haven't read all of this. I have read some bewildered Yank reactions to the idea.
I think this is important:
"What we're doing when we are paying taxes is buying a product. So the question isn't how you pay for the product; it's the quality of the product."
(Some Norwegian entrepreneur)
In my country, we've had political propaganda denounce "big government," or especially expensive government, as bad in itself for so long that we forget that it's not always bad to pay a high price for a good product.
- -
I suppose some libertarian will come on here & bleat in the comments about the importance of consent. The standard argument that high taxes are a sin, because they are collected non-consensually on the individual level. But by that standard, all taxes are extortion, however low. If you're willing to accept the legitimacy of democratic processes establishing a low tax base, then you implicitly justify those same democratic processes' authority to set a high tax base.
So then one has to have an argument for why taxes at a low rate are hunky-dory while taxes at a high rate are bad. But that's not about consent, not really. The democracy consented collectively to do things this way. If you can't accept that, you can't accept law. All laws on the public restrain individual liberty in some way.
So really what does a low-tax advocate, say one that accepts 19% of GDP being taxed but not 25%, have to justify his position other than, "I don't like that number?"
- -
Of course there's no reason our tax code should be forcing us to buy a metaphorical overpriced Mercedes-Benz over a good Volvo or Toyota. But if forcing people a) to pay for a new Volvo & pay maintenance on it is contrasted with b) trying to sell them a car with no engine, which is the better deal?
I'm not arguing for big government for the sake of bigness. I'm arguing for laws that improve people's lives. Socialized medicine is a damn good place to start.
