Tax Rates of Various Difference countries

[Archbob]

tell me. What exactly, in your fevered mind, is a good economy? WW2 did not end the "Great Depression". It did, however, ship the unemployed off to kill.

I have to disagree with you there, GDP and production skyrocketed during WWII and unemployment vanished. Also, the war made us the greatest creditor nation on earth. It did end the depression and made us the most powerful nation on earth by far.

However, WW2 was a war were everyone else was bombed into oblivion and we weren't. Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the Iraq/Afghan war weren't.

Actually you guys might find these 2 ways of ranking presidents interesting:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/presidents_and_the_economy.html

 

[Abegweit]

I have to disagree with you there, GDP and production skyrocketed during WWII and unemployment vanished. Also, the war made us the greatest creditor nation on earth. It did end the depression and made us the most powerful nation on earth by far.

However, WW2 was a war were everyone else was bombed into oblivion and we weren't. Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the Iraq/Afghan war weren't.

Your first mistake is your conflation between GDP and wealth. They are not the same. By definition, the more the state spends, the greater the GDP. This does not mean that people will actualy have anything they consider riches.

Your second mistake is your belief that comverting the unemployed into death-agents has anything to do with creating wealth.

These distinctions should be obvious. Sad to say, it would seem that they aren't.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Your second mistake is your belief that comverting the unemployed into death-agents has anything to do with creating wealth.

Unemployed are unproductive lazy moochers and thugs that steal their "welfare" from decent working folk using the oppressive nature of leftist state. Converting them to death-agents is a fitting punishment for that bunch of thieves and enables the productive people to create more wealth.

 

[Archbob]

Your first mistake is your conflation between GDP and wealth. They are not the same. By definition, the more the state spends, the greater the GDP. This does not mean that people will actualy have anything they consider riches.

Your second mistake is your belief that comverting the unemployed into death-agents has anything to do with creating wealth.

These distinctions should be obvious. Sad to say, it would seem that they aren't.

Did you miss the part where I said WWII made us the greatest creditor nation on earth?

We did not buy all those goods we made ourselves, other people bought them. That makes us richer than them.

I also think you missed the part where I said we were the only country not bombed in oblivion. That also makes us richer.


I guess you could say WWII and the Post-war Boom ended the depression, but the post-war boom was a result of what happened during WWII.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

WW2 taught us that Keynesianism works and massive government spending is a suitble means to pull a nation out of a depression.
There's no reason to believe all the spending has to go into weapons.

 

[Tani Coyote]

WW2 taught us that Keynesianism works and massive government spending is a suitble means to pull a nation out of a depression.
There's no reason to believe all the spending has to go into weapons.

Indeed, the money merely has to get production rolling in some way. War in the old days would cause mass production of armaments, and so we have to find some way to adapt the concept to not only modern technology, but civilian uses.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, at the end of the day, does it make a difference whether you dig a trench or build a bomb?

Economically speaking, I see the difference in application.

 

[Cutlass]

So, at the end of the day, does it make a difference whether you dig a trench or build a bomb?

Economically speaking, I see the difference in application.

At the end of the day, you're best served by building a productive investment. However, next best is just putting as many people into decent paying jobs as possible. Building bombs, if it wins or helps to prevent a war isn't the worst choice. But even just digging a ditch and filling it in is better than leaving labor idle. But best is to build something that has a positive return on investment, like a new subway system.

 

[amadeus]

Russia is a hell hole because it suscribed to the free market snake oil the US peddled them in the '90's or did you not get the memo.

Did it ever occur to you that Russia fared so poorly was because so much of the Soviet economy was basically a huge Potemkin village that could not be continued indefinitely?

 

[Bill3000]

Did it ever occur to you that Russia fared so poorly was because so much of the Soviet economy was basically a huge Potemkin village that could not be continued indefinitely?

Be reasonable, it was a collection of Potemkin villages.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Did it ever occur to you that Russia fared so poorly was because so much of the Soviet economy was basically a huge Potemkin village that could not be continued indefinitely?

Still the way they liberalised was badly thought out and much too fast becasue they listened to the wrong western advisors.
China shows us how it's done: introduce capitalism step by step and for the love of god don't neglect the development of your legal system while you're liberalising your economy. There was and is of course still a lot of corruption and nepotism going on in the PRC, but it's nowhere near as bad as Russia during the nineties.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You Obviously have no idea the amount of failure that the USSR and China suffered.

You obviously have no concept of how reality gets in the way of your ideological view of the world. There is no point debating with people like you as you never change your opinions no matter how wrong they are. I'll still read the thread for the fantastic lols your delusions give me.

 

[Traitorfish]

tell me. What exactly, in your fevered mind, is a good economy?

"Good" in the sense that it is in the class interest of the bourgeoisie. There is a reason I chose to write "capitalist economy" rather than simply "economy".

And Marx wasn't the first one to use the term capitalism. "Capitalist" has been used since the 16th and 17th centuries in writings like "The Hollandische Mercurius" way before Marx. It simply meant "owner of capital". Marx himself never really used "capitalism" per se. And when he used "capital mode of productioon" he acknowledged it was "a system of primarily private ownership of the means of production in a mainly market economy". The only things the state provided was basically legalities in which they had to follow and were protected by a maintained order or infrastructure by state such as state printing of money to use as a medium of exchange. Profits and means of production were still private.

Firstly, yes, the term "capitalist" had existed previously, but the term "capitalism", as used in reference to an entire economic system, had not.
Secondly, Marx's understanding of capitalism as necessarily constituting a market economy dominated by the bourgeoisie is out-dated, a product of his limited historical perspective; the Soviet Union, for example, was an essentially Capitalist society, and yet had neither a market not a bourgeoisie, the capitalist class instead taking the form of the bureaucratic "nomenklatura".

 

[metatron]

Hitler was closer to socialism than capitalism in idealogy having been leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The Nazi Government did implement some social programs, yes. But the general order of things was not socialist at all, not even a "planned economy" for that matter.
The Nazis severely mistreated some industrialists and entrepeneurs they did not like for one reason or another. But most of them (industrialists and entrepeneurs) had more freedom than ever before in Germany.
Nazi Germany was the state they wanted, the state they helped becoming real. And it was all they hoped for.
Nazi Germany was in terms of the economy that major players expierienced very anti-socialist, very chaotic, very classical liberal and very anarchic. There are few dictatorships in the 20th century that implemented as little central planning as Nazi Germany, if there were any at all.

I could speculate on the matter of the origin of your misinformation and the relevance of the fact that it is particular common amongst Americans. But seeing that the thread has allready had it's fair share of broad categorisations, i'll refrain from that...for the moment.

Lets make a deal. You wont call Hiter Socialist, and we wont call him capitalist. Deal?

Since Hitler was by all means a capitalist, that would be a giveaway of Obamanian proportions.

So, at the end of the day, does it make a difference whether you dig a trench or build a bomb?

Building a Pyramid can work as well.
To get an economy out of the ditch you have to pay the unemployed. A fairly seasoned revelation. I'm sure it will reach the "Conservatives" of the Anglosphere eventually.

 

[amadeus]

Nazi Germany was in terms of the economy that major players expierienced very anti-socialist, very chaotic, very classical liberal and very anarchic.

Did you write that on purpose?

 

[BasketCase]

Some actual data on a cool chart:


Look through all that actual data carefully, and you'll see a lot of CFC's cherished delusions shattered. America is not corporation-ist (in fact it's tied with Japan for the HIGHEST corporate tax rates on the planet!), and a bunch of supposedly far-left nations are not.

 

[Traitorfish]

Some actual data on a cool chart:


Look through all that actual data carefully, and you'll see a lot of CFC's cherished delusions shattered. America is not corporation-ist (in fact it's tied with Japan for the HIGHEST corporate tax rates on the planet!), and a bunch of supposedly far-left nations are not.

Pointe Thee Firste: Corportocracy is not defined as "low Corporate taxes". To suggest as much is to make public a fundamental miscomprehension of the most basic facts of contemporary Capitalism.
Pointe Thee Seconde: I know not of a single nation on the face of the Earth that would be called "far-left" by anyone who knew what they were talking about, and the barest handful even by those who do not. None of them appear on that list.

 

[metatron]

Did you write that on purpose?

Yes.
And i am perfectly aware of its crudeness in this context. I doubt that will decrease the niveau of the argument about Nazism as a supposed blend of Socialism.
And i will neither refrain from such crudeness nor enter any longstreched and detailed discussion on this as long as the starting point is "but it was called National Socialist German Workers Party!"

Note that my main reason to react to your post at all is personal sympathy. I planned on completely ignoring the thread in the future. Also note that if it wasn't that boring i would chime in and criticise Socialism.
However citing Nazism as a supposed example of Socialism or Allmost-Socialism or whatever is as flawed as flawed arguments get. I don't particularly care for addressing that with any particular regard for precision.

Some actual data on a cool chart:

Erm, how are those numbers produced? Specifically: What exactly is a part of a "mean income tax rate"?
Given that Germanys top marginal tax rate is lower than the supposed "mean" value, i have a hard time accepting your cool chart.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It should be noted that America may technically have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but after deductions and loopholes (many of which small business don't have the means to research and exploit), effective rates are right around the western world average.

 

[Archbob]

You obviously have no concept of how reality gets in the way of your ideological view of the world. There is no point debating with people like you as you never change your opinions no matter how wrong they are. I'll still read the thread for the fantastic lols your delusions give me.

I would say the exact same thing about you. You seem to think that these worker revolutions is Russia and China actually worked better than a capitalist system did here. Reality, has in fact, proved you wrong. We do not have millions being sent to "government correctional facilities"(both China and Russia) nor do we have "millions" dying straightout of hunger(China) like they did after their revolutions.

the Soviet Union, for example, was an essentially Capitalist society, and yet had neither a market not a bourgeoisie, the capitalist class instead taking the form of the bureaucratic "nomenklatura".

Sure a state that told you what you had to study, what job you had to perform, and what function in society you had to fill is a "capitalist" society. After the USSR fell, yes, they adopted a mostly capitalistic system, much like China did after Mao died. But while the USSR existed, I don't see how you can argue for it being a "capitalistic" society.

Firstly, yes, the term "capitalist" had existed previously, but the term "capitalism", as used in reference to an entire economic system, had not.

Capitalism has its earliest roots, and the term "Capitalist" used in regards to economic details within Mercantilism in the 16th and possibly 15th centuries. These terms were generally perceived back then to be little or no government intervention.


Nazi Germany was a hodgepoge of economic policies. You had to behave how the Nazis wanted you to or they shot you. Thats all secondary as Hitler himself did not view the economy as that important in the first place.

@metatron -- I only started relating 'socialist' and 'Hitler' because traitorfish insisted on associating Hitler with capitalism. Neither is true. Hitler didn't really have much view in terms of economics, he didn't regard the economy as that important in his state.