Tax Rates of Various Difference countries

[galdre]

how does that chart match up with stories like this?

is that chart accurate?

the story is about big corps not paying taxes... here's one example

The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

 

[amadeus]

Yes.

Well, you should acknowledge that saying Nazi Germany was classical liberal is at best as absurd as saying Germany was a Marxian socialist state.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

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.

Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your arguement any more valid. A) they weren't workers revolutions any more than the American one was, they were a revolution (in Russia) by a smal cabal who thought they were doing well by the workers, and a revolution by a power hungry maniac (in China) who coopted certain terminologies to further his power-grab. But that does not change the incontrovertible fact that the mass of Russians were better off under the old system than under the current kleptocracy (at least the Communist Party actually did a few things to ameliorate the poverty of the masses). I never brought China up, so I have no position to defend in this thread re China.

That being said you're still free to maintain that I let ideology blind me, the fact that you are wrong when you do say it won't stop me defending your right to say it.

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.

And what the corporate capture of education is not forcing people to study things they don't want to? Fo example the current UK system allows McDonalds to award "educational certificates" equivalent to GCSEs (IIRC, it's either them or A-levels) for its worthless employee training courses. And I had to study many courses I would have rather skipped (e.g. Management Theory and Marketing) to get my degree, mainly because it was what businesses wanted. You cannot have it both ways here.

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.

It's been pretty well established that Captilisim to describe a system is a term coined by Marx, I'm not going to revisit that. But I will say the system imagined by Smith et al back at the start of the British Empire is a lot different than the system we're working today, and even Smith knew that we would need government to protect the mass of people from unscrupulous businesses which have "neither a body to kick, nor a soul to damn" in the words of Andrew Jackson.


[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

The Nazi economy was a rearmament programme strapped onto a capitalist economy, plain and simple. The only businesses repossesed were Jewish and Socialist/Communist. Most of the State's funding went into projects the Nazi hierarchy considered essential to prosecution for war, and even then the funding was mostly given to private companies. I would refer you to Mark Mazower's book Hitler's Empire to show you the problems encountered by this crazy system, and the one attempt by the Nazis to bring any sort of direct control to private business. NAZISM WAS A FORM OF CAPITALISM, it was a racist, autocratic form of capitalism sure, but that does not deny the fact that from the beginning the Nazis were willing and able to collude with the oligarchic owners of industry to destroy any opposition to the capitlistic system then enforced in Germany. And a final nail in the coffin of the "Nazis weren't capitalists" fallacy, they were willing to work with a company of an enemy nation during wartime to ensure the Final Solution. Why would the Nazis work with that symbol of capitalism, IBM, if they were not comfortable with capitalism?

Please, please, please before you reply to this post look up some actual history and read through some books written by expert authors. Then see if you can formulate a coherent response. I will guarantee that it will be significantly different in both tone and content than anything you have previously posted in this thread, mainly because everything you've posted to now has been a) ideologically driven, and b) ahistorical (i.e. you've twisted historical events to fit your preconceptions from a), when you should have modified a) to fit the facts).

 

[Archbob]

Putting words in my mouth doesn't make your arguement any more valid. A) they weren't workers revolutions any more than the American one was, they were a revolution (in Russia) by a smal cabal who thought they were doing well by the workers, and a revolution by a power hungry maniac (in China) who coopted certain terminologies to further his power-grab. But that does not change the incontrovertible fact that the mass of Russians were better off under the old system than under the current kleptocracy (at least the Communist Party actually did a few things to ameliorate the poverty of the masses). I never brought China up, so I have no position to defend in this thread re China.

Lenin rose to power through his economic concept theory and Mao actually carried out his theory by taking land from the rich and giving it to the poor. It was only when this didn't work out that he became all evil. He wasn't corrupt from the beginning.
Russia's main problem in changing to a capitalist system is that it tried to change all at once and neither the ruling classes or the people were ready for that. China's main problem now is that while it is doing well, it isn't changing fast enough.

That being said you're still free to maintain that I let ideology blind me, the fact that you are wrong when you do say it won't stop me defending your right to say it.

Your idealogies are just as blind as mine are because when people tried to attempt your idealogies, they failed just as hard, if not harder than western style capitalism. America and Western Europe has faired a lot better under capitalist policies than Russia, China, and the the former soviet Bloc fared under non-capitalist ones. Who was ahead at the end of the regimes in 1990s? Our economic system from the 1950s to the 1990s worker a lot better than theirs. Russia still in the transition stage right now and the sudden pace of transition has really hurt them. Your going to be hurting from 40 years of falling behind from the 1950s to the 1990s.

And what the corporate capture of education is not forcing people to study things they don't want to? Fo example the current UK system allows McDonalds to award "educational certificates" equivalent to GCSEs (IIRC, it's either them or A-levels) for its worthless employee training courses. And I had to study many courses I would have rather skipped (e.g. Management Theory and Marketing) to get my degree, mainly because it was what businesses wanted. You cannot have it both ways here.

But see, in the UK, you have a choice to study what you want. You can not take the "certificates" and go to a University yourself and study whatever you like to study. You didn't have that option in Russia. It was either study what the state wanted you to study, get shot, or go to a "relocation camp".

It's been pretty well established that Captilisim to describe a system is a term coined by Marx, I'm not going to revisit that. But I will say the system imagined by Smith et al back at the start of the British Empire is a lot different than the system we're working today, and even Smith knew that we would need government to protect the mass of people from unscrupulous businesses which have "neither a body to kick, nor a soul to damn" in the words of Andrew Jackson.

And even Marx coined it to describe capitalism as a system where there was private ownership to the means of production without much government involvement. The only role the government played was to print money and to provide a legal framework. And also, Marx may have coined it, but "capitalism" as its often referred to had its roots in Mercantilism, not Marx. By Marx's time, it was already fairly established what it meant. He just thought up a work to describe it, which actually was pretty close to what to what it meant. Capitalism as coined by Marx, does not suggest any type of state involvement.

The Nazi economy was a rearmament programme strapped onto a capitalist economy, plain and simple. The only businesses repossesed were Jewish and Socialist/Communist. Most of the State's funding went into projects the Nazi hierarchy considered essential to prosecution for war, and even then the funding was mostly given to private companies. I would refer you to Mark Mazower's book Hitler's Empire to show you the problems encountered by this crazy system, and the one attempt by the Nazis to bring any sort of direct control to private business. NAZISM WAS A FORM OF CAPITALISM, it was a racist, autocratic form of capitalism sure, but that does not deny the fact that from the beginning the Nazis were willing and able to collude with the oligarchic owners of industry to destroy any opposition to the capitlistic system then enforced in Germany. And a final nail in the coffin of the "Nazis weren't capitalists" fallacy, they were willing to work with a company of an enemy nation during wartime to ensure the Final Solution. Why would the Nazis work with that symbol of capitalism, IBM, if they were not comfortable with capitalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[93] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[94] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy.[95] Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day," referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews."[96] In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course".[95]

and

To Hitler, the economy must be subordinated to the interests of the Volk and its state

He believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".

This is not capitalism. It is a state-controlled economy. "State-controlled" capitalism contradicts itself since capitalism as defined by both Marx and earlier references clearely presents a lack of state involvement.

The Nazis didn't really care who they worked with as long as it achieved their goals.

I've watched a fair number of documentaries on Hitler and Nazism. All of them will say that Hitler and the Nazis had near complete control of the state in all aspects, economy included. They may have not directly taken control of companies but the private sector had to produce what the Nazis wanted them to produce. That is not capitalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Again: "capitalism" does not mean "free market capitalism". It refers to the fundamental nature of the economic system in place, and, in both the USSR, the PRC and all their various puppets and imitators, that system was primarily capitalistic, before and after their adoption of more obviously capitalistic policies.

That Marx himself did not fully explore State Capitalism does not mean it does or can not exist; the man is not the physical avatar of socialist theory.

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.

"Capitalist" was used, yes, but in reference to individuals only. "Capitalism", used in reference to an entire economic system, is a term originating in Marxist and Anarchist theory; that is why there was no attempt to issue a defence of "Capitalism" until the Cold War era, because the right-wing had not yet absorbed the term, and even then used it as an ideological rather than analytical term.

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.

None of which is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism, it just implies a more complex distribution of power within the ruling class.

@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.

Out of interest, if the association of Hitler and capitalism is some bizarre idiosyncrasy of mine, why was it a criticism explicitly made by the left wing of the Nazi Party itself before their purging in Operation Butterfly?

 

[Archbob]

Again: "capitalism" does not mean "free market capitalism". It refers to the fundamental nature of the economic system in place, and, in both the USSR, the PRC and all their various puppets and imitators, that system was primarily capitalistic, before and after their adoption of more obviously capitalistic policies.

That Marx himself did not fully explore State Capitalism does not mean it does or can not exist; the man is not the physical avatar of socialist theory.

The USSR and the PRC were not capitalistic until Mao and the USSR actually fell. Capitalism does essentially mean 'free market capitalism', even Marx thought of it that way. Capitalism as defined by any early source states minimal state involvement so by defination "state-controlled capitalism" does not exist.

"Capitalist" was used, yes, but in reference to individuals only. "Capitalism", used in reference to an entire economic system, is a term originating in Marxist and Anarchist theory; that is why there was no attempt to issue a defence of "Capitalism" until the Cold War era, because the right-wing had not yet absorbed the term, and even then used it as an ideological rather than analytical term.

And in both theories it involved little or no involvment of the state. Once again, "state-controlled capitalism" does not exist.

None of which is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism, it just implies a more complex distribution of power within the ruling class.

But it does, since Capitalism by definition, has little to no state intervention.

History has also shown that the idealogy of worker-controlled means of production generally won't work on a large scale or in the long run. Society will stratify, whether you want to believe it or not. Every society has since we started to settle down.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I've watched a fair number of documentaries on Hitler and Nazism. All of them will say that Hitler and the Nazis had near complete control of the state in all aspects, economy included. They may have not directly taken control of companies but the private sector had to produce what the Nazis wanted them to produce. That is not capitalism.

Watching documentaries is not the same as getting yourself educated on the issues at hand, especially with the very low quality of documentaries available. Like for example channels like the Nat Geo ones putting on programmes which support the crack-pot theories of Erich von Daniken. Please do what I advised you (I know it will take time, a good book lasts me a whole month, but it will be worth it for your sake and mine).

Your point about Russia was the one I made originally, that Russia went way too far way too fast. There was actually a ground level movement in the country to re-make the companies as workers cooperatives, producing what would best sell in a liberalised market. This would have worked a lot better.

About my ideologies, nobodies tried them. The closest we've gotten was the very-successful Social Democratic consensus in post WW2 Europe. Russia was not Communists (nor am I actually, I'm mostly Socialist, with some allowances made for private enterprise). If you look at Western Europe and America their best periods of sustained growth were under Keynsian interventionism, followed by Soc. Dems throughout Europe, an d by slightly left leaning centrists in the US. Right wing policies either tend to Serfdom, or to Free Market Fundamentalism, both of which cause massive problems both for the economy and the people living within a country (for example you know that it was only when Pinochet abandoned the Chicago School economic proscriptions and basically re-introduced every policy of Allende that Chile actually became a functioning economy after the disaster visited on the economy after his coup, right). Attention to the facts and basing my ideologies on them is not being blind it is being empirical and open-minded.

I'm not from the UK (if you cannot get such a simple fact right, something I loudly proclaim to boot) then I do honestly see very little hope for you ever being able to comprehend that your ideologies have been soundly thrashed by the events of history over and over and over again.

And finally if as you maintain that Nazis were so set against private enterprise, then why were they so cozied up with German private enterprise throughout their rule. They also cozied themselves up with foreign enterprise if it was willing to produce goods for them. Also if you do read any proper books on Nazi Germany, you will find that most of Hitlers diatrabes against "captialism" were either pandering to the Brownshirt element of his party (who actually did hold grievances against big business) or sly digs at the worlds Jewish population, to try and justify the war he was planning since 1918, and later anti-American and British propoganda.

Again please read up on the actual history before replying to my post. What you are continuously posting is ideological propoganda plain and simple, and bears no relation to what has actually happened. And also please try to figure me out (at least a tiny bit, not knowing I'm IRISH is pretty much inexcusable) before trying to tar me with the brush of your alleged political enemies (who are probably not your enemy in reality, unless you happen to be massively rich to go along with your agenda).

 

[Traitorfish]

The USSR and the PRC were not capitalistic until Mao and the USSR actually fell. Capitalism does essentially mean 'free market capitalism', even Marx thought of it that way. Capitalism as defined by any early source states minimal state involvement so by defination "state-controlled capitalism" does not exist.

And in both theories it involved little or no involvment of the state. Once again, "state-controlled capitalism" does not exist.

But it does, since Capitalism by definition, has little to no state intervention.

Here's the thing: You are using "Capitalism" in the sense used by Capitalists, I am using it in the sense used by Socialists. That is, apparently, and insurmountable obstacle for some of us.

History has also shown that the idealogy of worker-controlled means of production generally won't work on a large scale or in the long run. Society will stratify, whether you want to believe it or not. Every society has since we started to settle down.

Also, you are a self-evident misanthrope.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Here's the thing: You are using "Capitalism" in the sense used by Capitalists, I am using it in the sense used by Socialists. That is, apparently, and insurmountable obstacle for some of us.

So, what makes socialism's definition correct?

 

[Traitorfish]

So, what makes socialism's definition correct?

It was the original one. The Capitalist usage only emerged in the early 20th century in reaction to criticism by Socialists, and in the Cold War became a hollow ideological term referring to "Ours", just as "Communism" became an even more hollow ideological term meaning "Theirs".

 

[Abegweit]

"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".

Isn't it just about time that you stopped using idiot terms like "bourgeoisie"? In today's service economy it doesn't make any sense, if it ever did. War is in the intereplsts of the military-industrial complex. From what I can see most of the war-mongers and war-profiteers are unions, politicians, bureaucrats and journalists. Plus a lot of others who just simply take vicarious pleasure in dealing mass death.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you have divided bad and good in the wrong way. The bourgeoisie is not necessarily evil and the rest of us are not necessarily good.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't it just about time that you stopped using idiot terms like "bourgeoisie"? In today's service economy it doesn't make any sense, if it ever did.

Now, is that coming from an informed analysis of contemporary coordinatorism, or mere conservative windbaggery? If the former I will acknowledge that, yes, the "bourgeoisie" as traditionally conceived is becoming less and less relevant, and that power is being increasingly transferred to an impersonal bureaucracy, both private and public, not unlike that found within the Soviet Union. If the latter, I will sneer dismissively at you, and then go about my business.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you have divided bad and good in the wrong way. The bourgeoisie is not necessarily evil and the rest of us are not necessarily good.

Perhaps imposing upon me declarations of "good" and "evil" which I have not made is a little... Presumptuous?

 

[amadeus]

WW2 taught us that Keynesianism works and massive government spending is a suitble means to pull a nation out of a depression.

...and the Soviet Union taught us that employing people in economically unproductive activity in perpetuity results in disaster.

Nothing good came from military spending in the 1940s. We had people dig the coal, drill the oil, and make the steel, all for the purpose of blowing another piece of land up. We had our consumer goods factories converted to produce war materiel. We had our freedom robbed from us with conscription, rationing, and internment. We had censorship and propaganda.

What good comes of that?

 

[Abegweit]

Woah! Deep in your rant we found this acknowledgement: "the bourgeoisie as traditionally conceived is becoming less and less relevant, and that power is being increasingly transferred to an impersonal bureaucracy". IOW, your Marxist fantasies have nothing to do with the real world. I would go a little further and say that they never did.

Now, is that coming from an informed analysis of contemporary coordinatorism, or mere conservative windbaggery? If the former I will... [come up with some arrogant crap] If the latter, I will sneer dismissively at you, and then go about my business.

I do not have the slightest clue what "contemporary coordinatorism" might possibly mean - and I don't want know. One thing that is absolutely clear is your absolute inability to engage any argument - you only have two options. Either you arrogantly agree with the other person or you arrogantly dismiss him. You have no capacity whatsoever to actually engage what he says.

Moderator Action: The discussion get personal and escalates.

 

[Traitorfish]

Woah! Deep in your rant we found this acknowledgement: "the bourgeoisie as traditionally conceived is becoming less and less relevant, and that power is being increasingly transferred to an impersonal bureaucracy". IOW, your Marxist fantasies have nothing to do with the real world. I would go a little further and say that they never did.

You, uh, you do realise that what I'm saying there is actually drawn from contemporary Far Left theory, don't you?

I do not have the slightest clue what "contemporary coordinatorism" might possibly mean - and I don't want know. One thing that is absolutely clear is your absolute inability to engage any argument - you only have two options. Either you arrogantly agree with the other person or you arrogantly dismiss him. You have no capacity whatsoever to actually engage what he says.

I can engage fine. I just expect the other person to be interested in actual debate, rather than point-scoring, which is all I have detected in your good self. The explicitly personal criticism offered in this post seems to evidence that.

Moderator Action: The escalation continues.

 

[Abegweit]

You, uh, you do realise that what I'm saying there is actually drawn from contemporary Far Left theory, don't you?

I really don't care where you got it from. I expect YOU to defend it instead of going on with endless whining imaginations about where I got my thought from.

I can engage fine.

Anyone who makes up fantasies about the motives of decent folk instead of actually talking to their points does NOT [sic]engage fine. Deal with it. You have never "engaged fine". Never.

Moderator Action: Again.

 

[Traitorfish]

I really don't care where you got it from. I expect YOU to defend it instead of going on with endless whining imaginations about where I got my thought from.

Wait, I don't follow: You quote me in the apparent belief that I had inadvertently conceded the inherent absurdity of all socialist though, I observed that the quote was an example of socialist thought in itself, so you tell me to shut up? What are you actually getting at here?

And what is this about "where you get your thoughts from"? Did I suggest at any point that I was reading your mind?

Anyone who makes up fantasies about the motives of decent folk instead of actually talking to their points does NOT [sic]engage fine. Deal with it. You have never "engaged fine". Never.

I, erm, I would suggest that I have? On a variety of occasions? Not with you, perhaps, but then I don't recall you ever saying anything that I've had much interest in.

But, I'm game: on subject do you wish me to engage with you? So far all you've offered is the suggestion that I am an "idiot" for, as far a I can tell, using words that you don't like.

 

[Abegweit]

Oh, just so stuff it. Just so kindly stuff it. Is there anything you say which makes sense? Anything?

The man said "History has also shown that the idealogy of worker-controlled means of production generally won't work on a large scale or in the long run. Society will stratify, whether you want to believe it or not. Every society has since we started to settle down."

Now this might be right or wrong. But tell me, how in the name of anything which is holy does this proposition make him a "self-evident misanthrope"?

You are an evident (but clearly not self-evident, because you obviously believe in your own superiority) fool.

Moderator Action: Another personal attack.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, just so stuff it. Just so kindly stuff it. Is there anything you say which makes sense? Anything?

I believe I once gave a tourist directions from Cathedral Street to George Square. It wasn't that hard, really- they were only about two blocks away, and had just taken a wrong turn out of the train station.

The man said "History has also shown that the idealogy of worker-controlled means of production generally won't work on a large scale or in the long run. Society will stratify, whether you want to believe it or not. Every society has since we started to settle down."

Now this might be right or wrong. But tell me, how in the name of anything which is holy does this proposition make him a "self-evident misanthrope"?

That was an exasperated (and, I will concede, perhaps inappropriate) reaction to FAl's constant proclamations of the objective truth of, well, whatever on earth it is he believes. I've never really understood, but it apparently involves the belief that human beings are awful, stupid creatures, that a self-appointed Randian aristocracy will lead us to blissful servitude, and that the human race was founded by a benevolent-yet-horny demigod by the name of "Y-Adam". It's generally a pretty dismal and misanthropic philosophy.

You are an evident (but clearly not self-evident, because you obviously believe in your own superiority) fool.

"I am evidently fool"? Missing an "A" there, mate. Could that be an A... FOR ANARCHY?


Link to video.

Because, really, if you don't have anything worthwhile to say, then neither do I.

 

[Abegweit]

Wait, I don't follow:

Of course, you don't. Statists never do. Instead they lie. After all, the state is based on lies. When there is something concrete that you want to talk about let me know. In the meantime, let's remember your words: "Now, is that coming from an informed analysis of contemporary coordinatorism, or mere conservative windbaggery? If the former I will... [come up with some arrogant crap] If the latter, I will sneer dismissively at you, and then go about my business."

Just stuff it. Just stuff it. Anyone who thinks that discussion is based on where people are coming from instead of what they say is nothing but a first-class scumbag. Look in the mirror, a-hole. That's you.

Moderator Action: Rude personal attacks are not welcome. They do not contribute anything of value to the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889