Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[newfangle]

No one has addressed them though. They addressed the points from the first article, that I now concede were moot.

But the second article had so many fne numbers I just couldn't pass up. And no one has responded to them. Curious! Is it not? How the evaders accuse me of evasion.

 

[nonconformist]

@Storealex
(although still highly subjective; maybe if you are a miner, you'd be better off when you're fired because of your health).
QUOTE]

If you were a miner, you're likely to be in worse health due to the riot squads and horseback police chasing down striking miners.

 

[Evertonian]

I'll have a go at replying, I think newfangle is a more reasonable debater than you're suggesting Akka, he does try to take on and reply to what other people have written, although the comment about 'cummie' was a very cheap shot.

These quotes are all from post 235 of this thread.

We can conclude from this that of the people in the working age of 18 to 66, more than one quarter live passively on government transfers (full time). For every 100 persons employed full time in 1999, there were 33 working-age people receiving support. Adding pensioners, the total number was 61 people on full time transfer income for each 100 full time employed persons. (The pensioners are financed by a pay-as-you-go pension scheme). And out of those who are employed, 31.5 percent work for the government.

The earlier quotes basically led up to this conclusion. Assuming these figures are correct, 61 people live off transfer payments for every hundred who are in work. Personally I find nothing morally objectionable about it. And better that people receive transfer payments than that they starve.

We can say that people who work are not getting a reward equal to the product of their labour. Unfortunately that's a problem inherent in capitalism because in idealised capitalism (it's different in practice of course) a company will only employ an extra worker if it is profitable for them to do so, and if they have to pay that worker what his/her contribution to profit actually was then they wouldn't be employed.

Either way, under the Danish system, and under the idealised capitalism, people's work is more valuable than what they are actually rewarded for.

In 2002, the lowest marginal income tax level is 44.31 percent, then it increases to 49.77 percent and 63.33 percent. Forty percent of the working people pay the top marginal tax rate of 63.33 percent, which applies to all income over $33,000.

Quote:
A sales tax of 25(!) percent hits just about everything.

Well if people pay higher taxes and it means they don't then have to pay for something out of their after tax income that they would otherwise have to pay for, I really don't see the problem. If we take healthcare as an example, either I pay higher taxes and the Government provides healthcare for me, or the Government stops, I pay lower taxes, but I still have to pay for my healthcare. So IMHO I'm not better off. In fact I'm worse off because I've got to go through the hassle of finding an insurance provider, filling in all the forms, worrying that my coverage policy is watertight etc (see Moss321's recent thread about the insurance company not paying for the hassle that can be involved in this). And don't give me the usual right wing line that it would make the healthcare sector much more efficient. Britain with its socialized healthcare spends a much smaller proportion of its national income on health than the US with its largely private system

1. The capital gains tax is 59.7 percent for a private person in the high income tax bracket, unless you hold your investment for more than 3 years. It then falls to 44.8 percent.

2.There are additional taxes on "sinful" and "luxury" products likes cigarettes, alcohol, candy, soft drinks, electronic goods, and other luxuries.

3.For cars, there is a 180 percent special tax on top of the sales tax of 25 percent. Then there is a registration fee and a weight fee to be paid twice per year for the privilege of using the roads. The price of gasoline is nearly three times as high as it is in the US.

4.Denmark imposes many new green taxes. These are the taxes that have increased most substantially during the 1990s. These taxes hit heating, electricity, water, and gasoline.

5.Real estate, which is already heavily taxed, has been the target of new taxes throughout the 1990s. In addition, the tax value of deductions have been continuously reduced.

I added the numbers so I could easily refer to the points in this passage.

1.A capital gain is unearned income. It makes sense to me that it be taxed, and I think its sensible to tax short term disposals more heavily since it discourages speculative trading that can destabilise the economy.

2.Presumably public health benefits as a result. Regards luxuries, I presume its an attempt to stop consumption taxes being disproportionately borne by the lowest income groups in society.

3 & 4. Well consumption of fossil fuels has to slow. See link in my sig for why. This is a sensible way of trying to achieve it

5.Property bubbles can be extremely damaging. this looks like an attempt to try and prevent one before it starts.


What I also want to say is this: it seems to me that you presume that a lot of these things are self evidently bad. They are not self evidently bad to me. Furthermore the people of Denmark vote for their Government, and if the Danish people wanted to elect a Government who repealed all of these policies they could.

 

[storealex]

Read my post #235 in this thread. I will not respond again until you either somehow justify each of those statistics (without resorting to: "Hey, at least we aren't savages that live with 1/8 of our people in poverty." Which, of course, is irrelavent since I'm not American) or prove that they are not accurate.

How did the word savages come in? Anyway, I don't doubt the correctness of the numbers in your statistics. But before your statistics tell us much we have to compare them to others, which is exactly what your article does - good ol' America. But that's irrelevant. Ok, then please compare them to something else then.
________
Body science

 

[luiz]

Firstly let me say that it's always a pleasure debating with, Evertonian, and that I consider you one of the finest posters around.
But I have some objections to what you stated.

The earlier quotes basically led up to this conclusion. Assuming these figures are correct, 61 people live off transfer payments for every hundred who are in work. Personally I find nothing morally objectionable about it. And better that people receive transfer payments than that they starve.

We can say that people who work are not getting a reward equal to the product of their labour. Unfortunately that's a problem inherent in capitalism because in idealised capitalism (it's different in practice of course) a company will only employ an extra worker if it is profitable for them to do so, and if they have to pay that worker what his/her contribution to profit actually was then they wouldn't be employed.

Either way, under the Danish system, and under the idealised capitalism, people's work is more valuable than what they are actually rewarded for.

You certianly agree with me that it's not economically heathy to have 61 people depending on government help for every 100 workers.
This of course requires an astronomical level of taxation, and the problem with such level of taxation is that it actually drives severall people out of certain markets. By driving marginal consumers and producers out of severall markets, the commerca gains decrease. And with such high taxation, the margin is big, and as such the decrease in gains is also big. This means that such system is reducing the overall Economic Welfare of Denmark.
This is exactly what prevents the generation of new or better paying jobs, and creates a vicious cycle in which many people are dependent on the government, and the workers are forced to carry a gigantic burden.

As for the value of work, it's subjective. The value of labour is equal the capacity of each worker to please the consumers, under a capitalist system. Of course the employer pays less then what he makes, but the worker makes more or exactly the same then the smaller price for which he is willing to sell his workforce, and as such both are profitting. In the danish system, however, the incentive system that is the strentgh of capitalism is severely distorted due to high taxation, and as such both the gains of the employer and the employee are smaller.

Some believed that it is possible to make the taxes hurt the employer more, but economic theory shows that it's impossible. The tax burden is alway shared, and although the proportion is variable, usually it hurts the worker more, because the Labour market has a relatively low elasticity. So, unlike the belief that some left-wingers have, the average working man usually carries a higher burden due to taxation then the "fat-cats".

Well if people pay higher taxes and it means they don't then have to pay for something out of their after tax income that they would otherwise have to pay for, I really don't see the problem. If we take healthcare as an example, either I pay higher taxes and the Government provides healthcare for me, or the Government stops, I pay lower taxes, but I still have to pay for my healthcare. So IMHO I'm not better off. In fact I'm worse off because I've got to go through the hassle of finding an insurance provider, filling in all the forms, worrying that my coverage policy is watertight etc (see Moss321's recent thread about the insurance company not paying for the hassle that can be involved in this). And don't give me the usual right wing line that it would make the healthcare sector much more efficient. Britain with its socialized healthcare spends a much smaller proportion of its national income on health than the US with its largely private system

The problem is it would be cheaper if the people could spend their money on health instead of giving it to the government. There would be competition, and as such the prices would fall.

It's completely impossible that the government could make the system cheaper, simply because everything the government does requires extra costs on bureaucracy. At best for the government, the costs for a private and a public healthcare system would be the same. However this ignores the incentive mechanisms that follow competition, and as such it's only fair to recognise that the prices would be cheaper under a private system.

I added the numbers so I could easily refer to the points in this passage.

1.A capital gain is unearned income. It makes sense to me that it be taxed, and I think its sensible to tax short term disposals more heavily since it discourages speculative trading that can destabilise the economy.

2.Presumably public health benefits as a result. Regards luxuries, I presume its an attempt to stop consumption taxes being disproportionately borne by the lowest income groups in society.

3 & 4. Well consumption of fossil fuels has to slow. See link in my sig for why. This is a sensible way of trying to achieve it

5.Property bubbles can be extremely damaging. this looks like an attempt to try and prevent one before it starts.

1-Why unearned? To make decent capitals gains one has to put effort in it, just like any other job. To tax capital gains would make less people invest in this business, that is highly profitable for the nation. Speculation can only hurt the country if combined with irresponsible government policies. Otherwise it's part of the market mechanism to share and synchronise information, and vital for the survival of the market system.

2-a)Individual health should be a matter for individuals. Smoking in private property is a perfect exemple for something that harms one's health without harming others, and as such I don't see why the government should step in.
b)As tempting as it may be for some to tax luxuries, Economic Theory, as well as empiric studies, prove that the people who are harmed the most are not the consumers of luxuries, but rather the producers. This is due to the fact that the Supply Curve of luxuries is way less Elastic then the Demand Curve. For exemple, if you create a tax on Yatchs, the rich guy who was going to buy it might decide that it's too expensive and take his family to Europe instead, or buy new sports car, or simply keep the money. However the Yatch factories cannot convert the production quickly, and as such they will be harmed the most by this tax. So the people harmed are lower-class proletarians, not millionaires. In 1993, the US Congress approved a Law on luxuries includinf Yactchs, and one year later they cancelled this Law, after reaching the conclusion that the millionaire were simply buying less Yatchs and as such harming factory workers.

3-4- Exactly due to speculation(of fossil fuels running out) severall companies are already investing in alternative energy sources. The transiction from an Oil-based economy to a Whatever-based economy will probably be a soft one.

 

[Evertonian]

Firstly let me say that it's always a pleasure debating with, Evertonian, and that I consider you one of the finest posters around.
But I have some objections to what you stated.

Thanks so much for these kind words luiz, I'm very flattered but I'm sure I don't deserve the accolade . It is always a pleasure to debate with you too Luiz, and even though we rarely seem to agree (to say the least ) i really enjoy the way you engage with the different points that people put forward.

As usual your responses directly tackle the arguments raised, and get to the heart of the issues, of course as usual I also have some objections to what you stated

You certianly agree with me that it's not economically heathy to have 61 people depending on government help for every 100 workers.
This of course requires an astronomical level of taxation, and the problem with such level of taxation is that it actually drives severall people out of certain markets. By driving marginal consumers and producers out of severall markets, the commerca gains decrease. And with such high taxation, the margin is big, and as such the decrease in gains is also big. This means that such system is reducing the overall Economic Welfare of Denmark.
This is exactly what prevents the generation of new or better paying jobs, and creates a vicious cycle in which many people are dependent on the government, and the workers are forced to carry a gigantic burden.

Well I suppose I have to accept there must be a margin but really I'm not convinced the margin is so big. What are my reasons for thinking this:
Well, we are talking about transfer payments, taking the income of one group, and transfering it to another. now if we believe that people have a schedule of income vs effort that they trade off, and they are indifferent between points on it, then the margin must be huge, and this is the way that mainstream economics analyses this question, a trade off between work and lesiure.

However, that approach has never really rung true for me. There can be many non-financial benefits to going to work, and many non-financial costs to not work. People in work vs unemployed people report higher levels of well-being, higher self esteem, perceived status etc. And intuitively too, we can imagine that its nice feeling to have a few days off from work, but its not multiplied if you are facing years of unemployment.

Furthermore some research has been done which suggests that extra income in absolute terms, adds to happiness and well being UP TO A POINT, but after that point (which varies but tends to be around levels which allow for consumption to satisfy basic needs of food shelter etc.) the ONLY extra benefit in terms of reported happiness and well being, is related to the status that comes from earning more than other people, whether its $10 more or $100,000 more.

I think these 2 things undermine a bit the work-lesiure trade-off model, and so the impact of the overall loss is not that great. Also, with these high levels of transfer payments, Denmarks GDP is not low by either European or world levels. Now someone can argue it could be higher, but surely not massively higher?

As for the value of work, it's subjective. The value of labour is equal the capacity of each worker to please the consumers, under a capitalist system. Of course the employer pays less then what he makes, but the worker makes more or exactly the same then the smaller price for which he is willing to sell his workforce, and as such both are profitting. In the danish system, however, the incentive system that is the strentgh of capitalism is severely distorted due to high taxation, and as such both the gains of the employer and the employee are smaller.

I would point out in answer to this that in real life studies, about benefits from work, things like opportunities for development, relationships with colleagues, nature of work, perceived income RELATIVE TO OTHERS within and outside the company, etc tend to be a better indicator of reported happiness and personal satisfaction than the bald amount of post tax income somebody receives. therefore if the tax system is consistent between all employees it shouldn't affect the incentives to work all that much.

Some believed that it is possible to make the taxes hurt the employer more, but economic theory shows that it's impossible. The tax burden is alway shared, and although the proportion is variable, usually it hurts the worker more, because the Labour market has a relatively low elasticity. So, unlike the belief that some left-wingers have, the average working man usually carries a higher burden due to taxation then the "fat-cats".

If you mean that the employee suffers the loss of income, I pretty much agree, although as above I'd contend there are good reasons to believe it won't affect his happiness as much as we might intuitively expect.

The problem is it would be cheaper if the people could spend their money on health instead of giving it to the government. There would be competition, and as such the prices would fall.

It's completely impossible that the government could make the system cheaper, simply because everything the government does requires extra costs on bureaucracy. At best for the government, the costs for a private and a public healthcare system would be the same. However this ignores the incentive mechanisms that follow competition, and as such it's only fair to recognise that the prices would be cheaper under a private system.

I disagree with this. Sometimes the Government can be more efficient. Britain's railways were privatised in the 1990s, and under the privatised system it cost much much more in real terms to build 1 kilometre of new track, or maintenance work on 1 kilometre of old track. And there was an example where the government got a private company to run operations in one area for a national employment training scheme, and there costs per trainee were much much higher than the public sector providers.

1-Why unearned? To make decent capitals gains one has to put effort in it, just like any other job. To tax capital gains would make less people invest in this business, that is highly profitable for the nation. Speculation can only hurt the country if combined with irresponsible government policies. Otherwise it's part of the market mechanism to share and synchronise information, and vital for the survival of the market system.

Well, I also disagree with this Capital gains, one doesn't have to put effort in, just make a purchase of an asset, sit back, then a year later or whatever sell it. Also if people don't invest their money, what do you think they'll do with it? It seems to me people divide up their income between an amount of consumption and an amount of savings (which=investment) that they think appropriate and so, and are pretty indifferent to the actual quality of the savings vehicle offered.

2-a)Individual health should be a matter for individuals. Smoking in private property is a perfect exemple for something that harms one's health without harming others, and as such I don't see why the government should step in.
b)As tempting as it may be for some to tax luxuries, Economic Theory, as well as empiric studies, prove that the people who are harmed the most are not the consumers of luxuries, but rather the producers. This is due to the fact that the Supply Curve of luxuries is way less Elastic then the Demand Curve. For exemple, if you create a tax on Yatchs, the rich guy who was going to buy it might decide that it's too expensive and take his family to Europe instead, or buy new sports car, or simply keep the money. However the Yatch factories cannot convert the production quickly, and as such they will be harmed the most by this tax. So the people harmed are lower-class proletarians, not millionaires. In 1993, the US Congress approved a Law on luxuries includinf Yactchs, and one year later they cancelled this Law, after reaching the conclusion that the millionaire were simply buying less Yatchs and as such harming factory workers.

I'm not confident of my position on the luxuries tax, I don't really want to defend it. I'll just say it is a well meaning tax that hopes that consumption taxes won't disproportionately hit the poor. But what you've described shows it may well be misguided.
On the public health issue, I guess this is just a question of one's ideological persuasion, whether you think the government has a role in actively trying to promote healthier lifestyles in its citizens. I know that libertarians say no, that it should be down to individual choice, but I'm not one (a libertarian), and I think healthy people is a worthy goal for a govt to aim at

3-4- Exactly due to speculation(of fossil fuels running out) severall companies are already investing in alternative energy sources. The transiction from an Oil-based economy to a Whatever-based economy will probably be a soft one.

Well it needs to happen. Lets hope you are right. Sadly I'm not quite as optimistic because I think ALL OF US are applying discount rates that are unrealistically high to the benefits of tackling this urgent problem. But if you are right, then it would be much better.

 

[IglooDame]

The problem is it would be cheaper if the people could spend their money on health instead of giving it to the government. There would be competition, and as such the prices would fall.

It's completely impossible that the government could make the system cheaper, simply because everything the government does requires extra costs on bureaucracy. At best for the government, the costs for a private and a public healthcare system would be the same. However this ignores the incentive mechanisms that follow competition, and as such it's only fair to recognise that the prices would be cheaper under a private system.

I disagree with this. Sometimes the Government can be more efficient. Britain's railways were privatised in the 1990s, and under the privatised system it cost much much more in real terms to build 1 kilometre of new track, or maintenance work on 1 kilometre of old track. And there was an example where the government got a private company to run operations in one area for a national employment training scheme, and there costs per trainee were much much higher than the public sector providers.

@Evertonian - Can you give me a link or some background information on that British railways point? I have a difficult time seeing where a government entity could do maintenance or new construction at a cheaper overall cost than a private entity and I'd love to see the mechanism where that would not be the case.

 

[Mise]

No one has addressed them though. They addressed the points from the first article, that I now concede were moot.

But the second article had so many fne numbers I just couldn't pass up. And no one has responded to them. Curious! Is it not? How the evaders accuse me of evasion.

Perhaps you could justify why high taxation is bad for the Danish economy? It doesn't seem that bad. By the articles own estimation, Denmark is the world's most egalitarian social democracy. Seems pretty great to me...

 

[Cashie]

You justify taking from one group to please another, because it will benefit you to please that group.

How can you complain about "special interest groups": ie people who need assistance [in your country] and then have this as your signature...

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

Just seemed a little ironic to me...

 

[nonconformist]

Why has noone addressed my point: that handouts for people who do not work contradicts fundemental Marxism?

 

[newfangle]

Perhaps you could justify why high taxation is bad for the Danish economy? It doesn't seem that bad. By the articles own estimation, Denmark is the world's most egalitarian social democracy. Seems pretty great to me...

My basic point is: current Denmark, and pre-1865 Black Americans share many things in common. The largest difference is that that slavery in Denmark is mostly voluntary. The only reason I give a darn toot about it is because there are people (like Insurgent) who have a problem with such slavery. And the answer to it is much more complicated than, "if you don't like it, get the hell hout." (especially for those Danes that actually like Denmark.

I guess I used those numbers incase some people did not realize how heavily the governmnet rapes people in some countries. But many of you already know (and support it).

 

[newfangle]

Why has noone addressed my point: that handouts for people who do not work contradicts fundemental Marxism?

That's probably because the only people that would contend that point are fundamental marxists who support hadndouts.

 

[nonconformist]

That's probably because the only people that would contend that point are fundamental marxists who support hadndouts.

Nope. I'm a fundemental Marxist, yet I refused a government grant on the basis that I didn't conribute anything to society, so I shouldnit accept a grant.

 

[IglooDame]

Nope. I'm a fundemental Marxist, yet I refused a government grant on the basis that I didn't conribute anything to society, so I shouldnit accept a grant.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," right, or did I miss something? If you needed the grant (per Marxism anyway) you should have accepted the grant?

 

[nonconformist]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," right, or did I miss something? If you needed the grant (per Marxism anyway) you should have accepted the grant?

According to Marxism I shouldn't have, siice I don't contribute anything according to my abilities.

 

[Mise]

My basic point is: current Denmark, and pre-1865 Black Americans share many things in common. The largest difference is that that slavery in Denmark is mostly voluntary. The only reason I give a darn toot about it is because there are people (like Insurgent) who have a problem with such slavery. And the answer to it is much more complicated than, "if you don't like it, get the hell hout." (especially for those Danes that actually like Denmark.

I guess I used those numbers incase some people did not realize how heavily the governmnet rapes people in some countries. But many of you already know (and support it).

Like I said, I don't want to argue against your moral/philosophical objections to high taxation (or indeed, any taxation at all). This is largely subjective, and I don't think I or anyone else can convince you that government taxation is not slavery. However, I would gladly debate the economic implications of taxation. In Denmark, the economy is doing well. It is not on the verge of collapse, despite what your article suggests.

I don't think anyone can really argue against social democracy on economic grounds. Sure, the economy would probably benefit in the short term (at least) from reduced taxation. But such growth can only be sustainable, controllable and predictable with active fiscal and monetary policies. Social democrats are not against economic growth. They are however against economic growth at the expense of economic stability. The social democracies of Europe have a long and good reputation of driving and maintaining sustainable economic growth through active fiscal and monetary policies, as well as government spending and taxation. Whatever your moral objections, I don't think anyone can seriously argue against Social Democracy on economic grounds.

 

[newfangle]

Mise, I'd gladly argue about the economic limitations of a social democracy, but it would wrong of me to do so with so little knowledge of economics (something I am currently in the process of changing).

But after reading many of Luiz's posts, and doing my own research, I have been unable to come across even one reputable economist that can defend an exceedingly high rate of taxation.

 

[storealex]

I used to know a lot about economics, but I forgot most of it

However I remember one thing very clearly - the experts dosn't agree either, and in some way they're all right to a certain extent.
So instead of discussing economic teory on which we'll never agree anyway, let's talk about history. We can look upon the history of Social Democracy, and if the system really was so inferior, the Social Democracies of Europe wouldn't have done so well for so long.
________
Lovely Wendie99

 

[luiz]

Thanks so much for these kind words luiz, I'm very flattered but I'm sure I don't deserve the accolade . It is always a pleasure to debate with you too Luiz, and even though we rarely seem to agree (to say the least ) i really enjoy the way you engage with the different points that people put forward.

As usual your responses directly tackle the arguments raised, and get to the heart of the issues, of course as usual I also have some objections to what you stated

Keep on the good debate

Well I suppose I have to accept there must be a margin but really I'm not convinced the margin is so big. What are my reasons for thinking this:
Well, we are talking about transfer payments, taking the income of one group, and transfering it to another. now if we believe that people have a schedule of income vs effort that they trade off, and they are indifferent between points on it, then the margin must be huge, and this is the way that mainstream economics analyses this question, a trade off between work and lesiure.

However, that approach has never really rung true for me. There can be many non-financial benefits to going to work, and many non-financial costs to not work. People in work vs unemployed people report higher levels of well-being, higher self esteem, perceived status etc. And intuitively too, we can imagine that its nice feeling to have a few days off from work, but its not multiplied if you are facing years of unemployment.

Furthermore some research has been done which suggests that extra income in absolute terms, adds to happiness and well being UP TO A POINT, but after that point (which varies but tends to be around levels which allow for consumption to satisfy basic needs of food shelter etc.) the ONLY extra benefit in terms of reported happiness and well being, is related to the status that comes from earning more than other people, whether its $10 more or $100,000 more.

I think these 2 things undermine a bit the work-lesiure trade-off model, and so the impact of the overall loss is not that great. Also, with these high levels of transfer payments, Denmarks GDP is not low by either European or world levels. Now someone can argue it could be higher, but surely not massively higher?

The size of the margin is variable, depending on the size of the taxation. In Denmark I'm sure the margin is rather high.
There is indeed a trade-off between income and leisure. I agree with you that work makes some people happy(not all though). But still people won't go to work for free, even if they like that work. Also the only way to get most employees to work extra hours is by giving extra pay, which shows the power of the money incentive.

Maybe more money does not equate to more happiness after a certain point, but it certainly equates to more incentive. Rich people won't become more productive for no money, even if they don't need any. The ammount of people that works for free, even among billionaires, is extremely small.
What's really important for society as whole is not so much the happiness of millionaires, but rather to give them incentives to stay in the market(this is true for all social classes). The way this incentives work is by providing a chance to decent profit.

Denmar is definately a very rich nation, but we must judge their economic system for the ammount of wealth beign created now(GDP growth rate) and not by the ammount of wealth existant(GDP)

I would point out in answer to this that in real life studies, about benefits from work, things like opportunities for development, relationships with colleagues, nature of work, perceived income RELATIVE TO OTHERS within and outside the company, etc tend to be a better indicator of reported happiness and personal satisfaction than the bald amount of post tax income somebody receives. therefore if the tax system is consistent between all employees it shouldn't affect the incentives to work all that much.

But progressive taxation fill much of the gap between classes, and as such comparatively each worker does not see himself much better off then his coleagues even if he works more. This certainly goes against incentive.

If you mean that the employee suffers the loss of income, I pretty much agree, although as above I'd contend there are good reasons to believe it won't affect his happiness as much as we might intuitively expect.

It will affect his Economic Welfare.
I certainly agree that richness is not the biggest responsible for happiness, but happiness is such a subjective subject that the goal of an economic policy should be solely focused on maximising Economic Welfare.

I disagree with this. Sometimes the Government can be more efficient. Britain's railways were privatised in the 1990s, and under the privatised system it cost much much more in real terms to build 1 kilometre of new track, or maintenance work on 1 kilometre of old track. And there was an example where the government got a private company to run operations in one area for a national employment training scheme, and there costs per trainee were much much higher than the public sector providers.

Maybe there was corruption in the private company?(I don't actually know).
It just makes no sense that the government could make anything cheaper then private enterprise, unless they used coercion(what of course is not the case in the UK).

Well, I also disagree with this Capital gains, one doesn't have to put effort in, just make a purchase of an asset, sit back, then a year later or whatever sell it. Also if people don't invest their money, what do you think they'll do with it? It seems to me people divide up their income between an amount of consumption and an amount of savings (which=investment) that they think appropriate and so, and are pretty indifferent to the actual quality of the savings vehicle offered.

To make big proffits you have to know what to buy, when to sell, etc(ie keep in touch with the market).
Even assuming that the ammount of effort is smaller then the one in physical labour, the capital gains are still hardly unearned, since it was the earned money that made it possible.

I'm not confident of my position on the luxuries tax, I don't really want to defend it. I'll just say it is a well meaning tax that hopes that consumption taxes won't disproportionately hit the poor. But what you've described shows it may well be misguided.
On the public health issue, I guess this is just a question of one's ideological persuasion, whether you think the government has a role in actively trying to promote healthier lifestyles in its citizens. I know that libertarians say no, that it should be down to individual choice, but I'm not one (a libertarian), and I think healthy people is a worthy goal for a govt to aim at

Trust me on the luxury tax, it has been tried before.

As for healthcare. I think that at most the government should inform about the dangers of smoking or drinking. But if people of legal age want to make a decision of ruining their health, then I see no reason why the government should step in. If a smoker decides that the pleasure of a cigarette is more important then living a long and healthy life, I say it's his choice.

Well it needs to happen. Lets hope you are right. Sadly I'm not quite as optimistic because I think ALL OF US are applying discount rates that are unrealistically high to the benefits of tackling this urgent problem. But if you are right, then it would be much better.

Usually market speculation is quite effective in those matters.
The Pentagon even wanted to create a "market lotery" on where and when the next terror attack would happen, because the market could predict it better then Pentagon offcials (actually this makes perfect sense, since the market benefits from almost infinite sources of information, and rewards the right ones).

 

[luiz]

I don't think anyone can really argue against social democracy on economic grounds. Sure, the economy would probably benefit in the short term (at least) from reduced taxation. But such growth can only be sustainable, controllable and predictable with active fiscal and monetary policies. Social democrats are not against economic growth. They are however against economic growth at the expense of economic stability. The social democracies of Europe have a long and good reputation of driving and maintaining sustainable economic growth through active fiscal and monetary policies, as well as government spending and taxation. Whatever your moral objections, I don't think anyone can seriously argue against Social Democracy on economic grounds.

Many reputable economists, including some Noble Prize winners(on top of my head, Hayek and Friedman. But there are many, many others), do argue against social-democracies on purely economics grounds.
Personally I try to focus my debate on economic grounds too.

Your argument about stability does not hold much ground.
I could make a decent case that most crisis are created by government intervention, most notably by a expansionist monetary policy.

Liberals/Libertarians, OTOH, have always argued for limited government spending, rational monetary policies as well as fiscal austherity. I don't see how you can equate that to instability.