So why is it, then, that the nations with the largest income inequality gaps tend to have the smallest middle classes?
If that's the definition of big government, I don't know of a single conservative who doesn't support big government.That's true with personal taxes, but not so much with corporate taxes (though many corporations find ways to avoid paying those taxes).
But to give you your due, you asked a pertinent question - where does one draw the line? I'd have to say that when almost all government workers are paid middle-class wages, it's almost certainly a 'big government'...whereas those governments that can only pay their workers poverty-level wages are small governments. In order for a government to pay middle-class wages, that government has to have enough tax revenue to do so...and as a direct result, the people who work within that government, since they do not need to rely on bribes in order to feed their families, are mostly honest brokers and cannot be easily bribed. YES, some will be dishonest, some will be bribed, but the vast majority won't be.
What follows is that when the well-paid government workers do their jobs, they tend to do it well...which means that those assigned to regulatory agencies are (usually) going to do their jobs properly and hold the corporate sector to what the regulations require. Thus you have the high effective taxes and strong regulation that are part of Big Government...and in such governments throughout the world, the corruption level is relatively low.
And this goes back to what I've said so many times - high taxes are the price of admission to living in a first-world democracy.
You really don't know the difference in the damage to our infrastructure that is done by semis, do you?
The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons. According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to the road as 9,600 cars. But permits frequently allow vehicles to exceed that amount by two tons in Texas and sometimes as much as 85 tons in Nevada. Some states grant one-time permits that allow trucks to be considerably heavier.
.
Hate to tell you this, guy, but those who are arrogant/narcissistic/egoistic and have a thirst for power are found in ALL forms of government. The difference between democracies and non-democracies is that we CAN vote them out.
That's a tautology. The nations with the largest income inequality gaps will, by definition, be nations with small middle classes.
I'd like to know how he's defining it. The US has the largest income inequality, yet our Middle Class is huge.
I doubt that our income inequality gap is larger than that of, for example, Nigeria.
and you know who the regulations hurt the most there, is the single owner operators who run their own truck. the huge mega carriers like the ones I work for can afford to absorb the cost of more regulation.
btw the trucking industry pays more then its fair share, in addition to permits and high diesel taxes, some states (Oregon being the prime example) charge per mileage fees for running state highways.
and trucks heavier then 40 tons do not cause more damage to roadways, because under federal regulations on weight, to be heavier requires more axles (for instance heavy haul trailers have four axles instead of two, which spreads the weight) and wider tires (which there's also an excise tax on) Also if weight limits were lowered there would be considerably more trucks on the road, burning more fuel, causing more emmissions.
also I would be willing to wager that one truck in a year will pay more fuel tax then any one person will in their life driving a Honda.
If that's the definition of big government, I don't know of a single conservative who doesn't support big government.
No I am not in error. Their legal system, not mature, bribery is part of society- regardless of if it is needed to survive or not.Wrong.
When people are paid peanuts, they find other ways to supplement their income. When public servants are paid peanuts, they take bribes to feed their families. As time goes on, some of those advance in the organization - and since they had to take bribes all through their careers just to feed their families, why should they stop taking bribes now that they're high-ranking officers? And now that they're high-ranking officers taking bribes, such becomes the norm with all the businesses and corporations who have to deal with them.
If you don't want a corrupt nation, it MUST start with paying good middle-class wages to the public servants. You can't even begin to address corruption without that one point. But what must a nation have in order to pay those public servants? MORE taxes.
And high taxes are the price of admission to living in a first-world nation.
There are three observations:
(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.
If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?
You're looking at the overall amount, but you're not looking at the tax paid as a percentage of the revenue taken in. Yes, that one truck in a year might pay more fuel tax than any one person will in his or her life driving a Honda...but that Honda's probably not the livelihood of that driver, is it? You'd be more accurate to compare the fuel tax of that truck - and all other associated taxes with that line of work - to all the taxes that middle-class business owner pays running their business, from the unemployment insurance, to the state and local business taxes, to the sales taxes, to the taxes on phone/internet/electricity/sewer and whatever else it takes to run that business.
What's more, that truck - since it does 9600 times the damage to the road that the Honda does, literally does more damage to the road in one year than the Honda will during the entire life of the driver.
Then perhaps you'd do well to see how the conservative cognoscenti are all about cutting wages - or refusing to allow long-overdue wage hikes - to government workers in general, and especially when it comes to teachers. Look at the postal workers - they WERE strictly government workers for all our nation's history...until the conservatives pushed to cut the USPS out of our government and has made efforts to completely privatize our mail system. Problem with that is, do you really want to pay a worker only minimum wage when that worker's the one who's trusted with delivering social security checks and all kinds of other mail-with-identity-theft-fodder in it?
the congress only has the power to make federal law, for the foregoing powers only......of article 1 section 8, and nothing in that article deals with the personal lives of the people.
things which concern themselves with the lifes liberty and property of the people are state powers..not federal powers...federalist 45
Nobody suggests that there be zero social programs.
The constitution laid out structures which are social structures, such as the post office and the examples that you mentioned are recognized by most conservatives, although there is much reform that needs to be done to the programs to eliminate waste and fraud.
This country has historically been more successful than other nations for a number of reasons. Many of those reasons are being assaulted by progressives and our nation is being weakened as a result. Capitalism is the primary reason we have succeeded. The size of our nation is one reason that maintaining a capitalist structure and markets which are as free as possible are reason for our designation as the last super power.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Your notion that small government and low taxes equals the third world is just a straw man. Our government should be small as possible to function efficiently, we should eliminate bloat and needless or redundant regulations and tax and spend so that we don't increase our debt.
Name one conservative who says that anyone should make poverty wages.Then perhaps you'd do well to see how the conservative cognoscenti are all about cutting wages - or refusing to allow long-overdue wage hikes - to government workers in general, and especially when it comes to teachers. Look at the postal workers - they WERE strictly government workers for all our nation's history...until the conservatives pushed to cut the USPS out of our government and has made efforts to completely privatize our mail system. Problem with that is, do you really want to pay a worker only minimum wage when that worker's the one who's trusted with delivering social security checks and all kinds of other mail-with-identity-theft-fodder in it?
And it's not just teachers and postal workers. The GOP slashed the funding for the IRS, which as a result just said a week or two ago that they won't be able to conduct nearly as many audits as before...and what does that mean? That means there's a whole bunch of companies and corporations out there who will be even more emboldened to cheat on their taxes...which results in less revenue for the government, which leads to less money to pay for the government to do its job.
It's like I keep saying - you canNOT have a first-world nation if you're not wiling to pay the taxes necessary to maintain that nation's status.
I made no assumptions, I just asked for an explanation. If you can use one nation as proof of your perspective, then shouldn't I get the same courtesy??
I agree with your statement about balance, but where do we draw that line?? the problem with socialism is that looks good on a short term basis and over the long term is incredibly destructive. Our current state of welfare is classic example of how a socialistic policy can go from what should have been a small scale application of socialistic policies to one that is threatening the economic stability of this nation. This is why ANY socialistic policy MUST have a very strict limit on it from the get-go. I'd like to see welfare "constitutionalized" with changes to it only happening by way of an amendment and not by way of bureaucratic policies.
Y'know, I really don't like arguing with results...and that's what you're doing. We started down the road to socialized democracy when FDR pushed through the New Deal eighty years ago, and as messy as it's been since then, we've done quite well, thank you very much.
The point is, for all the complaints by conservatives of how terrible the government is as it allegedly oversteps its constitutional bounds, and of how many freedoms we've lost, America has for the most part only prospered in relation to the rest of the planet and - if to somewhat of a lesser extent - so have the other first-world democracies. Right now, today, the American people as a whole (meaning, not just with regards to white male heterosexuals) are more free, with MORE rights, than ever before. The claims of the Right of how we've lost so many freedoms is frankly quite Orwellian by comparison.
So if one is to claim how wrongly our government has performed for the past several generations, one must at least first explain why it is we as a nation are doing so well (and in the big picture, yes, we are), and why it is that our people as a whole are freer, with more rights than ever before.
Purely subjective as to the "socialists" you're talking to. To claim anything otherwise is opinionated falsity.Not at all. I claimed that, when faced with socialisms many, deep failures, socialists will attempt the No True Socialism fallacy as a debate tactic, but when attempting to claim widespread support and/or success, they will instead define "socialism" very broadly. I accused them of being inconsistent in debate, which they are.
Purely subjective as to the "socialists" you're talking to. To claim anything otherwise is opinionated falsity.
Hunh???? Dude - look at my OP - I'm referring to ALL first-world democracies. You pointed to Greece, so I addressed Greece...but my thread concerns all nations.
Tell you what. Go buy a plane ticket (I sell tickets, btw, and I usually beat anything you find online) to Australia or New Zealand, both of which have governments which - compared to our own - are what would be in your view much more socialistic...and as you spend several months there, you can decide for yourself if their socialistic policies are driving them to the economic dustbin of history. Heck, you're in Oregon - go drive up to Canada and spend some time there. Same thing. They've had like ONE year of economic deficit since 1996, even though they've got universal health care.
I submit to thee, that outside of the fine North American continent such terms as "big government" and "socialism" are rather meaningless. Historical circumstances and culture dictate the "size" of a nation's state, including its scope and breadth. Of course, in a state that knows nothing but republicanism, "big government" sounds fiendish, as if possessing a baseness character, ready to strike and devolve into monarchy without notice. The American Founders certainly believed this. To strengthen the central government and the President was, to them, a machination and nothing more; "a step closer to a King".
The ultimate fallacy of American political thought is on display in this thread - the notion that the "size" of government determines an individual's liberty and general economic success the world over. Context is crucial. Certain systems simply cannot be emulated the world over.
As for the topic's title. Perhaps, it was the culture and work ethic of these nations, coupled with their creation of the right environment in which business could thrive, as well as an amalgamation of other sundry factors - such as their lands being rich in resources, or their histories being relevantly peaceful, or their maintenance of political stability - that led to their respective successes.
Then explain China. Business certainly thrives there, despite the relatively recent tyranny of Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Russia (whatever we may think of their leadership) has made great strides since the meltdown of the USSR and their economic default in the late '90's, and may become a first-world nation despite their faux democracy. Brazil is flirting with first-world status, and the culture there certainly doesn't have the same reputation of the work ethic of, say, Japan or Germany. And it's not a matter of being rich in resources (Japan and England have always been resource-poor) or of relatively peaceful histories or political stability (e.g. Europe and Japan after the world wars, S. Korea after the Korean War).
In other words, while culture can play a major role in the success (or lack thereof) of a nation, it is (as can be seen by the success of several nations in the Middle East) by no means a sure-fire determinant of national success, and the other factors you listed are not as effectual as you seem to believe.
And one more thing - I listed China and Russia not because they are first-world democracies (which they certainly are not), but because of the degree of economic success they are both enjoying relative to recent great national turmoil.
The "First World" did not succeed due to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes. Rather, the "First World's" success led to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes.
One can understand that argument...but if the socialized programs were in any way a hindrance to the growth of the economy or the strength of the nation, then this should have been seen in the generations after such were adopted, particularly as compared to the growth and development of nations without those socialized programs.
I might also retort that the "First World" nations many here wish to emulate are homogeneous and small. Consider that their systems cannot be imported across the Atlantic.
Tell that to Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan, all of whom have followed the same model...especially considering the fact that Japan and S. Korea adopted these systems from the very beginning following utter devastation from war in the last century.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?