NationStates Jolt Archive

This hasn't thread hasn't taken the direction that I had hoped it would. Let's try again.

What do EU countries do that makes it possible to provide such generous benefits on a governmental level? Nothing is free, so the money to provide these benefits must come from taxation.

I'm going to assume that the average tax rates aren't too much higher that what we see in the U.S., although the VAT does make it hard to compare taxes. Is that the secret? There's income tax and VAT?

Or do the EU members unencumbered by the same budgetary constraints that we have? I'm thinking about Defense, mostly, but are there other areas where the U.S. spends much more in terms of GDP that do most EU nations?


This started in another thread, when I responded to a claim that workers were better off with all the state-mandated stuff that the E.U. requires employers to provide. I'm not sure that's untrue, but I'm also not sure that's what American workers really want. We were way off topic and I'm trying to behave, so it seemed like a good topic that would be interesting to discuss in its own thread.

What's the best way to go? Do we tax heavily and evenly distribute the spoils? Do we just give everyone an equal opportunity and let them keep their own spoils? What do we use to measure relative success between the two ideals, as demonstrated by the United States and the European Union?


If all one wants to achieve, financially, is mediocrity, Europe doesn't sound too bad. If one wants to be fantastically successful, the redistribution just won't let it be so. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but most business owners that I know never set out to just get by.

Mediocrity is a bit harsh of a word choice, don't you think? I mean, it's not like the average worker in the EU is barely ekeing out a living. They've traded a little ready cash for extended paid vacations, national health care, a working mass transit system and terrific unemployment protections among many other things. I'd be willing to bet that if you offered that sort of a package to the average American worker--even telling them what it would cost, tax wise--the majority would jump at it. And there still seem to be plenty of fantastically successful business owners in the EU.


If we measure success by how many millionaires a region supports, then the United States wins. If we measure success by how easy it is to start a viable business, I think the United States wins this too. Maybe it's by the size of the middle class? Maybe it's the productivity of the workers? There are a lot of yardsticks to consider.

Convince me that the socialism that is practiced in the EU is a better alternative to the near-socialism that is practiced in the U.S.

Dude, the EU is not just one big country like the US, and it's a flat out fallacy to try and compare them on that level. Blanket statements like "They're socialist" are meaningless in this context.

The real question is "better for who?" For someone in my income level, the answer is that a system more like the European one would be better, but I also have different priorities.

Here's some examples. Right now, a good sized chunk of my take-home pay goes into health insurance costs, and I'm glad to pay it, but I didn't always have the option, and I often sucked it up and stayed sick or let my teeth rot because of it. I'd certainly rather have had a state run insurance program. I'd rather have it now, as a matter of fact, because more people would benefit and it would be more efficient--look at the European systems and the per capita costs for proof of that.

Or take public transportation as another example. Europe has a fabulous one, continent wide. Now, here in the US, we'd be hard-pressed to recreate that because we don't have the population density, but we could certainly do a lot better than we are--it's a trade off, and again, people in the lower income classes would certainly benefit more from a working public transportation system.

And then there's quality of life issues. I like the mandated vacation time idea. I've made it work out for me personally because I work in education, but when I didn't, I'd have gladly taken that trade of a little lower wage but extended paid vacation time. Again--it's all about your priorities and which class you're hoping to benefit the most. Since I've spent all my life in the lower economic strata, it should be no suprise that I tend toward policies that favor my class.

I say it's better to give people equal opporunity and let them keep their spoils.

Or take public transportation as another example. Europe has a fabulous one, continent wide. Now, here in the US, we'd be hard-pressed to recreate that because we don't have the population density, but we could certainly do a lot better than we are--it's a trade off, and again, people in the lower income classes would certainly benefit more from a working public transportation system.
I prefer the Metro system in the Washington DC area to the system I used in London.

It's cleaner, cheaper, faster, and better run.

Dude, the EU is not just one big country like the US

There's also a great deal of variation among the US states. Maine has an average tax burden of 13% while Alaska has only 6.4%. That is, of course, in addition to Federal taxes.

Link for tax burden rates. (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.html#more)

There's also a great deal of variation among the US states. Maine has an average tax burden of 13% while Alaska has only 6.4%. That is, of course, in addition to Federal taxes.

Link for tax burden rates. (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005/index.html#more)

Wow, Maine beats New York, I'm suprised.

I prefer the Metro system in the Washington DC area to the system I used in London.

It's cleaner, cheaper, faster, and better run.

Yeah, but would you prefer the London Metro or the Broward county public transportation system? Hell, would you prefer the rail system that goes into the British suburbs or the Broward county public transportation system?

I think city Mass Transit would be possible, but to try to get a Mass Transit going for over 3,000 miles of our country would be impossible. Wait, don't Airliners count as mass transits?

I think city Mass Transit would be possible, but to try to get a Mass Transit going for over 3,000 miles of our country would be impossible. Wait, don't Airliners count as mass transits?

I would think so. But I'm not sure we can stand any more government involvement in air travel.

I would think so. But I'm not sure we can stand any more government involvement in air travel.

Eh that's true. It's time for the airlines to start doing some real competition without government interferance.

Government should not interfear in business and vice versa. They should be two seperate enities. (that's what I believe)

I think city Mass Transit would be possible, but to try to get a Mass Transit going for over 3,000 miles of our country would be impossible. Wait, don't Airliners count as mass transits?

Like I said, we don't have the population density to make a continent-wide rail system really feasible, and I didn't talk about airlines because I was thinking more along the lines of dual-use systems, both for locals and distance travel. Airlines aren't really useful for short hops.

Dude, the EU is not just one big country like the US, and it's a flat out fallacy to try and compare them on that level. Blanket statements like "They're socialist" are meaningless in this context.

Thanks for the civics lesson, pal. Here's one for you. The U.S. is just about as homogeneous as the EU, because of the large amount of autonomy given to the states. Would you prefer we compared Wisconsin to France, maybe?

Yeah, but would you prefer the London Metro or the Broward county public transportation system? Hell, would you prefer the rail system that goes into the British suburbs or the Broward county public transportation system?

Neither. I live where I live for a lot of excellent reasons, one of which is the incredible overlapping layers of excellent rail and bus service (including a fleet of environmentally friendly buses), and a plethora of walking trails.

Sure, it would be nice if the rest of the country had the same thing. But there are parts of the UK that have sparse public transit when compared to London - I'm sure that if the UK were as large as the US, you would have similar problems there.

Like I said, we don't have the population density to make a continent-wide rail system really feasible, and I didn't talk about airlines because I was thinking more along the lines of dual-use systems, both for locals and distance travel. Airlines aren't really useful for short hops.

There are such things as Air Taxi lol. They're popular in big cities like New York, San Fran. etc.

Like I said, we don't have the population density to make a continent-wide rail system really feasible, and I didn't talk about airlines because I was thinking more along the lines of dual-use systems, both for locals and distance travel. Airlines aren't really useful for short hops.
Amtrak would support that sort of idea, if there were a market. The Northeast is about as close as you can get to a European style rail system. They talk about light rail in North Georgia. It would never justify the costs required to run rails between Athens and Atlanta. Even then, we'd need something much better than MARTA to disperse the arriving commuters.

Wow, Maine beats New York, I'm suprised.

That's the state average. I'm sure NYCers are taxed at a far greater rate than any particular locality in Maine.

Amtrak would support that sort of idea, if there were a market. The Northeast is about as close as you can get to a European style rail system. They talk about light rail in North Georgia. It would never justify the costs required to run rails between Athens and Atlanta. Even then, we'd need something much better than MARTA to disperse the arriving commuters.

Meh, the only reason Amtrak is still around is because like the airlines it's being propped up by the government. Trust me if the government stayed out of business, Amtrak would be long gone as well as a few airlines.

Amtrak would support that sort of idea, if there were a market. The Northeast is about as close as you can get to a European style rail system. They talk about light rail in North Georgia. It would never justify the costs required to run rails between Athens and Atlanta. Even then, we'd need something much better than MARTA to disperse the arriving commuters.

It would take major redesigns of our major cities to make them pedestrian friendly, and I'm not sure there will be the political will to make that happen, even if we see $8.00 a gallon gasoline. I try to envision a system down here and it's a nightmare because everything is laid out for cars--developments that are miles from grocery stores and the like. Very little mixed use zoning.

It would take major redesigns of our major cities to make them pedestrian friendly, and I'm not sure there will be the political will to make that happen, even if we see $8.00 a gallon gasoline. I try to envision a system down here and it's a nightmare because everything is laid out for cars--developments that are miles from grocery stores and the like. Very little mixed use zoning.

Mixed-use areas are still few and far between, but less few and less far than they used to be. The time seems right in Atlanta, anyway, to develop this way. There is a large development called Atlantic Station, near Georgia Tech, that has really blossomed into something nice. There are a few more of these types of developments in the planning stages for more suburban areas.

I don't know that it's the way of the future, but for those of you that like city living, it seems to be on the rise.

I would think so. But I'm not sure we can stand any more government involvement in air travel.

We finally broke the government's reins on the air travel industry in the eighties in the US, and since then the price of air travel has gone down dramatically, there are more viable carriers, and more people are traveling by air. Even though some large companies, like TWA are gone, there's plenty of smaller firms, like AirTran, who pick up so much of the slack.

We finally broke the government's reins on the air travel industry in the eighties in the US, and since then the price of air travel has gone down dramatically, there are more viable carriers, and more people are traveling by air. Even though some large companies, like TWA are gone, there's plenty of smaller firms, like AirTran, who pick up so much of the slack.

The only downside is that they seem to be going in and out of bankruptcy on a regular basis.

The only downside is that they seem to be going in and out of bankruptcy on a regular basis.

Again, that reflects the legacy costs of unionization. It's probably even more clear in the airline industry, because most other contributing factors are similar between airlines. Unions and their associated costs will ruin an airline. The airlines that turn profits don't unionize. The airlines that fail do.

The only downside is that they seem to be going in and out of bankruptcy on a regular basis.

That's because after so many years of severe government regulation and stagnation, the airline industry is still working to fix itself. There are finally some profitable airlines coming online, with companies like Southwest turning an profit, even in the months after the September Eleventh attacks, when nobody would get on a plane.

Wealth distribution is institutionalised theft. Thus, the USA. by the expediant of having lower levels of taxation, wins.

Convince me that the socialism that is practiced in the EU is a better alternative to the near-socialism that is practiced in the U.S.

Socialism is practised in the E.U.? Really?

Deregulation and liberalization will cause initial economic shocks, which is an unfortunate fact, but the shocks are caused because of the inefficiency bred under the regime of regulation. The market forces these firms that have been so uncompetitive for so long to finally fix themselves or die. Once the market has done it's repair, the stagnation that is experienced under regulation and Keynesian systems will slowly die off.


Have you ever had a dermatologist freeze a wart off of your finger? I did once, the Liquid Nitrogen hurt like hell right off, and there was a bit of a sting for a couple of days afterwards, but after that I've never seen a sign of another wart anywhere on my finger, and that bit of pain was worth it.

Proud to say as an american that the EU does it better. The welfare society is crap, and real capitalism is the only way to go. I'm not saying that I like to eat poor people, but what I am saying is that supporting people for little to no reason encourages laziness. The welfare society is the biggest obstacle to economic progress, not only because it allows people to gain without contributing, but it also costs the governments money which can have adverse affects on inflation which is also bad for the economy on top of the fact that it increases deficit spending. And don't get all up in my face for being a republican bastard, cause I vote democrat. I don't care much for the bush tax cut and I think this republican congress and administration has been the greatest plight on this country in the history of these United States because it has cost our people some of their freedom and needless spending has gone completely out of control. Bottom line: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need is a great way to stagnate any sort of advancement in society because there is no incentive for the strong or intelligent to innovate.

Proud to say as an american that the EU does it better. The welfare society is crap, and real capitalism is the only way to go. I'm not saying that I like to eat poor people, but what I am saying is that supporting people for little to no reason encourages laziness. The welfare society is the biggest obstacle to economic progress, not only because it allows people to gain without contributing, but it also costs the governments money which can have adverse affects on inflation which is also bad for the economy on top of the fact that it increases deficit spending. And don't get all up in my face for being a republican bastard, cause I vote democrat. I don't care much for the bush tax cut and I think this republican congress and administration has been the greatest plight on this country in the history of these United States because it has cost our people some of their freedom and needless spending has gone completely out of control. Bottom line: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need is a great way to stagnate any sort of advancement in society because there is no incentive for the strong or intelligent to innovate.

Good man. I do so wish I was American at times.

This started in another thread, when I responded to a claim that workers were better off with all the state-mandated stuff that the E.U. requires employers to provide. I'm not sure that's untrue, but I'm also not sure that's what American workers really want. We were way off topic and I'm trying to behave, so it seemed like a good topic that would be interesting to discuss in its own thread.

What's the best way to go? Do we tax heavily and evenly distribute the spoils? Do we just give everyone an equal opportunity and let them keep their own spoils? What do we use to measure relative success between the two ideals, as demonstrated by the United States and the European Union?


If we measure success by how many millionaires a region supports, then the United States wins. If we measure success by how easy it is to start a viable business, I think the United States wins this too. Maybe it's by the size of the middle class? Maybe it's the productivity of the workers? There are a lot of yardsticks to consider.

Convince me that the socialism that is practiced in the EU is a better alternative to the near-socialism that is practiced in the U.S.You aren't going to have equality of opportunity without opportunity of outcome. With that said, I'm not certain that Americans would prefer an EU style system. The Horatio Alger myth is prevalent.

Socialism is practised in the E.U.? Really?

Near-socialism practiced in the US? Where?

The "welfare" system in the US is a disgrace to the word welfare as it is a piss-poor combination of supporting those who need help and the inherent American hatred of the idea of welfare.

You aren't going to have equality of opportunity without opportunity of outcome. With that said, I'm not certain that Americans would prefer an EU style system. The Horatio Alger myth is prevalent.
Only now it's called the Bill Gates myth. It's really a shame, too, because I've seen a study recently which suggests class mobility is far more likely in the EU than it is in the US, but we're the ones who believe it.

The only downside is that they seem to be going in and out of bankruptcy on a regular basis.

Well, you have a quadruple threat: a 700% rise in oil prices since 1998, legacy costs from the pre-deregulation days, the 9/11 attacks/2001 recession, and the significant amount of overcapacity in the airlines all combine to make them lose a lot of money.

Thankfully, the airlines and the economy have recovered from 9/11 and they have reduced excess capacity so most of them are going to thrive post-bankruptcy. I think both Delta and United are looking at profits this year...the industry is on the rebound, but there were a lot of losses that enabled them to get there.

Near-socialism practiced in the US? Where?
You mean they don't practice uber-Commie luv!1!!1! in the home of Capitalism!? :eek:

Only now it's called the Bill Gates myth. It's really a shame, too, because I've seen a study recently which suggests class mobility is far more likely in the EU than it is in the US, but we're the ones who believe it.Yes, exactly. I suppose it's either that, or people think they're going to win the lottery and don't want to be taxed...at any rate, winning the lottery is more likely to happen.

Well, you have a quadruple threat: a 700% rise in oil prices since 1998, legacy costs from the pre-deregulation days, the 9/11 attacks/2001 recession, and the significant amount of overcapacity in the airlines all combine to make them lose a lot of money.

You forget competition from the no-frills, low cost airlines that are making real profits. The legacy airlines started trying to compete with the low-cost airlines in lower costs but not in lower frills and they screwed themselves over there too.

And, if the American dream, "Bill Gates myth," were prevalent and every Tom, Dick, and Harry founded their own successful, extremely rich corporation, the moon would be called "America" and we would be fucking living there.

Thanks for the civics lesson, pal. Here's one for you. The U.S. is just about as homogeneous as the EU, because of the large amount of autonomy given to the states. Would you prefer we compared Wisconsin to France, maybe?

Well, therefore isn't it just as stupid to say all the US is near-socialist (which is BS) as it is to say all the EU is (just as BS)?

Near-socialism practiced in the US? Where?

The "welfare" system in the US is a disgrace to the word welfare as it is a piss-poor combination of supporting those who need help and the inherent American hatred of the idea of welfare.

The American 'welfare' system has rapidly evolved, much to the counter of what many of the doomsayers have predicted. Welfare reform under Clinton turned out to be a very successful formula.

The American 'welfare' system has rapidly evolved, much to the counter of what many of the doomsayers have predicted. Welfare reform under Clinton turned out to be a very successful formula.Solely because it accompanied an increase in employment.

Well, therefore isn't it just as stupid to say all the US is near-socialist (which is BS) as it is to say all the EU is (just as BS)?

With what label would you characterize an economic system that allows private ownership, but redistributes wealth? That's not capitalism, it's really not socialism, either, but it's a lot closer.

Solely because it accompanied an increase in employment.

Which is partially due to the benefits of deregulation of the economy, economic growth and several other factors that any neo-liberal swoons over.

Yes, exactly. I suppose it's either that, or people think they're going to win the lottery and don't want to be taxed...at any rate, winning the lottery is more likely to happen.Yeah, I admit I play the lottery occasionally. In my darker moments I refer to buying a ticket as "investing in my retirement plan," though I'm certainly not counting on that. :p

This started in another thread, when I responded to a claim that workers were better off with all the state-mandated stuff that the E.U. requires employers to provide. I'm not sure that's untrue, but I'm also not sure that's what American workers really want.
Let the American workers vote for what they want. I won't try to stop them.

We were way off topic and I'm trying to behave, so it seemed like a good topic that would be interesting to discuss in its own thread.
Good choice.

What's the best way to go? Do we tax heavily and evenly distribute the spoils? Do we just give everyone an equal opportunity and let them keep their own spoils?
Well, the European position is more similar to the second than the first. Few Europeans are interested in forcing equality of output á la ideological communism. European governments try to give everyone an equal opportunity and let them keep their own money, taking what is necessary to give everyone in the next generation an equal opportunity.

What do we use to measure relative success between the two ideals, as demonstrated by the United States and the European Union?

The maximum quality of life for the maximum amount of people.

The EU's ideals aren't significantly different to those of the US. We both have free market economies.

Convince me that the socialism that is practiced in the EU is a better alternative to the near-socialism that is practiced in the U.S.
Socialism is practiced in Cuba, not Europe.

I prefer the Metro system in the Washington DC area to the system I used in London.

It's cleaner, cheaper, faster, and better run.
Must have been those commie Democrats who monopolise power in DC, or so you led me to believe.

The Tube, on the other hand, (I think) was subject to Thatcher's transport privatisation in the 1980s.

I think city Mass Transit would be possible, but to try to get a Mass Transit going for over 3,000 miles of our country would be impossible. Wait, don't Airliners count as mass transits?
The have a line in Australia that goes from Sydney to Perth. That's pretty long. I think train travel could be cheaper and less polluting than air travel.

Government should not interfear in business and vice versa. They should be two seperate enities. (that's what I believe)
Extremism is so easy. You have your position and you stick to it. Reality be damned.

They talk about light rail in North Georgia. It would never justify the costs required to run rails between Athens and Atlanta.
Depends on how many people would use it. Recently a feasablity study was done for rebuilding a railway line from Sligo to Limerick in my country. The projected cost was €530 million, but the projected daily number of passengers was a mere 750. For obvious reasons the idea stopped there.

Incidentally, were Georgian cities named by Greeks?

The airlines that turn profits don't unionize. The airlines that fail do.
If what I've heard about the wages of pilots in the US are true, I don't blame them for trying to unionise.

Wealth distribution is institutionalised theft.
No it isn't.

Only now it's called the Bill Gates myth. It's really a shame, too, because I've seen a study recently which suggests class mobility is far more likely in the EU than it is in the US, but we're the ones who believe it.

I think I remember reading something about that, too. However, I would discredit the entire idea of that study. It is easier to move classes in Europe than it is here in the US because of the nature of the European Economies. With the exception of Luxemburg most European countries have GDP per capita numbers that are significantly lower than they are in the US. Based on the fundamentals of GDP growth (easier to grow faster when you're smaller) class mobility would be easier in those places. But in terms of quality of living (which in economic terms is defined as GDP per-capita) almost all of Europe is catching up to us still. The European economy is where the US economy was in the late 1980s or early 1990s in my opinion, and the sky is the limit. The question is, when push comes to shove, with the EU governments get out of the way and let nature take its course. You also have to take under account that class mobility isn't hard when your country averages an unemployment rate between 10 and 20% like the European countries do, where as here in the US our U rate is around 4.8%.

You also have to take under account that class mobility isn't hard when your country averages an unemployment rate between 10 and 20% like the European countries do, where as here in the US our U rate is around 4.8%.Shouldn't lower unemployment make it easier to have class mobility, as it's easier to get a job, and also a better job?

Shouldn't lower unemployment make it easier to have class mobility, as it's easier to get a job, and also a better job?

That is what I'm saying with that. Basically my point with that whole post is that the whole study was crap because it is rigged against the US.

wealthy redistribution is just rong. leave things the way they are. we are ot the government's toys!!

wealthy redistribution is just rong. leave things the way they are. we are ot the government's toys!!

Just the capitalists'?

Only now it's called the Bill Gates myth. It's really a shame, too, because I've seen a study recently which suggests class mobility is far more likely in the EU than it is in the US, but we're the ones who believe it.
I've read piece after piece that makes it sound like we don't have the permanently poor that you're alluding to. Now, I have to find one of those before you'll believe me, but it should be possible. Anyhow, the effect is that the present day poor, lowest 20 percent, or however you care to measure them, don't stay in that group forever. Or for long. So we're far from having a fixed social structure.

You are aware that said nations within the EU are made up of smaller provinces... right? In some cases, such as Germany, these provinces have a suprising amount of autonomy. Thus your comparison between one country and a huge patchwork of loosely affiliated nations isn't really fair.

I won't deny that on average the United States is less federalised than your typical European country (what the heck is typical anyway?), but the states in the US are a world away from seperate countries. I think the civil war pretty much cleared up that misconception.

This hasn't thread hasn't taken the direction that I had hoped it would. Let's try again.

What do EU countries do that makes it possible to provide such generous benefits on a governmental level? Nothing is free, so the money to provide these benefits must come from taxation.

I'm going to assume that the average tax rates aren't too much higher that what we see in the U.S., although the VAT does make it hard to compare taxes. Is that the secret? There's income tax and VAT?

Or do the EU members unencumbered by the same budgetary constraints that we have? I'm thinking about Defense, mostly, but are there other areas where the U.S. spends much more in terms of GDP that do most EU nations?

What do EU countries do that makes it possible to provide such generous benefits on a governmental level? Nothing is free, so the money to provide these benefits must come from taxation.

I'm going to assume that the average tax rates aren't too much higher that what we see in the U.S., although the VAT does make it hard to compare taxes. Is that the secret? There's income tax and VAT?

It's VAT. In Ireland, VAT is 21%. Last year my government got almost as much revenue from VAT as from income tax. Sweden has 25% VAT. In America, I understand, 10% VAT is considered high.

Defence budgets vary. My country spends very little on defence, while France probably spends a lot more. Though none spend as much as the US does.

This hasn't thread hasn't taken the direction that I had hoped it would. Let's try again.

What do EU countries do that makes it possible to provide such generous benefits on a governmental level? Nothing is free, so the money to provide these benefits must come from taxation.

I'm going to assume that the average tax rates aren't too much higher that what we see in the U.S., although the VAT does make it hard to compare taxes. Is that the secret? There's income tax and VAT?

Or do the EU members unencumbered by the same budgetary constraints that we have? I'm thinking about Defense, mostly, but are there other areas where the U.S. spends much more in terms of GDP that do most EU nations?Defense spending in the US is the largest non-discretionary part of the budget, from what I understand, and we spend more than the next twenty countries on the list, so that's got to be part of the difference. Also, and I may be wrong on this, the US runs much higher yearly deficits and has a larger national debt than the EU does, so some of the difference in tax rates may be overstated because of that--we're not bringing in as much usable revenue as we might because we're having to service all that debt.

It looks like what it comes down to is that we're stuck. Even if we wanted to provide all the goodies that E.U. countries can provide to their citizens, we would have to do two things. First, we'd need to cut the defense budget to a lower level than anyone in the U.S. would accept. Second, we'd need to invent a creative and insidious tax like the VAT in order to raise the additional revenue for these benefits.

It's VAT. In Ireland, VAT is 21%. Last year my government got almost as much revenue from VAT as from income tax. Sweden has 25% VAT. In America, I understand, 10% VAT is considered high.

Defence budgets vary. My country spends very little on defence, while France probably spends a lot more. Though none spend as much as the US does.
We don't have a VAT. I guess you could make the case that corporate income taxes are similar to VATs. There are retail sales taxes, but that's only on the retail level. You are correct, though, that a 10% retail sales tax is considered high.

You also have to remember that we (the US) spend 20% of our budget on defence and even more on a huge space program. Compared to European budgets, that's a good 5-10% more money that we spend.

Shouldn't lower unemployment make it easier to have class mobility, as it's easier to get a job, and also a better job?

Unemployment makes it very difficult to get a job, and makes the job market a lot more competitive so people are willing to take crappier jobs. The thing is that in Europe, although unemployment is high, it's very difficult to fire employees (laws often require them to be allowed to stay on the job for a year or more before being laid off), which means that social mobility is poor and it's hard for immigrants and the lower class to get work (hence the riots in France). So having a secure job comes at a price, because a less competitive job market means that less qualified or uneeded people are allowed to stay.

It looks like what it comes down to is that we're stuck. Even if we wanted to provide all the goodies that E.U. countries can provide to their citizens, we would have to do two things. First, we'd need to cut the defense budget to a lower level than anyone in the U.S. would accept. Second, we'd need to invent a creative and insidious tax like the VAT in order to raise the additional revenue for these benefits.

The defense budget, like most government budgets, has alot of spending in the area of finding the nearest canyon and dumping alot of cash into it. If government budgets were reigned in and accounting was accountable, we could cut the budget and effectively lose nothing.
Where I live is a major tech area containing many big name corporations and a bunch of government employed free-lancers off and on. Everyone wants a government project because they get so much money they have to try to spend it before the next financial assesment.

The defense budget, like most government budgets, has alot of spending in the area of finding the nearest canyon and dumping alot of cash into it. If government budgets were reigned in and accounting was accountable, we could cut the budget and effectively lose nothing.
Where I live is a major tech area containing many big name corporations and a bunch of government employed free-lancers off and on. Everyone wants a government project because they get so much money they have to try to spend it before the next financial assesment.

That's probably what it looks like from the outside. The truth is that there isn't a lot of fat in most government contracts. Anymore, most of them are firm, fixed price, so when materials go up or something goes wrong with the design, the subcontractor sucks it up.

Some contracts go to questionable purposes, however. Let's look at the Space Coast for an example. We bid and were awarded a small < $500K project for NASA. The prime contractor was awarded a great deal more, but it looks like the only thing they spent it on was auditing us. Of course, the audits were required by their contract with the Air Force because they don't want to buy anymore $500 hammers. The end result, though, is that the excessive auditing has cost the taxpayers a lot more than a couple $500 hammers ever could.

That's probably what it looks like from the outside. The truth is that there isn't a lot of fat in most government contracts. Anymore, most of them are firm, fixed price, so when materials go up or something goes wrong with the design, the subcontractor sucks it up.
Every single person around here who has ever had a government contract will disagree with you. Every single one volunteers the information that government contracts will just bury you in money for what anyone else would pay peanuts for because it is such easy work.
At least 40% of any government budget is black hole cash.

Every single person around here who has ever had a government contract will disagree with you. Every single one volunteers the information that government contracts will just bury you in money for what anyone else would pay peanuts for because it is such easy work.
At least 40% of any government budget is black hole cash.
Find one that shares that opinion about DoD programs. Support that 40% figure with some facts. I know it's a popular thing to demagogue, but the facts don't support it. The government may spend a bundle of money on the wrong things, but when I deal with the DoD, the accounting is very accurate.

DoD spending (like every department) varies greatly. Some projects they go hyper-anal-retentive on, requiring massive accounting and auditing. Some projects get only a cursory glance. Some contracts are bare-bones with hardly any fat at all, while others are very pork-barrel.

The problem is that the fatty contracts raise so much attention that the departments are forced to impose more restrictions and compliance costs on all contracts. This is largely counter productive because the ultra-fatty contracts are politically connected and are thus immune to the newer regulations, while the poorly connected government contractor gets screwed even harder.

----------------------------------

On a slightly related note – I was at a little seminar about grants for rural energy development (seeing if we could get financial assistance to put up solar panels on the barn or set up a windmill generator) and heard something appalling.

DofAg definition of a ‘small’ business (and thus eligible for government assistance meant to help family farms compete) are those making less than $100 million a year. Were the limit simply undefined I would not have such a problem with it – I find it appalling because someone actually had to sign off on this. Why thought $100,000,000 a year income was ‘small’?

Of course the reason for this is because it is much easier to get money approved if it is advertised as some grants to help small family farms modernize, so the general public won’t complain too much but the money still goes to some large corporation where their friends work.

Or do the EU members unencumbered by the same budgetary constraints that we have? I'm thinking about Defense, mostly, but are there other areas where the U.S. spends much more in terms of GDP that do most EU nations?Corporate welfare, presumably.

It looks like what it comes down to is that we're stuck. Even if we wanted to provide all the goodies that E.U. countries can provide to their citizens, we would have to do two things. First, we'd need to cut the defense budget to a lower level than anyone in the U.S. would accept. Second, we'd need to invent a creative and insidious tax like the VAT in order to raise the additional revenue for these benefits.Or just raise income taxes.

Unemployment makes it very difficult to get a job, and makes the job market a lot more competitive so people are willing to take crappier jobs. The thing is that in Europe, although unemployment is high, it's very difficult to fire employees (laws often require them to be allowed to stay on the job for a year or more before being laid off), which means that social mobility is poor and it's hard for immigrants and the lower class to get work (hence the riots in France). So having a secure job comes at a price, because a less competitive job market means that less qualified or uneeded people are allowed to stay.In which case it seems odd that there is more class mobility in Europe. Then again, I imagine you're arguing against the idea that there is more class mobility there, but I find it rather hard to believe that there wouldn't be.

We don't have a VAT. I guess you could make the case that corporate income taxes are similar to VATs. There are retail sales taxes, but that's only on the retail level. You are correct, though, that a 10% retail sales tax is considered high.
Isn't sales tax the same as VAT? SAles tax is added onto the price of a product, right?

We also have corporate income taxes. In Ireland it's pretty low at 12.5%, in Germany it's 25% and I think it's around 33% in Sweden.

No it isn't.

Actually, by the strict definition, it is.

Actually, by the strict definition, it is.
Elaborate.

Elaborate.

Wealth redistribution entails the forcible removal of wealth from one individual, and its distribution amongst those less well off. Given that taxation is never conducted with the volition of the rich, it constitutes instiutionalised theft.

Wealth redistribution entails the forcible removal of wealth from one individual, and its distribution amongst those less well off. Given that taxation is never conducted with the volition of the rich, it constitutes instiutionalised theft.
It's only theft if justice is violated. The rich didn't necessarily deserve all the money they have, and they tend to benefit from government spending more than the rest. Also, many of the rich do accept the necessity of taxation, so it's not without volition.

Just the capitalists'?

no what i am saying is that we should leave things as is, let it change on its own, instead of stealing.

It's only theft if justice is violated. The rich didn't necessarily deserve all the money they have, and they tend to benefit from government spending more than the rest. Also, many of the rich do accept the necessity of taxation, so it's not without volition.

Justice is violated. The society you cite as evidence would arrest, convict and imprison Robin Hood, despote his "moral justification", hence, by the moral presuppositions of said society, taxation is theft.

Justice is violated. The society you cite as evidence would arrest, convict and imprison Robin Hood, despote his "moral justification", hence, by the moral presuppositions of said society, taxation is theft.
Are you saying that 12th-century England was an ideal society?