Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...how-up-to-work



    Heaven on Earth?

    American progressives are mistaken to think the Scandinavian model is an argument for high taxes and subsidies.

    A small number of overwhelmingly white Northern European countries with a Christian cultural heritage or even a Protestant established church are, for quite a few American progressives, the place to turn to for public policy inspiration. This can probably be explained by a strong belief that those countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland, perhaps even Iceland, the Netherlands or Austria – are characterized by more equal outcomes, higher rates of social mobility, better public education and higher taxes. (I suppose that secularism, drug policy and bike lanes help as well.)

    The high taxes are particularly awesome, especially because they don’t seem to destroy everyone’s willingness to show up to work. Now, it is obviously infuriating to believe that other countries have discovered and implemented a technology to immanentize the eschaton, and that you could, too, if only your political opponents believed in science and weren’t so racist. Why, you ask, why, tell me why!


    Well, to the rescue comes Henrik Jacobsen Kleven, an economist at the London School of Economics, writing in the most recent number issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives – not quite a peer-reviewed journal, but as an outlet of the American Economic Association it does provide articles with at least a veneer of intellectual authority. Professor Kleven asks the question and les his article: “How Can Scandinavians Tax So Much?” He is Scandinavian himself, so perhaps he can tell us what he learned before he escaped Denmark’s high tax rates.

    Professor Kleven limits his analysis to Denmark, Sweden and oil-rich Norway because those countries are all generally associated with Abba instead of Björk, delicious cheese or Russian invasions. They are also small, prosperous countries, with an average population comparable in size but not in ethnic and cultural diversity to that of Massachusetts. Their joint population is smaller than that of the state of Texas.


    The good professor finds three quantifiable reasons that may explain why taxes in Scandinavia are high, yet the incentives to be productive remain. The first is third-party verification of taxable income. There is a lot of that in Scandinavia, but even so Scandinavia remains an outlier. The second one only seems to apply to Denmark: It has a clean and transparent tax system, without many loopholes and deductions. This keeps people from sheltering their income. It also keeps high-income foreigners from coming to or staying in your country. (Native Danes, in contrast, seem to be quite attached to their homeland.) Third, the Scandinavian countries subsidize a lot of things that are complementary to work – such as education, child care, elder care and transportation – thereby compensating for their high taxes. Here again, they are outliers. Other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries reach very similar participation rates with very low levels of such subsidies. Would those policies work in other countries? Perhaps. But perhaps they are all just manifestations of a highly productive public sector that the people like to put to use to do stuff.

    And there is more that sets Scandinavia apart. So far we have looked at fairly clear-cut correlations of quantifiable numbers between zero and one. But might policy and politics be downstream from culture? Well, that certainly appears to be the case once we look at Scandinavian culture. Scandinavians trust their fellow citizens. They think poor people have typically been unlucky instead of lazy. They vote actively and participate in civil society. They respect the rule of law, and they donate to charity. Professor Kleven recognizes all of these things, and ultimately chooses not to guess what causes what.


    Yet for the ambitions of American progressives, that distinction matters very much. If all of these things are so precisely because the Scandinavian countries are small and geneous and have been that way for quite some time, then there is not much to be learned from this Scandinavian business. The Scandinavians themselves seem quite confident that they know the answer: culture matters and that their countries are small and geneous matters. They are the most Euroskeptic peoples of the continent. Norway is not a member of the European Union, Sweden joined only recently, and none of the three adopted the eurozone’s common currency. They seem to like their small, geneous countries just fine. And perhaps that’s what Scandinavia ultimately teaches us: the value of subsidiarity, not of subsidies.

  2. #2
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    It's worth pointing out that it's not just rich that pay for all those goodies. They tax the out of their middle class.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    It's worth pointing out that it's not just rich that pay for all those goodies. They tax the out of their middle class.
    they get a lot in return.

    and "heaven on earth" is bull ridicule and strawman.

    Quality of life in Scandinavia and many Euro countries is higher for more people than in USA, as is socio-economic upward mobility.

    The American Dream is Dead.

  4. #4
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    So Darrin's argument is that minorities ruin everything.

  5. #5
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    they get a lot in return.

    and "heaven on earth" is bull ridicule and strawman.

    Quality of life in Scandinavia and many Euro countries is higher for more people than in USA, as is socio-economic upward mobility.

    The American Dream is Dead.
    "Quality of life" will never be as important as money in America.

    We've been conditioned to believe that which why the very thought of higher taxes is so appalling to some.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    I bet most American don't even have the concept of Quality of Life in their Tee Vee watchin heads

  7. #7
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I am a bit surprised that an analysis of those countries economic status did not include the sizeable effect of Norways sovereign wealth fund. $882Bn buys you an awful lot of income.

    "They think poor people have typically been unlucky instead of lazy." Far cry from our blame the victim culture driven by right-wing hysteria. If the author says that culture matters, and that is important to the success of a country, this would suggest, that progressives call for investment in poor people seem to bear fruit. A bit counter to what you and others here blather about.

    The article is, essentially, like so much you post here, a non sequitur. It begs the question, then refuses to quantify its underlying assertion, falling victim to the same thing it accuses progressives of.

    If you don't understand what I just said, that also would not surprise me.

    Culture matters, but the effects are ill defined.

    Can you quantify it, please? How much? What does it effect? Why do you think that?

  8. #8
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So Darrin's argument is that minorities ruin everything.
    Essentially.

    Together with "culture matters, and their culture that doesn't blame the poor for being poor", contributes to their overall well-being. Not quite saying what he thinks it does.

  9. #9
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    "Quality of life" will never be as important as money in America.

    We've been conditioned to believe that which why the very thought of higher taxes is so appalling to some.
    Agreed. We worship money in this country so much that we place it above most people.

  10. #10
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Bottom line -- it won't work here. I doubt the average American tax payer would stand for that level of taxation.

  11. #11
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Bottom line -- more emotive prose and PFA arguments from DarrinS.

  12. #12
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Bernie keeps talking about those billionaires. If you took the combined wealth of those billionaires and divided it equally, that would give a bit less than $7K for every person. That wouldn't even get you one semester at UTSA.

  13. #13
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Bernie keeps talking about those billionaires. If you took the combined wealth of those billionaires and divided it equally, that would give a bit less than $7K for every person. That wouldn't even get you one semester at UTSA.
    your math, and you, are always suspect, but give your solution to USA's World Champion (increasing) Inequality.

  14. #14
    Independent DMX7's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    21,198
    Agreed. We worship money in this country so much that we place it above most people.
    including ourselves, which is the most egregious thing.

  15. #15
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,144
    Believe it or not, younger generations care more about experiences and community and are willing to sacrifice a monetary "number" for those things. Our hostility towards taxation stems from a fairly unique American ideal of counting our money. That will go away as more boomers die off and more young people become voters. Not a moment too soon, either.

  16. #16
    coffee is for closers Infinite_limit's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Post Count
    8,148
    Believe it or not, younger generations care more about experiences and community and are willing to sacrifice a monetary "number" for those things.
    While you might be right, a big portion of this mindset is a byproduct of younger generation living at home & remaining jobless.

    Kinda how "every teenager" is a Liberal. By 30 years old, many have changed. More life experiences naturally turns most Americans conservative

  17. #17
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    Bernie keeps talking about those billionaires. If you took the combined wealth of those billionaires and divided it equally, that would give a bit less than $7K for every person. That wouldn't even get you one semester at UTSA.
    Making 4 year public ins utions free for all would accomplish at least the following:

    * Make college grades 13 - 16
    * Encourage even more idiots who have no chance of finishing college to run up debt on living expenses while they pretend to be academics - eventually, we'd probably have to eventually pay for that part, too; or just make college another public school, and the "kids" just live at home and go to the one most geographically convenient.
    * Put trade schools out of business - "can't compete with free"
    * Put private colleges without major endowments, or significant pedigrees out of business - can't compete with "free"
    * Make State colleges defacto National Colleges (that is where, after all, most of their money would come from)
    * Put more separation between the (now) massive cattle-call public ins utions and the elite private universities that remain. Essentially, the already advantaged upper-class, far from being threatened by this new rush of "college" graduates, would cement their position, until the revolution, at the top of society.


    Now free college CAN work; we just have to look to Norway for how to do it (from Wikipedia). Merit based, and limited. Free for all would be a disaster.

    Admission to bachelor level programs is coordinated through the Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service based on a point scale, with the highest ranking students offered a place. Points are awarded based on average grades from upper secondary school, but additional points are awarded students with secondary two-year course specialization, science specialization, age and fulfilled one year of higher education, military service or folk high school. Secondary school grades can be improved to increase points, but 40% of the places are only offered based on original transcripts without age or study points.
    What Scandinavia has that is sorely lacking across the American political landscape is common sense. Ideology and tribalism trumps everything else.

  18. #18
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "Making 4 year public ins utions free for all would accomplish at least the following:"

    Modify France's strategy: free college, and make the first year brutal to get rid of the dreck.

    and/or establish (and enforce) rigorous acceptance criteria.

    also, establish minimum grade average to be maintained all 4 years.

    iow, 4-year taxpayer colleges could be free, but they must ensure that taxpayers get their money's worth in serious students.



  19. #19
    Grab 'em by the pussy Splits's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Post Count
    25,330
    ^what are you talking about? He's not saying EVERYBODY gets into a 4-year university, he includes vocational schools and community "colleges". He even references Norway and Germany as examples.

  20. #20
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    "Making 4 year public ins utions free for all would accomplish at least the following:"

    Modify France's strategy: free college, and make the first year brutal to get rid of the dreck.

    and/or establish (and enforce) rigorous acceptance criteria.

    also, establish minimum grade average to be maintained all 4 years.

    iow, 4-year taxpayer colleges could be free, but they must ensure that taxpayers get their money's worth in serious students.


    I agree, but, seriously, does this country have the will to enforce those restrictions? What if they adversely affect minorities?

  21. #21
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    I agree, but, seriously, does this country have the will to enforce those restrictions? What if they adversely affect minorities?
    yep, exactly, just a "dream". America is increasingly ed up, esp K-12, and can't do , can't fix anymore.

  22. #22
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    ^what are you talking about? He's not saying EVERYBODY gets into a 4-year university, he includes vocational schools and community "colleges". He even references Norway and Germany as examples.
    This is from Sander's Site:

    Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. This legislationwould provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at publiccolleges and universities.Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Underthe College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states wouldbe responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protectstudents, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on theirhigher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,and provide professional development opportunities for professors.No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid,or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers.

  23. #23
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    ^what are you talking about? He's not saying EVERYBODY gets into a 4-year university, he includes vocational schools and community "colleges". He even references Norway and Germany as examples.
    I had assumed like you, but then I heard him at the debate, and looked it up. He said it, I read it, I stopped looking. If there's more that makes it more reasonable, I'd like to see it.

  24. #24
    Grab 'em by the pussy Splits's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Post Count
    25,330
    If tuition at public colleges today is $70 billion, and he wants to fund 2/3 of that at the federal level for a price tag of $47 billion, then by definition he is not increasing the number of people who get into public colleges. All for less than 10% of our military budget. Seems like money well spent.

  25. #25
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    If tuition at public colleges today is $70 billion, and he wants to fund 2/3 of that at the federal level for a price tag of $47 billion, then by definition he is not increasing the number of people who get into public colleges. All for less than 10% of our military budget. Seems like money well spent.
    So, a major "free college" government program, and enrollment remains static? Wouldn't, at least, people who currently attend private universities want to transfer to the free option? Some of those, ostensibly, would be better qualified than current attendees of the state school; would enrollment increase, or would those current (or potential) students be displaced?

    Also, part of his proposal is to "replace adjunct faculty with permanent". Doesn't that cost more (my wife's a tenured professor - the answer is "Yes")? Again, not static.

    And that's just a couple of thought threads related to this.

    Please think critically.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •