What's an activity that makes 9 out of 10 people happy?

I pay a 37 % income tax, not to mention Moms which is a 25 % Value Added Tax to everything you buy, and I feel pretty good about it.

If we could introduce a flat tax rate, I would feel much more morally justified in it too, as we now have a "progressive" tax so you have a higher income tax if you earn more. This is immoral, I think.

I'll add that in Denmark the unofficial minimum wage is around $18 before taxes, so we do have higher wages too.

I would also like to say that if you think of the greater good as in "do least harm" then relatively high taxes is a fair deal if you get rid of the completely extreme poverty, which Denmark for instance has.

I'd rather one family have one less care, than 9 others starve for a week, even if it's my (second) car.

>> ^gwiz665:

I pay a 37 % income tax, not to mention Moms which is a 25 % Value Added Tax to everything you buy, and I feel pretty good about it.


What's the citizenry diversity like where you're at? Is there a huge influx of immigrants from all continents coming over to become citizens?

Penn is such a great guy. I sometimes disagree the things he says, but still always enjoy listening to them. Obviously there has been a lot of discussion lately about how people should talk about politics and social issues. This guy is the template to follow. It is too bad he seems to have stopped doing the Penn Says videos.

All Viking, all awesome. The restrictions on immigration to Denmark are pretty high from outside of EU. We have some diversity, but far less than say the UK or US.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
I pay a 37 % income tax, not to mention Moms which is a 25 % Value Added Tax to everything you buy, and I feel pretty good about it.

What's the citizenry diversity like where you're at? Is there a huge influx of immigrants from all continents coming over to become citizens?

He is making the assumption that the rich people in Denmark are unhappy with high taxes. Some are, some may not be.

Which makes his defense of all rich people incorrect.

>> ^gwiz665:

All Viking, all awesome. The restrictions on immigration to Denmark are pretty high from outside of EU. We have some diversity, but far less than say the UK or US.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
I pay a 37 % income tax, not to mention Moms which is a 25 % Value Added Tax to everything you buy, and I feel pretty good about it.

What's the citizenry diversity like where you're at? Is there a huge influx of immigrants from all continents coming over to become citizens?


And that's the point. It's impossible to create a sustainable welfare system, which is a high tax for services system, and have open borders or even relaxed immigration. A big talking point in favor of high taxation from the left in America is that it works so well in places like Denmark, but they're culturally closed off.

Wouldn't it be a step back to have a world where all countries are open to tourism only with none open to immigration? That sounds horrible. I like that the US is open, albeit not open enough, to those seeking a better life. I just don't want to have to pay for them.

Moving this video to blankfist's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

I'd happily pay high taxes if it wasn't going to foot the bills of a corporately controlled system funneling money into executive bonuses and a worldwide war machine.

How many times does he have to say "Liberal friend?"

I upvote for the gangbang joke because it made me poop my pants laughing. 9 out of 10 is funny because one man or woman is unhappy because they are the receiver of the bang...

However, where do taxes and gangbangs go together? "Well, I'm not saying the government is raping you, your wife and your children, but I think they are raping you at least."

Either side of the collectivist debate can frame its argument in terms of individual rights. For instance:

The individual has the right to keep all the money he earns even if 90% of his fellow citizens would prefer he contribute some of it to run services that benefit everyone.

vs

The individual has the right not to starve to death even if 90% of his fellow citizens would rather not pay for his food stamps.

No side can claim sole ownership of any moral principle. In the end societies have to figure out some means of deciding what level of redistribution feels morally right for them. How do they do that? Usually majority rule. Every other solution is just some jerk on the internet proclaiming, "I think everyone should do what I say."

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Either side of the collectivist debate can frame its argument in terms of individual rights. For instance:
The individual has the right to keep all the money he earns even if 90% of his fellow citizens would prefer he contribute some of it to run services that benefit everyone.
vs
The individual has the right not to starve to death even if 90% of his fellow citizens would rather not pay for his food stamps.
No side can claim sole ownership of any moral principle. In the end societies have to figure out some means of deciding what level of redistribution feels morally right for them. How do they do that? Usually majority rule. Every other solution is just some jerk on the internet proclaiming, "I think everyone should do what I say."


Not exactly, there is a difference between a right "from" something and a right "to" something.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
All Viking, all awesome. The restrictions on immigration to Denmark are pretty high from outside of EU. We have some diversity, but far less than say the UK or US.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
I pay a 37 % income tax, not to mention Moms which is a 25 % Value Added Tax to everything you buy, and I feel pretty good about it.

What's the citizenry diversity like where you're at? Is there a huge influx of immigrants from all continents coming over to become citizens?

And that's the point. It's impossible to create a sustainable welfare system, which is a high tax for services system, and have open borders or even relaxed immigration. A big talking point in favor of high taxation from the left in America is that it works so well in places like Denmark, but they're culturally closed off.
Wouldn't it be a step back to have a world where all countries are open to tourism only with none open to immigration? That sounds horrible. I like that the US is open, albeit not open enough, to those seeking a better life. I just don't want to have to pay for them.


I'm just curious, but what's the supposed connection between immigration and the viability of a social safety net?

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm just curious, but what's the supposed connection between immigration and the viability of a social safety net?


The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.

So the response to this fear is a political push to close the borders. I think this is a horrible mistake, but I also agree that people shouldn't be forced to pay for other people. So, it's impossible to have a viable social safety net when you allow potentially anyone from the world to use it, but only a small number of citizens to pay for it.

It's a catch-22. I want open borders. Immigration only helps the economy. But welfare programs cannot be sustainable when the number of users outweighs the number of payers. In places like Denmark they keep their population exclusive, therefore they can afford certain entitlements nationally we could never enjoy in the States. At least not sustainably.

You disagree obviously?

>> ^blankfist:

The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.

I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a problem. Are you assuming all immigrants will be poor? That all immigrants will refuse to pay taxes?

I don't really see why population growth through immigration would be substantively different than population growth through birth. I can see why politically it would be viewed differently, but I don't think shrinking the social safety net would reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
The fear is that immigrants come over and are allowed access to certain entitlements. For instance, hospitals cannot turn anyone away, so some US citizens and immigrants use this loophole to receive free health care. When they don't pay their bills, the rest of us subsidize them.
I guess I'm still not sure why this would be a problem. Are you assuming all immigrants will be poor? That all immigrants will refuse to pay taxes?
I don't really see why population growth through immigration would be substantively different than population growth through birth. I can see why politically it would be viewed differently, but I don't think shrinking the social safety net would reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.


Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?

It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

Seriously blankie, what's with the hostility? Forgive me for just this once talking like a normal person and saying "all" when I should've said "disproportionately."

I was mostly just asking about whether you thought immigrants were a special class of people with different demographics than the indigenous population, because I don't see the how you link immigration to the solvency of a social safety net unless you presuppose that immigrants are either going to be disproportionately poor, or disproportionately likely to commit some form of fraud (tax or entitlement).

>> ^blankfist:
It's not that "all" immigrants are poor, it's that if you were poor and you realized you could go somewhere and have access to things you'd not normally have access to, then what're the odds of you exploiting that?
It's a numbers game. The more you allow for exploits in a system, the more it'll be exploited. Etc. Same goes with citizenry and citizenry birth. But the real difference, I believe, is that if you are stable in your home country, you're probably less likely to migrate somewhere just for the entitlements. The opposite is probably more likely however if you're not stable. Is that not a reasonable assumption?


So here's the part where I walk on eggshells and gently point out that you do seem to be saying that immigrants will be disproportionately likely to be poor or commit fraud.

You're also tossing in that you think native born citizens will be that way too. If that's the case, then we're back to "so what does immigration have to do with anything?"


Let's say we turned America into a Finnish-style welfare state -- taxes are high, infrastructure is modern and in good repair, our public schools are the best in the world, our health care system is both cost effective and provides quality care, unemployment is low, our budget is in surplus, our unemployment benefits are generous (and have no time limit), and we have a growing private sector with a heavy technology focus.

If we then threw the gates wide open on immigration, I think you're right; most of the people coming here would be poorer than the average American, and at least in the short run, it'd be bad for the government's net fiscal situation -- more people on welfare, without a completely offsetting tax revenue increase.

But over the long run, I think the situation would reverse. The immigrants and their children would get a free, quality education. They'd get first class health care. They'd have access to public transportation, and a healthy jobs market. For the most part, they'd "exploit" the advantages offered to them to bootstrap themselves into a more productive, wealthier, tax-paying lifestyle. In the long run, the state's investments in the human capital of those immigrants would pay dividends that go beyond mere economic growth, it'd also diversify and enrich the culture of their nation, and bring new ideas and different ways of thinking into the shared project of their society.

Which is to say, I don't think immigration poses a fiscal problem for welfare states.

Bigotry on the other hand, that poses a problem for left-wing policies of all kinds. I don't really think that's a strike against the policies of the left though.

Not trying to be hostile.

>> ^blankfist:

Two comments in and you're back to your old games again. Where did I say "all" immigrants will be poor or "all" immigrants will refuse to pay taxes? Notice I mentioned US citizens as well. But you probably missed that while only listening to what you wanted to hear.

I was asking a question, not impugning your character. What I got in response (quoted below) was an attack on my character.

Comes across as hostile to me.