The global recession and an ideological shift?

jank

I thought the election of Obama was the end of Reaganism?

_Nuno_

jank wrote: »

I thought the election of Obama was the end of Reaganism?

It all goes in cycles I'd say, there's no end....

jank

Yea thats my point! Some people are saying that we need more reaganism to get out of this hole. :eek:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree that it isn't simple or clear, I'm mostly throwing the idea out there so people can debate what constitutes contribution to the state and whether everyone should get a vote. The dole is not the same as disability, it implies being able to return to work, also I used the term household to specifically exclude stay-at-home mothers from being categorised as the same as drawers of the dole. The biggest issue for any Dole =! contribution idea is single mothers. They don't have much of a choice about working a lot of the time and might be forced to draw the Dole for years while the children are young given that we don't have State provided childcare.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No system will ever be perfect and a tweek here and there could lead to a distortion elsewhere in a system, sometimes things are best left alone, and during a recession tinkering with the dole entitlment is probably not the best time to look at the issue.

Kama

Deriving your political voice from economic participation is a bridge too far for me; besides the 'deserving poor' donegal mentioned, assume some structural unemployment, correlate it with race and class imbalances, and it starts smelling a mite dystopian to me.

Flipping my ideology, I'm doubtful of its effectivity as a punitive strategy; voting rates among the non-propertied unemployed aren't exactly high to begin with, if its justification is as 'stick' imo its a poor one.

Voting as qualified privilege rather than right seems a worrying trajectory to me; all fits neatly onto the Giddensian rights/responsibilities dependence. But contra Caplan et al, I have a bias against disenfranchising.

But if you need slogans maybe try 'No representation without taxation'?

The idea that the free market is equivalent to black market anarchism is another canard.

Rothbard seems pretty close, to name one, not that I'm entirely unsympathetic. There's a pretty popular trend of 'popular libertarianism' in response to confiscatory taxation; tax avoidance if you have a good accountant, tax evasion if ya don't If taxation is coercive and illegitimate, withholding is morally justified, and hits the oppressive State where it hurts. Take their vote away?

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree. I sincerely believe it'll never happen. This is at best a thought experiment.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The problem is that the social cost of cutting down or removing the dole from long term users is that it incurs a potentially large social cost both in terms of hardship and potentially increased crime levels. Other ways of incentivising people off the dole have to be considered I think.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

But if you need slogans maybe try 'No representation without taxation'?

Well it was a worry for late 19th and early 20th century that giving representation to those who didn't pay (direct) taxation would only result in a redirection of government expenditure to those who did not pay taxation with no regard for what might be in the best interests of the nation.

The theory being that if the ratio of voters to taxpayers greatly exceeded unity that this effect would be very pronounced (i.e. simply because there would be representatives whose sole mandate was to capture a large portion of taxation for their (untaxed) constituency) as well as (more problematically) raising direct taxes. The core concept being that taxation must be at the will of the people paying it or their representatives and that to allow any group who do not pay direct taxation to have a say in the level of direct taxation violates this.


(I don't necessarily agree with the above, I just think it's an interesting way of looking at it). For reference the ratio of voters to direct taxpayers is a bit below 2:1 in most developed countries from what I remember. I think the point is less relevant today because of the substantial shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation, but it is still interesting from a taxation only with representation perspective.

Kama

nesf wrote: »

Well it was a worry for late 19th and early 20th century that giving representation to those who didn't pay (direct) taxation would only result in a redirection of government expenditure to those who did not pay taxation with no regard for what might be in the best interests of the nation.

All hinges on defining 'best interests', or perhaps 'nation'...

A 'view from below' would invert this, that making representation the perogative of the propertied classes (Ireland, fr'instance, has been described as a 'property-owning democracy') would result in a direction of government policy towards themselves, organizational capture, with no regards for the best interests of the less-privileged internal 'Nation'.

It does return to the sticking-point of whether one considers redistribution to effect freedom, or retard it, disregarding the rights-based argument for a mo.


On incentivising people off, if the private sector is unable to absorb them, does this not necessarily mean an increase in the public sector? Enforced public service? Obviously distorts labour market, not exactly the libertarian wet-dream.

I know in Denmark (evil Nordic confiscatory regime that it is) the welfare apparatus is unwilling to let people rot on the dole, they push them towards jobs in the more social economy, creating them if need be. What other avenues does anyone see?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

All hinges on defining 'best interests', or perhaps 'nation'...

A 'view from below' would invert this, that making representation the perogative of the propertied classes (Ireland, fr'instance, has been described as a 'property-owning democracy') would result in a direction of government policy towards themselves, organizational capture, with no regards for the best interests of the less-privileged internal 'Nation'.

There was at the time though something worthwhile to this. Indirect taxation was very low and the main tax burden (i.e. direct taxation) was only ever levied on those with a vote. Part of the "deal" was if someone didn't have a vote, they wouldn't be subject to income taxation (in the late 19th/early 20th century British government at least, in earlier times the very much different and wholly unjust approach of taxing those with no representation was very much evident).

There is no obviously fair answer to this question I think. Allowing the untaxed to have a large say in the setting of tax levels breaks is not obviously just or fair (to allow them to have a large say on the redistribution of taxation might be though). Conversely a state where the law, redistribution and taxation levels are set only by the "propertied classes" presents a serious opportunity for abuse with respect to the "lower classes".

Kama wrote: »

It does return to the sticking-point of whether one considers redistribution to effect freedom, or retard it, disregarding the rights-based argument for a mo.

Or perhaps it's better to consider what is excessive redistribution. Some redistribution reaps large social gains (lower crime, less hardship etc). That doesn't imply that all redistribution levels are desirable though.

Kama wrote: »

On incentivising people off, if the private sector is unable to absorb them, does this not necessarily mean an increase in the public sector? Enforced public service? Obviously distorts labour market, not exactly the libertarian wet-dream.

I know in Denmark (evil Nordic confiscatory regime that it is) the welfare apparatus is unwilling to let people rot on the dole, they push them towards jobs in the more social economy, creating them if need be. What other avenues does anyone see?

I honestly don't know. It's the product of having a generous welfare system that it will attract free riders. Creating public sector jobs doesn't necessarily help matters since these people could be extremely demotivated and uncooperative. Conversely you're quite right in noting that the private sector won't always be able to take up the slack and that it's hardly just or fair to punish people because of circumstance (i.e. in a recession even people who are genuinely seeking work may not be able to find any within a year).



In short: Universal Suffrage is often presented as a costless good for society. I'm beginning to question this (I haven't made my mind up about it though). What is the cost of it and what are its benefits?

Kama

Anti-democratic arguments seem to be gaining ground lately...last family gathering I attended there was strongly voiced support for suspending the democratic process for a coterie of 'wise men'/CEO's to run Ireland Inc as a transitional government, due to the deficits of democracy as above.

Historically, isn't this common in times of economic uncertainty?

nesf wrote: »

Part of the "deal" was if someone didn't have a vote, they wouldn't be subject to income taxation.

If this 'deal' was offered again, there could well be a few takers...It's an interesting idea, though one I'm biased against. Global recession + democratic retrenchment seems...ugly to my eye.

Or perhaps it's better to consider what is excessive redistribution. Some redistribution reaps large social gains (lower crime, less hardship etc). That doesn't imply that all redistribution levels are desirable though.

Harking back to the ideal technocratic rulers versus democracy/ochlocracy, should our society be based primarily on evidence-based policy, or the popular will? As with Lisbon, are the people allowed to be wrong?

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It could be argued as well IMO that Governments appear politically unwilling to raise direct taxation as well in the form of eg income taxe. In the UK the Labour Government appear very reluctant to raise the rates, as many see it as political suicide. So often what could be good for the country in the form of more revenue, is stopped by political considerations, the same applies here in Ireland methinks. To my mind that is wrong, as logic should dictate that the country should come first not the considerations of the ruling political party/parties ( and re election).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It could be argued as well IMO that Governments appear politically unwilling to raise direct taxation as well in the form of eg income taxe. In the UK the Labour Government appear very reluctant to raise the rates, as many see it as political suicide. So often what could be good for the country in the form of more revenue, is stopped by political considerations, the same applies here in Ireland methinks. To my mind that is wrong, as logic should dictate that the country should come first not the considerations of the ruling political party/parties ( and re election).

The raising of taxes is a poor choice on you part , there is no conclusive evidence that raising taxes going into a depression is a good thing and in fact may make things worse, for once "mob rule" might be on the side of the angels

Mr.Micro

silverharp wrote: »

The raising of taxes is a poor choice on you part , there is no conclusive evidence that raising taxes going into a depression is a good thing and in fact may make things worse, for once "mob rule" might be on the side of the angels

I do not want to see people being taxed more, especially in a recession, but sometimes an increase is inevitable especially if services for the poor, unemployed, public services are drastically cut because of lack of money which has to be borrowed. To my mind taking something away is as good as tax hike, but the former is perhaps politically the lesser of 2 evils politically?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Aw now come on now, I did not advocate such rates of 35% 60% or a return to the dark ages, sure was'nt I there myself. 1% here and there might help. The thing is I do believe, like several other countries, were are in unchartered waters and there will be no easy or painless solutions.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Anti-democratic arguments seem to be gaining ground lately...last family gathering I attended there was strongly voiced support for suspending the democratic process for a coterie of 'wise men'/CEO's to run Ireland Inc as a transitional government, due to the deficits of democracy as above.

Historically, isn't this common in times of economic uncertainty?

I imagine so, boom times tend to strongly magnify the problems of democracy (the power of unions, moneyed interests and others in retrospect shows itself very clearly a la the present focus on benchmarking gains for public servants vs inflation etc). I'm utterly unconvinced that there's a better system than some form of representative government in practice no matter how efficient "benevolent dictatorships" with fixed term limits may look in theory.

Kama wrote: »

If this 'deal' was offered again, there could well be a few takers...It's an interesting idea, though one I'm biased against. Global recession + democratic retrenchment seems...ugly to my eye.

I'm not sure if it'd be taken, in fact if I was on the minimum wage and not paying income tax the last thing I'd ever give up would be my vote.

Kama wrote: »

Harking back to the ideal technocratic rulers versus democracy/ochlocracy, should our society be based primarily on evidence-based policy, or the popular will? As with Lisbon, are the people allowed to be wrong?

This is partially why we need to have representative democracies rather than simple democracies. The people's views are a lot of the time really not the best way to run the country when you're dealing with very complicated matters. Evidence based policy should trump the popular will, a brief examination of politics across the world in the 20th century shows as much. Populist leaders rarely do their country good in the medium term.

If anything, it's what I dislike most about our need for so many referendums. It's just not a good way to run a country where you have to pose questions as complex and nuanced as the Lisbon treaty to the people.

nesf

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Aw now come on now, I did not advocate such rates of 35% 60% or a return to the dark ages, sure was'nt I there myself. 1% here and there might help. The thing is I do believe, like several other countries, were are in unchartered waters and there will be no easy or painless solutions.

Yeah but there's a choice that needs to be made between cutting expenditure or attempting to raise revenues. In the short term, as a people, we need to grit our teeth and accept some pretty nasty cuts in spending to match our present income. In the medium term these might be able to be reversed but right now we need to eliminate the deficit.

silverharp

Mr.Micro wrote: »

To my mind taking something away is as good as tax hike, but the former is perhaps politically the lesser of 2 evils politically?

How do you quantify the jolt to taxpayers confidence that get affected by the tax hikes. If for instance I perceive that taxes are going up in the years ahead, that is more uncertainty for me, maybe I tell the wife to cut back her hours as there is no point paying for childcare? Maybe as a family we cut back spending , maybe I start moving money off shore as I perceive a risk that "they" are going to come after my savings.
Higher taxes to help the poor is also just an emotional statement, I could easily say higher taxes so that the various legal and medical monopolies can be propped up. All taxes go into one pot and get spent from that pot, there is no logical way of saying what the incremental revenue will be spent on , assuming the revenue even goes up based on what taxpayer behaviour maybe.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's more of a tangential position I think but one that's very much a problem at the moment. Pensioners refusing to give up some rights are essentially forcing an intergenerational movement of wealth from my generation to theirs. There's similar problems with geographical transfers due to where Ministers are from etc.


For anyone with access to academic papers, this one on Sports Capital Grant allocations in Ireland 1999-2007 is worth reading: http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blaecaffa/v_3A28_3Ay_3A2008_3Ai_3A3_3Ap_3A38-44.htm

Mr.Micro

silverharp wrote: »

How do you quantify the jolt to taxpayers confidence that get affected by the tax hikes. If for instance I perceive that taxes are going up in the years ahead, that is more uncertainty for me, maybe I tell the wife to cut back her hours as there is no point paying for childcare? Maybe as a family we cut back spending , maybe I start moving money off shore as I perceive a risk that "they" are going to come after my savings.
Higher taxes to help the poor is also just an emotional statement, I could easily say higher taxes so that the various legal and medical monopolies can be propped up. All taxes go into one pot and get spent from that pot, there is no logical way of saying what the incremental revenue will be spent on , assuming the revenue even goes up based on what taxpayer behaviour maybe.

My point is that it is no longer used as a tool as Governments shy away from it. Voters are deluded into thinking that they are voting for a Party that is low taxation but the reality is often massive indirect taxation, stealth taxes, travel taxes, high vat, VRT etc. Of course taxes go into the one pot but the perception that rate stays the same or low is misleading.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Morally I am completely against the bank bailouts, it abhors me that it came to that. I see in reality for the good of all it was necessary. The banks IMO have the nation over a barrel, back us or the country goes to the wall and our credit rating in the world of business is gone. Perhaps you are right the 1% would have gone to the bailouts as well.:D

silverharp

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Voters are deluded into thinking that they are voting for a Party that is low taxation but the reality is often massive indirect taxation, stealth taxes, travel taxes, high vat, VRT etc. Of course taxes go into the one pot but the perception that rate stays the same or low is misleading.

I doubt if too many people think they live in a low tax economy, however I think what is important is the rate of change at any point in time. Given the uncertainty at the moment, adding to that by upping taxes in a significant way will only affect the social mood even more, and if its not significant why do it. The average taxpayer sitting in a hypothetical pub disucssing this could come up with a list of cuts in th order of billions that would not effect the poor however it might irritate the chattering classes.

Mr.Micro

silverharp wrote: »

I doubt if too many people think they live in a low tax economy, however I think what is important is the rate of change at any point in time. Given the uncertainty at the moment, adding to that by upping taxes in a significant way will only affect the social mood even more, and if its not significant why do it. The average taxpayer sitting in a hypothetical pub disucssing this could come up with a list of cuts in th order of billions that would not effect the poor however it might irritate the chattering classes.

Yes I agree, well put.

Het-Field

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the residents of Leipzing, Dusseldorf, East Berlin, Hungary, Czechslovakia, Romania and others began caming out on the lawn's of West German embassies. If people are seeking shift of ideology, I hope it does not accompany a mentality where the nationalisation of banks becomes acceptable. Remember it was against the backdrop of this type of uber left wing politic which led to the widespread camapaign of the citizens to see he fall of the Iron Curtain.

I too found the bank guarantee to be slightly reprehensible, however, this is on a whole new plane. At its best, this is buying out the indiscretions and bad business dealings of a private company, and at its worst its the Government and its ideologically rebuking bedfellow defending friends and preventing the natural course of justice.

The adhearence to the left has seen the raising of VAT and the implementation of the stealth tax. As a result the state has been bled dry as people have taken their shopping needs over the border. By extension this is going to slow down the movement of capital, and reduce the need for jobs within the service industry. When the state talks about "belt tightening", it should be expressed that this is not an appeal to stop spending. It means that you should buy the 10euro handbag in George's Arcade as opposed to the 500Euro Louis Vuitton one. It means that you jettison plans to upgrade your kitchen which only got its most recent makeover in 2006. It does not mean that you stop spending altogether.

If we start looking left, we will suffocate the ecomomy. Nationalisation of the banks has simply placed another burden on the taxpayer. The so called Laffer Curve articulates the fact that increased taxation, doesnt necessairly mean an increase in tax revenue. Most of the money which will be hoovered up by our newly implemented levy will mitigate the nationalistion, and be utilised to dent the huge debt which we are facing. Allow people to utilise their money in their way. Nationalisation will simply add to the current rate expenditure.

It is also crucial that we consider things like the minimum wage. If we wish to remain competitive, then we need to reduce it's unsustainable high level. In time of plenty, it was a useful tool to implement rights, and attempt to ensure that nobody is exploited. However, this is not able to continue, and it will continue to scare companies away from Ireland. Mark my words, at the current level, Facebook International and Mark Zuckenberg will move from Ireland withing 6 Months.

Looking left has also seen the monopoly uppoy of public transport have its service cut. Already and inefficient service, in the months ahead, it is going to become worse, and we are going to be the ones suffering.

Tax and spend often seems like a good idea....it is not