I don't know about it being a hypothetical if they can be compared. I can go to OECD.org and compare them right now. You're assuming a trade off between consumption and investment that isn't necessarily true. It depends on how you tax and what you spend it on. For instance, Medicare for All would reduce medical spending as a percentage of GDP. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would free up consumption subsidies going to the upper classes to be spent more equitably, etc.

Sure we can compare metrics. Sorry I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My point was more along the lines of just because say McDonald’s is paying their employees X and In-N-Out is paying theirs 2X, that doesn’t mean McDonald’s can or should pay their employees more. All that noted discrepancy does is provide a reason to look at our own opportunity cost of doing so, not the justification for doing so.

The US has 60x the population of Norway with only 6x the oil reserve.

Its not comparatively the same.

Now if you want to magically multiple the US oil reserves by 10x and for the US to have more oil reserves than Venezuela then of course you can start paying for more things.

Norway's oil doesn't directly fund their social programs though. Payments from the oil go to the soveign wealth fund, of which only a percentage the return is then returned to the state, the rest is reinvested.

The social programs in Norway have been primarily funded by taxes.

The other non oil owning Nordics have similar social programs.

US can fund more social programs if they free up their GDP expenses from that albatross military spending. Going from close to 4% down to under 3% of military spending would free up hundreds of billions over 10 years.

You guys don't have the political willpower to cut military expenses and boost social spending.

More taxes is not gonna cut it unless you start taxing the middle class more. Which I'm not sure the democrats (only party willing to increase taxes) would survive doing.

hey man, someone's gotta protect Norway...

Had to read this three times because I agree with it, depending on the details of the social programs.

Right. When it comes down to it it's only a matter of political will, not some economic reason or something about homogeneity or the apocalypse occurring if taxes are raised.

To bring it back to the OP no one thinks the Nordics are 'closed for business'. In fact, they're close to being world leaders in tech. So merely raising taxes doesn't mean much. It might mean something for individual investing based on specific actions, but not some generic 'closed for business' atmosphere

Sure, if the goal is to increase spending on social programs. But lack of spending on social programs isn’t the primary problem we’re trying to find a solution for. The primary problem is that people on the low end of the wage scale aren’t making enough money. But redistributing income isn’t the only solution to that problem; it’s the only zero-sum solution. A far more elegant solution is to raise the minimum wage to ~$15.

why not $20?

Eliminating the ludicrous amount of waste on corporate welfare would free up capital to fund social welfare programs and spur small business competition. This is a great read on the subject.

Also, fairly taxing the wealthy would substantially increase revenue. America has reached record levels of wealth inequality and wages have stagnated for decades, yet the top 1% contribute an equal amount of taxes as a share of income as the top 50%.

Who Pays Taxes? https://youtu.be/yTJtRQxH2Eo?list=LL...0U3yN_Cz1cOV_w

progressive "fairness":

cost of Chipotle burrito for Walmart worker - $5

cost of Chipotle burrito for Walmart CEO - $50,000

i'm not saying the rich shouldn't have a higher tax bill, i'm sure it's necessary for everything to function. but there's nothing fair about one guy writing a check every April for 10 million and another guy writes a check for $2,000 when they get the exact same thing in return.

when it comes to taxes, i'm with Cardi B

"A far more elegant solution is to raise the minimum wage to ~$15 [over 5-6 years]."

So we could just as well set the target at $20 over 10-15 years.

They're obviously not getting the same thing in return. One is a CEO and the other is a worker.

beat that fairness drum for the rich

So you want a deal that you feel is fair to yourself but **** the rich they aren't people

no

I've read all your posts and I can't, for the life of me, wrap my head around what your overarching point actually is.

He doesn't have any points.

He's trolling. Successfully.

The greatest beneficiaries of societies labor should also contribute the highest % of wealth to ensure the continued prosperity of the nation. Billionaires would not attain their level of success without the masses who through taxation fund the countries critical infrastructure, defense, law enforcement, public education, safety regulations, transportation, etc.

welp...my primary point is that thoothsayer is a horrible person and a stain on 2+2


Then I get sucked into responding to people like augie who is mortified that some rich dude might get an unfair shake living in a society like the US which offers huge benefits to the wealthy, not the least of which is not having that wealth stripped away violently.

What you got?

I think billionaires are taxed fairly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#40a58d7e2cf2

International corporations are another story.

Well, using this thread as a microcosm, you seem to be the horrible person and stain on 2p2. Close to zero content, bizarre hard left viewpoints, zero interest in evidence or new ideas.

The US offers far more benefits to the poor than it does to the wealthy. Rich vs poor in pretty much any country has a greater divide than in the US in terms of quality of life.

The dream of selfish wealth and personal power is what motivates the highly talented to give up their best years working 80 hours a week with incredible efficiency to produce massive positive externalities, of which they take a mere cut. The US partly drew such innovators from around the world because it was one of the few places in the world where you could reliably make your wealth if you were good enough and keep it too. It had a culture of rewarding entrepreneurial individualism with riches, and a strong disdain for socialism.

Some people are far, far better than others in term of economic output. The top 20% builds most of what we have and supports the rest. The child Max Cut can't accept this, but it's undeniable. Studies on the highly uneven talent distribution have been done. Just a sample of the work:

This is quite standard across industries. Extraordinary individuals who have natural talent and work hard to build up talent stacks are the ones who run this world competently and make it far better for everyone else, including the miserable Max Cuts who hate the competent because he's not one. For that they take a fraction of their output as recompense, and lose quite a lot of even that small cut in tax already, subsidizing the least competent in a massive way (both through their work and then taxes on top). It's my view that competent developers of wealth ecologies are even higher multipliers.

The ability to organize people, decide what the market wants, marshal resources effectively, not make expensive mistakes, have a strategic vision, are incredible and rare talents. Which is why Mao's China fell into a massive economic hole when it imprisoned these rare individuals because of sheer envy of their success.

Max Cut is so blinded by this base envy he wants to further disincentivize these people from working 80 hour weeks to become highly competent with massive positive externalities. Ok bro. Let's see how that works out for you.

If you want to argue that the system can absorb more tax and should, then sure, argue that (at least you're not a balls-out loon), but you're deeply ignorant if you think the top earners aren't net carrying the rest of society and that what we have now is unfair. The system we have is already strongly tilted in favor of the competent forcibly subsiding the incompetent, and the data is clear on that. Your notion that the current system is unfair or that the rich are parasites rather than massive net generators of wealth for all is just you being too much of child to accept what the evidence clearly shows.

Thanks for that evidence and those new ideas. I was unconvinced but the volume of insults show you are undeniably correct.

It's incomplete without the expenditures side of the equation.