If you want to get technical, the question in the OP is completely unanswerable. It’s too vague, and leaves too many things undefined.
But that’s fine; it’s a conversation starter. It’s a way to get people to start sharing their thoughts on the topic.
True, and I think I acknowledged that. For example, a tax system that works in one nation may be unworkable for a variety of reasons in other nation.
But maybe to focus down on some specifics, which country has the “best” tax system? Perhaps more realistically, what are the pluses and minuses of various nations tax systems?
You’re being way too vague. There is no “best” tax system.
The best we can do is decide the following:
The trouble is that the kids in the wire are getting free “education”. There’s a world of difference in those scare quotes.
Came across this little gem while googling furiously.
What a lot of interesting facts…sadly I don’t think US can reform yourself out of this mess, you need a revolution…or something.
Not sure how relevant that link is, seeing as the data is 20 years old. Would be really interesting to see a modern version of this though.
I was being intentionally vague (as was the original question) - the intent was to hear people’s opinions on tax systems in various countries and the pros and cons and how well they appear to work in practice.
I tend to think that a good goal for the tax system is a maximized sustainable revenue stream.
This does not automatically imply high taxes though, in that a low burden coupled with a vigorously growing economy can provide higher revenue than a high burden coupled with economic stagnation.
I also tend to value things like personal freedom, so I would want to avoid infringing on that via excessive taxation, but that may be unnecessary as an explicit goal as a system which imposed excessive taxation would likely cause economic stagnation, which would result in less than optimal government revenue anyway.
I tend to think a good tax system is one that makes you able to pay for the stuff you need for the society to function.
Thats if you have to suffer capitalism, I hear economists are still trying to solve the riddle to make it work.
This is an excellent point. While the Scandinavian countries lead in a lot of economic indicators, their relatively small size, population densities and energy reserves allow them to do some things that a larger geographic country couldn’t do.
I don’t understand the phrasing there. Riddle to make what work?
Economist are trying to make capitalism work…so far its not going so well.
Hmm, capitalism does indeed seem to work, certainly better than any attempted alternative to date.
Perhaps you could define what you mean by not working?
Me. Born in the US, worked there until my late teens, have relatives, friends, and business associates there. Worked most of my life in Canada, with long work visits in Europe.
I don’t doubt I might have a better standard of living in the US, but I can’t say the same for anyone working under me.
I hear that a lot and it might even be true… but it’s usually not argued much beyond the simplistic “The US is very big, what works for you couldn’t work here” etc.
And I don’t think that’s enough.
While you can’t view Europe as one, since the difference between countries is much larger than that between US states, there’s still stuff we agree on (like shorter work weeks, stronger unions, more vacation days) and that’s a population 200 million larger than the US.
And while Scandinavia have natural resources, it’s not like we’re alike - Denmark has no way near the energy that Norway has, and yet we’re very much alike. And while Denmark is a small country with a large population density, Norway is rather large and has a population density less than half of that of the US average (in fact 41 states has a larger population density than Norway).
And it’s not like the US is lacking in the energy or natural resources part… so I don’t buy that a Scandinavian model couldn’t work in the US purely based on financial reasons.
There might be reasons… but they need to be better supported than the above claim.
I think maybe you are confusing Norway with Scandinavian countries. I’m not sure what energy reserves Denmark, Sweden and Finland are supposed to have, unless you are talking wind, water and trees.
We don’t really have that many trees because we use the space to grow bacon, the wind is so-so and the water is in the oceans surrounding us and thus pretty useless for energy… we do however export some oil (One of the popular claims is that all our reserves was sold of to one of the world’s wealthiest persons by a very drunk prime minister)
… but it is true, that we’re a net exporter of energy. Before 1973 we were very much dependant on foreign oil and now we’re self sufficient and exports the surplus.
Worthy of another thread, I am sorry for the stupid hijack.
As for the Danish economy, its actually doing quite well, without a single drop of Oil and no more toll across the Øresund.
That said, Norway would have been a strong economy without oil aswell, its just turned what was a wholesome politic into something supercharged.
Is this a small country thing, I don’t think so, its all a matter of scaling. The only place where scaling messes with things is politics, where the distance between politicians and the people grow to far.
I should have added “respectively” - it would make more sense then :).
I don’t think Denmark has a lot of water or trees, but it is one of the windiest countries in Europe.
Yeah, I was just joking… and wanted to mention the popular story of how an alcholic Prime Minister gave our not small oil reserves away to this guy. Who’s still living and operating out of Denmark, by the way, even though all conservative wisdom says he should long ago have fled our terrible taxes.
We do have a lot of wind and windmills… but one of the problems with being so densely populated is that every new windmill gets delayed (or stopped) by some truly stupid NIMBY arguments (“It casts shadows” and “It ruins my ocean view that I paid millions for” are the most prevalent now).