Obama's get rich quick scheme: Adopting a VAT Tax.

[Kuya]

The point is not that ethnic diversity means things won't work; the point is that ethnic diversity has created far more important issues that must be dealt with. It sucks that they have to be dealt with, but they do, because some people are dicks, and other people just think everyone not like them are dicks, or idiots. It's a hurdle that Sweden (and most of Europe), hasn't ever really had to deal with.

Size, though, is a very real issue. It is dramatically easier to manage ten people than a hundred, and when you're talking most European populations vs. America, the difference is greater by far. At the very least it's a logistical nightmare that Europe hasn't had to deal with, and the economic-geographical differences are likewise huge. What is the fair rate for, say, Wyoming vs. California? How about Buffalo vs. NYC? When does the rate change? Social programs require a quick flexibility as situations change on local levels, and a federal program in the US is simply too massive to account for that. Organize it by states? Compare Seattle to Yakima. Organize it by city size? Seattle's not that much bigger than Portland, but the Seattle area is huge by comparison, and has different costs of living (which vary somewhat noticeably based on whether or not Boeing has a huge contract operating right now or not), than other cities of similar market size. States offer a larger pool than counties, but are still (generally) small enough to be flexible. California and Texas have their own set of problems and "what about..."s, but met.

And there is a ton of historic precedent on that; logistics are the least appetizing part of managing any massive group of people, but it's where the efforts need to start. Solid, reliable, flexible logistical support is a force multiplier beyond any other, whether that force is money or people. Poor logistical networking (which the US has now in nightmarish proportions), is going to be a losing scenario, always, no matter how good the tactical plan is. And the larger the group your dealing with, geographically and in terms of population, the difficulty of managing it grows exponentially. If there were a way to have a logistically sound, powerful federal government, I might change my tune, but I've seen nothing to show that it's either here, on the way, or functionally conceived of. There is (I think), a plausible alternative, one that leads to more general satisfaction and less internal strife, models more closely the original constitutional model of the country while at the same time getting a more pleasant experience a la European advances.

No need to repeat yourself, i get your point, but first, let us eliminate modern conservatism, and then we can actually put these things into practice so we can test whether the issues you bring up are too big a hurdle to overcome. Just because it's very difficult logistically, does not mean it's impossible, and you are also correct that leaving it up to individual States/cities to administrate it is much better, therefore, we can have the federal system mandate some guidelines and provide the funds for these services, and have the States/cities modify them as they see fit just as long as they follow some general guidelines.

However, we cannot implement intelligent public policy such as this just as long as we have these devils on our backs known as Republicans and their ilk.

In order to be intelligent about all of this (as you are being) we must marginalize counter-productive ideology.

[Baha]

Basically, the United States is far too large and too complex to centralize like, say, Sweden or even France can. Sweden (since it's everyone's favorite example), is basically the size (population wise) of North Carolina.

The EU provides a framework for VAT (minimum rates), but the member states have some flexibility. States can ask for certain products to be exempted from VAT (newspapers in Belgium for example) and there's two rates. One high (21% here) for most things, and a lower one (6%) that can be used for certain things (like food).
Sweden's low population is good for your argument, but the EU as a whole is bigger than the US, and the larger states like germany (82m) and france (65m) can still get it done administratively.

Sweden is primarily composed of people whose families have lived in Sweden for generations, there is almost no racial, ethnic, cultural, or even religious diversity.

You're kind of mistaken, I can't speak for Sweden in particular (but I know there's at least enough immigration there to support a xenophobic political party), but to say the EU countries have less diversity? Really?

Attempting a uniform program on a *federal* level in the US involves vastly more money shuffling than it would in any other nation; limiting it to a state-by-state basis (particularly if states like California, Oregon, and Washington were split into more economic-geographic regions), would minimize that shuffling, and would allow people with at least a more immediate history and identify to come together on consensus.

You can't eliminate this, every country (or state) has a few poorer and a few more affluent areas. You can't really regionalise VAT much further than the states, and then giving them some flexibility in their system. Regionalising it too far would make administration that more unwieldy.

Size, though, is a very real issue. It is dramatically easier to manage ten people than a hundred, and when you're talking most European populations vs. America, the difference is greater by far. At the very least it's a logistical nightmare that Europe hasn't had to deal with, and the economic-geographical differences are likewise huge.

Why do you think the EU has so few rules set in stone, and more guidelines that the individual states must adhere to, but have some freedom to make their own legislation about?

What is the fair rate for, say, Wyoming vs. California? How about Buffalo vs. NYC? When does the rate change? Social programs require a quick flexibility as situations change on local levels, and a federal program in the US is simply too massive to account for that. Organize it by states? Compare Seattle to Yakima. Organize it by city size? Seattle's not that much bigger than Portland, but the Seattle area is huge by comparison, and has different costs of living (which vary somewhat noticeably based on whether or not Boeing has a huge contract operating right now or not), than other cities of similar market size. States offer a larger pool than counties, but are still (generally) small enough to be flexible. California and Texas have their own set of problems and "what about..."s, but met.

Paris and Marseilles? Same rates, same rate as that nice little skiing resort town in the Alps. Paris and Brussels? Not the same.

I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to argue here, but federal guidelines that the individual states can work off would probably work.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Organizing society is (and has never been) never an exact science. You misattribute to the modern formal institution of decision making the limits of our knowledge about human concoctions, which for some reason, humans are prone to lose control over and forget they even made it in the first place. It probably has less to do whether a governent institution can do it or not and more to do with the limits of our tools and knowledge, since a government institution does not make decisions autonomously.

Certainly there are things a government institution cannot do. For example, the transformation of a society from a hyper-individualistic one to an empathetic one is not something a government institution can do, but it can certainly take part in the effort. The many parts that compose the government cannot administrate everything; it is impossible.

And what you said is exactly the point: you "feel" inclined towards your brother, and that is the same goal we should have for society now. That most of us feel rightly inclined towards assiting others (after ourselves of course). That we no longer use the very hipster notions about how we shouldn't be taxed so others can have things we don't need ourselves. The aspiration is to have a society where this is the natural inclination, and the few who (hopefully very few) who disagree, can be forced via a government institution (this is certainly something the government can do!) to participate. Naturally, they should be given the option to forgoe participating, and leaving society, so they may go live in a bubble somewhere to wear ironic t-shirts.

Are you saying people don't really help others now? Or you're complaining b/c that's not everyone's #1 goal?

I would agree with everything you say if the govt. could actually do whatever it is you want without being so damn inefficient and wasteful.

And no grants whatsoever Rhino.

[Kuya]

The specific goal isn't to help others, that is just a consequence of making empathy about as important as individualism or even more important. Empathy being the drive to feel what others feel and understand their situation.

The statement that government is wasteful and inefficient is not a specific statement nor a concrete one and is therefore useless for the purposes of this discussion.

[Egon]

Kuya, can you explain how you would get rid of us GoP's and the other conservative groups? I've now seen you said you want us gone more than once now, and I'm thinking you're serious.

[Kuya]

lol

[Kuya]

I intend to use the power of love and friendship.

[Salodin]

I just wish we would slash our goddamned military budget from like 700 billion to a more moderate 200 billion, if that. 300 billion of that freed up revenue per year could go to sciences. Cure the world of malaria? Supposedly only 20 million. Finally get fusion technology on fast track and make it viable? Probably 20 billion a year, if that. AI? who knows, but I doubt it costs that much to keep a bunch of programmers alive and working.

Rest could either go to fixing the freaking debt, or to fixing social security, or something.

Our military spending is well past the point of ridiculousness, and our money is far better invested elsewhere, not only for the betterment of humanity, but for economic benefits as well. As it is, we have no real cutting edge technology sans military spending, and with how inefficient it is, its not even close to enough bang for our buck. We're losing the technology war to china, japan, and hell, the rest of the world. At this rate the US is going to be a glorified third world country if we don't get back to focusing on civilian technology that applies to well, everyone, as opposed to defense spending that affects less people, and has a negative impact on those at the receiving end simply because the US feels like curbstomping a new victim.

I don't buy the fact that we're the good guys and all these people keep hating america and its freedoms because we're better than everyone else. The reason they keep hating and trying to kill us is because we ruined their lives and they want revenge, not because we're happy. Whoever heard of people trying to kill other people simply because they have a decent life? (I'm talking about a whole society here, not a few mentally ill people mixed in)

Maybe if we actually used some of our money to benefit all countries and stopped picking fights with everyone just to test our latest shiny laser gun, we wouldn't actually NEED defense, simply because no one would want to kill a country that makes their own country better all the time.

I agree we spend a little -too- much on defense, but I don't think we need to cut it back that much. America has made lots of enemies along the way, and I think it's too little too late to cut back and be like these other nations. Maybe cut back to 2/3 of what we use now, but even that might be a little much...

Remember, we're a lot bigger then those other nations, and as such the costs of defending our interests rises exponentially. It be an awesome world if we could just say this land is ours, please don't enter it or abuse it w/o our authority, but we both know that isn't the case.

[Correction]

I intend to use the power of love and friendship.

And Heart, and Fire, and Water, and Earth.

[Egon]

I intend to use the power of love and friendship.

I'm serious. This seems to be one of your main talking points, so I really would enjoy hearing you back it up.

[Rhinox]

oh gawd.

[Kuya]

I'm serious. This seems to be one of your main talking points, so I really would enjoy hearing you back it up.

I can't let you know yet, it's sort of a liberal secret plan right now.

[Marootsoobutsu]

The EU provides a framework for VAT (minimum rates), but the member states have some flexibility. States can ask for certain products to be exempted from VAT (newspapers in Belgium for example) and there's two rates. One high (21% here) for most things, and a lower one (6%) that can be used for certain things (like food).
Sweden's low population is good for your argument, but the EU as a whole is bigger than the US, and the larger states like germany (82m) and france (65m) can still get it done administratively.

The EU provides the "Hey, you must have," but my understanding is that the money stays within the local country. This is very different from any federal tax in the US, where the money goes to Washington, DC. In the case of the EU, I can understand a central, "You must have this, at a certain rate," for purposes of competitive trade, but it comes with basic guidelines, rather than a broad-sweeping "This is the exact way all most comply." It is against the latter I have doubts and concerns. The EU government is new enough to be weak; it can issue a guideline, and not attempt to usurp more power. I do not have the same opinion of Washington, DC.

You're kind of mistaken, I can't speak for Sweden in particular (but I know there's at least enough immigration there to support a xenophobic political party), but to say the EU countries have less diversity? Really?

Really. Sweden is more than 90% European, and more than 82% Swedish. I don't think I can find a state in the US that is 82% of the same ethnic background, and especially as US states get bigger, the population becomes more diverse. By contrast, France is more than 90% ethnically French; Italy is more than 90% Italian; Germany is 81% German, about 10% "half-German", and about 9% "immigrant"... and is one of the most diverse European states. Considering that the US has strong German, British, French, Polish, Irish, Italian, and Nordic populations, many of whom remain knowledgeable and prideful of their backgrounds, combined with Hispanic, African, and Asian influences, all in far greater populations than Europe, yes... yes I say that the EU has far less diversity than America.

You can't eliminate this, every country (or state) has a few poorer and a few more affluent areas. You can't really regionalise VAT much further than the states, and then giving them some flexibility in their system. Regionalising it too far would make administration that more unwieldy.

This is fair enough; I wouldn't support a VAT at a county level, but on a state level, yes.

Why do you think the EU has so few rules set in stone, and more guidelines that the individual states must adhere to, but have some freedom to make their own legislation about?

This is more in line with what I want than a powerful, Washington, D.C. centered government that *does* attempt to put everything in stone, and what most of the left is arguing for in the US (though, I'll freely admit that there are conservatives who are not coming from my perspective, either.... but I think the percentage who do agree are more than are portrayed, but that is pure speculation)

Paris and Marseilles? Same rates, same rate as that nice little skiing resort town in the Alps. Paris and Brussels? Not the same.

Again, kind of my point? I recognize that even in a relatively small area there are economic differences, and don't know enough about France's economy in specific to comment on its regional general economy. And I concede that the larger nations like France, Germany, and Great Britain have a more economic-geographically diverse economy (and summarily have more complexity and difficulty balancing the needs of each of the regions). Now imagine taking pretty much all of Europe, and deciding a single, unified policy that touches *all* of it. Daunting? That's what I'm against, and I generally think that you can break some of the much more diverse US states down to more generalized areas that can then better manage themselves. Again, I don't know enough about the specific politics and regional issues in European countries to have an opinion on whether the same is true there.

I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to argue here, but federal guidelines that the individual states can work off would probably work.

The problem is that the US doesn't do "Federal guidelines" very well. Our federal government is far, far stronger than the EU, and if it implements law, it tends to make it universal rather than allow states to decide how to implement those guidelines. Also, while I am more in favor of stronger social policies on a state-by-state level, I do generally think that it should be a state's decision, rather than a "Thou shalt all...". I like the diversity in America, and that includes ideological diversity. Will some states then be less properous than others? Perhaps, but US states tend to mimic what works in others... and, like in Europe, if a single state's policies are failure, the whole of the Union doesn't feel the impact of it.

Which brings me back to Kuya. Why not try it on a federal level? Because we know that it can work on the smaller level, and we should begin with what we know works, and once we get that down and working, we can start to look at a larger scale. My overall argument against a powerful DC vs. states is more involved, but at least when it comes to social workings, the logistical nightmare of centralized power is just one that I don't think we (as a society or a species) are ready to handle.

[Omnipotent]

ohey, What's going on in this thread

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The specific goal isn't to help others, that is just a consequence of making empathy about as important as individualism or even more important. Empathy being the drive to feel what others feel and understand their situation.

The statement that government is wasteful and inefficient is not a specific statement nor a concrete one and is therefore useless for the purposes of this discussion.

It is if it influences my opinion, but we can stick to morals.

The problem with your version of implementing empathy is that its unaffordable and it has never done anything for society.

[Kuya]

Marootsoobutsu

Okay, so social programs mandated and funded by the federal level it is then.

The problem with your version of implementing empathy is that its unaffordable and it has never done anything for society.

What you just said made no sense to me.

1. "Implementing empathy"?

2. What's unaffordable?

3.What doesn't do anything for society and can you prove it?

[Cadsuane]

It is if it influences my opinion, but we can stick to morals.

The problem with your version of implementing empathy is that its unaffordable and it has never done anything for society.

Getting the chicken and the egg mixed up here. We need empathy to implement socially progressive policy because otherwise the voting public will never accept it, not socially progressive policy to foster empathy in society (obviously it doesn't exactly have that effect). Although in your case the objection would arise from the actual efficacy of such policy and not the intended result which makes this point not really work against you.

[Baha]

The EU provides the "Hey, you must have," but my understanding is that the money stays within the local country. This is very different from any federal tax in the US, where the money goes to Washington, DC. In the case of the EU, I can understand a central, "You must have this, at a certain rate," for purposes of competitive trade, but it comes with basic guidelines, rather than a broad-sweeping "This is the exact way all most comply." It is against the latter I have doubts and concerns. The EU government is new enough to be weak; it can issue a guideline, and not attempt to usurp more power. I do not have the same opinion of Washington, DC.

Yeah, but each member state also partly funds the EU. As Kuya says, American states don't have the same powers over their domestic policies that EU member states do though. I can't say that I'm well versed in the funding of the federal and the state entities of the US, but surely the states can use some of the income from the VAT for state-telated purposes, and allow a part of it to flow back to the federal level?

Really. Sweden is more than 90% European, and more than 82% Swedish. I don't think I can find a state in the US that is 82% of the same ethnic background, and especially as US states get bigger, the population becomes more diverse. By contrast, France is more than 90% ethnically French; Italy is more than 90% Italian; Germany is 81% German, about 10% "half-German", and about 9% "immigrant"... and is one of the most diverse European states. Considering that the US has strong German, British, French, Polish, Irish, Italian, and Nordic populations, many of whom remain knowledgeable and prideful of their backgrounds, combined with Hispanic, African, and Asian influences, all in far greater populations than Europe, yes... yes I say that the EU has far less diversity than America.

You're missing my point, you're comparing the US as a whole to EU countries individually. Some American Germans might be proud of their heritage, but being of German heritage doesn't compare to actually being a German. These populations are spread thinly over the whole US. The diversity in the EU as a *whole* is comparable, but its condensation down to the (as you said, mostly homogeneous) countries is part of why it's so difficult for the EU to find agreements and speak with a single voice in the world theatre.

This is fair enough; I wouldn't support a VAT at a county level, but on a state level, yes.

This is more in line with what I want than a powerful, Washington, D.C. centered government that *does* attempt to put everything in stone, and what most of the left is arguing for in the US (though, I'll freely admit that there are conservatives who are not coming from my perspective, either.... but I think the percentage who do agree are more than are portrayed, but that is pure speculation)

Yeah I think we agree then. A monolithic federal governement wouldn't work where there are almost battle lines between blue and red states on every single issue.

Again, kind of my point? I recognize that even in a relatively small area there are economic differences, and don't know enough about France's economy in specific to comment on its regional general economy.

I meant to illustrate: Marseilles is much father away from Paris than Brussels (as is the skiing resort), is a different kind of town than Paris, but it has the same tax rates, whereas Brussels doesn't (different country). You'll always have differences, if you group by state or draw up new borderlines for VAT based on some other metric.

And I concede that the larger nations like France, Germany, and Great Britain have a more economic-geographically diverse economy (and summarily have more complexity and difficulty balancing the needs of each of the regions). Now imagine taking pretty much all of Europe, and deciding a single, unified policy that touches *all* of it. Daunting? That's what I'm against, and I generally think that you can break some of the much more diverse US states down to more generalized areas that can then better manage themselves. Again, I don't know enough about the specific politics and regional issues in European countries to have an opinion on whether the same is true there.

Yeah you're right, you have EU-sceptics like the UK, countries who don't want to concede too much of their power (France, Germany and the other larger ones are generally the ones that can put their foot down etc) and smaller countries who often embrace the EU more readily. But: even in those countries there's still plenty of differences. Italy's south is pretty poor in comparison to the north, as is Belgium's and every state will have those differences like that. But at the state level, working within a framework that has flexibility (multiple rates with flexibility, able to exempt certain things) it seems pretty manageable.
I don't see how, let's say Las Vegas couldn't function in the same VAT system as the rest of Nevada. If Vegas has that much sway, maybe they could negotiate a lower rate on booze, hotels or what have you with their state?

The problem is that the US doesn't do "Federal guidelines" very well. Our federal government is far, far stronger than the EU, and if it implements law, it tends to make it universal rather than allow states to decide how to implement those guidelines. Also, while I am more in favor of stronger social policies on a state-by-state level, I do generally think that it should be a state's decision, rather than a "Thou shalt all...". I like the diversity in America, and that includes ideological diversity. Will some states then be less properous than others? Perhaps, but US states tend to mimic what works in others... and, like in Europe, if a single state's policies are failure, the whole of the Union doesn't feel the impact of it.

I love the diversity in the EU as well, I didn't mean to minimize the differences between states or areas in the US. Just meant that you're going to have to draw lines somewhere anyway, and the states would probably do the trick. The differences between the states don't have much to do with ethnic backgrounds I think, I don't think a certain state will be conservative just because a lot of Korean-Americans live there for example.

Spoiler: show

That last part is only partly true, Greece's failure (in part thanks to spending way more than what they have, partly on their army, ironically buying a lot of french weapons) is being felt in the EU. It's a difficult problem to balance the centralisation versus the individual flexibility. Most countries are building up deficits, which the EU of course doesn't like, but it didn't have a stick it could immediately reach for to make them comply.
The flexibility is necessary, but disasters like Greece spending (and *hiding* most of it for years on end) billions of euros on their army - despite their already building deficit - to match Turkey in their centuries-long pissing match should not be allowed to happen.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Okay, so social programs mandated and funded by the federal level it is then.What you just said made no sense to me.

1. "Implementing empathy"?

2. What's unaffordable?

3.What doesn't do anything for society and can you prove it?

I think what Cadsuane said made it clearer. I applaud your intentions, but it's results that matter, not intentions.

2. Liberal programs, I assume that's what you want through empathy.

3. People being mainly driven by empathy and not individual selfishness. And no.

[Kuya]

If you can't afford a specific social program, then don't implement it until you can. I should also mention that deficits don't really matter for sovereign States with strong economies. So if you want a lot of social services of great quality, then you have to have a strong economy with high economic output so all that wealth can be put to good social use.