"
"
Did you even read the article?
Or should i have used the therm "vulnerable areas" and then my point would stand, the heck.
Did you?
"
2. Are they no-go zones?
Well, not really. This term caught on in international media after it was used by a columnist to label these areas, but police and emergency services have themselves repeatedly rejected it, arguing that these are areas with a higher police presence, if anything. That said, emergency services do often adapt their behaviour, for example by making sure that there is proper back-up, by entering the areas via alternative routes, or by reversing their vehicles into the areas in order to make sure they are able to leave quickly if needed. Emergency services have, for example, been exposed to threats, stone-throwing, or vandalism of their vehicles. But it's not black and white: often, nothing of note happens.
A fire chief in an area which covers some of northern Stockholm's most vulnerable suburbs, including Rinkeby and Tensta, told The Local earlier this year: “We don't have any no-go zones, absolutely not, the opposite in fact. We move around in all areas, with the same force, at the same speed. But sometimes we get indications, or see, that something is not right and then we take precautions.”
"
As for the critique's, they are critique's on the sustainment of the current nordic model. The critique favoring "more socialism" as a possible solution doesn't make the current model somehow something else.
?
"
And the last critique could be considered a "bad review" for Denmark considering the tax/social returns compared to america.
If a country performs a bit better on the social front but pays 800% times the taxes then a question could be raised if that is cost efficient for the state and its citizens.
Ok maybe I'm getting (finally) something out of you. You seem to be saying that high taxes are bad because...? Of cost efficiency? What does that mean? Nevermind, you lost me again.
"
Facts remain that the labour force is going down while social benefits remain static which eventually implodes if nothing is done or a debt is made for the next generation.(there probably already is, but maybe it can be increased to prolong the system)
Labour force is going down? I guess you mean because of baby boomers and current birth rates or something?
You realise a welfare state doesn't actually run on static benefits, right?
I mean, the welfare is adjusted each year based on economic output, i.e. revenue, it's a budget component.
I mean sure you could run the country budget as a deficit to keep paying off unemployed to live extravagantly, but come on, who does that??
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 5, 2019, 6:34:01 PM
|
"
Did you inform the Norwegians, Danes, Swedes and Finns already about this impending catastrophe? Why isn't it sustainable?
Because the "Nordic model" relies on free market capitalism and free market capitalism needs 1. endless growth and 2. near-full employement to function. Both of these points are questionable, especially the second one.
"
How about progressive taxation? BOOM problem solved NEXT
Income inequality is generally increasing, not decreasing.
It's even worse for wealth inequality.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
Posted byXavderionon May 5, 2019, 7:14:13 PM
|
"
"
Did you inform the Norwegians, Danes, Swedes and Finns already about this impending catastrophe? Why isn't it sustainable?
Because the "Nordic model" relies on free market capitalism and free market capitalism needs 1. endless growth and 2. near-full employement to function. Both of these points are questionable, especially the second one.
Communism it is then, eh komrade?
"
"
How about progressive taxation? BOOM problem solved NEXT
Income inequality is generally increasing, not decreasing.
It's even worse for wealth inequality.
Still well below the OECD average and miles below scary places like the UK. I wonder where the US would be on the GINI scale...
In any case, it doesn't matter at all. Progressive taxation would immensely reduce income inequality, where introduced.
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 5, 2019, 7:19:44 PM
|
"
Progressive taxation would immensely reduce income inequality, where introduced.
The stats literally prove you wrong but that has never bothered you before so why would it bother you now?
Also both the UK and the US have progressive taxation. And then there are examples like South Africa where taxes are very progressive but income inequality is still through the roof.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
Posted byXavderionon May 5, 2019, 7:30:08 PM
|
"
Also both the UK and the US have progressive taxation.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA
If by progressive you mean the rich pay fuck all and the poor get owned, sure.
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 5, 2019, 7:33:13 PM
|
"
"
"
How about progressive taxation? BOOM problem solved NEXT
Laffer curve says no. Try again.
So progressive taxation is not to boost the economy, silly, it's to reduce income inequality, two very different things. The increased revenue you would get you could invest in 'equalisers' like healthcare and education.
Even if the voodoo economics theoretical Laffer curve is taken literally, many would argue cutting taxes from the rich does not result in 'trickle down economics', thus not boosting the economy at all.
Dude, the Laffer curve might be hard to calculate, but it's far from voodoo.
How much money are you getting if you tax a business 0%? 0, obviously.
How much money are you getting if you tax a business 100%? Again 0, because they can't conduct business that way.
Therefore, the maximum tax revenue possible is somewhere between 0% and 100% tax rate. The Laffer curve is the chart of this phenomenon: tax rate as x-axis, overall tax revenue as y-axis.
So what you're saying here, unwittingly or deliberately, is that you'd be willing to decrease tax revenues — essentially spending money — for the opportunity to tax the wealthy even more, for the sole purpose of taking money out of their pocket so they'd be closer to poverty.
I sure as fuck hope it's unwittingly.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon May 5, 2019, 8:14:39 PM
|
"
Dude, the Laffer curve might be hard to calculate, but it's far from voodoo.
How much money are you getting if you tax a business 0%? 0, obviously.
How much money are you getting if you tax a business 100%? Again 0, because they can't conduct business that way.
Therefore, the maximum tax revenue possible is somewhere between 0% and 100% tax rate. The Laffer curve is the chart of this phenomenon: tax rate as x-axis, overall tax revenue as y-axis.
So what you're saying here, unwittingly or deliberately, is that you'd be willing to decrease tax revenues — essentially spending money — for the opportunity to tax the wealthy even more, for the sole purpose of taking money out of their pocket so they'd be closer to poverty.
I sure as fuck hope it's unwittingly.
You've taken the literal interpretation of a theoretical curve of voodoo economics.
It's like talking to someone who believes the Bible word for word, and that it took 7 days, literally, to create everything.
But let's follow this fantasy for a bit.
Which side of the optimal tax rate do you think we were before Trumps tax cuts? Does it then make sense there was so little benefit of it?
ANd no, you don't get decreased revenue absolute if you increase your income tax rate absolute. You might get less bang for your buck per % income tax rate, but not total. That's what the theoretical voodoo Laffer curve is meant to portray. And it's certainly not meant to be taken literally.
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 6, 2019, 7:33:21 AM
|
|
Look Jimbo, let's not make this overly complicated. Three simple points:
1. If a tax rate is too low, tax revenue can be $0. For instance, 0% tax rate.
2. If a tax rate is too high, tax revenue can be $0, because the tax effectively becomes a prohibition. For instance, 100% tax rate, or 2000% tax rate.
3. If a tax rate is not too high nor too low, it can generate more than $0 in revenue. For instance, the US government currently collects tax revenue.
THEREFORE, there is a certain tax rate that maximizes revenue; from this point, increasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0, and decreasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0.
I've noticed that there's a shitload of fake economics out there on the Laffer Curve. So if you want to call this effect whatever you want instead of the Laffer Curve, I don't care. The point is that taxing a behavior discourages it, and the more you tax income the more you reduce pre-tax incomes.
Can we at least agree to this much?
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on May 6, 2019, 9:56:42 AM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon May 6, 2019, 9:51:15 AM
|
"
Look Jimbo, let's not make this overly complicated. Three simple points:
1. If a tax rate is too low, tax revenue can be $0. For instance, 0% tax rate.
2. If a tax rate is too high, tax revenue can be $0, because the tax effectively becomes a prohibition. For instance, 100% tax rate, or 2000% tax rate.
3. If a tax rate is not too high nor too low, it can generate more than $0 in revenue. For instance, the US government currently collects tax revenue.
THEREFORE, there is a certain tax rate that maximizes revenue; from this point, increasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0, and decreasing tax rate decreases revenue until it eventually flatlines at $0.
I've noticed that there's a shitload of fake economics out there on the Laffer Curve. So if you want to call this effect whatever you want instead of the Laffer Curve, I don't care. The point is that taxing a behavior discourages it, and the more you tax income the more you reduce pre-tax incomes.
Can we at least agree to this much?
Dodging, and inability to answer simple questions.
I guess I will do the same.
|
Posted byrojimbooon May 6, 2019, 10:30:06 AM
|
"
"
Why is it notable?
Because we are never going to get rid of bigotry.
As long as they don't escalate into violence or assaults they are a non-issue in human life.
Extremely wrong. Words can destroy someone like nothing else can.
Not according to Rojimbo:
"
I used "socially destroyed" for a reason, some people's life where ruined by a charge of rape that was never factually backed up.
As for the "law against slander" it's kind of hard to press charges against anonymous accounts or groups using social media as cover for their actions.
You know about the Brett Kavanaugh case?
Serious impacts to his life, no substantial facts or evidence put forward by the person making the claim.
"
You mean Kavanaugh who is a Supreme court judge now after defending himself succesfully in court? I.e. he won? One of the most powerful men in the country? How was he destroyed, exactly?
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
|
Posted byDalaiLamaon May 6, 2019, 10:51:48 AM
|
