Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
This is an extreme example.
Your friend is essentially the biggest loser of the Finnish taxation system, getting a big salary but probably no other incentives and unable to set up a company through which he could sell his services to his employer. ...
...I drive a cab and pay around total 28% income tax, which I don't think is too bad.
|
Even though you meant it in a different (and likely, derogatory) way, ironically, you are correct. Higher income earners
that work on salary are the biggest losers in a progressive taxation system, be it in Canada or Finland. A person working on salary above $80K and not willing to look for an elaborate tax reduction/evasion scheme will pay more progressively. I knew someone who worked for his own consulting company in Cyprus, which paid him a small salary in Canada while also paying most of his living expenses. Yeah, it's possible to reduce one's taxes when you have the means to do it.
I don't want to copy quotes from all of your posts, it will take too much time. Honestly, I wish Finland well but could care less about Finland's economy. However; I disagree with your assessment of Finland's economic health. Comparative to Canada, prices are very much higher on everything I have seen - food, consumer goods, services. Consumption taxes are extremely high (24% or so). Income taxes are high. Debt/capita is also huge, much higher than Canadian (
here ). Social welfare quality is declining, according to what I've been told by a source I have no reason to doubt.
I also strongly disagree on your definition of communism. Common ownership of production means is just one of the component methods of achieving the overarching goal stated in my original post. There are other components: developing a "new person" with ingrained communist ideology, world revolution, etc. USSR and China nationalized and owned ALL of means of production immediately after their respective revolutions. Private property was declared illegal (except for personal property). That didn't help them achieve the communist goal. This is still the case in N.Korea; perhaps, they will one day.
In true socialism everyone who physically can work, MUST work (contribute). Unemployment-at-will was a punishable crime. This obligation supported the fundamental socialist principle - "from each in accordance with their ability, to each in accordance with their contribution". Welfare principle is a foray into communism, because it allows for people NOT to work if they don't want to. We are not talking about children, disabled and elderly; only about willful unemployment. And entitlement to welfare is the exact reason why communism remains a utopia. It is rooted in someone (ruling government) trusted to determine what everyone in the country needs.
The intent of my post was to comment on former capitalist economies sliding into being partially-communist economies and skipping the true socialist economic stage. It was also to encourage a discussion on whether or not the potential decline of hydrocarbons as a primary source of energy would make Canada slide towards the version of welfare state that is observed in countries like Finland, where the above-noted slide is pronounced.