Euro-myths

you seriously think the Europeans governments pay for it. Please tell us what you know.
I read up a good deal on France, they tax the living shit out of you over there. They'd make your California tax look like childs play.
Get this. There is a property tax like we have for owners, there is also a renters tax for renters. Of course there's income tax and sales tax.
 
Every action has an oppurtunity cost...

Some things need to be guaranteed for humanitarian reasons, like education, and healthcare, and police. Other times, giving to some person will just take away from the whole.
 
Topspin said:
you seriously think the Europeans governments pay for it. Please tell us what you know.
I read up a good deal on France, they tax the living shit out of you over there. They'd make your California tax look like childs play.
Get this. There is a property tax like we have for owners, there is also a renters tax for renters. Of course there's income tax and sales tax.
Click to expand...

Well do owners of rented out property pay the owners tax?
 
Watermark said:
Every action has an oppurtunity cost...

Some things need to be guaranteed for humanitarian reasons, like education, and healthcare, and police. Other times, giving to some person will just take away from the whole.
Click to expand...

What about food and clothing? Those are humanitarian things. You can argue shelter is as well.
 
Chapdog said:
i predicted prior to the EU that eventually it will fall apart.. what happens with the French disagree with how the Spanish or English want to do something. They are not bound together like how the United States are.
Click to expand...

Of course not we are tightly bound together Dems and Repubs ?
 
Yes in a rented property both parties pay the owner pays and the renter pays.

I think we could do healthcare by gutting the military budget and pork projects without the socialist type European taxes.
P.S. All of Europe is lowering taxes to compete with us. LOL cypress forgot to check into that.
 
cawacko said:
What you are missing in that equation is the opportunity cost of that capital. Is that the optimal use of that capital? Could it be better served elsewhere?

Yes the government can spend money and create jobs. But if the private sector can spend that same money and create 2X the number of jobs is that not better?
Click to expand...


Privitization ? LOL, that sure has worked out well :rolleyes:
 
uscitizen said:
Privitization ? LOL, that sure has worked out well :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's about the most efficient allocation of capital. And while it may your socialist ass unhappy privitization is what has driven our economy to where we are today i.e. the world leader.
 
uscitizen said:
Heck it doesn't! Our govt is too busy infighting between the two parties to do the job we hired them to do.
Click to expand...

He was speaking nothing of political parties. He was talking about the autonomy of countries in the E.U. In the U.S. we have federal taxes and each state can set their own tax structures. It's not Dems and Repubs.
 
I mean, taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn't hurt the economy. It boosts some goods (like clothing and childcare) and puts a negative on others (Like Lamborghini's).
 
Watermark said:
I mean, taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn't hurt the economy. It boosts some goods (like clothing and childcare) and puts a negative on others (Like Lamborghini's).
Click to expand...

I would argue again you statement is leaving out the opportunity cost of that money. What if that money was invested into some new technology or something else transformational that would have a much larger impact on the world as a whole than selling some more clothes to a kid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top