What percentage of gdp should be given to the state

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
France funnels 47% of its GDP to the central state via taxes. The US funnels 27%. 47% seems ludicrous, that people would let their hard earned money be given away but they do. 27% seems to be a good percentage.

Why would people vote to let politicians take their hard earned money?
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
France funnels 47% of its GDP to the central state via taxes. The US funnels 27%. 47% seems ludicrous, that people would let their hard earned money be given away but they do. 27% seems to be a good percentage.

Why would people vote to let politicians take their hard earned money?
Good question...

One reason why is this:

If you compare the pure gross income (before paying any tax or receiving transfer income) of all Germans with the one of all Americans you can say around 30% live below the poverty line - in both countries.

Now do some pay tax, some receive money. In Germany the poverty rate drops below 10%, a bit over 9%. In the USA it drops to just under 19%.

Btw. GDP growth, unemployment rate and income per capita are all quite equal between Germany and the USA...





P.s.
Not the tax paid to the central state is important. If any you should have a look at the whole spending of the gov.
In this case the USA has a 36% part of the GDP financed by the state, France is at 54% and Germany 46%.

And if you move to Sweden the quota is even higher and surprisingly the people are more wealthy and happier than the average American or German. - Sweden! The place to be, where people are happy and pay high tax. ;)
 
Last edited:

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
Good question...

One reason why is this:

If you compare the pure gross income (before paying any tax or receiving transfer income) of all Germans with the one of all Americans you can say around 30% live below the poverty line - in both countries.

Now do some pay tax, some receive money. In Germany the poverty rate drops below 10%, a bit over 9%. In the USA it drops to just under 19%.

Btw. GDP growth, unemployment rate and income per capita are all quite equal between Germany and the USA...





P.s.
Not the tax paid to the central state is important. If any you should have a look at the whole spending of the gov.
In this case the USA has a 36% part of the GDP financed by the state, France is at 54% and Germany 46%.

And if you move to Sweden the quota is even higher and surprisingly the people are more wealthy and happier than the average American or German. - Sweden! The place to be, where people are happy and pay high tax. ;)

Sweden has 10 million people. Comparing Sweden to the US is hilariously stupid.

Also Sweden has blocked immigration, so that “happiness” index is dishonest.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So the state spends your money better than you? That seems nonsensical on its face.

Not really. My neighbor built a road to his property. It's pretty rough and it washes away regularly. He was limited in hoe much he could spend because he only has so much income. The state built a highway past his property and it has held up well for 25 years with only one re-paving. It never washed away, despite a flood and it will last for some time - because all the taxpayers shared in the cost and were able to pool enough money to build a better road. So yes, the state can spend money better than one individual.

By way of another example, the U.S. Army equips it soldiers much better than the Texas Militia equips themselves. See a pattern yet?

Try not to be deliberately dense.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
So the state spends your money better than you? That seems nonsensical on its face.

Not only can the state spend it better in many instances, but I would *rather* the state spend it on any number of services I therefore don't have to worry about providing for myself.

Life is already complicated enough. I don't need to reinvent every wheel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
47% seems ludicrous, that people would let their hard earned money be given away but they do. 27% seems to be a good percentage.

This seems kind of arbitrary. What makes you think that 47% is ludicrous and 27% is good. I think you really need to consider a lot more than just the percentage in order to determine what makes sense. For example, that 47% might apply to people who make more money, and it certainly results in more services. If paying another 20% meant that you didn't have to pay rent, wouldn't that be a good deal? Just looking at the percentage is not nearly enough to make a determination on what does or does not make sense.

Like some of the examples above showed, sometimes the government is better at spending money then private citizens, sometimes not. Can you imagine the condition of our roads if we were all individually responsible for the stretch of road in front of our homes. Some people might do a good job, but most would spend as little as possible and wouldn't maintain it properly. It would be a disaster and I think its a job too big for the government to inspect the roads to make sure people are doing their part and enforce anything when they aren't. And if the government is inspecting and enforcing that behavior, then what really is the benefit? You're going to spend just as much money, you're just taking out the middle man.

What does make more sense is taking the actual services out of the hands of the government and instead contracting private business to provide services. There are some flaws and it takes oversight, but generally speaking the private sector is better at innovating, reducing costs, and improving efficiency than the government if for no other reason then they can specialize in whatever aspect of the service they are responsible for. And as they make improvements that make things more efficient and therefor cheaper, over time there is less of a need to collect taxes for that service. Theoretically that would result in lower taxes, though, that probably isn't actually that likely to happen just because of the nature of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Sweden has 10 million people. Comparing Sweden to the US is hilariously stupid.

Also Sweden has blocked immigration, so that “happiness” index is dishonest.
In 2015 no nation let as many refugees in as Sweden (In rate to population). So, this arguement isn't really one.

And what does the population has to do with it? I heard this arguement already before, but no one could explain why it should be important.
Anyway, I guess 60 million in France and 80 million in Germany are enough? They count? Btw. They have a WAY higher density as the USA (If population is important density is even more). And these two nations are more happy than the USA as well. ;)



But finally and more important: the point was not higher happiness by higher tax, but less poverty by higher taxation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: keenobserver

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So the state spends your money better than you? That seems nonsensical on its face.
Sure the state does... or did you ever tried to build a street, run a war, feed the pore, run hospitals, educate children, or run a whole justice system?
I guess not... It's left to the state, or some very wealthy persons, or organisations.
And in this case I would prefer a democratically elected and by public controlled government would do all this, instead of a few interest groups.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There's a nice chart here. I see the average is 34%. UK is just under average at 33%.

The answer that works for me is the percentage that people in a nation want. Sweden and USA have differ sorts of societies, so people want different levels of state services and therefore of tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
In 2015 no nation let as many refugees in as Sweden (In rate to population). So, this arguement isn't really one.

And what does the population has to do with it? I heard this arguement already before, but no one could explain why it should be important.
Anyway, I guess 60 million in France and 80 million in Germany are enough? They count? Btw. They have a WAY higher density as the USA (If population is important density is even more). And these two nations are more happy than the USA as well. ;)



But finally and more important: the point was not higher happiness by higher tax, but less poverty by higher taxation.

Anyone who would use the completely worthless “ happiness” is stupid. That has been utterly dis credited. Finland is the “ happiest” country in the world, it also has 30% alcoholism, that is how foolish it is to use a worthless opinion model. Please don’t use it again, it makes you look stupid, and usually your posts have some interest. I mean get serious, France a happy country with rioting everywhere? Please dont look stupid again, that index has zero credibility.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Anyone who would use the completely worthless “ happiness” is stupid. That has been utterly dis credited. Finland is the “ happiest” country in the world, it also has 30% alcoholism, that is how foolish it is to use a worthless opinion model. Please don’t use it again, it makes you look stupid, and usually your posts have some interest. I mean get serious, France a happy country with rioting everywhere? Please dont look stupid again, that index has zero credibility.
Somehow it's you only who focus so much on happiness. Like I wrote, the happiness report was just a side note to spice the whole thing up. The main focus are the hard facts I delivered. That before any taxation or transfer payments poverty in Germany and the USA are more or less equal, past taxation and transfer payments the poverty has dropped by 66% in Germany but only 33% in the USA.



-----


Now back to happiness... I never wrote "France is happy", I wrote "France is happier than the USA". Now you name the riots in France and yes, they happen from time to time, if the people aren't happy with their government or desitions of large companies. Now I look at the USA and see even more riots out of various reasons... This makes me think that my statement "France is happier than the USA" is correct, if I take your argumentation.

There also might be some drunken people in Finland, but I'm always happy when drunk... ;)



I know the happiness report is nothing you should take to serious, but it still hause some valid points. You still can use the report as a tool of orientation - I would argue the top 10 definitely is more happy than the bottom 10. A ranking inside the top 10 should be seen too serious.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Why would people vote to let politicians take their hard earned money?

Because the State can accomplish certain important functions of society that individuals, families, and small communities/organizations/cooperatives/corporations cannot.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Anyone who would use the completely worthless “ happiness” is stupid. That has been utterly dis credited. Finland is the “ happiest” country in the world, it also has 30% alcoholism, that is how foolish it is to use a worthless opinion model.

I'm the happiest man in the world, and I'm always drunk. I'd say the model works just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
Because the State can accomplish certain important functions of society that individuals, families, and small communities/organizations/cooperatives/corporations cannot.

I understand that some things are done best by the state, and building roads, supplying water, national defense, stuff like that. However if we start with the premise that being able to spend 100% of your income on anything you wish as you also having 100% freedom, every dollar, pound, euro sent to be spent by the state erodes your freedom by some percentage.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I understand that some things are done best by the state, and building roads, supplying water, national defense, stuff like that. However if we start with the premise that being able to spend 100% of your income on anything you wish as you also having 100% freedom, every dollar, pound, euro sent to be spent by the state erodes your freedom by some percentage.
baloney
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I understand that some things are done best by the state, and building roads, supplying water, national defense, stuff like that. However if we start with the premise that being able to spend 100% of your income on anything you wish as you also having 100% freedom, every dollar, pound, euro sent to be spent by the state erodes your freedom by some percentage.

That's one way of looking at it. I prefer to think that having those state-provided services you mention (along with others) gives me freedom from worrying about them and the time to devote myself to other pursuits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: malakos

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I understand that some things are done best by the state, and building roads, supplying water, national defense, stuff like that. However if we start with the premise that being able to spend 100% of your income on anything you wish as you also having 100% freedom, every dollar, pound, euro sent to be spent by the state erodes your freedom by some percentage.
That's not correct.
Every dollar you don't give to the state you will have to spend for the same or other reasons, but more expensive.

Let's take an example:
Spending less for social issues

If the state spends less, the crime rate will increase out of various reasons. Everyone who can will move to gated communities, will invest in alarm systems, hire a bodyguard, or what ever.
Everyone who can't will at least have more insurances and they will become more expensive.
All those who have no or nearly no money have to suffer.

At the end are those who can afford it forced to spend more. - your freedom you gained is to desite how to increase your security.
Those who can't afford it have to life without safety. And without safety, freedom is limited.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: malakos