From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Swedish Prime minister says Sweden gaining democratic
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:00:23 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1992Apr11.204157.9336@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Espen.H.Koht@dartmouth.edu (Espen H. Koht) writes:
>In article <10885@chalmers.se>
>d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>.
>> 
>>   Tom takes $100 from him Dick, buys a pink flamingo for them and gives it to
>> Harry. What did Dick get (other than shafted)?
>
>   And what happened to Harry and Tom's $100? No really if you look at
>the entire system you realize that no money vanishes into thin air no
>matter how much or little taxation there is.

  Large amounts of Swedish taxpayers money have gone into the pockets of 
real-estate investors and owners in London among other places. This is 
because when people stated to invest heavily in foreign real estate, the
large Swedish banks (some government owned, some privately owned, all 
government controlled) wanted in for a piece of the actions. And because 
they came in too late, and lacked the skill, they made enormous losses.
  And who is there to pay for all this (except for Erik Penser:)? Yes, the
taxpayer.

  I would say that money lost in Brussels has "vanished into thin air", at
least from our point of view.

>It is the distribution
>that makes the difference.  If you want to debate tax rates that is
>what you should be considering.  Do you care about an egalitarian
>society?  Equal opportunity?  Democracy that means something with
>economic factors are counted as well as political ones?
  
  I think human nature makes "economic democracy" impossible.

>Would you
>rather live in a society where you have to spend coniderable amounts of
>money on home security,

  According to a study made for the Department of Justice, we will reach
a point around 1996 (?) where the resources of the Police is stretched
so thin, that all burglaries will be written off regardless of if the
perpetrator was caught in the act!

***************************The important stuff*********************************
  I suspect that a lot of the foreign participants miss this part of the
argument, they think that it is strange that we squeel so much over that
we pay so much when we get so much.
  The real situation is that we squeel so much over that we pay so much
*because we see that we get less and less*, and soon we will probably
get as little as you get, but pay several times more!
**************************Reprinted separately*********************************

>send your kids to schools with guards?  Forgo
>things in life you appreciate because your favorite musician/author is
>not publishable from an economic perspective?  Or be a slave to tastes
>and opinions that are only shared by the majority of people because
>that is what nakes economic sense?
  
  I'm already a slave to tastes and opinions that are only shared by the 
majority of people! That is because no matter what the tax the Government
can't subsidize everybody and everything! I wouldn't have anything against
a country where the Government payed me good money to sit and write 
supplements and adventures for board- and role-playing games regardless of
if they sold or not. But the Majority of the Swedish people say "Nope! That's
not art! No money for you!".

>> >Medical insurance is only the most obvious of these. 
>>   If you are willing and able to wait, that is. If you aren't or can't 
>> you'll have to cough up the money twice. First time for the tax, second
>> time for the care from a independent.
>
>  This point is releveant when it comes to 'choice' treatment, not
>emergency, and in that chase the market factors still work.  ie. even
>with the tax added in you find the intervention worth what you are
>paying for it.  
  
  Is a bypass operation a choise treatment? A hip replacement for a senior
who cannot walk without it? And of course people find it worth what they
are paying for it, because in many cases they are paying for their lives or
the quality of their lives!

>   There are a lot of better examples out there. I always laugh when I
>see cars here in the US with bumper-stickers that say 'ban taxes' while
>I'm driving on the *highway* (or any other road for that matter). 
>There is no way these things can be privately financed.  

  Even if it is so, does the fact that highways cannot be privately financed
mean that many other things cannot be privately financed?

>Espen

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."