Wealth creation vs wealth distribution...

[Seattle]

This is actually false.
Yes, the US does have c.$35tn debt, and it certainl;y could do with cutting spending significantly in some areas, but it should be reminded that the tax burden in the USA is a paltry 27%. That's the total of federal and state tax incomes. The average for the OECD countries is 34%. Some (e.g. Denmark) is at 47%, but that's somewhat of an outlier on that side.

So, if the US raised taxes just to the average of the OECD countries, that would raise over $2 trillion a year. Just think: balancing the books on current taxation levels, and then increasing tax to just the average, and the USA could erase its debt in under 20 years.
But it chooses not to. It's not a case of "spending more than most any level of taxation could cover". That excuse simply ignores every example where it is not the case. In the USA, it's simply a matter of deliberately wanting to keep taxation low, and how that taxation income is spent.

Your numbers aren't wrong. There are many ways to discuss this with stats. I've implied that you would roughly have to double all Federal Income taxes, which is true. Your figures, which I researched, are based on increasing all taxes, not just Federal and State but corporate, payroll, etc. Those percentages compare total taxes as a percentage of GDP in the US vs OECD.

My general argument would be to reduce/reform spending first and then slowly raise some targeted taxes as needed.

The problem I have with your argument is that it doesn't even work in Europe. The economies of the UK, France, Italy are all over 100% debt to GDP with Italy even worse than the US. So a massive tax increase in the US only to end up with debt as large as UK, France, Italy isn't much of a solution.

That's why I say it's largely about cutting spending through reform and then adjusting taxation. The US has a growth rate that's generally double that of those countries. That's some that we would like to keep and not copy the European rates.

 

[Olga]

Yes, I understand your point. IT DOESN'T WORK. Even if you have a good one on video and "a shitty one standing at the board." (your words.)

You get good educational outcomes with good teachers who teach in person. As in your example of the private tutor. If your method worked, rich people would just play videos for their kids, rather than get them good tutors.

Само по себе видео не ответит на дополнительные вопросы, а учитель ответит. Но сам учитель может не уметь хорошо и понятно объяснять предмет, даже если он сам его знает хорошо. А человек с видео может уметь понятно рассказать. Поэтому лучше иметь и видео, и учителя в классе, чем просто хренового учителя.

 

[Sarkus]

Your numbers aren't wrong. There are many ways to discuss this with stats. I've implied that you would roughly have to double all Federal Income taxes, which is true. Your figures, which I researched, are based on increasing all taxes, not just Federal and State but corporate, payroll, etc. Those percentages compare total taxes as a percentage of GDP in the US vs OECD.

Yes, I am aware of what the "tax burden" of a country represents. And the stats I provided shows your statement to be false. While I can accept that it would be "more than most any level of taxation (the American people are willing to bear) could cover" it's demonstrably within the scope of many other countries, given their tax burden.

My general argument would be to reduce/reform spending first and then slowly raise some targeted taxes as needed.

Sure. Efficient spending is something that should be done regardless of policy, for example, but that's not really what's being debated here.

The problem I have with your argument is that it doesn't even work in Europe. The economies of the UK, France, Italy are all over 100% debt to GDP with Italy even worse than the US. So a massive tax increase in the US only to end up with debt as large as UK, France, Italy isn't much of a solution.

Sure, and we all suffer the same inefficiencies in spending that plague the US. But that's a separate matter to what you claimed, and also not particularly relevant to the issue of wealth creation v wealth distribution.
However, I, too, can cherry-pick countries in Europe that have far less debt to GDP% while offering similar social services as in the UK. Denmark, which has the highest tax burden, enjoys a national healthcare system, free education including to University, and a number of other decent things. Their Debt to GDP % is only c.30%. Germany is only at c.65%, etc. (Germany's tax burden is c.40%, so roughly 1.5x that of the US).
So, it is possible, if you have a population that is willing to redistribute wealth in order to support those at the bottom. Which America does not particularly want to do, and, as you have pointed out, the various attempts to do something in this vein has had unintended consequences.
To me that doesn't mean you shouldn't do such things, it just means you should find better ways of doing them.

Yes, inefficient spending is an issue - all budgets have bloat, especially when just added to, things rolled on, rather than built from the ground up. But it needn't be an either/or.

That's why I say it's largely about cutting spending through reform and then adjusting taxation. The US has a growth rate that's generally double that of those countries. That's some that we would like to keep and not copy the European rates.

And yet you'd think that with all this economic growth in the US there would be a better distribution of all that wealth, and better systems in place for the less fortunate. But, hey, as long as I'm doing better I guess that's all that matters.

 

[billvon]

The video itself will not answer additional questions, but the teacher will. But the teacher himself may not be able to explain the subject well and clearly, even if he himself knows it well. But the person with the video can tell it clearly. Therefore, it is better to have both the video and the teacher in the class than just a lousy teacher.

Yes, I understand your point. IT DOESN'T WORK. We know this because when we try it, kids have worse outcomes than kids with the good teacher.

So yes, I know it works in your mind. It doesn't work in reality.

 

[Olga]

Yes, I understand your point. IT DOESN'T WORK. We know this because when we try it, kids have worse outcomes than kids with the good teacher.

So yes, I know it works in your mind. It doesn't work in reality.

Но результаты всё же лучше, чем у тех, кто занимается только лишь с плохим учителем. Выбирайте "золотую середину", потому что вы не сможете сделать так, чтобы в школах были только лучшие учителя, даже если вы их озолотите. Физически их не может быть много.

 

[Seattle]

But, hey, as long as I'm doing better I guess that's all that matters.

I'm not big on virtue signally as an argument or summation.

I am for improving efficiency in the US's more self-reliant system and in the EU/UK's more socially supportive system. All countries would benefit but I think it's more effective when you start with a leaner system to begin with.

There is also some degree of coasting that smaller countries can do by relying on innovation and technology from larger economies. Social support systems like Denmark (or the UK) don't scale up as easily to a population of 350 million for example.

The poor in the US are as well off (supported) in reality as the EU because they have Medicaid, subsidized housing, everyone has access to the internet and community colleges. The lower middle-class sometimes fall though the cracks of Progressive polices, but they are generally motivated enough that they don't stay there if they don't want to. It's a big country, some are fine there and that's doable in many areas of the country.

I see lower taxes and more self-reliance giving more people a chance to control their destiny than high taxes, a lower ceiling but a higher floor. It's easier to not get ahead but harder to do so if you want to.

I also sense from listening to others (not on here) but may be wrong and that is, in the UK the wealthy are thought of as the "landed gentry" or "nobility" and they are looked at unfavorably as not having earned it or not having done anything. In the US, most people know that most of the wealthy didn't start out that way, earned it through the price increase in stock of their company and it's only the people like Musk and Trump and rub people the wrong way because it's so public.

We know that most of the "wealthy" are just people who created a successful business whether that's Microsoft or just a guy who created a software program and sold it to Microsoft for $50 million or a successful real estate developer by the time he retires. Once you leave this forum, most people aren't focused on "redistributing' his wealth. The ones who often pay the price of Progressive policies aimed at the 1% are the bottom of the 10% who just deferred self-gratification, end up with a few million by retirement and they are where the "redistribution" often occurs.

The ones who are the most "virtuous" in that regard are generally the ones who aren't redistributing anything. 53% of the citizens in the UK receive more than they put in so you could say that's a good government evening things out but it's certainly hard for most people in the UK to claim that they care about the poor and are sending them a lot of their money. They aren't They are getting it all back. The only "virtuous" are the few at the top whose money is being redistributed..