Exactly, NOS.

There are a lot of evidences which prove that trade unions act as a mafia group. Paradoxically, they can be even more oppressive than the entrepreneur himself. I like how you highlight that the taken decisions by the leaders are accepted whether the workers like it or not, or affects or not their income or rights. If you want to make an individualistic move, they quickly will call you scab.

I agree, and your post explains very clearly what I - somehow - tried to tell in the OP. Although I do not pretend to delegitimize the role of trade unions has had during the development of the working-class, I think these groups have some shadows in the structures too. And, of course, they are and will always be the main interlocutor between the workers and the enterprises/government.

This is why I wanted to know if there is a possibility for a worker to disengage from this structure. When I read papers and news related to this issue, I figured out that a "scab" is badly seen among workers and most of them end up disowned. Yet, I was curious to understand the purposes of a scab and then some delicate situations like my OP could exist. Even, the trade unions can act aggressively towards the workers and threaten them. Acting like a gang, as you explained.

Because of the way you set it up, with no regard to the government's role, the employer's side of it, or the union's rationale for calling a strike. — Vera Mont

I didn't know a dilemma needed to be that realistic... I guess that if you put a lot of information, the debate we are currently having can decay. That's why I decided to start this OP, to read different opinions.

The employers have no duty to anyone, — Vera Mont

Of course they have and a lot. Starting with the entrepreneur who pays their income and ending up with the state when taxes are paid.

Thank you, ssu. I think you are the only who actually understood what I proposed on this dilemma. Maybe, it is a matter of culture and circumstances. Most of the users of TPF are citizens from Anglo-Saxon countries which their economy goes on forward and they tend to have a lot of job opportunities. So, they give for granted that if a strike fails, well just go to another job or whatever.

One of the things that surprised me the most is that some members don't get why the worker's wife is unemployed. Welcome to the reality of other countries. How lucky they are for not living in Spain, when it is common for women to stay at home and raising the kids and the family depends on the husband's income, which tends to be low. Usually, those women perceive a compensation from the state, but it is low too.

On the other hand, I will be honest. I see trade unions as political lobbies. Simple as that, and sometimes they do not care enough about their workers. It is a utopia because the worker is attached to both the enterprise and the trade union. Is there a possibility for the worker to make decisions individually? This is why I started this OP.

This is to the detriment of the strikers, whose families are similarly unstable, have needs, and so forth. It's not a neutral act of duty, it's a person actively sabotaging the efforts of strikers in the name of their family: Family over Union. — Moliere

Good point, Molliere and thanks for providing your arguments. I am seeing the dilemma in a different perspective now. Despite I didn't consider the familiar context of the rest of the workers, I wanted to use as an example a miner who is in a more "delicate" position than the others. I mean, there is always one specific person who, for whatever reason, is in a worse position than the rest.

What is the objective of the strike? — Vera Mont

Avoid the closure of the colliery. Thus, they would keep their jobs.

What are the employer's options? — Vera Mont

I do not consider it as "option" but a duty. The worker of this example is already represented by their secretary of miner's trade union. This is who proposes the strike, expecting that every miner will go because it is their moral duty.

If the strike succeeds, what does the worker gain? — Vera Mont

He keeps his job at the colliery, but...

If it fails, what does the worker lose? — Vera Mont

Here is the main problem and the uncertainty of the worker. What will happen if the strike doesn't succeed? Most important: who covers up the situation of his family during the strike? Because this issue can take months...

The worker's choice is purported to be between loyalties to union and family, but that is not the case in real life. — Vera Mont

It is interesting that you all say this is not a realistic scenario. :lol:
To be honest, I still do not understand why you see it that way...

What does this particular worker want? — Vera Mont

If you were the worker, what would you want?

Understood.

But my aim of publishing this post was not finding a solution, but to see what people think towards individualism. To be honest, in the specific case of the example, I'd choose to scab and provide my family an income despite that my co-workers would see me a very selfish person.

Although, there could be many alternatives and "additions" in these dilemmas, I think it is worthy to debate on how the individual decides to not follow up the group (duty of omission) because of personal circumstances.

Yep. The pretence here is that this is an attempt to make an impossibly intractable situation appear realistic. — Banno

I do not understand why you don't see this as realistic. I can share your arguments on the fact that we can always add something to that renders the individual choice void. This only makes the dilemma endless or difficult to solve, but not "unrealistic"

Hello Justin.

I understand your point, but I disagree with the fact of only caring about the devastated consequences on the enterprise and not the family. You explained that, in the long term, it will be worse if the colliery closes because they all can lose their employment.

Nonetheless, this is not plausible. You are considering that the strike has 100 % chances of succeeding, which it isn't. But, on the other hand, feeding your family is more granted if you "scab"

I fully agree with your argument seeing the individualistic point of view. Nonetheless, I think it is important to consider that going to strike is not a guarantee to cover up your rights. As @BC perfectly explained, not all strikes succeed at the end.

So, joining the strike has a lot of uncertainty while the possibility of feeding your family is more granted.

Why can't the wife work? — RogueAI

She can work, but she is unemployed. She was kicked off from her job due to the bankruptcy of the enterprise.

Can the guy on strike get a temporary job outside the field he's in? — RogueAI

Excellent question and that happens in real life too. For me, it will not be a problem and I will fully understand if the worker gets a temporary job. Yet, the trade unions would not be happy and would consider him a "scab"



Despite I agree that co-workers have the "duty" of showing compromise and loyalty, I think that individualism should be in the spot depending on the circumstances. Specifically, in this case, the worker has a lot of problems in his home and it seems that the trade union is not covering him put but coercing him to go on strike. At least that's how I see it...

I think what is key in this dilemma is who the worker owes more loyalty: his family or the miner's trade union (another kind of family)

You may have a family. But do you think that the other strikers don't? — Moliere

True.

But keep in mind that the worker of the example has problems in his family: the wife is already unemployed, one kid is sick and the other goes to college. Maybe the rest of the workers are covered up thanks to the incomes of their respective families...

Workers do face difficult decisions in supporting a union drive, becoming active in the union, and in striking, especially when the employer is hostile. The risks are not a pretense. Strikes do not always succeed, and a failed strike can leave the union members broke and out in the cold. — BC

I agree.

Furthermore, your good points BC, my intention in this OP was to highlight the personal/familiar context, which tend to be sensitive. One worker could scab because of he feels at the risk he faces losing both employment and income. But his attitude is not selfish at all, because he does such act in benefit of another group: his family.

I like your point that strikes not always succeed, and that's why I guess there is a dilemma on the worker's context of this OP. What solution is most worthy to him to sacrifice?

is mostly pretence. — Banno

Pretence means: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

My intention was not to "pretend", and believe it or not, the case I used as a dilemma, is more common in real life than we tend to think.

I do not get why you think the dilemma itself forces you to choose one option instead of the other.

What's your point? Seems like more thinly veiled anti-union stuff to me. — Mikie

My point was to know if "individual" choices in edge circumstances are or not plausible. I think this is a good example, because the worker is not necessarily against trade unions but his personal situation is even more complex. I already know that in some countries the rights of the workers are covered if the go to strike. If I had put such guarantees in my OP, the dilemma would be senseless.

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei

In this specific case, no. The union is not able to provide incomes. It is a situation on the edge.

By the way, today is Kurosawa's 25th anniversary of his death. It is totally a destiny coincidence that we are talking about him today.

By the spring of 1998, the director was largely confined to bed in his home at Setagaya in Tokyo, spending his time listening to music and watching television. On September 6, 1998, Kurosawa passed away after a stroke. He was 88. The Life of Akira Kurosawa – Part 12: Death and posthumous works (1998)

Decades ahead of his time. Still the best imo — I like sushi

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. I personally think that everything about Kurosawa was ahead of his time: screen, aesthetics, photographs, scenario, actors, screenwriting, etc. What a talent, and most importantly, a humbled wise person.

Can't wait to hear proposals on how government services should be paid for. — LuckyR

Didn't you read the arguments provided at least? :roll:
The exchange between ssu and NOS is interesting, and we can learn a lot.

On the other hand, keep in mind that my intention in this thread is not to undermine the taxation itself. But trying to understand why some states manage public budget better than another, and explain that paying "high" taxes doesn't always provide better public services.

But recipients of welfare or employment insurance are taxed on what they receive from the government as if it was a wage and as if it wasn't already tax revenue. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's as it is. The unemployment subsidies are taxed here as "Income taxes". It is one of the main paradoxes and stupidities that I hardly can understand about the system. Frankly, I think the government is kidding us... You consider it as corrupt, but I see it as senseless.

but here government employees are taxed just like any other private employee. So a tax dollar might find itself in the wage of one over-payed government worker, but then that money is taxed again and goes right back into government coffers. If it was you or me doing that it would be skimming, but when the government does it it is just how we pay for services. This is why the government not only has the monopoly on violence, but also the monopoly on crime. — NOS4A2

I agree, here in Spain it happens exactly as you explained. It is like a vicious circle. I'm not sure if this is the case in your country as well: Whenever a citizen receives compensation, they must pay the tax corresponding to the amount.

For example: I gained 100.000 € playing lotto. Well, I don't perceive those 100K entirely. I must apply a taxation because according to our laws this a benefit to be shared. I end up perceiving around 89K or 91K, the rest goes to the public budget. The main paradox, as NOS pointed out, is that this happens with public compensations too.

I perceive the same vicious scheme. The government gives you a sum, but it forces you to pay taxes to recover it.

The reason classic liberals argue for a smaller state is because they assume people can take care of themselves, without the need for state coercion. — Tzeentch

I think the we all should take care more about ourselves. The State is not our parents, and despite that maybe such functionality is only available in small countries, we should expect more individual behaviour and responsibility.

I can take as granted that the Police and Defense are needed to be managed by a public administration. But, transportation and expenditure (for example), could have an equilibrium of both private and public sectors.

I think we should differentiate on Jesus who comes from the Gospel and Jesus of Nazareth.

The role of Jesus and Christianity itself in the Bible is a metaphorical invention by Paul and John. There is not historical evidence that backs up the warrior character of this movement, but it is obvious that was a pacific revolt against Romans. Nonetheless, after Christianity is established as a rigid system it needs to be defended at all costs. I guess this is why we see some Gospels about this nature around the Bible.

On the other hand, Jesus of Nazareth (the "real" Jesus, or at least his human form) was clearly a pacifist. Luke 23:34 "Then Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they're doing...'"

That redemption came when Jesus was dying crucified on the cross. I personally believe that it was his real aim. Avoiding violence and showing the other cheek. But, it is evident that there is a controversial issue regarding what happened and then what appears in the Gospels. I guess this is why you find it contradictory.

Interesting points.

Note that I didn't deny the existence and validity of taxation. It is obvious that our nations/governments need to collect to provide the basics. This is not something new, and even the Roman Empire already worked with those. But the act of taxation itself is complex. It is not a perfect machine where you put a lot of money into the public budget and then you get quality services. This doesn't work in every state, sadly. It is worthy to look at East European countries. Despite the fact that they are making a big effort regarding tax policies, the public administration itself is still opaque, corrupt and the use of bribes is very common. So, even though taxation is a good tool to provide public services, it cannot be applied to every country. You cannot go to Lebanon and say: "hey if you you promote taxation maybe your country's functionality wouldn't be too backwards"

On the other hand, what is the real amount of high taxes? Can all the employees or businessmen bear such big taxation?
Let me explain myself: The incomes here in Spain are pretty low and maybe one of the lowest among the EU members. Yet, the Income Tax is pretty high to be honest... 19 % of an annual income of 12.450 € goes to taxes. From 35,200 euros to 59,999 euros, a 37 %. From 60,000 euros to 299,999 euros, a 45 %. 300,000 euros and above, a 47 %. According to these facts, it is clear that I live in a country that doesn't like rich people or families with decent salaries. I call this expropriation. (Note that I only referred to Income tax but there are a lot of different types obviously).

Although I agree with your formula and argument of high taxes + zero or low corruption + competent + careful spending, these are difficult to apply in every EU member. I fully believe that this works in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway, but not here. It is sarcastic when our Treasury Ministry says that rich people should make a plus effort in this difficult times of public expenditure. Are we so? We are not in a position to demand high demands when our economy is fragile.

We have an average of 42 % tax pressure on our incomes and I do not know where all the profits go.
Oh yes... We are a highly-debted country because of the incompetence of our politicians. We are literally forced to pay taxes to reduce the debt, not for better services.

I agree.

I understand that this debate is far from the legal frames. In the EU, it is completely allowed to change and move the HQ to any country of the Euro zone. Some states have lower corporate taxes, others high. I fully respect it. Who am I to say to Hungary or Ireland to switch their tax policies as well as Germany or Spain? It is true that one of the main aims of the European Commission is to reach a common tax policy, but this will be one of the toughest tasks to be done. I am even skeptical and I do not think that is available. Here also pops up the classical breach between north and south. If we say:"hey let's raise the Corporation Tax to collect more and expend," maybe the north-centre countries would say: "here we have the Mediterranean countries spending a lot instead of managing the budget wisely."

The debate will still be there. Which I find fascinating and I do not understand why the people of my age (millennials', I am 26) do not care that much when it is clearly a topic that we have to focus on.

On the other hand, I do not know if tax havens are ethical, but I understand that it is the only way to survive in globalisation. What can Andorra or Bahamas do in a complex system of transactions? They need to be attractive to attach foreign investment. But, to be honest, I do not consider them a real problem because they are tiny territories, so it is very easy to be a tax haven with small population groups. The real question is how to manage the public budget when there are millions and millions of people in the same nation.

I don't think we would have a big impact if we block transactions and international market in Andorra as well as our governments have done with Russia.

I watched a film of master Akira Kurosawa this afternoon.

After watching it, I suddenly reminded of an excellent footage where Kurosawa talks about the skill that every writer should have: patience.

If you already didn't see it, I fully recommend you to do so.

I am watching Sanjuro. It is the sequel of Yojimbo. You know I love samurai films. :cool:

I think it is all about perspective. Here in Europe we consider Biden as a conservative, but more moderate than the average Republican candidate. Honestly, I think that socialism or "Neo-Marxism" don't exist in the U.S. at all, either ever existed. Your governments have always been the main image of the free market and capitalism, so it is your country. Sometimes the state as a public guarantee cares more than others, but in overall, the American state is only reliable on defence and military matters. The rest of the issues which every state has, are delegated to the free will of enterprises.

Is Biden against NATO? No.
Is Biden against free market? No.
Is Baden in favour of more State intervention? No.

That's how a real communist should act, and we have plenty of those in the European Parliaments. For instance, in Spain our politicians are having a crucial debate on expropriation of Oil and Gas companies to have a public management in the future. I think this is impossible to be in Biden's mind.

Is there evidence or is that most things people spread nowadays misinformation? — Hailey

Sadly, it is the latter.

Many Chinese think socialism is good. But no Chinese would think Biden is a communist. — Hailey

Neither we. But it is important that you also point out that Chinese society doesn't see Biden that way because some media and Trump supporters consider Biden a communist as well as Pol Pot.

Ummm....Romania is part of the EU. It and Bulgaria have been EU members since 2007. What Romania isn't is part of the Schengen treaty and in the Euro-zone. — ssu

I apologise. I mixed up Schengen Treaty and Euro-zone with the European Union. There are many organisms that I tend to confuse which countries are part of all of them, and others just in some.

I guess the main issue regarding the ban to Romania of joining the Schengen Treaty is related to immigration then.

With corporate taxes and wealth taxes one has to understand that money can move around easily and if these taxes are really punitive (let's say 75% to 90% tax on profit), people simply won't sell and wait for the taxes to be lowered while corporations can also postpone profits. — ssu

Exactly.

There is another problem with punitive Corporation Tax: companies leaving out the country where they were established. Sooner or later, if they see that taxation is heavy, they would establish their quarters in a more attractive country regarding the Tax policies. On this specific issue, there is also a huge competition among the states which some attract foreign investment while others don't.
We can assume that the countries with punitive taxation have the risk of "losing" GDP if their companies or entrepreneurs decide to fly out to a country with low taxes.

Is this ethical? To "steal" the headquarters of companies of some countries because the taxes are low? There is always this kind of debate...

Just having the same Constitution doesn't make countries similar. — ssu

I agree, but I put Romania and Moldova as examples because they want to be part of the European Union and one of the main characteristics of this community is trying to work together in the same direction. Despite that those states are doing their best to "behave" like an EU member, it is clear that the problem is deeper than we tend to think regarding East European countries.
I think it is fascinating how European Central Bank and European Commission rule on very different countries. When they raise Euro area bank interest, it produces effects to each of 27 members, but the results in the long run are clearly different. Over the course of just over a year, the ECB has increased rates from -0.5% to 3.75% in order to combat a surge in inflation. Yet, this Interest Rate policy will affect each state differently. It is very complex to achieve a common path.

That picture is very interesting. Because it assume's the opposite of what you're saying (if I understood you correctly). — ssu

I know I explained myself with an amount of complexity. I tried to meant that direct taxes (income and corporate ones) are high in Ireland while indirect (property and consumption tax) are low. Maybe this is a good equilibrium and I think that Ireland has been increasing its development since the big crisis of 2008, where the so called "P.I.G.S" suffered a lot. Ireland is no longer part of this club.

Note: I just realised that the image I posted above has a title that says which tax affects economic growth the most? I understand know why you didn't understand me. I didn't put the title and of course I disagree with the title itself. I guess I didn't see it when I downloaded the picture to post it here.

And aren't in Ireland corporate taxes low, actually? It's like 12,5% whereas in my country the similar tax rate is 20%and in Germany 29,8%. Only Hungary has a lower corporate tax rate in Europe (9%) than Ireland. — ssu

Exactly. The Corporate Tax Rate in European Union stands at 21.30 percent. Ireland Corporate Tax Rate is 12 % that we should not consider it as "low". It is not equal the amount of collection of Corporate Tax Rate on Germany than in Ireland. Different purchasing power.

What makes it interesting is that consumption taxes are the ones that hurt people who are poorer starting from the fact that everybody has to eat and the amount needed doesn't actually differ. Hence consumption taxes, VAT taxes etc. hit the poorer and poorest people. — ssu

I agree. I think VAT is one of the most complex to put in practice. Here in Spain is 21 %, that it is similar to most of the EU members. While in Hungary, they hold the higher percentage with 27 % paradoxically. They are just doing the opposite of why I try to defend with my arguments. :lol:

Listening to this classic again... I feel nostalgic.

Alright Haley, it is OK. I understand that this topic is not everyone's cup of tea. Some even see it as boring and are not interested in public affairs. :razz:

ssu, I appreciate your answer and contribution to my thread.

On the other hand, I agree that Baltic states and Eastern European countries are good examples regarding this topic. A few months ago, I read a paper calledReform and its Firm-Level Effects in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by John E. Anderson. Sadly, one of them is that despite of having reforms on taxation this doesn't lead necessarily to a "fairer" country. Culture depends a lot on this issue and some states as Romania or Moldova are facing this problem which they drag since the Soviet era. It is very common the use of bribes on whatever public administration activities. So, it is a solution that depends more on cultural matters than tax policies.
Austria and Netherlands ban Romania to join EU. We do not really know the aims of these countries in their refuse, but I guess the opacity of their collection is one of them...

It's all about curbing the "excesses of capitalism", yes. Yet, I want to highlight Ireland as a good example of equilibrium. Personal Income Taxes and Corporate Taxes are high, but consumption and property (where the use of wealth really goes) are low. I think this is they key of a successful tax policy.

I'd use the term, and encourage them to use it, so the child can see how it is used. — Banno

How would you use those terms if you do not know their definition? I think it is not possible to encourage them if you do not understand it, and to understand those terms you need previously a basic definition of each.

For example: let's say I have to write an essay on art. But how, if I do not know the definitions of "perception" or "aesthetics" (for example) previously?

Maybe I am understanding you wrongly. But it seems that you see the words just as random elements and avoiding their syntax functionality.

Alright! Thanks for your analysis. Appreciate it.

Popular Hits of the Showa Era by Ryu Murikami — Manuel

It sounds so interesting! How is it? Do you like it?

It happens to me more than one time. What I have discovered is that this only happens when I write long posts. If the reply is short, it doesn't appear in the drafts again.

On the other hand, I think you are right, and it is a glitch. But on my phone, because when I use TPF on a PC, nothing happens at all.

I am Interested in what @Hailey and @guanyun can explain to us regarding Chinese tax system. Please, if you do not mind, and only when you were able to do so, I would like to know how taxes work in your country.

I found out the following information on Chinese tax policy: Taxes provide the most important revenue source for the Government of the People's Republic of China. Tax is a key component of macro-economic policy, and greatly affects China's economic and social development. With the changes made since the 1994 tax reform, China has sought to set up a streamlined tax system geared to a socialist market economy.

But the main paper is critized for not being clear regarding citation style and needs more verification.

I would be very appreciated if you can share with us your perspective on Chinese tax system.