Has Europe 'horribly failed' because of Socialism?

[bishop]

this thread's pathetic..

you toss up an "argument" somehow showing how socialism has failed europe without listing a single quantitative fact. nothing but anecdotes and banter.

take norway for example.. 3rd in the world in gdp per capita.. and 1st in the world on the human development index from 2001 to 2005.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono "History tells us that" -- bullshit! Perhaps History according to Saint Ronald Reagan, or example (as placed under Ronnie's wee pillow by the wee history fairy, which he probably believed in), but not the real hands-on history of, say, the Great Depression. But then I'm just another crazed lefty who favours things like rural electrification and other nutty socialist schemes-

My great-grandparents had electricity on their farm, six miles from the city limits of the nearest town, in 1905, two years before Oklahoma (where they lived) became a state. They had indoor plumbing and running water as well. They were relatively poor farmers but they were some of the few that made it through the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl in Southwest Oklahoma intact. My great-grandfather was selected as farmer of the year by the state extension for two years in the 1930's.

And they did it all by themselves. They provided their own electricity, their own pumps, their own septic system. Mostly dug by hand.

There is no need for socialism if people are willing to do what is necessary to work for what they want.

Keith

[underbear1]

For all their faults, no socialist country would leave 45 million citizens of their country with NO HEALTHCARE. Most are a lot more evolved on social issues as well, such as who's having sex with whom, (if you aren't one of the people involved), it's none of your business!

[SteveA]

Quote by: bishop this thread's pathetic.. you toss up an "argument" somehow showing how socialism has failed europe without listing a single quantitative fact. nothing but anecdotes and banter. take norway for example.. 3rd in the world in gdp per capita.. and 1st in the world on the human development index from 2001 to 2005.

Ok, let's look at some things about Norway. We'll assume they currently have a relatively benevolent form of socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway

Norway is 86% Lutheran with a population 65 times smaller than the U.S. and virtually no cultural diversity. (this will provide a future challenge for them) So it's much easier to monitor for and stop corruption with such a naturally homogenous system.

How did Norway reach this point? Well they worked hard and began at working days 10-13 hours long before the industrial revolution which began for them around 1920 and managed to get down to around 7 1/2 hours a day now. Petroleum exports provided a lot of 'fuel' (yes, pun intended) to power a socialized system shortly afterwards though these have been decaying.

http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/...hic/20050131_1
In 2001, the rate of unemployment in Norway was 3.4% compared to a 6.2% Eur-A average; in 2002, it was 3.9% while the Eur-A average was 6.7% (ILO, 2005).

So they have a very homogenous society that has adapted to living in a harsh climate. This would seem to obviously have required a strong work ethic and sense of community responsibility before industrialization. Will this survive under continued socialism? I think they have greater inertia but ultimately a highly socialized/redistributionist system will eat away at this.

I just did a search on "Norway work ethic" and found many articles that seem to agree:

In Norway, a nation calls in sick: Oil money affecting work ethic
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._norway25.html

Norway Looks for Ways to Keep Its Workers on the Job
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AE0894DC404482

Norwegian Companies Look to Ergonomics To Curb Rising Absenteeism
http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=978

etc. There are many articles regarding the same problem.


So effectively what you have was a country that survived hard times by natural pressures to encourage a very unified and supportive society with a strong work ethic. They were lucky to an extent as well with the discovery of oil and rapidly industrialized exporting it to their benefit but became captivated by socialism and since then have been spending these cultural reserves, both economically (exports have been dropping) and socially (decay in work ethic). This is natural to an extent when you get wealth, but socialism accelerates this. I'm certain Norway is doing fine though overall standard of living should be considered instead of simple equivalent dollars income (they have a high tax rate and cost of living so average income can be misleading when these factors are taken into consideration).

Interestingly enough I saw a couple articles indicating that Norway has been moving toward privatizing previously socialized areas (I hope they truly privatize it and not pull a Bush on it ). I guess we'll see what happens. Here's one of them:

Scandinavia's Surprising Turn From Socialism
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

"... Scandinavian socialism was in some ways less intense than other European varieties. Unlike governments in France, England, and Germany, Scandinavian states owned and ran very few companies other than public utilities and railroads. Companies like Saab, Ericsson, Nokia, and Volvo have always belonged to stockholders.

Sandinavia's marginal tax rates on wages, and the value added taxes (which are assessed like sales taxes) remain the highest in the world. But capital gains taxes and real estate assessments are low or non-existent. And the region is actually ahead of the United States in a few areas of market reforms: All four countries have school vouchers and allow or will soon allow individual control over some social security taxes.

When it comes to European integration, Scandinavians have shown an independent streak. Norway has stayed out of the European Union's formal structures--although it does have a free trade agreement with the E.U.--while Denmark and Sweden both joined only after reserving the right to opt out of certain parts of the Union (neither has adopted the euro). Only Finland has wholeheartedly embraced the E.U. Not coincidentally, it is also the only Scandinavian country without a politically influential free-market movement... "

(See, what did I say about taxes on wages or income are better than property taxes ... hold the applause. I'll pat myself on the back instead )

Now consider that Scandinavian countries all have relatively free markets and limited government involvement outside of the areas specifically socialized, so they're still operating rather efficiently though we'll see where they head from here. I used to chat on-line with a very intelligent and cute Finnish lady ... *sigh* I wish her luck!

Something else to consider is that Norway is small and not the typical result of socialism. If I were to compare Norway with one of the better states in the U.S. the difference would become even more noticeable. I don't mean that in a bad way but simply that capitalism has many more examples of successes than socialism. There aren't many areas of the world with large amounts of government control over the economy that have done well in modern history.

One more note: I don't believe I've ever claimed that it's impossible for commnual efforts to benefit people and in fact I've encouraged people to look for these areas that they can help. I've simply been trying to show that when these are passed off to government they suffer by being an enforced monopoly without competition. Government tends to whether intentionally or not, stifle competition and it's almost inevitable because almost by definition it's a enforced monopoly that has few selective pressures on it.

[tman_ndsu08]

There is no such thing as socialism. There never has been and never will be.

Any country that has claimed to have tried it or currently uses it actually is using or had used regulated capitalism.


Capitalism is the natural state of man and the only system that has ever worked. It's simply up to each countries government to the amount of regulation they wish to impose on it.

[bishop]

no, there's never been a "pure" socialist economy just like there's never been a "pure" capitalist economy.

socialism these days tends to be more about enhancing society's well-being, rather than the classic addage of state control/ownership over the economy.. none of the countries in europe are socialist, but they have socialist programs like public education, universal healthcare, etc.. they provide this to their citizens and still manage to have a consumer base with strong purchasing power.

other countries that rank higher than us on the human development index are sweden, australia, canada, the netherlands and belgium. and in technological achievement, they're right up there with us.


the point of all this? SlantedFacts's line talking about how socialist european governments have failed big time was quite the idiotic statement. there are loads of examples showing that socialist policies really aren't the big failures that opponents to social programs always suggest.

[Nono]

Quote by: Keith H. My great-grandparents had electricity on their farm, six miles from the city limits of the nearest town, in 1905, two years before Oklahoma (where they lived) became a state. They had indoor plumbing and running water as well. They were relatively poor farmers but they were some of the few that made it through the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl in Southwest Oklahoma intact. My great-grandfather was selected as farmer of the year by the state extension for two years in the 1930's. And they did it all by themselves. They provided their own electricity, their own pumps, their own septic system. Mostly dug by hand. There is no need for socialism if people are willing to do what is necessary to work for what they want.

Agreed, if the only criterion is personal will. But of course it isn't. Good for your forbears for getting all that stuff by themselves, and if you wish to believe that this is 100% a question of the sweat on their brow, well, it's a free county...

But I don't see the world in such simplistic terms; I don't believe that the Dust Bowl Oakies were all shiftless good-for-nothings who actually didn't really need no FDR. The fact is that luck, circumstance, also plays a big part in people's lives.

And to make sure that people spread their own good fortune around a bit, there's nothing like government-mandated redistritution of wealth.

[oranged]

If the homeless people can reap the rewards of socialism, than why does Stockholm have the lowest rate of homelessness in the world. Europe does have it's problems, but currently I have to say it looks like the least screwed up place on earth. That's why I moved here. I don't know anyone who's suffering from socialism.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Nono And to make sure that people spread their own good fortune around a bit, there's nothing like government-mandated redistritution of wealth.

How does this logically follow from anything you said before this in your post?

How does this logically follow from any possible premise?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: oranged If the homeless people can reap the rewards of socialism, than why does Stockholm have the lowest rate of homelessness in the world.

If we wanted, we could redefine what homelessness meant and get a homelessness rate that was lower than yours.

After all, if you've been to a shelter, you're not really homeless. ETC.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Aquietguy1 You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. SteveA you can try your best to explain but some people just don't want to hear. It's a good thing that everyone's not that way.

We all try. I'm certain some thoughts stick though. It's just hard to counter a public education system that's powered off your taxes and effectively requires your children to attend (of course private or homeschooling is an option but personally I can't make that commitment and you're still expected to pay for the public one anyway :().

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: SteveA He's correct Matt. Socialism is the step prior to communism. That where the ideal of socialism originally came from: so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm) n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Only if you subscribe to the rather limited opinion of Marxists.

The idea of socialism long pre-dates Marx and Marxism, see Saint-Simon or Robert Owen for 18th and 19th century examples, so that is not where the idea of socialism comes from.

I also dislike the term "socialism" being flung round when in regards to the economic policy of largely capitalist politicians. The fact of the matter is minimum wage, the NHS or any other examples of government run or imposed institutions are not examples of "socialism". They are an example of marginally leftwing economic policies and plans being instated into society. Which is why we live in a mixed economy, which heavily leans towards capitalism. There is not a single example of a socialist country in Europe since the 1930's, which saw the existance of the Spanish Republic, which was to an extent socialist. The USSR certainly was not during or after the rise of Stalin and it is a dubious argument to suggest that it was a socialist country under Lenin.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono Agreed, if the only criterion is personal will. But of course it isn't. Good for your forbears for getting all that stuff by themselves, and if you wish to believe that this is 100% a question of the sweat on their brow, well, it's a free county...

What? You think their friendly, socialist Rural Electric Cooperative came out and wired their house, and skipped all the neigbors, in 1905?

Which welfare organization dug their well, though?

Keith

[SteveA]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Only if you subscribe to the rather limited opinion of Marxists. The idea of socialism long pre-dates Marx and Marxism, see Saint-Simon or Robert Owen for 18th and 19th century examples, so that is not where the idea of socialism comes from. I also dislike the term "socialism" being flung round when in regards to the economic policy of largely capitalist politicians. The fact of the matter is minimum wage, the NHS or any other examples of government run or imposed institutions are not examples of "socialism". They are an example of marginally leftwing economic policies and plans being instated into society. Which is why we live in a mixed economy, which heavily leans towards capitalism. There is not a single example of a socialist country in Europe since the 1930's, which saw the existance of the Spanish Republic, which was to an extent socialist. The USSR certainly was not during or after the rise of Stalin and it is a dubious argument to suggest that it was a socialist country under Lenin.

I see this as largely denial. If there are no socialized countries in Europe now, what percent of a realistically attainable socialized government are many at? From my view even England and the U.S. are largely socialized.

I believe we agree that it would be catastrophic or even impossible for any central government of a nation to have a slave population in work forces that they directly commanded down to the level of individuals. So socialism isn't black or white, it's gradations of central economic control. Hitler's party referred to themselves as Socialists and he couldn't command everyone directly with regard to production. Though he didn't have good intentions that's really not the point. In, Russia they had to junk their "progressive" tax system in favor of a 13% flat tax rate.

Recently Germany had a tax rate close to 50%. Though I believe total taxes and levels of central control of the economy are underreported as the methods of imposing this control are numerous and not as obvious as some of the more direct ones (the U.S. has a ton of indirect taxes or 5+ taxes of various types on income and property, plus employer matching ones and mandatory services etc.)

Let's assume you went to a tropical island somewhere and told them that you were going to take half of everything they produced or directly employ half the people to work on what you wanted them to (and the rest of them would have to get business permits now to do their wor), do you believe they would understand the subtleties involved in explaining how that's truly not running their lives? The fact that people put up with 50% taxes seems incredible in itself. The American Revolution started over something like a 3% tax on tea. I bet the only reason why the taxes aren't at 70% is simply because they haven't zombified enough people yet into believing it's totally natural to live like that. I think many countries including Europe, England and the U.S. are to a large extent socialist nations but we've become accustomed to it and so don't see it easily because it's mostly a silent machination in the background because we use paper and plastic currencies. Technology has assisted this in both enabling much of it, as well as making it more bearable. Socialism has become mainstream in politics and the only reason why political parties don't explicitly refer to it as socialism is because a lot of the ones that call themselves socialists are truly promoting communism.

The core of it is that it doesn't matter whether or not someone wants to call it socialism. Whatever it is, there are no lack of governments or people otherwise running the show that try to "push the envelope" when it comes to taking and controlling individuals and their resources. The fact that they aren't controlling more is likely simply a logistic problem to them.

[westcoastdog]

Socialism means government ownership. During the 90s, Europe, which had limited government ownership, privatized many services, such as telephone and energy. Europe has social welfare, government with a heart and its ownership of enterprises is small and shrinking. People have learned that bureaucrats make lousy entrepreneurs.

By almost every social measure of welfare, western European countries score significantly higher than the U.S.

This thread illustrates the foolishness of arm chair speculating. How many contributors have traveled in western Europe? It appears very few. Critics ought to spend a month or two wandering around western Europe and they will discover people with less income but who live better than Americans. I have a number of Europeans friends here and some have returned to their home countries and others have expressed similar intentions; they find America, which has certain economic advantages, difficult and unpleasant compared to Europe.

Except for a few hardcore lefties, socialism is a dead issue in the 21st century. Critics of socialism are flogging a dead horse, so dead that there's only bones and some hide remaining. Don't worry about socialism. America has to fear the roaring capitalism of China!

[Nono]

Welcome back to Volconvo, westie. Been a while.

Except for a few hardcore lefties, socialism is a dead issue in the 21st century.

Perhaps you've defined socialism too narrowly. Government ownership is part of it, but the main thing is systematic redistribution of wealth, which means deciding what you consider excessive at both ends of the wealth-poverty scale and implementing means of making it flow in the desired direction. An example is progressive income tax funding public services that (1) serve the public and (2) create jobs for the people who provide them. You also have this, though to a far lesser extent, in the US.

The corporate-owned media (fount of information for people like tman, I'm sure) have been telling us for quite a while now that "socialism is dead". We'll see.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: SteveA I see this as largely denial. If there are no socialized countries in Europe now, what percent of a realistically attainable socialized government are many at? From my view even England and the U.S. are largely socialized. I believe we agree that it would be catastrophic or even impossible for any central government of a nation to have a slave population in work forces that they directly commanded down to the level of individuals. So socialism isn't black or white, it's gradations of central economic control. Hitler's party referred to themselves as Socialists and he couldn't command everyone directly with regard to production. Though he didn't have good intentions that's really not the point. In, Russia they had to junk their "progressive" tax system in favor of a 13% flat tax rate. Recently Germany had a tax rate close to 50%. Though I believe total taxes and levels of central control of the economy are underreported as the methods of imposing this control are numerous and not as obvious as some of the more direct ones (the U.S. has a ton of indirect taxes or 5+ taxes of various types on income and property, plus employer matching ones and mandatory services etc.) Let's assume you went to a tropical island somewhere and told them that you were going to take half of everything they produced or directly employ half the people to work on what you wanted them to (and the rest of them would have to get business permits now to do their wor), do you believe they would understand the subtleties involved in explaining how that's truly not running their lives? The fact that people put up with 50% taxes seems incredible in itself. The American Revolution started over something like a 3% tax on tea. I bet the only reason why the taxes aren't at 70% is simply because they haven't zombified enough people yet into believing it's totally natural to live like that. I think many countries including Europe, England and the U.S. are to a large extent socialist nations but we've become accustomed to it and so don't see it easily because it's mostly a silent machination in the background because we use paper and plastic currencies. Technology has assisted this in both enabling much of it, as well as making it more bearable. Socialism has become mainstream in politics and the only reason why political parties don't explicitly refer to it as socialism is because a lot of the ones that call themselves socialists are truly promoting communism. The core of it is that it doesn't matter whether or not someone wants to call it socialism. Whatever it is, there are no lack of governments or people otherwise running the show that try to "push the envelope" when it comes to taking and controlling individuals and their resources. The fact that they aren't controlling more is likely simply a logistic problem to them.

If there are no socialized countries in Europe now, what percent of a realistically attainable socialized government are many at?

10% maybe 20%, tops, in perhaps the most extreme of examples.

From my view even England and the U.S. are largely socialized.

Well, you have got Anarcho-Capitalist written under your user name. I guess you are looking at it from a very, very different perspective from me.

I believe we agree that it would be catastrophic or even impossible for any central government of a nation to have a slave population in work forces that they directly commanded down to the level of individuals.

So do I, thus the failure of societies based on totalitarianism, I hope you don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism.

So socialism isn't black or white, it's gradations of central economic control.

No, socialism is a set of principals, both economic, political and social. It encompasses some ideologies which promote strong central government but it also encompasses some ideologies which promote the utter elimination of central government. What it is not is the rather petty policy's of pseudo-liberal democratic governments, designed only to preserve votes while attempting to not risk the vote of the middle class.

Hitler's party referred to themselves as Socialists and he couldn't command everyone directly with regard to production.

Which only the most naive of people take seriously. Hitler was no socialist, nor was his party. The term socialist refers to the party's origins not how it was in reality, it was also used as a means of garnering support. The economic policy of Hitler ties in with the fascist policy's of Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." While Hitler certainly did not follow this as blindly as Mussolini, there certainly are obvious elements of this within Nazi Germany.

Let's assume you went to a tropical island somewhere and told them that you were going to take half of everything they produced or directly employ half the people to work on what you wanted them to (and the rest of them would have to get business permits now to do their wor), do you believe they would understand the subtleties involved in explaining how that's truly not running their lives?

I can only assume you fail to understand the nature of income tax, you are taxed in proportion to your earnings. This means that a tiny elite, who can easily afford to give 50% of there earnings if not more and still be far better off than everyone else in society by a significant margin. This means that on your tropical Island, which we will assume has a population of perhaps 1000 people, only one person will be being taxed that highly. That person who is still richer than everyone else on the Island and the only reason they are that rich is because they are taking advantage of the lucrative society which they live in. As they are the people who reap the benefits of society almost in the full, then it is hardly unfair to ask that they, who gain the most, give the most.

The simple fact of the matter is, if this lone individual did not like the situation they can certainly leave everything behind move to another country and start again. However they rarely do, I wonder why....?

The fact that people put up with 50% taxes seems incredible in itself.

But they won't though, the number of people who are in the maximum tax band are a very tiny minority. The majority of people will never be nearly successful enough to ever get taxed 50% of their earnings.

The American Revolution started over something like a 3% tax on tea.

Actually, the revolution started, like all revolutions of the period, because one social elite wished to replace another social elite. The late 18th and 19th century were marked by the attempts of the bourgeois elements of society attempting to wrestle power and influence from the aristocracy. The Boston Tea party have been a sparking point, as was the fornicating of one Lola Montez in Bavaria in the 1848 revolutions, but it certainly was not the cause of anything.

Socialism has become mainstream in politics and the only reason why political parties don't explicitly refer to it as socialism is because a lot of the ones that call themselves socialists are truly promoting communism.

You are a very confused gentleman, I must say. Communism, while certainly being a sub-species of socialism certainly is not being propagated by many people in this day and age. Unlike socialism which is a collection of principals, communism is a very specific ideology.

[westcoastdog]

Several contributors have commented on the high tax rates in Europe. Universal health care is a government expense there and this is an important factor for the high rates. Interestingly, Europeans pay less per capita and enjoy better health than Americans. Yes, there has been financial strain on universal health care, and a few countries offer private insurance, but overall their medical care and coverage is far superior to the U.S., where 15% of the population remain uninsured and, sadly, this percentage is increasing. The U.S. remains the only industrialized country without comprehensive health care.

[xyzer]

We certainly have a push towards adopting more socialist policies in the USA .Government Healthcare is an issue that is festering. We have Medicare for aged and Medicaid for the poor. Social Security to help retirees. The Fema flap also illustrates this push towards greater government control! The press made it seem as though Fema was supposed to take over the whole Katrina disaster aid on its own and the states had no prime responsibility. Not so! But we still hear complaints about Fema and none about the officials in Louisiana? In our Federalist country the constitution defines the roles between the Feds and States. We need to stick to it.

Whenever we add a burder(socialize a service) on government ,taxes go up because someone has to pay for it. So taxes in countries that provide more services are higher..and there are restrictions on free enterprise in industries affected..shrinking the tax base. More government more controls, less flexibility

Communism adds tolitarian control to government and completely abolishes privatre property rights as all are supposed to be equal. Unfortunately the ruling class gets a higher share of what is available. Guys like Castro are among the richest citizens in the world! Plus no one can vote him out of office!

I agree with the idea that we should proceed cautiously when it comes to moving away from a free enterprise society. That system has made the USA preeminent in the world and enormously wealthy. Standards of living in captalistic societies are high. The private property rights of citizens are guaranteed and taxes relatively low. Socialist countries also privide a good living but taxes are higher(some up to 50% of income) and restrictions greater.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Chris the Chees 10% maybe 20%, tops, in perhaps the most extreme of examples. Well, you have got Anarcho-Capitalist written under your user name. I guess you are looking at it from a very, very different perspective from me. Which only the most naive of people take seriously. Hitler was no socialist, nor was his party. The term socialist refers to the party's origins not how it was in reality,

Well I can understand this somewhat. The U.S. doesn't represent capitalism very well either.

Overall though, Chris. I'd have to agree that me and you see the world very differently and that's not a problem in itself. As long as we give each other leeway to interact with others in the manner we prefer, then there's no need for conflict. You should be free to enter into arrangements that socialize costs with others and others should be free to interact in a capitalistic manner. It doesn't matter if a country is capitalistic or socialistic, the only issue is that people with guns aren't marching across a border. (Now if I could only convince our government to do this)

it was also used as a means of garnering support. The economic policy of Hitler ties in with the fascist policy's of Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." While Hitler certainly did not follow this as blindly as Mussolini, there certainly are obvious elements of this within Nazi Germany.

But I assume you want health industries and possibly housing or other government forms of wealth transfer to specific industries. Of course these aren't done voluntarily either as it's done by voting and someone gets the short end of the stick. Hitler simply picked the military and handed Jews the short end of the stick. You want healthcare or housing and likely prefer employers or some other minority. like rich people (weren't Jews viewed as rich bankers?), get the short end. It's all very similar in that it simply uses government agents, which we typically extend a legitimacy in using force against others though truly a "good" government should only use this force to deter harmful or destructive acts by people, not simply deter people from being employers or rich which in themself are not criminal or harmful. So you've been convinced it's ok to break a few rules and steal 'just a few eggs' (yes, effectively at gunpoint or at least the threat of it or incarceration) so you can have "your" omlette. Didn't mobsters steal from working people also?

I guess as long as a government remains relatively benevolent then there are fewer problems, but consider the economic damage this does even if there aren't large social conflicts (though I'm certain there's still a festering minority in Europe that sees how unfair things are).

I can only assume you fail to understand the nature of income tax, you are taxed in proportion to your earnings. This means that a tiny elite, who can easily afford to give 50% of there earnings if not more and still be far better off than everyone else in society by a significant margin.

Slaves in America were strong too. If you wanted a liver transplant, would you pick someone who had the best liver and take it? Sure you might be able to do it "democratically" if you had enough people hold the person down. Seriously, you must have been on the "winning" side of democracy to not recognize how it looks to the other guy.

This means that on your tropical Island, which we will assume has a population of perhaps 1000 people, only one person will be being taxed that highly.

Oh, now you're just being silly. Either that or taxes work entirely differently there or more likely you're intentionally understating the damage done. What percent of the populace pays in more than they get back in Europe? I recognize there are indirect effects and benefits but at least close to half the population is still footing the bill to some extent and I think more likely than not it's the richest most influencial people passing around the collection plate. Anyone who truly was there to reform government suffers a personal economic disadvantage trying remedy things, while those willing to milk the system maintain the resources to continue to do so.

You're talking about a fairy tale story you heard when you were young, where cinderella was suppose to keep mopping floors until a prince came to save her. The news is that the prince went broke trying to save everyone else like her and that cinderella's got to feed herself.

That person who is still richer than everyone else on the Island and the only reason they are that rich is because they are taking advantage of the lucrative society which they live in.

If this was a capitalist society, then that person is rich because he was expected to provide value to others in exchange for this wealth and not simply steal it. So the reason why he's rich is because he was likely a key player in making it a lucrative society and deserved this wealth in exchange ... it was likely part of what motivated him to help them out.

As they are the people who reap the benefits of society almost in the full, then it is hardly unfair to ask that they, who gain the most, give the most.

No, the people should be able to keep their wealth. After all the rich guy gave them these in exchange for the wealth. They don't owe him anything in