Scottish "Independence" manifesto

[C0ckney]

The Scots are like a lot of small states in federations - subsidised by the bigger states while resenting it all the while and nursing wistful dreams of independence.

once again, england doesn't subsidise scotland. i've already posted the figures in this thread.

[C0ckney]

Of course it depends on the cost and availability of child care. As it should. Dude, if it would cost more for child care than for the parent to take care of her kid, SHE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF HER KID. That would be economically most efficient.

it's telling that you can't imagine that the state can find a way to provide child care, which is more efficient than having every mother stay at home to look after their child/children, such as, say, putting lots of children together in one centre. i.e. what is being proposed.

it's like objecting to providing a subsidy for public transport on the basis that it means buying everyone a car, instead of the real proposal for providing a bus service.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Scots are like a lot of small states in federations - subsidised by the bigger states while resenting it all the while and nursing wistful dreams of independence.

Tasmania is like that. Except Tasmania is so wildly subsidised they are smart enough to know they need the mainland, especially to fund their social benefits.

[Guynemer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25088251

So the plan is a lavish welfare state, and if the money runs out England has to bail them out. Didn't see that coming.

I am honestly surprised that Scottish "Independence" is still a thing. I mean... come on, for real? What is the upside?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Scotland can't have a socialist welfare state if they cut taxes.

Yes they can, if they have oil.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

pensions are going to be a challenge for all developed countries. however, i think the worries are overblown. all that needs to happen is for productivity to rise faster than the worker to pensioner ratio.

It's not just the ratio of workers to the (increasing) raw numbers of pensioners that poses the problem.

There's also the unprecedentedly and high and rising lifespans. And also the unprecedentedly generous terms (set to outstrip wages and inflation).

That escalation measure is more generous than I've seen on the current conditions of any final salary pension scheme. The fact that "we've always managed it before" is no guarantee of future succes, particularly with all those unprecedented factors coming into play.

[Ban Kenobi]

Your solution is far less efficient. The only way to reduce this particular inefficiency is to cut taxes, since we essentially define household goods as things that are impossible to tax. It might be possible to concoct some immensely complicated subsidy for child care that would counteract this, but it makes more sense to simply accept the fact that some distortions will inevitably occur under any tax regime.

Anyway, as I said, free daycare would clearly be massively more inefficient.

Scotland can't have a socialist welfare state if they cut taxes. That's why they need to create incentives to work that would otherwise be unneeded. They also need to encourage people to have children or else their welfare state will collapse under the weight of an aging population.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's bizarre that you simultaneously recognize that the government is promoting household production and insist that people are making efficient decisions regarding whether to stay home with the kids or hire a daycare and get a job.

Your solution is far less efficient. The only way to reduce this particular inefficiency is to cut taxes, since we essentially define household goods as things that are impossible to tax. It might be possible to concoct some immensely complicated subsidy for child care that would counteract this, but it makes more sense to simply accept the fact that some distortions will inevitably occur under any tax regime.

Anyway, as I said, free daycare would clearly be massively more inefficient.

[Ban Kenobi]

It's bizarre that you simultaneously recognize that the government is promoting household production and insist that people are making efficient decisions regarding whether to stay home with the kids or hire a daycare and get a job.

[DaShi]

I think he's a new poster with no prior connection to or knowledge of this forum.

[Hauldren Collider]

I am about 70% confident that Ban K is gribbler. To clarify, I don't think you're an idiot and have perhaps been too harsh. But you're simply wrong wrt externality. Totally right on the fact that we encourage household production with taxes however.

[Hauldren Collider]

If I earn $100 and pay $30 in taxes, the social value of my labor is $100 and the private value is $70 because that's what I get to keep. I only take the $70 into consideration when deciding whether to work. Do you see how parents might not necessarily make economically efficient decisions wrt to working and paying for daycare vs. staying home?

Yes, I did, which is why I said this:

That said, Ban K, your confusion is understandable. It is true that we encourage household production via the tax wedge, more than would otherwise occur. But it is not an externality, and government provided daycare would not result in the socially optimal consumption of daycare.

[Ban Kenobi]

You're an idiot. The government is not an unrelated third party, they are ****ing taking your money. Directly.




Dude, the social value IS THE PRIVATE VALUE. If you ever took an economics class, did you pay attention to any of it? That is one of the most fundamental concepts.

Just admit you are wrong. There is no shame in it, and the hurt will stop. Your original misconception was a totally reasonable one.

If I earn $100 and pay $30 in taxes, the social value of my labor is $100 and the private value is $70 because that's what I get to keep. I only take the $70 into consideration when deciding whether to work. Do you see how parents might not necessarily make economically efficient decisions wrt to working and paying for daycare vs. staying home?

[Hauldren Collider]

You're an idiot. The government is not an unrelated third party, they are ****ing taking your money. Directly.

2. Even if this wasn't an "externality" it wouldn't change the fact that decisions parents make regarding the choice between working and staying home with the kids reflect the private value of choosing to work, not the total social value which is greater.

Dude, the social value IS THE PRIVATE VALUE. If you ever took an economics class, did you pay attention to any of it? That is one of the most fundamental concepts.

Just admit you are wrong. There is no shame in it, and the hurt will stop. Your original misconception was a totally reasonable one.

[Ban Kenobi]

You are the one who needs to consult the definition of externality. A third party benefits because of a price that you directly pay. An externality is a benefit or cost not priced into the market. kthxbye

1. That is not the definition. Here, let me help you:

A consequence of an economic activity that is experienced by unrelated third parties. An externality can be either positive or negative.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp

The first and second parties are yourself and your employer. The government is an unrelated third party.
2. Even if this wasn't an "externality" it wouldn't change the fact that decisions parents make regarding the choice between working and staying home with the kids reflect the private value of choosing to work, not the total social value which is greater.