The Happy, Healthy Capitalists of Switzerland
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
in Europe, one study:
> we estimate that close to 40% of multinational profits are shifted to tax havens globally each year. The non-haven European Union countries appear to be the main losers from this shifting.
ref: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24701
also ref: "swiss sidestep" and how multinationals basically launder money thru Switzerland:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/transfer-mispric...
lastly that Swiss banks actively obstructed justice during Obama's DOJ investigation. then the US sent them money to bail them out, allowing Credit Suisse/UBS to largely escape 2008 financial meltdown and continue to help wealthy US individuals evade taxes. to be fair this has changed as Switzerland is way more hostile to US tax evasion now, but they don't have a good record here.
The running joke is that in Switzerland, one must pay to even breathe. Yes, it is true: Switzerland is among the richest countries in the world, and the standard of living alternates between #1 and #2 spot constantly. What nobody will tell you however, is that Switzerland is so ultra-hardcore-capitalist, that it would be every Texas Republican's wet dream. If one isn't drawing on social benefits, one pays for absolutely everything out of one's own pocket. Imagine a country so hardcore capitalist, where one is expected to pay for parking at a private grocery store parking lot. Ayn Rand would be beside herself from happiness there: it's like Galt's Gulch, only it's real.
The ultra-capitalism-one-pays-for-everything enables the taxes to be low, and low taxes, efficient legal system and armed neutrality bring in even more businesses and investment, so much so, that the European Union is whining and putting pressure on the country asserting that it competes unfairly by having low taxes. Even the cantons (states) compete against each other which one will have lower taxes. Those which have higher taxes have cheaper real estate and vice versa.
Galt's Gulch. Everybody pays outta wazoo, but the standard of living is high. By appointment only.
God forbid. /s
When I read such comments, it just reinforces my belief that Switzerland is a car hating country.
As for public transport, I don't have the same experience (I do have a car but use it quite often), I only felt like a "sardine" in rare occasions. There are buses/trams/trains often enough to avoid the busiest "rush hour" trips.
And the Swiss national bank, sitting on nearly 900 billion CHF in foreign currency, desperately trying to keep the value of the Swiss franc from skyrocketing into stratosphere?
I've always thought of coops as a natural byproduct of free market systems (sometimes orgs require outside capital, some orgs can be self funded).
That's perfect. People who don't use cars don't have to indirectly subsidize those who do.
Assuming the social benefits actually work, that sounds great and I'd be happy to pay.
> Ayn Rand would be beside herself from happiness there: it's like Galt's Gulch, only it's real.
Ayn Rand would be furious that social benefits still existed at all.
Unemployment benefit is only for 18 months maximum, if I'm not mistaken, is not part of the welfare, and in the best case scenario only pays 80% of the salary, and there might even be a ceiling to that; if one is a homeowner and one didn't manage to find a job, savings are next, then the cars and bikes and then the house, before welfare will even consider paying anything.
Ayn Rand would be furious that social benefits still existed at all.
Hehe, so true, and all the more hypocritical since she herself drew welfare benefits in the United States for years.
Her logic, and I agree, was that she was forced to pay in, she should get it out.
That seems like an even more damning indictment of her philosophy than simple hypocrisy.
If Rand had lived in her ideal world, unburdened by taxes and the "parasites" that fed off them, she would have had a little more spending money over the course of her life, and then most likely died in misery, unable to pay for food or medical treatment. Instead, she was saved by the system she despised.
More to the point, do you have an answer to my first question? Ayn Rand thought it only just that she take from the public coffers she paid into once she needed it. Do you think she would have happily extended the same privilege to anyone besides herself and her husband?
You've avoided my first question twice now.
I never claimed it was. It remains something she chose of her own free will. No one forced her or bullied her; they simply described the pros and cons and let her choose. You've still refused to answer my question, so I have to assume you agree that she would have denied that choice to others.
That makes her a hypocrite. That's all I'm saying.
It does no credit to Objectivist philosophy to refuse to face facts.
Just getting people to pay for their cars via parking, tolls, ect is such a huge win for infrastructure advocates. When you make people pay, suddenly they don't love their cars so much.