Redistribution of world-views

The rat finds the focus on ‘redistribution of wealth’ to be a particular American thing. In Norway, taxes implicitly are meant to redistribute wealth. In the other side of the pond, this seems not to be so.

In the US, taxes are supposed to fund specific projects. Imposing or changing a tax to redistribute wealth seems like an affront to Americans, as wealth is supposed to be created and not redistributed. In the US, poverty is seen as a failure of wealth creation - while in Norway, poverty is a failure of wealth distribution.

The two worlds could hardly be more removed.

This is highlighted by by Obama’s gaffe on ‘redistributing‘ in the Plumber Joe case, and the reactions this garnered. The idea that a president-candidate should focus more on redistributing wealth than creating it is patently un-American. In Norway, on the other hand, we’re clearly aware that the purpose of those that by failure of regulation have become rich, is to contribute more to society.

A recent comment by Victor D. Norman, an economist nominally of the conservative party, and previously their minister of labor and administration, shows how much the Norwegian world-view differs from the American. As stated in a the business-oriented paper Dagens Næringsliv (my translation);

The reason for taxation is not to supply funds, but to have private consumers and businesses engage fewer people, and thereby free up resources for public services.
(Victor D. Norman, Dagens Næringsliv, 2007-12-08)

At the core seems to be a diametrically opposed view of what the state is supposed to do, and how the citizens fit into it. In the US, the state has previously been a construct to provide a few essential services for the population, while in Norway the citizens provide the basis for the essential taxation that is the reason for the state and all of society. Another example of this difference is this quote from Audun Lysebakken, of the (currently in government) leftwing socialist party;

The level of taxation will always be rising, except in periods of economic downturn, when it will remain stable.

The rat has naively believed that the government would require funds for certain agreed-upon tasks, and that those would remain fairly fixed. With time, the number of tasks would expand as populist parties bribed the population with fair promises to let them into power, but the core premise would still be that any remainder, any resources left un-consumed by the state should be left allocatable by the citizenry. The rat now understands that this is not the case in Norway, although it is still believed to be so in the US.

The rat further hopes that the current election will not bring a redistribution of world-views as well as possibly an increase in redistribution of wealth.

-rN

Advertisement