Can someone name a country...

[Anonymous]

Starting with Hong Kong not being a full-fledged country, I don't think you know much about either of those, pp.

Wikipedia is your friend!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting with Hong Kong not being a full-fledged country, I don't think you know much about either of those, pp.

Wikipedia is your friend!

Go back to where I originally mentioned it and see that I noted it was a Special Administrative region (for the nitpickers I knew were lurking)... Try again dear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting with Hong Kong not being a full-fledged country, I don't think you know much about either of those, pp.

Wikipedia is your friend!

Go back to where I originally mentioned it and see that I noted it was a Special Administrative region (for the nitpickers I knew were lurking)... Try again dear.

PP this is truly pathetic. Saying "I'm right" about something you are clearly totally incorrect about no longer works, remember?

Go read through the whole discussion yourself, and maybe you will learn something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hong Kong (of course its not a country but a Special Administrative Region for the DCUM nitpickers...)

Singapore.

Singapore is a police state. Hong Kong used to be a colony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hong Kong (of course its not a country but a Special Administrative Region for the DCUM nitpickers...)

Singapore.

Singapore is a police state. Hong Kong used to be a colony.

America also used to be a colony. Its freedoms are also not what they used to be.

But the question was, which places are succeeding at having a low tax environment that works. Why are you so upset that there are places, which seeem to get it right? I've lived in both so I'm pretty confident that they are doing well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hong Kong (of course its not a country but a Special Administrative Region for the DCUM nitpickers...)

Singapore.

Singapore is a police state. Hong Kong used to be a colony.

America also used to be a colony. Its freedoms are also not what they used to be.

But the question was, which places are succeeding at having a low tax environment that works. Why are you so upset that there are places, which seem to get it right? I've lived in both so I'm pretty confident that they are doing well.

Earlier in the discussion tiny city-states were brought up. They seem to be a bad analogy to America. They're small, really small, incredibly densely populated, are not democratic, and often do not seem to have a very diversified economy.

Even ignoring that, you didn't read the OP's question, because it still fails. OP asked for countries that have low taxes AND no social safety net. Singapore pays for 30% of all healthcare spending for its poor people. Its education system is well known as one of the best in the world. Singapore is a country that values each of its children. If we're just talking about low-tax autocratic states, you could add in Dubai, or the gulf countries. Of course, the United Arab Emirates is the mother of all nanny-states for its citizens. Healthcare, housing, education, even jobs are guaranteed for each citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I suppose that the conclusion we have reached on this thread is that there is no state on planet Earth that has successfully implemented Republican policies. America isn't the "exception", because these policies have not succeeded here either.

What we have discovered is that people can't read!

SINGAPORE
HONG KONG

Been mentioned twice... Guess you wanted to prove it wasn't possible but it is!

Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That has successfully implemented the ideals of the U.S. Republican party?

That is, has low taxes, few social services, weak/no labor unions, and yet has high wealth, a healthy middle class, and high innovation?

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

Every question has some imbedded bias. Yours assumes few social services as an ideal. while I'm not wonky enough to read platforms, I believe their notion is to push services down to the state/local level--an important distinction in my view.

re: the answer, a number of eastern european countries are using a flat tax and estonia seems to get press as the poster child for low tax high growth. small, i know, but worth watching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hong Kong (of course its not a country but a Special Administrative Region for the DCUM nitpickers...)

Singapore.

Singapore is a police state. Hong Kong used to be a colony.

America also used to be a colony. Its freedoms are also not what they used to be.

But the question was, which places are succeeding at having a low tax environment that works. Why are you so upset that there are places, which seeem to get it right? I've lived in both so I'm pretty confident that they are doing well.

Hong Kong is China.

In what bizarre world is China acceptable to Republicans???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the people who are insisting that the U.S. is the exception to the rule essentially admitting that they have no examples?

And if this is the case, why should we accept the policies of the last three decades when by the end of 2008, they failed us and our children? Inequality has risen, the middle class is desperate, healthcare is a mess, the debt and deficit are out of control, we're embroiled in a catastrophic war in Afghanistan, unemployment skyrocketed under Bush, and what have we got to show for it? With the confidence that America was going to play world police, Europeans got universal healthcare and good educations. We got screwed. It's time for Republicans to experience a few decades as a minority party and let us catch up with the rest of the world.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the people who are insisting that the U.S. is the exception to the rule essentially admitting that they have no examples?

And if this is the case, why should we accept the policies of the last three decades when by the end of 2008, they failed us and our children? Inequality has risen, the middle class is desperate, healthcare is a mess, the debt and deficit are out of control, we're embroiled in a catastrophic war in Afghanistan, unemployment skyrocketed under Bush, and what have we got to show for it? With the confidence that America was going to play world police, Europeans got universal healthcare and good educations. We got screwed. It's time for Republicans to experience a few decades as a minority party and let us catch up with the rest of the world.

Exactly. Get this straight, conservatives - Democrats love this country deeply. But American Exceptionalism is STRAIGHT. UP. BULLSHIT. We are not so special that we get to eschew commonly held principals about economics, government and society. You people have diseased minds, IMO. We - Democrats - want the country to work for the vast majority - not for the lucky few.

I am in love with both of you.

Me too.

Me three.

[Anonymous]

I've heard Estonia is well-regarded by the pro-austerity crowd.

[Anonymous]

but they have public healthcare

[Anonymous]

how about the USA in the 80s and 90s? didn't that work pretty well?

[Anonymous]

Please google Singapore.

:The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech."

They also outlaw guns, porn, littering and as I recall, chewing gum.