Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see Norway mentioned a lot as a thriving economy, and maybe it is, but does anyone have any idea how much tax Norweigians pay?
The basic rate of income tax there is 28% with national insurance at 8%. Sales tax on edible items is 13% and everything else is taxed at 25%.
If you smoke and drink then you may well be paying up to £7 for a pint, and believe me you don't want to know how much a bottle of scotch is.
I know this because I have relatives who live just outside of Bergen and they are always moaning about how much tax they pay. It's true that they earn good money but it does'nt go very far there.
Generally, when the nationalists point to an example of how good things could be, they tend to downplay the bits that do not fit into their world view.
I see Norway mentioned a lot as a thriving economy, and maybe it is, but does anyone have any idea how much tax Norweigians pay?
The basic rate of income tax there is 28% with national insurance at 8%. Sales tax on edible items is 13% and everything else is taxed at 25%.
If you smoke and drink then you may well be paying up to £7 for a pint, and believe me you don't want to know how much a bottle of scotch is.
I know this because I have relatives who live just outside of Bergen and they are always moaning about how much tax they pay. It's true that they earn good money but it does'nt go very far there.
And yet Norway has the highest quality of life in the world (or very close to it) according to multitude of different rating systems.
The link between low costs and low tax and quality of life is tenuous at best. If you look at the U.S. many of the New England and Northeastern states boast the best quality of life in the country according to key indicators (health, education, salaries), yet they are more expensive to live in that most Southern states where taxes and cost of living tend to be a lot lower.
And if you think all Americans are alike and speak English then you need to do some research because we are having huge problems related to immigration especially from Latin America and Africa.
When did I mention anything about language in the U.S.??? I am not the one who alluded to this at all!
Both Scotland and Greenland depend on economic aid and subsides from the UK (Scotland) or Denmark (Greenland) hence independence is not viable in either case.
Why on earth are Greenland and Scotland being mentioned in the same sentence when it comes to viability as independent countries?
Greenland has barely 60,000 people, which is probably less than some neighbourhoods in Copenhagen. It is also very isolated geographically.
Whereas Scotland is right next to continental Europe and is physically part of the island of Great Britain and has more than 5 million people...
And yet Norway has the highest quality of life in the world (or very close to it) according to multitude of different rating systems.
The link between low costs and low tax and quality of life is tenuous at best. If you look at the U.S. many of the New England and Northeastern states boast the best quality of life in the country according to key indicators (health, education, salaries), yet they are more expensive to live in that most Southern states where taxes and cost of living tend to be a lot lower.
I like Norway a lot and have been there multiple times. I did a couple of work projects there .... helping their tax authorities as it happens.
But Scotland is not Norway and what works in Norway will not necessarily work in Scotland (see my post regarding use of oil revenue). And this is one of the things that bothers me about the independence debate. When Ireland was doing well, the SNP were busy telling us that we could be a 'Celtic Tiger' like them. When Ireland ran into serious difficulty, we stopped hearing about them and now we are hearing all about Norway.
It would be nice if the SNP, instead of pointing at other countries who happen to be successful at this moment in time, got down and dirty and told us in detail how they think it would work in Scotland. This would include scenarios covering optimistic/median/pessimistic settlements with England and the rest of the UK.
Lol, because you probably don't know where it is! Czechoslovakia is a prime example how a country can amicably split into two countries, with Slovakia the poorer one with five million people, same as Scotland, still thriving as an independent country and not regretting it.
There are plenty of examples of small countries doing well on their own:
Norway, voted no to EU twice - thriving.
Switzerland, never joined any union - thriving
Singapore, tiny independent country with few if any natural resources - thriving.
Yippers. You win some and you lose some. Independent Scotland might end up poorer than UK-sans-Scotland, or it might eventually end up richer. Or perhaps it might be poorer for a while, then richer, then poorer again, then about the same, then richer. Who really knows for sure?
Prosperity is an ebb and flow and no one can say for sure that THE optimal set up for Scotland is the current one it has within the UK.
Both Finland and Norway were once part of (dominated by?) Sweden and both went their own way at one point. Over the years they have been both richer and poorer than Sweden. But they have almost always remained fairly prosperous countries and never though of returning to the Swedish fold. (This type of thing never happens, even though the anti-independence crowd always hints that the separatist entity will have it so tough they'll be back knocking on their door begging to be let back in. If there is an instance of this in history - please let me know - I haven't found one yet.)
Even if its leaders screwed up big time, Scotland would still rank in the top 20-25 richest countries in the world. If they were smart, they might crack the top 10. As I said before - who knows?
And in any event, when it comes to national independence, money isn't really what it's all about. The Liga Nord has never been able to get northern Italy to separate from the poorer south over money. They've even pulled out some bogus cultural arguments (that somehow the north is culturally different and has a stronger Germanic-style work ethic, or some crap like that...) but few people have bought into it.
Poorer Kosovo separated from rich(er) Serbia. I know it is a complex issue but my point is that financial considerations are not paramount in these matters. Often they are not considered at all.
Yep you sure do. Just like us Scots have a reputation for playing bagpipes, i'd be surprised if even 0.00001% of Scots actually play them.
Wouldn't that mean that only 6 people in Scotland play the bagpipes?, surely it would be more than that. How long has NZ had this reputation?. It wouldn't be any worse than most places, I would have thought.
Lol maybe I exaggerated a bit! It wont be any worse, it's just a stereotype!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
