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.
Good for you. I hope you like the government taking almost all of your money and controlling your life. If that makes you happy, then you should move there. Consider this;
• Danes making over $75,000 are hit with 57% payroll taxes.
• On top of that, their sales tax rate is 25% and is not deductible.
• Then their car sales tax rate is 180%, which makes cars out of reach except for the wealthy. That’s why they have one of the lowest car ownership rates in the world.
• And members of the government church pay an additional 1.5% income tax.
So, if you make $75,000 per year, the governments take $42,750 ($43,875 if you are a church member) before you get your money. Then every time you buy a $600 iPhone, you pay the government an additional $150. And when you buy that new Toyota Camry for $25,000, you have to pay the government an additional $45,000 in taxes which makes your new Camry cost $70,000.
And then, to make life even more miserable, Denmark has the highest ratio of household debt to net disposable income in the world at 315%. This compares to the USA at 114%.
We know household savings is bad in the USA at positive 5%, but it’s golden compared to Denmark at negative 6.28%.
Now let’s compare household net worth. The USA is the highest in the OECD at $142,500 as compare to Denmark at $58,116.
Move there? No thanks. Denmark would be one of the last places I would move.
Upon completing your studies in Denmark you can stay and look for a job knowing that Denmark is a great place to establish your own business
The Legatum Institute 2011 Prosperity Index ranks Denmark as the country with the world's strongest entrepreneurial climate in terms of citizens' opportunity to realise new ideas and influence their lives, incomes and well being.
The Entrepreneurship & Opportunity index measures countries’ performance in three areas:
Entrepreneurial environment
Innovative activity
Access to opportunity
Taxes are high in Denmark but so are the availability of services. They also have very low energy usage.
Forbes rated Denmark #5 in terms of best for business, after Ireland (#4), Hong Kong (#3), New Zealand (#2) and Canada (#1).
Your argument has been rendered mute by the simple fact that you have cherry picked statistics so much so that you are comparing a city of 15,000 (Jamestown, ND) to a city of more than 100,00 (Linköping, Sverige). Of course Linköping is more dense.
To calculate density one simply takes the total number of people in a country and divide that number by the total area of a country. Using this measure the US is more the twice as dense as Norway and significantly more dense than Sweden.
You are also making huge assumptions about Scandinavian culture. Apartment living is popular in Scandinavian cities as it is popular in American cities. Oslo has large swaths of residential housing and you don't have to travel far from either Stockholm or Copenhagen to find housing either. It certainly exists. I could name at least 10, probably 20 US cities off the top of my head that are as dense, if not more so than Copenhagen yet Copenhagen has far better transportation.
Not supporting public transit vis à vis the fallacious density argument is simply ignorant.
The point is the built form of those communities are pretty typical for each country, Scandinavian cities are more urban. American cities are more car centric.
My main point here is don't expect an amazing public transportation system in sprawled out cities where people prefer to travel by car....
You don't get that kind of correlation if income is irrelevant. There is no accident that most poor countries have life satisfaction around 3-5, while rich countries have a life satisfaction of 6-8.
If you want to understand why some countries are relatively content and developed, and some aren't. You need to realize that the world today is ruled by "nation-states". And you also must understand how nations are formed, why they were formed, and their advantages.
Europe wasn't always as happy as it is today, and for that matter, Europe is actually getting less happy. Why? Nationalism.
Pat Buchanan is one of my favorite politicians/political pundits. I tend to agree with almost everything the man has to say. In the articles below, he explains a little about nationalism, and the sort of ironic triumph of nationalism in Europe as a result of WWII.
The reason rich countries are rich, is because of nationalism. The reason stable countries are stable, is because of nationalism. The reason happy countries are happy, is because of nationalism. Without it, every country would be constantly trying to destroy itself.
Poor countries are countries without a single national identity. It is places like Iraq, where you have Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds, all wanting either control over the entire territory, or to carve the country up into enclaves. Most of the so-called nations of the world, are artificial states which make no sense. And the people there seem to be at perpetual war with each other.
Somalia isn't some "libertarian paradise"(like liberals like to claim). Somalia has been in a Civil War since the 1990's(and should be broken up into at least four different countries). Countries which have dictatorships, almost invariably have no sense of national identity. Thus, the only way to keep the country together, is through overwhelming force(Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan). Only true national states can have properly functioning democracies. Because a democracy where one group votes against another group, is doomed to chaos, division, and failure(Bible/Lincoln quote, "a house-divided cannot stand").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
From what I am aware, there exist no surveys to support that claim. However, even if true they are not really that poor. The reason poverty make us unhappy is because it makes us worry, and prevents us from doing the things we like to do. But if we volountarily choose to not do something, then it should have little impact on happiness.
There are a lot of articles about Amish happiness(supposedly based on studies/surveys/research), but I don't see any of them linked in any of the articles. Though I insist that the websites delivering the information seem reliable enough.
I really liked this part of the article below, "no matter how much [money] we make, we tend to be dissatisfied with our income if our neighbor is making more." He points to professional athletes that complain bitterly about annual salaries in the millions. He says the comparing mind is an impediment to happiness because there will always be someone who is richer, smarter, or better looking."
Which to me seems obvious. It is called "keeping up with the Jones's". People are unhappy when other people have more than them, or can do things they can't do.
Anyone who has ever been to public-school, should have seen this pervasive mentality on display on a daily basis. But even as adults, we are constantly aware of how others perceive us. Whether our clothes are nice enough, or clean enough. Or if our car is nice enough, or our house is nice enough, or if we make enough money.
If we don't meet some arbitrary level of expectations/income, both from ourselves and from the people around us(family, friends, coworkers, etc), we are disappointed/unhappy.
If I make $15 an hour and all my friends make $15 an hour or less, I'm happy. If I make $15 an hour and all my friends make $30+ an hour, I might not feel good enough. Especially in social settings, where I might be looking for a girlfriend, and my relatively low income might make me feel inadequate/undesirable.
Regardless, my point simply was, "inequality makes us unhappy". I think that statement is so obviously true, that I have no idea why you even want to argue with me about it. Every last piece of evidence points in that direction. Those "Scandinavian countries" which are supposedly so happy, are also much much much more equal in regards to income/wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
First off Panama is not that poor. Secondly my statistics doesn't ask about the future, it ask how happy are you on a scale from 1-10.It is you who need to be more careful, because your Gallup poll is not that. They are asking people how satisfied they are with their "purpose", "social", "physical", "financial" and "community", and then they take the number of people who say they are thriving in three areas.
First, all of the happiness surveys ask a lot more questions than "Are you happy, 1-10"? If you type in "happiest countries" in google, the results will be from the "World Happiness report", which is produced by the United Nations together with Gallup.
It asks a wide range of questions, and even uses different questionnaires in different regions of the world.
The questionnaire for the European Union is based on the "EU-SILC"(EU statistics on income and living conditions"). Which seems to ask specific questions about income and material standards. Which may or may not correlate strongly with actual happiness.
No, we have to use experienced well being on a scale from 1-10. In that scale there is a clear correlation between income and happiness.
None of the major happiness surveys ask those kinds of questions. Because there is too much volatility in the way people answer(well-being can change from day-to-day, moment-to-moment).
Just google happiness survey questions/questionnaire, or subjective well-being questionnaire. They ask a lot of questions. Which is why they have such a small sample size in most countries(~1,000 per year). If they could just call people on the phone and ask them one question, they would have a sample size of tens of thousands.
I'm going to agree with you on one thing though. The so-called happiness surveys are not very reliable. And they say almost nothing about whether or not you individually would be happy in that country or not. Even in the most miserable countries, there are very happy people. And even in the happiest countries, there are miserable people(suicide rates and anti-depressant use tend to be highest in the so-called happiest countries).
It isn't overly useful to concern ourselves about which countries are happy and which aren't, but we can use the comparisons between how people answer in different countries to understand what it is that actually makes us happy. Of course, we can make those same comparisons within our own country and find that out as well. Hell, we can use our own intuition to find out what makes us happy, and what makes us unhappy.
Anyone with any background in the social sciences can tell you exactly what makes people happy and what makes people unhappy. It isn't that difficult to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Japan is not far wealthier than most of europe, and is not one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Also, they don't score that poorly on happiness either, they got 6 which is not far away from the european average.
Based on the study you continue to quote, Mexico is happier than the United States. How is that possible? Because you don't know what you are talking about.
You seem desperate. How about you repeat this "income correlates with happiness, because it is a factor".
If the question is, is income completely meaningless? The answer is "No". But as I said repeatedly. There are only two factors when it comes to income. You have "Easterlin's paradox". Which says income only improves happiness to the point that all your basic needs are met.
Basically, if you can't feed yourself, you are unhappy. But going out to eat at a fancy restaurant does not make you any happier.
If you can't clothe yourself, you are unhappy. But buying a Gucci bag does not make you any happier.
If you are homeless, you are unhappy. But buying a mansion does not make you any happier.
Except in those cases that you live around people who have mansions or Gucci bags or go out to eat regularly or go on cruises, and you must buy a mansion to "keep up with the Jones's".
Living in a trailer-house next to a mansion will generally lead to unhappiness. But that doesn't mean living in a trailer makes you unhappy. You can be perfectly happy living in a trailer. As I said repeatedly, it has to do with how we tend to compare ourselves to others.
But it has different effects on different people. Some people are completely unaffected by inequality, or for the most part, income itself. Some people are perfectly happy being homeless bums(in fact, homeless people in general seem to be pretty happy, especially the habitual homeless). You can be perfectly happy in prison(there are people in prison happier than you).
Some people get happier going from an income of $20k to $40k, some don't. Some are perfectly happy making less than $10k a year. Some aren't happy unless they make more than $100k a year(or more).
But all of this is psychological, not absolute. It is related to your expectations, and your expectations are based largely on comparing yourself to others. If you expect to make $100k and you don't, you are unhappy. If you expect to go on a cruise every year and you don't, you are unhappy. If you expect to be able to eat-out every meal, and you can't afford it, you are unhappy. But as I said, our ancestors had none of these things, and groups like the Amish have none of these things. Yet, the Amish(based on every piece of information I have ever seen from all reputable sources), seem to be happier than the rest of us.
Why? Good relationships, low expectations, high social trust, high equality, healthy lifestyles, high levels of security, among many other things.
It isn't the money. Trust me. And obsessing about money is incredibly unhealthy and counterproductive. Don't fall for it. Not only will it not make you happy, you'll actually bring misery to yourself and everyone around you.
“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
You are writing way too much for me to answer everything. But I will go through a few things.
Quote:
None of the major happiness surveys ask those kinds of questions. Because there is too much volatility in the way people answer(well-being can change from day-to-day, moment-to-moment).
Not true, World Happiness Report only ask one question. That is the reason I use them, because simplicity prevents bias.
Your claim that they use other factors show that you haven't understood the survey. What they do is to ask people how happy they are from a scale 1-10, and then they try to look at which factors explain their score.
However, you are right they are asking more questions. At the same time, they will get the results for the positive experience index, and they might ask them about their living conditions.
Quote:
If I make $15 an hour and all my friends make $15 an hour or less, I'm happy. If I make $15 an hour and all my friends make $30+ an hour, I might not feel good enough. Especially in social settings, where I might be looking for a girlfriend, and my relatively low income might make me feel inadequate/undesirable.
And again, you are posting unrealistic figures. $15 an hour is twice the American minimum wage.
The question is rather, would you be happy earning $5 an hour, if everyone else earn $5 an hour. I would be content, if I think that is the best I can get. But I would still not be so happy having to always watch my finances, and having to share a low quality apartment with a lot of people. Living like that lead to a lot of annoying moments, which affect life quality.
However, an equal society do not prevent disasters. What if I lose my job, and can't find another one, or I get a medical problem. In a richer society, then it is okay because it is possible to reduce living standards. In a poor society I might starve and live on the streets. Of course that affects happiness.
If equality was as important, as you make it out to be, then France and Slovenia would have scored better.
Quote:
Based on the study you continue to quote, Mexico is happier than the United States. How is that possible? Because you don't know what you are talking about.
First off, you are using old data. Here is the 2014 data
United States: 7.2
Mexico: 6.7
So why is Mexico so close to US, and why is Mexico doing better than France. Because as I told you, income is a factor, but it isn't the only factor. According to surveys Latin America score very high on social satisfaction. That compensate for their lower income.
That is also why Asia score poorly compared to their income, because their social satisfaction is low.
Quote:
If the question is, is income completely meaningless? The answer is "No". But as I said repeatedly. There are only two factors when it comes to income. You have "Easterlin's paradox". Which says income only improves happiness to the point that all your basic needs are met.
Even in the richest countries in the world, there is several people who don't get their basic needs met. In the US, some people suffer from medical problems, that they can't afford to treat. In many european countries, youth are not able to move out or start a family because they lack money. And if you look at poorer countries, then large segments of the populations are not able to meet their basic needs.
The reason we see such a clear correlation between happiness, and income is because basic needs are not met in a lot of countries.
If you're going to be that way about it, allow me to point out that Viborg - which admittedly, you spelled correctly - is in Denmark.
Okay, so I got one wrong.
I was thinking of a little town where the Nazis tried to create a nuclear bomb. I think it started with a "V" -- yes, "Vermork" -- I just looked it up.
Anyway, one wrong, not the eight wrong that the other poster claimed -- the one who is a supposed expert.
Last edited by dechatelet; 09-01-2015 at 01:42 AM..
Not true, World Happiness Report only ask one question. That is the reason I use them, because simplicity prevents bias.
From the website... "We ask the respondents to think of a ladder, with the best possible life for them being a 10, and the worst possible life being a 0. They are then asked to rate their own current lives on that 0 to 10 scale."
I can't lie, once you understand what happiness actually is, you'll realize how completely useless such a question is. Such a question is necessarily biased towards "materialism"(IE income), but has little correlation with actual happiness.
It reminds me of the "lottery question". Most poor people think that winning the lottery will make them much happier. In reality, it will have no effect at all on their happiness. And sadly, there is a strong correlation between how low your income is, and how much happier you think you'll be if you win the lottery.
Real happiness is just a feeling, and it doesn't always make much sense. For instance, if you read the article about "materialism". You'll realize that buying stuff doesn't make you happy. It is the experience which makes you happy.
Basically, if you buy a shirt on vacation in Hawaii, the shirt won't make you any happier, but seeing/wearing the shirt can remind you of the experience you had, and it is the experience that makes you happy.
Also, lets understand that, people get happier as they get older. Not just a little happier, a lot happier. Happiness begins to drop in your teenage years, and continues to drop until your mid to late-40's, then begins to recover.
I remember many years ago I was reading about happiness of older people, I can't remember the article. But part of the study was showing people random pictures, and then afterwards, asking them which pictures they remembered.
The younger people had a tendency to remember seeing the "negative pictures"(pictures of war, pictures of of the Great Depression, pictures of the Civil Rights movement, etc). While the older people had a tendency to remember seeing "positive pictures"(pictures of puppies/kittens, pictures of a couple holding hands, pictures of children, pictures of beautiful fields or mountains or beaches).
The same pattern happened when asking them about what happened to them during the day. People who were older had a tendency to remember the good things which happened, and ignored the bad things. While younger people tended to remember the bad things, and ignored the good.
Or when you asked them about their lives, what happened in their lives. Younger people will invariably tell you all the bad things that happened in their lives, while older people will invariably tell you all the good things that happened in their lives.
What drives all these happiness/unhappiness curves? Simple, "expectations". Expectations are the single greatest obstacle to happiness. The real problem in a place like Japan, is that the expectations in Japan are beyond ridiculous. The same goes for China, and many other parts of Asia. In America, Asians have the highest incomes, but are the least-happy ethnic/racial group.
If you read any of the articles I linked, or watch any of the videos I linked, please, watch this one. In fact, inequality as I said before, is connected to envy, which is then connected to expectations.
Then please, reread the quote by Adam Smith. Don't let your misunderstanding of happiness, drive a shallow, money-obsessed, consumption-based public-policy.
“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”
They want you to believe that money buys happiness. Both the liberals(who want class warfare to cause the poor to rise up against the rich), and the conservatives(who want to drive a consumption-based, materialistic system for the sake of "economic growth").
Don't buy into it.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-01-2015 at 04:31 PM..
About half of the American population doesn't pay any federal income taxes.
We'd be so much better off if they earned to enough to become taxpayers instead of continuing to shovel so much of the resources to the already wealthy.
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.
Tax Cuts & Trickle-down
