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.
My plan, as a liberal Democrat, is to sit and watch while the Republicans dismantle any and all programs that might hinder the hyper wealthy by eliminating any help for the economy's losers. I hope they institute these changes as soon as possible even if they have to "adjust" the law.
The effective minimum wage in Scandinavia is $15/hour. Not to mention, the much stronger benefits should be included in the value of the compensation package as well, not just the hourly pay. Countries with strong unions dont have a statutory minimum wage. Its not needed. Strengthen the unions and we dont need it either.
No, it is not. It might be in Norway, but only because of their high COL. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland have much lower minimum wages. In the others, it's more like $8-9.
Scandinavia having a high depression rate is a myth. All 5 countries are in the top 10-15 in all happiness / personal satisfaction measurements.
What the OECD Better Life Index fails to grasp are the benefits. Free education, free healthcare and health insurance (paid by those taxes). Sure, the high taxes result in less disposable income, but that is compensated that you can practically go from payroll to payroll, and survive your life from day one until the end of your life with dignity not having even $1000 in savings any point in your life.
Otherwise this system wouldn't work, and people wouldn't be ready to pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman0war
Yes it's true that the higher tax rate kicks in earlier in Scandinavia.
That' because that is where most of the taxable money resides.
the "Squeezed Middle".
Exactly. But the more money you have, the more you can invest, which gives you possibilities to avoid the high income tax. For example investing in stock or property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Might have to do with their very high suicide rates.
Again a myth. Suicide rates are low in Denmark, Sweden and Norway (lower than in the US). Finland and Iceland are the outliers, having similar rates as other hellholes like France and Belgium.
I won't bother to dig in for the other countries (in the end they are very similar), but in Finland the income taxation goes like this (we have no tax brackets set in stone):
annual income in € and tax
1000-10,000 -> 7.7%
from 11,000 to 38,000 -> from 8.3% to 29.7%
from 39,000 to 77,000 -> from 30.1% to 40.1%
78,000 to 170,000 -> from 40.2% to 50.2%
175,000 to infinite -> from 50.4% to 56.5%.
This tax % includes national income tax, municipal tax, pension tax, health insurance and public broadcasting agency tax.
The VAT is a more complex issue. The rates are:
10% for cultural services (subscribed newspapers, museums, movies etc), public transport, hotels and sports services (gym membership, sports attendance tickets etc)
14% for groceries, restaurants and similar food-based services (also fodder for animals)
24% for the rest
Note that the 24% VAT doesn't mean automatically that you slap it on a product. For example Apple products are around 5% more expensive in Finland than they are in the US. Apple sucks up the smaller profit margin in order to be competitive.
Also, I think it's a custom in the US to tip 10-15% on top of the bill. In Western Europe you don't tip. The VAT is your mandatory 'tip' to ensure that waiters can get a decent wage.
The problem with VAT is of course a flat tax, and doesn't take into count your salary. But some of the subsidies working poor or single-payer families get (usually free daycare and / or housing subsidies) covers this element of a flat tax.
Additionally, Finland has some 'harm taxes': alcohol, tobacco and petrol. These are taxed a lot to compensate for the humanitarian and environmental damages. For tobacco it doesn't make really any sense, as smokers are net payers as they tend to die prematurely.
Let's look at the percentages in a two party poll...
64% of those who receive disability self-identify as Democrats. And if you read the article at the link, you'll see that only 25% of those who receive disability self-identify as Republicans.
Let's try some data that isn't 10 years old If you look at the bottom of this chart, you will see something quite different when you replace party identification with ideology. The numbers are equally split between self identified conservatives, liberals and moderates:
It's not meaningless. It's a direct comparison. I didn't include U.S. local tax rates, either.
Again, if you want European and Scandinavian style expanded social program benefits, we'll have to tax like Sweden does, for example, to generate enough tax revenue to pay for it. Why? Because as jmanOwar noted, "... the higher tax rate kicks in earlier in Scandinavia. That' because that is where most of the taxable money resides." The same is true in the U.S. The middle class earns most of the taxable income simply because they vastly outnumber the top 1%.
I have relatives in Sweden and Norway, a high school teacher, nurse and a factory worker. They all have enough expendable income to fly to the US every few years, go on cruises and two of the three own second vacation homes. Doesn't sound all that bad to me
All of you people are swatting at gnats and ignoring the elephant on your chest.
The only way to cure our financial problems is to end the Federal Reserve and the Central Banking system and for the government to issue non-interest-bearing currency that fluctuates based on productivity and a population based ratio formula. Just like what Ben Franklin explained the original colonies did.
You can't have a system where a few families are issuing currency for the world's countries that only cost them a negligible amount to create (a lot of it is digital on computers) and amassing trillions of dollars of profit for the privilege.
And don't let anyone fool you. Gates and Buffet etc... are not the richest people in the world. It's the small clique of families who own the Central Banks and are able to manipulate governments and world events as well as HIDE THEIR FORTUNES from the public because issuing the world's money has given them that much power and control.
What the OECD Better Life Index fails to grasp are the benefits. Free education, free healthcare and health insurance (paid by those taxes). Sure, the high taxes result in less disposable income, but that is compensated that you can practically go from payroll to payroll, and survive your life from day one until the end of your life with dignity not having even $1000 in savings any point in your life.
Actually, that's not true. I specifically posted the OECD's definition of what net-adjusted disposable income is in the last of these 3 citations. The benefits are indeed taken into consideration:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Sweden, for example:
Quote:
"Money, while it cannot buy happiness, is an important means to achieving higher living standards. In Sweden, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 28 859 a year, less than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year"
"Money, while it cannot buy happiness, is an important means to achieving higher living standards. In the United States, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 41 071 a year, more than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year, and the highest figure in the OECD"
How the OECD calculates net-adjusted disposable income:
Quote:
"Household adjusted disposable income includes income from economic activity (wages and salaries; profits of self-employed business owners), property income (dividends, interests and rents), social benefits in cash (retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, family allowances, basic income support, etc.), and social transfers in kind (goods and services such as health care, education and housing, received either free of charge or at reduced prices)."
Let's try some data that isn't 10 years old If you look at the bottom of this chart, you will see something quite different when you replace party identification with ideology. The numbers are equally split between self identified conservatives, liberals and moderates:
Why replace them? People don't vote conservative, moderate, or liberal. They vote Republican, Democrat, or Independent. And in a 2-party poll, Democrats do indeed get Food Stamps at a rate of more than 2 to 1 compared to Republicans. That newer data just verifies the accuracy of the Maxwell Poll data that in a 2-party comparison, the Democrat voters' share of Food Stamp recipients is 69% while the Republican voters' share of Food Stamp recipients is only 31%.
Percent of adults who have received Food Stamps:
Republican: 10%
Democrat: 22%
Independent: 17%
Easy to see who are the contributors, and who are the takers.
Social Security is MY money. Money the Federal Government has taken out of my pay check for 30+ years. If the Feds want to cut something, how bout cutting handouts like food stamps, medicaid, unemployment, subsidized housing etc.
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.
