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.
SO you really did not want to be enlightened right?
The definition and the concept of Socialism is pretty clear cut. You failed to provide that, even though you went full tinfoil-hatty and kept babbling about the truth and enlightenment.
The definition and the concept of Socialism is pretty clear cut. You failed to provide that, even though you went full tinfoil-hatty and kept babbling about the truth and enlightenment.
The world shall accept your definition, I get it....you from Salzburg?
I personally don't care how you or some group that you like defines Socialism, it's just words and someone's interpretation. I said Sweden is a quasi Sociaist state. To me, what's important is that 52% of income is confiscated for the group and I wouldn't like that....if you do, fine, move to Sweden. I prefer USA 17% tax confiscation...I would probably be okay if it was 25%, but not 52%.
The world shall accept your definition, I get it....you from Salzburg?
I personally don't care how you or some group that you like defines Socialism, it's just words and someone's interpretation. I said Sweden is a quasi Sociaist state. To me, what's important is that 52% of income is confiscated for the group and I wouldn't like that....if you do, fine, move to Sweden. I prefer USA 17% tax confiscation...I would probably be okay if it was 25%, but not 52%.
Given that you aren't even able to give the definition of Socialism when asked for it, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be subject to Sweden's 52% tax bracket.
Once again It takes into account of the social benefits in each country, and also regional purchasing power parity. In Sweden I could not afford the lifestyle I now live in Virginia because the economy just isn't as rich even though I make about the same money and work about the same hours.
How is it biased? If it didn't take into account the costs of living then it would be biased. Or if it didn't take into account the social benefits of each country. I guess all statistics are biased in one way or another.
OECD's definition of social benefits:
"Social benefits are current transfers received by households intended to provide for the needs that arise from certain events or circumstances, for example, sickness, unemployment, retirement, housing, education or family circumstances"
Working 'X' hours pr. year doesn't have anything to do with social benefits. If the average German would work 30% hours more pr. year (thus putting Germany at the same level as the US in terms of annual working hours pr. year pr. individual), then the average German would also have a higher median income.
Good for you, but you're just an individual not a statistical representaiton.
The website reeks of bias, and it's not even something that the authors are trying to hide. They are pretty open about the site being dedicated to the libertarian cause.
Not true. The U.S. has significantly higher median and mean income than Canada. The U.S. is more unequal than Canada, though, but mostly because it has more high income households. The low and middle income household cohorts have about the same median wealth.
Median income in the US and Canada is about the same.
U.S. income inequality is a problem, but not in the manner as popularly characterized. The U.S. is more unequal than other first world countries because it has more rich, not because it has more poor. The lower and middle income cohorts are not really different from that of Canada, or Germany. The main difference is that the U.S. has more high income households.
From the same link, Canada's and a few northern European poor are better off than American lower income classes. Most of Europe is the same or slightly poorer. Looking at just income doesn't give the best picture, as most of those countries have more generous welfare and social benefits than the US that cover things Americans might have to pay out of pocket. Those benefits have more of an impact to poorer people than middle class people.
The other problem with the comparison is poor areas of the US often have social issues. Besides crime (not all poor areas are crime-ridden), bad schools, health issues, decaying infrastructure, etc. But salaries are generally higher in the US. In Massachusetts one of the richer states in the US, the median income for a family with two earners is $111,000 / year. I suspect that would sound high to most Europeans.
The average American works significantly more compared to the average European (15-30% more annual work hours depending on country), so it is no wonder that the median household income is higher in the US.
Higher than most western European countries but not a huge outlier. Italian working hours are barely lower than American working hours.
In the US you have to gain wealth so you can afford education for your children, to save for retirement, medical bills and so one. This kind of economy demands a lot of disposable income as otherwise the system doesn't work.
In Europe you don't need to gain wealth, as education, healthcare, pensions, insurances, are free or mostly free due to jus soli, and pensions are at subsistence levels. In theory you can live from paycheck to paycheck from your first day until your last day.
In the US you have to gain wealth so you can afford education for your children, to save for retirement, medical bills and so one. This kind of economy demands a lot of disposable income as otherwise the system doesn't work.
In Europe you don't need to gain wealth, as education, healthcare, pensions, insurances, are free or mostly free due to jus soli, and pensions are at subsistence levels. In theory you can live from paycheck to paycheck from your first day until your last day.
If you're responding to me, I already mentioned that in my post. Though I'll add the majority of American workers (somewhere around 80%) get health insurance from their employer. Many of these plans are rather generous, dunno how they compare exactly to Europeans ones. As long as you stay employed, medical bills are paid for by insurance, there's no need to have lots of money for medical costs.
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.
