NationStates Jolt Archive

Just curious to know how much the average working European is raked over the coals versus an American....

Income Tax: for me its 20% Federal, and depending what State a percentage there, where I lived now it's 5%...that's .25 cents out of every dollar getting taken out to pay for everything..how much does the average European pay out in order to pay for their socialist society?

I had always heard they were taxed a lot higher, but I'm not real sure on the details.

Talking about incometax?

Well, in Sweden it's around 33% for a normal income. But if you sart to make more then 25000 SEK or something like that you get to pay a higher incometax.

Guess a reason for higher incometaxes are freee medical care etc(not 100% free tho). And I defenitly think it's worth it. And I don't think the average swede is poorer then the average US-resident(american didn't firt to well here imo). Rather the opposite.

income tax in sweden is maxes out at 55%.

Just curious to know how much the average working European is raked over the coals versus an American....

Income Tax: for me its 20% Federal, and depending what State a percentage there, where I lived now it's 5%...that's .25 cents out of every dollar getting taken out to pay for everything..how much does the average European pay out in order to pay for their socialist society?

Are you including all the other taxes you pay? from Local taxes to sales taxes and so on and so forth?. I live in PA and I pay my fair share because i know it keeps our society from falling into a disaster of huge proportions. About 27% to the feds (for all fed taxes), 3.1 to the state, 1.25 to the locals, plus 17/1000 on property taxes for schools and 7/1000 for county, plus .40 per gal in gas and 6% sales tax on everything except food and clothing. I think that is all… I might have missed a few but that is all I know I pay.

Just curious to know how much the average working European is raked over the coals versus an American....

Income Tax: for me its 20% Federal, and depending what State a percentage there, where I lived now it's 5%...that's .25 cents out of every dollar getting taken out to pay for everything..how much does the average European pay out in order to pay for their socialist society?

UK: 25% income tax. Then there's local (Council) tax, based on the value of your house, rather than on your ability to pay. It costs me roughly another 4%. Then of course there's VAT, a sales tax -- which I know they have in the States as well. In the UK it's a disgusting 17.5% onto the retail price, and, although originally introduced as a tax on "luxuries", now applies to everything apart from uncooked food, soap, books, magazines and newspapers, children's clothes and shoes, and men's razorblades. Oh, and the Skye Bridge toll. And VAT on domestic fuel is only 9%.

But ignoring sales tax and duty (e.g. on petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc.) which you haven't included, I'd estimate that I pay about 29%. But then, I get a hell of a lot more in return. Plus, how much do you pay in health insurance?

Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Though it has been decreased here in Germany.

In 2005 it is going to be between 15% (for about 7000 Euro) linear-progressivly growing to 42% for 42.000 Euro annual income and above.
Well that are the taxes.
Social security (retirement, health, disability, unemployment insurance) is only paid by people who are employess - not people who are self-employed and not for people with an income below 400 Euro, students, e.g.
It makes up another 20% for the employee and 20% for the employer. Though if you have a higher income you are not required to pay into the social insurances. Then you can take privat insurance since that is cheaper for you. That way of financing the social security systems leaves of course the main burden on the middle class.
And due to the rising cost it is strugeling more and more. The tax brakes haven´t improved the situation much. The social security system needs a basic reform.
There is already a discussion about a structural reform of the health insurance. One suggestion would be to introduce a head premium (per head, children for free) and to give poorer people support through tax deductions if needed. Thats the Swiss modell: I´m much in favour of that.

income tax in sweden is maxes out at 55%.

oH MY FRIGGIN...BUDDHA JESUS SHIVA YAYWEH!!!....55%?...damn, I'd be working practically for the government with that much being taken out.

VAT in Germany: 16% (compared to other European countries very low though). Reduced VAT for food and non-alcoholic drinks, books and many other things (even some flowers): 7%.
High taxes on gasoline (for car, traffic, reduced for diesel), though not on oil for heating.
Though: no charge for the use of highways for cars (in difference to many other european countries).
High taxes on Tobacco as well.

oH MY FRIGGIN...BUDDHA JESUS SHIVA YAYWEH!!!....55%?...damn, I'd be working practically for the government with that much being taken out.

it's not that bad actually. we've got free education :D which is worth alot and a few other things. we don't have some of those "side-expensives" americans do, like paying for the kids collegue for example.

but i think the government could be more efficient, but that's another story ;)

Additional to your income tax (15-42%) you have to pay 5,5% (but not on your income - its own the amount of income taxes you pay) as "solidarity tax". It was introduced to finance the reconstruction in East Germany.

Well you said europe but europe likes us better than the states...
Probably about mid to high 30's. But we pay healthcare through are taxes.

The average canadian makes about 27,700 the average american makes 38,800. So yeah i don't know how this contributes but I'm tired. :headbang:

But Sweden's public services, low crime rates, low poverty rates and low unemployment rates are the envy of the world.

Counting everything together a bit less than 50% of the GDP somehow goes through the hands of the state or the semi-state social security system.
The tax quota is not that high though (about 20% of the GDP), but the state quota is (almost 50%, but a bit lower than in the end of the 1990s)

But Sweden's public services, low crime rates, low poverty rates and low unemployment rates are the envy of the world.
Germany has high taxes and high unemployment though. And as far as I know Sweden has also reduced its state quota in the last 10 years, since Sweden was in a deep crisis in the early 1990s.

In Scotland I can earn £6575 and pay £196 tax.
I then pay 22% on everything I earn up to £35000 then I have to pay 40% on the rest.

I also have to pay Council Tax, but would have to look up what that is.

it's not that bad actually. we've got free education :D which is worth alot and a few other things. we don't have some of those "side-expensives" americans do, like paying for the kids collegue for example.

but i think the government could be more efficient, but that's another story ;)

We have free education too...elementary thru secondary...course..college/university isn't free either....but then again..for those that want it...they can find ways to pay for it....grants..loans, you name it.....

Personally...I want to keep as much of my money as possible. I don't mind paying for road infrastructure, defense, or a couple other departments..

well swedens wellfare is.... not what it used to be, which i may add is both good and bad, unfortunatly (my opinion) the right things about it aren't being done. all the opposition talks about is privatization, as if that would solve any problem in the world. i doubt that. and all the government is doing currently is stalling it seems.

We have free education too...elementary thru secondary...course..college/university isn't free either....but then again..for those that want it...they can find ways to pay for it....grants..loans, you name it.....

well to but it mildly.

OUR "free education" is MORE than YOURS.

why? because you don't have to pay for it. it is free. all the way.
(you'll need to find a way to pay for your living but that's another thing).

and i like it that way :cool:

I think Europeans generally spend a greater percentage of tax revenue on social issues like health and education whilst the US spends 100 billion dollars a year on defence which is more than the rest of the world combined (might not be accurate).

I thought my taxes were bad, but I visited England last month and was broke really quickly over the VAT (which is ridiculously high imho).

I've never had a job I had to pay income tax on, but it isn't all that bad even if you do have to.

But we have to pay for healthcare and higher education and all that rot.

I think Europeans generally spend a greater percentage of tax revenue on social issues like health and education whilst the US spends 100 billion dollars a year on defence which is more than the rest of the world combined (might not be accurate).
Thats not true: it is "only" more than the 20 following powers combined together.

I know I don't pay enough tax. And you should see the mess my society is in. The rich folk are okay though - gated comunities and private schools, hospitals and police - so I can't see it changing.

I think Europeans generally spend a greater percentage of tax revenue on social issues like health and education whilst the US spends 100 billion dollars a year on defence which is more than the rest of the world combined (might not be accurate).

Am referring to individual taxes here....and I just couldn't stomach paying anywhere from a 1/3 to 1/2 of my pay to the government..

I know I don't pay enough tax. And you should see the mess my society is in. The rich folk are okay though - gated comunities and private schools, hospitals and police - so I can't see it changing.

ahmm..the idea is to work to the point you can join those communities. just last year they added over 1000 (I think) new millionaires in the US.

oH MY FRIGGIN...BUDDHA JESUS SHIVA YAYWEH!!!....55%?...damn, I'd be working practically for the government with that much being taken out.

Sounds ugly but the people who hit that can buy Islands.

It's not the guys on the street.

As I see it the %-number is not really a good way of comparing nations.

School, healthcare, infrastructure costs more or less the same. No matter if you pay it through taxes or from your own safe. What I like with taxes is that it is
1 the best instument to reduce economical gaps between different society groups and regions within a country
2 the best way to administrate financing of big projects like infrastructure, goverment administration or policeforce, especially when you dont want economical interessts to interfere
3 security for the individual if he or she would suddenly have big expenditure through sickness, disabilities, unemployment.

It is not a 100% fair system as some people will get less out than they pay due to great health, non-commuting, death before retirment :) etc and other people, (disabled, 100-year old) will get more.

However it is important to see the efficiency of the systems. In
Sweden it was claimed for many years that state-owned "enterprises" were extremly unefficient because they were not exposed to market-competition. However I believe that more people realise that this is no longer the case and that the price of competition is VERY expensive and the efficieny and professionality of private companies was in many ways a shiny surface.

If you look at the life quality in Sweden, the US or other developed countries we in general live quite similar lifes although our tax systems work very differently. Most have access to great healthcare, good education, good housing and transports etc. Mostly it is up to the individual and "fait" how our lives turn out. Although I believe that in the US the gap between rich and "poor" is bigger than in Sweden.

It is also interesting to see how much work time we have to put in for this life quality. In Sweden we work 40 hours a week and have 5-6 weeks of vacation and retire at 65. Almost all men and women work and we have unemployment ratings of about 6% depending on how you calculate. In Spain they work the same time but have higher unemployment and less women working. In france they work 35 hours enjoy 6 weeks of vacation and retire early. In the US you mostly have 2-3 weeks of vacation. Would be interesting to see a nice study on this. Would also be nice to see this comaprison with how we pay for the european union! In Sweden we work more than in France and also contribute with more money to the union per person due to a higher gross national product per capita.

Sounds ugly but the people who hit that can buy Islands.

It's not the guys on the street.


Whether they can or not is not the issue...why should I forfeit nearly half my income just because I'm more successful?..No socialist has yet convinced me of that reasoning....

By that reasoning..I should never try to be successful...just stay ordinary blue collar poor.

However it is important to see the efficiency of the systems. In
Sweden it was claimed for many years that state-owned "enterprises" were extremly unefficient because they were not exposed to market-competition. However I believe that more people realise that this is no longer the case and that the price of competition is VERY expensive and the efficieny and professionality of private companies was in many ways a shiny surface.


The privitisation of everything in Brittain under the last government bears this out - we now pay hugely more for our rail system (in tax and fares) than we did before it was sold off (too cheaply and to friends of the govt) and it works much worse.

ahmm..the idea is to work to the point you can join those communities. just last year they added over 1000 (I think) new millionaires in the US.


I don't want to live with rich people. I want everyone in society to have the same access to police, healthcare and education whatever their parents income.

Nobody needs to be a millionaire, but everyone needs a safety net.

have 5-6 weeks of vacation

paid vacation. :) always :)


By that reasoning..I should never try to be successful...just stay ordinary blue collar poor.

not everyone is aiming for a career, but still got the right to live a decent live, with the kids having the oportunity to go to school, university and so on.

Income tax is one thing, what about the american sales tax? VAT? Taxes on liquor and tobacco? What about import tax that is raising prices but that you don't know about?
Taxation is more then just income tax you know.

I know I don't pay enough tax. And you should see the mess my society is in. The rich folk are okay though - gated comunities and private schools, hospitals and police - so I can't see it changing.

Well, that's what the USA is going to be all about; the rich are creating their own prison to live in. Oh yes, it's a safe place and you'll have all the goodies, but you still live behind bars ...

The privitisation of everything in Brittain under the last government bears this out - we now pay hugely more for our rail system (in tax and fares) than we did before it was sold off (too cheaply and to friends of the govt) and it works much worse.



I don't want to live with rich people. I want everyone in society to have the same access to police, healthcare and education whatever their parents income.

Nobody needs to be a millionaire, but everyone needs a safety net.

But who are you to tell me what I need?...if I want to work to the point I can afford a huge 8 bedroom house, 3 mercedes benz's, golf at a country club, and a beach house..then why shouldn't I be able to work towards that goal?

Life isn't fair..never was..and never was meant to be...

But who are you to tell me what I need?...if I want to work to the point I can afford a huge 8 bedroom house, 3 mercedes benz's, golf at a country club, and a beach house..then why shouldn't I be able to work towards that goal?


and who said that aint possible just because you have a higher income tax? :rolleyes:

and who said that aint possible just because you have a higher income tax? :rolleyes:

But you're penalizing me for being successful?...How fair is that?..Should I stay poor just so I can keep more of my money?

The amount of tax paid per year in America can be paid off by an American (if they pay only tax and take no money home) by the 1st of march- so its roughly 25% overall. In Britain, it would be the 27th of April (just over 35%), and in the Eurozone (the sum of all countries that have the euro as their currency) it is the 7th of June (just over 50% tax)- this shows that Americans pay a lot less tax than Europeans in general. However, most European nations have much better public services (NHS in Britain, for example). In places like Denmark, I believe that the tax is about 78%, but then university education is free, as is some public transport etc (I may be incorrect).

The amount of tax paid per year in America can be paid off by an American (if they pay only tax and take no money home) by the 1st of march- so its roughly 25% overall. In Britain, it would be the 27th of April (just over 35%), and in the Eurozone (the sum of all countries that have the euro as their currency) it is the 7th of June (just over 50% tax)- this shows that Americans pay a lot less tax than Europeans in general. However, most European nations have much better public services (NHS in Britain, for example). In places like Denmark, I believe that the tax is about 78%, but then university education is free, as is some public transport etc (I may be incorrect).


78%!!!!.....but what if I don't want to go to the university?...or don't need too?...and public transport?...what if I want to drive my own car?..mercy, I'd be living just to work, not work for a living.

78%!!!!.....but what if I don't want to go to the university?...or don't need too?...and public transport?...what if I want to drive my own car?..mercy, I'd be living just to work, not work for a living.
I don`t think that is correct. To my knowledge the state quota in Denmark is just about 50%. And Denish workers can be dismissed any time the employer wants to dismiss them (to protection for dismissal). But Denmark pays a lot for the unemployed and provides a very good education sector also for employees and unemployed people. The Denish unemployment rate is pretty low.

But you're penalizing me for being successful?...How fair is that?..Should I stay poor just so I can keep more of my money?

more of your money in percent yes. but you seem to have your shades on. you still make more money than the majority. it's not punishment. but it seem hard to explain to you that there are actually joy in knowing that some of my tax money is used help making shure that even the poorer get proper healthcare and education. it creates more equality and less strife (i think that's the word, otherwise you should read it as tension between people of different classes:)).

more of your money in percent yes. but you seem to have your shades on. you still make more money than the majority. it's not punishment. but it seem hard to explain to you that there are actually joy in knowing that some of my tax money is used help making shure that even the poorer get proper healthcare and education. it creates more equality and less strife (i think that's the word, otherwise you should read it as tension between people of different classes:)).


There are no shades on..you're still making me pay more just for being successful, you can spin it any way you want..but that is the bottom line. That is punishment. You want equality of result..I want equality of oppurtunity....

It doesn't matter if I make more money then the majority....it's still MY money, and you figure that just because I make more money..I should give more away?...That is punishment.

There are no shades on..you're still making me pay more just for being successful, you can spin it any way you want..but that is the bottom line. That is punishment. You want equality of result..I want equality of oppurtunity....

It doesn't matter if I make more money then the majority....it's still MY money, and you figure that just because I make more money..I should give more away?...That is punishment.

ok.. lets take one intresting part here:

You want equality of result..I want equality of oppurtunity....

that is EXACTLY what we are trying to create here. giving EVERYONE (and her aunt) a chance to get higher education FOR FREE. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATUS IS. how do you create this equality of opportunity, because taxes on income doesn't stop your chances of oportunity the way a see it. if you're paying 55% income tax you've already succeeded.

ok.. lets take one intresting part here:



that is EXACTLY what we are trying to create here. giving EVERYONE (and her aunt) a chance to get higher education FOR FREE. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR FINANCIAL STATUS IS. how do you create this equality of opportunity, because taxes on income doesn't stop your chances of oportunity the way a see it. if you're paying 55% income tax you've already succeeded.

No..that is equality of result....equality of oppurtunity is giving them that free high school education to both people and letting them have the freedom to go further it they want it bad enough..

No..that is equality of result....equality of oppurtunity is giving them that free high school education to both people and letting them have the freedom to go further it they want it bad enough..

highschool? that's a bit too low. don't you want an educated working class? :eek:

the edited part:
equality of result is having everybody having the exact same. and that's not what we're trying to do here.

highschool? that's a bit too low. don't you want an educated working class? :eek:

the edited part:
equality of result is having everybody having the exact same. and that's not what we're trying to do here.

Of course that is what you're trying to do...by letting everyone get a degree, that is equality of result...

I want to give them all the oppurtunity to go by giving them that freedom, it's their choice..how they go about it..that's up to them...if they have the will, and the drive..they'll find a way.

Of course that is what you're trying to do...by letting everyone get a degree, that is equality of result...

I want to give them all the oppurtunity to go by giving them that freedom, it's their choice..how they go about it..that's up to them...if they have the will, and the drive..they'll find a way.

now now... we not "letting everyone get a degree". im giving them the oportunity to aim for one.

you seem to be "letting everyone rich enough get a degree and have the rest working their arse off for one if you really really want one"... that's basicly the way you are reasoning. because if im letting everyone get a degree then your letting those who can afford (richer people, not the poor) "get one" while the rest... "'ll find a way..."

i don't really like the sound of that... :(

ahmm..the idea is to work to the point you can join those communities. just last year they added over 1000 (I think) new millionaires in the US.


all well and good for people who can get jobs, not to mention the restricted good jobs (and the glass ceilings for those of us not lucky enough to be born with a penis.). the rest of us live in abject poverty. i have a degree and i'm about to have another and no one will hire me and i have great skills and a great personality. ah well. thank you george w. cause our economy is so great.

highschool? that's a bit too low. don't you want an educated working class? :eek:

the edited part:
equality of result is having everybody having the exact same. and that's not what we're trying to do here.


no capitalist wants an educated working class. they'd have to pay them and that would reduce the profit margin.

all well and good for people who can get jobs, not to mention the restricted good jobs (and the glass ceilings for those of us not lucky enough to be born with a penis.). the rest of us live in abject poverty. i have a degree and i'm about to have another and no one will hire me and i have great skills and a great personality. ah well. thank you george w. cause our economy is so great.

And just what is your degree in..did you know when you began your studies whether or not the occupational field you'd be degree'd in was marketable, did you research the types of jobs you would have been eligible for with your degree?..

As far as our unemployment, it is comparable to many European nations, right now it is hovering at 6%, that is by far the norm..that means for every 100 people working..only 6 can't get a job or won't look for a job..I find that pretty damn good.

no capitalist wants an educated working class. they'd have to pay them and that would reduce the profit margin.


Ahmm..excuse me..I'm an educated working class..I got there because I've worked my ass off..

now now... we not "letting everyone get a degree". im giving them the oportunity to aim for one.

you seem to be "letting everyone rich enough get a degree and have the rest working their arse off for one if you really really want one"... that's basicly the way you are reasoning. because if im letting everyone get a degree then your letting those who can afford (richer people, not the poor) "get one" while the rest... "'ll find a way..."

i don't really like the sound of that... :(

You may not like the sound of that..but it is fair..no one gets preferential treatment...equality of oppurtunity.

You may not like the sound of that..but it is fair..no one gets preferential treatment...equality of oppurtunity.

eh? pardon me monsiuer... yes the rich do get an advantage. they don't, like you put it have to "find a way". But you're talking about negative opportunities(freedoms?) and i'm talking about positive (that's what we call them here, someone more enlightened on the subject and particularly in this language :rolleyes: are most welcome to correct me :)). so it's hard to agree on things there. :)


As far as our unemployment, it is comparable to many European nations, right now it is hovering at 6%, that is by far the norm..that means for every 100 people working..only 6 can't get a job or won't look for a job..I find that pretty damn good.

well the difference here is that we take better care of our unemployed. ;)

I don't know the average income tax in Norway, it mainly depends on how much you earn and how much dept you have. Maybe average is around 30-35% Max is 50%. We have whopping 22% vat, but only half that on food. In addition there's a lot of other taxes. The more crazy ones are for alcohol, cars and gasoline. Image paying up to 10 dollars for 0.5 litres of beer on a pub, or in the excess of $150.000 for a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7HO Overland! Welcome to socialism!

And just what is your degree in..did you know when you began your studies whether or not the occupational field you'd be degree'd in was marketable, did you research the types of jobs you would have been eligible for with your degree?..

As far as our unemployment, it is comparable to many European nations, right now it is hovering at 6%, that is by far the norm..that means for every 100 people working..only 6 can't get a job or won't look for a job..I find that pretty damn good.


when i say no one will hire me, i mean no one. i even applied at blockbuster... no one will hire me. it's because the economy is bad, not because my skills or degree are not marketable. i have an aa in general studies and i'm getting a ba in social and political science with a specialization in middle-east studies. i'm so marketable it's frightening. but i can't get a full time job (the only kind that would hire me) because i'm still in school. and no part-time jobs in the area will hire me. note: i'm too poor to afford a car and the public transportation here is wretched. it takes 2 hours to get across a town that is only about 20 miles wide.

i actually found one that i might get... putting books back on shelves in the county library. 6.50/hour. they're gonna call me in a couple weeks to tell me if i got it or not. great stuff neh?

Ahmm..excuse me..I'm an educated working class..I got there because I've worked my ass off..

i didn't say that they didn't exist and i didn't say it was handed out... i said that it reduced profit margins for the wealthy company owners so they don't want it... outsourcing anyone?

Whether they can or not is not the issue...why should I forfeit nearly half my income just because I'm more successful?..No socialist has yet convinced me of that reasoning....

By that reasoning..I should never try to be successful...just stay ordinary blue collar poor.

1. So you can help the not so lucky. This is like, the only true argument. And if you dont care about the not so lucky, well then its no wonder that you have never been convinced or will ever be.

2. Erh no. If you stay blue collar you just can't buy that island and thoose 8 cars. If you go rich and pays 55% tax you will still be rich, which is better than not being rich. Agree?

oH MY FRIGGIN...BUDDHA JESUS SHIVA YAYWEH!!!....55%?...damn, I'd be working practically for the government with that much being taken out.


thats maybe 10% more than you pay here in the states when you combine state and federal tax the percentage is close to 50%

The amount of tax paid per year in America can be paid off by an American (if they pay only tax and take no money home) by the 1st of march- so its roughly 25% overall. In Britain, it would be the 27th of April (just over 35%), and in the Eurozone (the sum of all countries that have the euro as their currency) it is the 7th of June (just over 50% tax)- this shows that Americans pay a lot less tax than Europeans in general. However, most European nations have much better public services (NHS in Britain, for example). In places like Denmark, I believe that the tax is about 78%, but then university education is free, as is some public transport etc (I may be incorrect).

I live in denmark here is facts:
We pay around 40-45% in income tax (divided on state, county and local). Varying on your income, so if you are rich you pay more and vica versa
We have a sales tax (VAT, whatever you call it) that is 25%

Free education to the highest level.
Free healthcare.
Amazing welfare.
free transportation with busses, trains and metro if you are 12 years or younger

As an example. I am 18 years old. Lives with my dad. He works around 37 hours a week and has a medicore-medicore-good (more medicore than good) job. We live very well. We got a car (although its piss bad (our good car broke down ½ a year ago and we got the new one very cheap)). Lives in a "house" (a big house with two seperated floors. we live in one of the floors, and another person on the other floor)). I go to highschool and has no jobs, besides some freelance web site design.
Now because i go to highschool (which is tottaly free) i get something called SU (the governments educational support). The SU is on 2247 kr each month, which is (using xe.com) 364 US $. If i was living on my own this would double and if other factors played in (like being pregnant or having kids) this would be even higher. This SU is to make sure that you can always take an education without having to worry about working besides. Offcourse the SU is not always enough, and it is common to have jobs on the side.

I live in denmark here is facts:
We pay around 40-45% in income tax (divided on state, county and local). Varying on your income, so if you are rich you pay more and vica versa
We have a sales tax (VAT, whatever you call it) that is 25%

Free education to the highest level.
Free healthcare.
Amazing welfare.
free transportation with busses, trains and metro if you are 12 years or younger

you forgot the most important.

"probably the best beer in the world" ;) *







*well, opinions might differ, and i may not agree myself, but it's a joke you see... :rolleyes:

Don't get it.
Actually our beer is not that great. I like corona better than i do Tuborg or Carlsberg (our two national beers). A very local brewery, Wiibroe is great though imo.

Don't get it.
Actually our beer is not that great. I like corona better than i do Tuborg or Carlsberg (our two national beers). A very local brewery, Wiibroe is great though imo.

well it's a carlsberg commercial... so just ignore it...

not that fond of Wiibroe myself, favorite here is Spitfire (welsh)... but a cold green tuborg a wamr summer day is nothing i turn down :)

Yap, Corona is great, but I like Flensburger even more. As its name sais, its from northern Germany. But beer from southern Germany sucks the hell o.o

But theres one thing everybody should have drunken once in life at christmas: Julöl (hum, its not ö but this o with a slash, whatever its called), this black swedish bear. Its great together with cookies :D

Yap, Corona is great, but I like Flensburger even more. As its name sais, its from northern Germany. But beer from southern Germany sucks the hell o.o

But theres one thing everybody should have drunken once in life at christmas: Julöl (hum, its not ö but this o with a slash, whatever its called), this black swedish bear. Its great together with cookies :D

for christmas it's heated mulled wine.... ALL THE WAY!

it's good for your throat i've heard ;)

But Sweden's public services, low crime rates, low poverty rates and low unemployment rates are the envy of the world.


HA! well thats all good canada was ranked by the UN as the number 1 place to live in the world norway was second and seden was in the top ten.

I live in denmark here is facts:
We pay around 40-45% in income tax (divided on state, county and local). Varying on your income, so if you are rich you pay more and vica versa
We have a sales tax (VAT, whatever you call it) that is 25%

Free education to the highest level.
Free healthcare.
Amazing welfare.
free transportation with busses, trains and metro if you are 12 years or younger

LOL! With those tax rates, you better get "amazing welfare." Sounds like that's all the government will let you have.

With those tax rates versus my current salary: I can pay for my own healthcare, education, and transportation, (and more!) thank you very much. You can keep your socialism, and have a good night.

OK, this is English income tax according to the Inland Revenue:

Bands of Taxable Income

2003 - 2004

Starting Rate 10% -- £0 to £1960 per year
Basic Rate 22% -- £1,961 to £30,500 per year
Higher Rate (often referred to as supertax) 40% -- over £30,500 per year

Tax Allowances

Personal Allowance -- £4,615 ( I have this)
Personal Allowance (age 65-74) -- £6,610
Personal Allowance (age 75 and over) -- £6,720

Married Allowance (born before 6 April 1935 but under 75) -- £5,565
Married Allowance (age 75 and over) -- £5,635
Married Allowance (minimum amount) -- £2,150

Blind Person's Allowance -- £1,510



We also have VAT @ 17.5%. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I know that tax on petrol (gasoline, to you gas-guzzlers) is somewhere in the 70-80% range. Council tax varies from borough to borough, but they've all risen substancially recently -- I couldn't possibly afford to buy a house in this country for years to come, so I'm not sure of the exact cost in this particular locale. Oh, and I own a 1.2 litre car, and have to pay £60 road tax every six months. I don't know if you have a tax disc on American cars, but that's what it buys. I think tax on alcohol is rather higher than VAT also, but again, I'm not sure of the exact figures. In fact, I can't even find half these figures. It's almost as if the government is embarrassed...

Think of the people, which cant pay the doctors bill. They cant be healed from disease, if they dont have money. That is capitalism in a very inhuman way - i'm happy that germany has better social systems (even if i guess, there wont be any much longer)

Galtania: Read my post again. I have edited it to show the welfare.
Well... Great. Good for you. Bad for the poor guy on the street though. But hey, if you are doing alright then fuck everybody else right?

Galtania: Read my post again. I have edited it to show the welfare.
Well... Great. Good for you. Bad for the poor guy on the street though. But hey, if you are doing alright then fuck everybody else right?

OK, I re-read the new info. Sounds like it's pretty much what we had when I was 18 and my father was in the U.S. Navy. When he retired, he got an even better job, and my family had a better life. The only real difference is that your country pays you to go to high school. Is your US$364 allowance worth taxing all your fellow citizens at a 40% - 45% rate? If you think it is, then I'm not the one with the "fuck everybody else" attitude (or, if I am, at least I'm just ignoring them, not stealing from them).

What "poor guy on the street" are you talking about? I think you've seen too many movies. Despite what Euro-socialist propaganda outlets feed you, there aren't poor people all over the streets in America. I know, I've lived all over this country in cities and towns of different sizes. Sure, there are some homeless, but most of them are alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals who chose not to take advantage of the free education and opportunities America offers and instead ruined their own lives. And there are bound to be some homeless; after all, we have almost 300 million residents. That's a lot different than a country the size of Denmark.

ahmm..the idea is to work to the point you can join those communities. just last year they added over 1000 (I think) new millionaires in the US.
In the meantime, the US population has grown by 2,866,909 people in that same year. I think you are losing in the race?

What are the odds of you joining this select rank in the very near future?

Only 1 person out of 145 has $1 Million or more in the US. There are 2 Million Americans that have a net worth of $1 Million or more, excluding property.

OK, I re-read the new info. Sounds like it's pretty much what we had when I was 18 and my father was in the U.S. Navy. When he retired, he got an even better job, and my family had a better life. The only real difference is that your country pays you to go to high school. Is your US$364 allowance worth taxing all your fellow citizens at a 40% - 45% rate? If you think it is, then I'm not the one with the "fuck everybody else" attitude (or, if I am, at least I'm just ignoring them, not stealing from them).

What "poor guy on the street" are you talking about? I think you've seen too many movies. Despite what Euro-socialist propaganda outlets feed you, there aren't poor people all over the streets in America. I know, I've lived all over this country in cities and towns of different sizes. Sure, there are some homeless, but most of them are alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals who chose not to take advantage of the free education and opportunities America offers and instead ruined their own lives. And there are bound to be some homeless; after all, we have almost 300 million residents. That's a lot different than a country the size of Denmark.
The US has the worst poverty rate amongst the 17 OECD countries. Dead last!! The richest country in the world no less.

Since Bush took office, 3 Million more Americans have become impoverished and another 3.8 Million Americans are without health insurance.

Meanwhile the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow.

Galtania:

Call it what you want. Its not stealing because when i get a job i am going to be paying back to the system myself
First of when i say people on the street i dont literally mean, the people on the street. I mean the people less fortuante than yourself

Will you agree with me that with a larger welfare system (payed by taxes) the social inequality is going to decrease?

Well, even if you deny die hard logic, i will pull out facts. Created by your own government. If you fail to beleive them, then i give up.

From cia world fact book:

USA:
Population below poverty line: 12% (2003 est.)
Distribution of family income - Gini index: 40.8 (1997)
Unemployment rate: 6.2% (2003)

Denmark:
Population below poverty line: NA%
Distribution of family income - Gini index: 24.7 (1992)
Unemployment rate: 6% (2003)

Distribution of family income - Gini index: This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest. The index is the ratio of (a) the area between a country's Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to (b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.

So in english: The lower the more equal the country

Socialism offers equality. I can perfectly understand if you dont want to share your hard earned money with other people, but i am willing to do that because i beleive that they should have a good chance as well.

I am not saying that america is capitalizt, but accept that is more capitalist than denmark, and as such it is more unequal. It is facts after all

And on your 300 million comment: Yes offcourse you have more homeless. you are 60 times the population of my country. It is however tottally irrelevant. Unless you got percentage numbers comparing will be as usefull as debating politics on a internet forum.... erh i mean.

UK: 25% income tax. Then there's local (Council) tax, based on the value of your house, rather than on your ability to pay. It costs me roughly another 4%. Then of course there's VAT, a sales tax -- which I know they have in the States as well. In the UK it's a disgusting 17.5% onto the retail price, and, although originally introduced as a tax on "luxuries", now applies to everything apart from uncooked food, soap, books, magazines and newspapers, children's clothes and shoes, and men's razorblades. Oh, and the Skye Bridge toll. And VAT on domestic fuel is only 9%.

But ignoring sales tax and duty (e.g. on petrol, cigarettes, alcohol etc.) which you haven't included, I'd estimate that I pay about 29%. But then, I get a hell of a lot more in return. Plus, how much do you pay in health insurance?


Don't forget the television license fee, which is mandatory, and the ever unpopular poll tax, which was repealed after people protested. Healthcare is socialized, but that doesn't mean much when you look at what the NHS gives you compared to the health insurance you buy for yourself. NHS glasses are ugly as sin, even if they work, and if you walk into an NHS hospital, you're likely to be treated as a hypochondriac who is wasting their time, unless you're bleeding from the eyes.

Nothing other then "think of the poor people" has convinced me that the amount of taxes that Europeans pay for their socialist system is admirable.. When a man can work and pay 50% of his salary to the government?..I'm sorry....I've gone to the doctor 3 times in the last 5 yrs, of that it was flu-related, for anything worse I have health insurance thru my employer, I pay a mere $10 co-pay for primary care physician...25$ co-pay for specialist, and $50 for emergency room..taken out of my paycheck is $25 for my health insurance..none of which I think is that expensive in order to have health insurance..the insurance pays the remainder..

I got what is mine by hard work and desire, I was born & raised on a heavily-indebted farm on an Indian reservation..ok...you don't GET much poorer then that..even my hand-me-down were second-rate...my father worked construction on high rises in Knoxville and Nashville...seasonal after the harvest..unemployment on an Indian reservation can go as high as 25%, alchoholism up to 40%..

So I don't want to hear jack crap bout poor people not being able to make it...

This whole country is about equal oppurtunity..not equality of results. You make what you want out of your life...

Some here say..well.the rich don't pay their fair share...ever think that mebbe at one time those that were rich did pay their fair share, but by hard work, and grit they succeeded in life financially....think of Bill Gates, he started his company out of his garage...now he owns his own island....but he can do that...because he worked damn hard for what he wanted.

Now some of you would say...well the rich kids get off scott free college wise, well...ever come to think that it's because that kid's parents busted their ass to do well enough so that in the future their child might not have to bust their ass....Each parental generation wants to do better for their children then the last one.

My taxes should fall in line with what our Constitution demands..and paying for someone else's livelihood isn't one of them...

As for unemployment..unemployment typically runs for at least 26 weeks with most states a 13 week extension..that's 39 weeks of not having to worry bout the essentials...unemployment is 80% of your base pay for the job you were let go of..

I think I pay enough in taxes.....any more and I am merely living to work..not working for a living.

when i say no one will hire me, i mean no one. i even applied at blockbuster... no one will hire me. it's because the economy is bad, not because my skills or degree are not marketable. i have an aa in general studies and this kind of degree is good for what?..sounds like something you'd get for a teaching positionand i'm getting a ba in social and political science with a specialization in middle-east studies. i'm so marketable it's frightening. but i can't get a full time job (the only kind that would hire me) because i'm still in school.[b]that is your choice as I said, it's not because of the job market and no part-time jobs in the area will hire me. note: i'm too poor to afford a car and the public transportation here is wretched. it takes 2 hours to get across a town that is only about 20 miles wide.

i actually found one that i might get... putting books back on shelves in the county library. 6.50/hour. they're gonna call me in a couple weeks to tell me if i got it or not. great stuff neh?

It seems to me that your degree really isn't marketable outside of teaching, or perhaps a school counselor....but the only areas where the middle east studies could go is as I suggested...potential civil service with the State Dept, it's a shame you don't speak Arabic..that would really be marketable.

Think of all the things we MUST have, though, and pay for. I mentioned the Television License fee the British must pay in order to have a TV, but what about auto insurance? We have to pay that if we want to drive a car. Then there's registration fees, and if you own a house, there's property tax and home insurance. In the US you have to have medical insurance, or you won't get treated. You pay for that too. We pay tax on gas, and unless you have found a way around it, you have to pay utilities too. The cost of living is just expensive. Taxes are just a part of it. Combine what percentage you pay in income tax and state tax with what percentage of your income you pay toward the cost of living. We're left with bloody little in the way of spending cash or money to save. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the government knows how many people live from paycheck to paycheck and how many are downright in debt, because the cost of living, including taxes, is skyrocketing. We can't even say that we get sufficient pay or vacation to make it a little less painful.

Poor isn't about government welfare policies, it's about culture.

The US urban underclass has adopted the idea that work and learning aren't "cool" - and for the black underclass, these concepts aren't just uncool, they're "acting white" which is tantamount to treason.

Attitudes like that will never earn money, and they squander any money that is given to them. Buying a home? Tutor for the kids? Savings account?

No, no, and no. $150 basketball shoes, $300 video game systems, $2000 bigscreen tvs. All paid for with maxed out credit cards at 20% APR.

European level taxes and welfare won't help these people, it would only swell their numbers.

Think of all the things we MUST have, though, and pay for. I mentioned the Television License fee the British must pay in order to have a TV, but what about auto insurance? We have to pay that if we want to drive a car. Then there's registration fees, and if you own a house, there's property tax and home insurance. In the US you have to have medical insurance, or you won't get treated. You pay for that too. We pay tax on gas, and unless you have found a way around it, you have to pay utilities too. The cost of living is just expensive. Taxes are just a part of it. Combine what percentage you pay in income tax and state tax with what percentage of your income you pay toward the cost of living. We're left with bloody little in the way of spending cash or money to save. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the government knows how many people live from paycheck to paycheck and how many are downright in debt, because the cost of living, including taxes, is skyrocketing. We can't even say that we get sufficient pay or vacation to make it a little less painful.

Waiiiiitttttt a minute...are you telling me that in Britain you must have a license to own a friggin tv?...You have GOT to be kidding me.

Poor isn't about government welfare policies, it's about culture.

The US urban underclass has adopted the idea that work and learning aren't "cool" - and for the black underclass, these concepts aren't just uncool, they're "acting white" which is tantamount to treason.

Attitudes like that will never earn money, and they squander any money that is given to them. Buying a home? Tutor for the kids? Savings account?

No, no, and no. $150 basketball shoes, $300 video game systems, $2000 bigscreen tvs. All paid for with maxed out credit cards at 20% APR.

European level taxes and welfare won't help these people, it would only swell their numbers.

So the only "poor" in the US are blacks?

Waiiiiitttttt a minute...are you telling me that in Britain you must have a license to own a friggin tv?...You have GOT to be kidding me.

I shit you not. http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

It only pays for the BBC, which is free of commercials, save those which advertise programming on the BBC, which can have good points. However, they mostly spend it on lavish costume dramas. I will say, though, that the Open University saw me through a great many overnight shifts, and watching a good movie without any commercials was nice too. Of course, Vidz, The Adam & Joe Show and almost anything on 4later did almost as good a job of keeping me up. I miss that. There's no programming in the US that even remotely competes with what you get just on the normal 5 (I say five, but I only ever watched four of them) channels you get in the UK. There's even a story that the BBC has detector vans to see if you're watching TV without a license, and commercials that tell you about the fine you'll get for not having one.

Waiiiiitttttt a minute...are you telling me that in Britain you must have a license to own a friggin tv?...You have GOT to be kidding me.
You have the same thing in many countries in Europe. I know France has it, and here in Norway we have it. It's around $250 a year just to own a TV receiver. And ALL of the money goes to the state channel (NRK), all the other channels need to earn their own money through commercials. NRK does not hace commercial breaks, but still has commercials embedded in some shows, and also sponsored programs.

NRK has a whole department dedicated to collecting this tax money. They have people going from door to door checking whether people are watching TV! In other words, professional snitches.

Nothing other then "think of the poor people" has convinced me that the amount of taxes that Europeans pay for their socialist system is admirable..

Probably because that is like to only real argument. To reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Besides we danes pay our taxes happily. A recent study showed that around 2/3 of danes paid their taxes happpily. We dont find it unfair, we like the services and the amount of equality we got for our money.

I do not know if everyone knows this, but if the highest tax scale is, say, 45% (I think that's Holland's), then it doesn't mean you pay 44% over all your income. The idea is that if you have, for example three scales, like 15%, 30% and 45% (I do not know the actual scales from my head), and you earn, say, €100.000, then you pay 15% over the first €5000 or so, then you pay 30% over the next €20.000, then you pay the 45% rate over the remaining €75.000.

So if you earn €100.000 and the highest tax scale is 45%, then you do not pay €45.000 in taxes, but you pay (0,15*5000) + (0,3*20000) + (0,45*75000) = 750 + 6000 + 33750 = €40500.

This goes in Holland, and I think in most European countries as well. I suppose it's the same in most other countries as well, but I am not sure of the specifics.

Nothing other then "think of the poor people" has convinced me that the amount of taxes that Europeans pay for their socialist system is admirable..



Probably because that is like to only real argument. To reduce the gap between rich and poor.

No, you're wrong. It's very possible to care for the poor without having to reduce this gap.

Reducing the gap is a false argument. It takes away focus from the real issue, which is giving the poor a decent life, and instead makes people think it's wrong being rich, which is the false issue.

By fighting the rich, you also fight the possibilty to be rich and by that a strong drive to be productive. This may lessen the gap between the rich and the poor, but it makes the country as a whole poorer. And this hurts everybody, both the rich and the poor.

I totally agree that we should "think of the poor people". But let's think about the poor then, and forget the rich. How can we make life better for the poor? Not by fighting the rich, but making sure we redirect some of the wealth in such a way that it benefits the poor.

When the nation is rich and productive it is more capable of taking care of the poor. Capitalism increases productivity, socialism hinders it. That means a controlled capitalism is better suited to take care of the poor than a socialism is.

So please, keep a focus on the issue, which is helping the poor. And forget about false issues like fighting the rich. That's only counter productive.

"Not by fighting the rich, but making sure we redirect some of the wealth in such a way that it benefits the poor."
Ok, so unless you have a magic spell to conjure money theese money will have to come from somewhere right? Yep, you've guessed it. From taxes

I tottally agree though that controlled capitalism will be the most effective system (right now at least. Maybe in the future people will be better persons and a socialist state might work). And if you go and check out cia world factbook you will notice that denmark is indeed a controlled capitalist society, albeit with strong socialist roots.

I am indeed keeping focus on the poor, and IMO the best way to help them is to support them by, yes you've guessed it, Tax money, which comes from the rest of society. Not very wealthy, medicore and the rich. Everybody gives their share to ensure that the poor get a chance. (which is why we have no "poor" in denmark(offcourse there are cases, but they can get money if they want to(most are drug addicts and alchololics, and choose (or fail to choose) not to))) (thats alot of parantheses)

No, you're wrong. It's very possible to care for the poor without having to reduce this gap.
Reducing the gap is a false argument. It takes away focus from the real issue, which is giving the poor a decent life, and instead makes people think it's wrong being rich, which is the false issue.
By fighting the rich, you also fight the possibilty to be rich and by that a strong drive to be productive. This may lessen the gap between the rich and the poor, but it makes the country as a whole poorer. And this hurts everybody, both the rich and the poor.
.
I absolutely agree with you. Though the problem is the definition of poverty. In Europe it is common to use a "relative" poverty definition. "Poor" is who has less than have of the average income. By this definition the number of poor would be the same even if the income of all people would double. That is a stupid definition. By the way: the "poor" people in Western and North Europe are still the "richest poor" in the world, though.

Oh and on your comment that a rich country is better able to support their poor. I totally agree, the sad part is that most capitalist countries (which are usually the richest ones) dont really feel like supporting their poor because well they are capitalist. The poor should just go out and get real jobs anyways. They got to this position by hard work (and their CEO dad, but hey lets try to forget him) so jimmy trailertrash that failed learning to read because he had to support his drunk mother can damn well also climb the hard ladder of life and become a millionare.

Im qouting some poster from page 5 here:
"The US has the worst poverty rate amongst the 17 OECD countries. Dead last!! The richest country in the world no less."

Probably because that is like to only real argument. To reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Besides we danes pay our taxes happily. A recent study showed that around 2/3 of danes paid their taxes happpily. We dont find it unfair, we like the services and the amount of equality we got for our money.

You're happy because you've been brainwashed for the last few decades that giving the majority of your money to the government is a good thing. I however believe that my money should benefit me primarily..which means IRA's, CD's, Money Markets, Blue Chip Stocks..etc..there is a saying in the military..."Piss poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

My health insurance thru my work takes care of my health....if I am out of work, I can have up to 37 weeks of unemployment..the only thing I have heard that is so good bout paying the high taxes is (1)The Healthcare Issue, and (2) Free Education....well...as I have stated..number 1 is resolved thru my health insurance....and number 2 what if a person never plans on going to college?...we already have free education thru the elementary and secondary levels...what if I am content with being a blue-collar construction worker?

"Not by fighting the rich, but making sure we redirect some of the wealth in such a way that it benefits the poor."
Ok, so unless you have a magic spell to conjure money theese money will have to come from somewhere right? Yep, you've guessed it. From taxes

Nope, you're wrong. The money comes from productivity. Effective use of resources to create values. Taxes don't create money/values, it just collects them from those who did.

Taxes are necessary, but they're not the basis of the wellfare system as many socialists try to tell you. The basis of a wellfare system is still the production of values.


I tottally agree though that controlled capitalism will be the most effective system (right now at least. Maybe in the future people will be better persons and a socialist state might work). And if you go and check out cia world factbook you will notice that denmark is indeed a controlled capitalist society, albeit with strong socialist roots.

Yup, and I'm from Norway, so I know what a socialist system looks like. I'm glad you acknowledge the need for at least some capitalism. But don't forget that what's important is to care for the poor, not take from the rich. Taking from the rich, through taxes, is not the goal, but the means.


Everybody gives their share to ensure that the poor get a chance. (which is why we have no "poor" in denmark ...
Norway came out on top of the UN list of best countries to live in. Together with other scandinavian countries, Canada and Australia. What's common for all the top countries is that they are countries with relatively few people compared to land area and nature resources. (In addition to being peaceful nations not involved in conflicts)

In my oppinion socialism is not the cause. Socialism is the result. When you have a succesfull nation, you can afford the luxury of socialism.

Here's the top ten list of the Human Development Report 2004 and population and land area data from the CIA world factbook
Land - population - land area (sq km)
1 Norway - 4,574,560 - 324,220
2 Sweden - 8,986,400 - 449,964
3 Australia - 19,913,144 - 7,686,850
4 Canada - 32,507,874 - 9,984,670
5 Netherlands - 16,318,199 - 41,526
6 Belgium - 10,348,276 - 30,528
7 Iceland - 293,966 - 103,000
8 United States - 293,027,571 - 9,631,418
9 Japan - 127,333,002 - 377,835
10 Ireland - 3,969,558 - 70,280
....
17 Denmark - 5,413,392 - 3,969,558

All of these countries have either small populations or huge land area compared to the population (Canada and Australia). The two exceptions are the US, which can be seen as the most capitalistic of these nations, and Japan, which has a strong work ethic, a small defense budget ($42,488.1 = 1% of GDP) and successfull high technology businesses. All of these nations, except the US, has been blessed with living in peace and has avoided any serious conflicts. Only the US has had a strong enough economy to support a huge defense budget ($399 billion = 3.9% of GDP).

The real blessing in my oppinion is not socialism. The real blessing is having a small population. Saving that you need a very strong economy (US and Japan), and capitalism is a good way of achieving that.

Socialism is a luxury you may chose if you can afford to. But it will cost you, and in the long run ruin you.

I got what is mine by hard work and desire, I was born & raised on a heavily-indebted farm on an Indian reservation..ok...you don't GET much poorer then that..even my hand-me-down were second-rate...my father worked construction on high rises in Knoxville and Nashville...seasonal after the harvest..unemployment on an Indian reservation can go as high as 25%, alchoholism up to 40%..

Look, no-one is denying that you've worked really hard to get where you are. Just saying that it shouldn't have to be so hard. I just want everyone to have a minimum starting point.

Fine, if you've worked hard to provide for your kids they can start higher, but they already have someone who cares looking out for them. If you don't want them to get shot at school you want the poor kids without people looking out for them to get a decent shot at life too.

40% tax sounds a lot to me too, but it isn't 40% on the first £30 000 you earn - that only gets 22%. And once you've got £30 000 you can't really complain that you only get 60% of the next few Ks can you? You grow up within a society and that society enables you to make it. It's your obligation not to wreck it for the folks who come after you.

So I say lets invade all the tax havens...

Socialism is a luxury you may chose if you can afford to. But it will cost you, and in the long run ruin you.
But by the same token Capitalizm will poison and fragment your society, increase your unemployed, prison population and poor, and in the long run ruin you. A mixture of social safeguards and capitalist drive will produce a balanced, wealthy society.

Damn middle ground.

hmm, lot to quote and comment here...

let's start from the beginning, or close ;)

Nothing other then "think of the poor people" has convinced me that the amount of taxes that Europeans pay for their socialist system is admirable..

well, that's the ONLY reason i need. on top of that i belive that it is good for society at large, but that's not important now :)

So I don't want to hear jack crap bout poor people not being able to make it...

now you're making up our arguemnts here... that's not very polite. we're saying that we want to make it easier. no one have denied that a poor wo/man can "make it" in the states. you yourself is obviously a proof of that.

Now some of you would say...well the rich kids get off scott free college wise, well...ever come to think that it's because that kid's parents busted their ass to do well enough so that in the future their child might not have to bust their ass....Each parental generation wants to do better for their children then the last one.

so, let's see. in the ENTIRE USA, there is not ONE poor parent, who can't pay their childrens college education, who haven't "busted their ass off"? i'd say that's down right bullshit. and besides, it's irrelevant. OF COURSE we want what's best for our children. but in what way does it hurt that everyone gets it for free???

My taxes should fall in line with what our Constitution demands..and paying for someone else's livelihood isn't one of them...
well, that text aint no good on this side of the pond ;)

The US urban underclass has adopted the idea that work and learning aren't "cool" - and for the black underclass, these concepts aren't just uncool, they're "acting white" which is tantamount to treason.

and now, if this is true (i for sure don't know that), #1 what is done to change that? or what is done to keep it that way? #2 what gives that our system wont change that attitude?

No, you're wrong. It's very possible to care for the poor without having to reduce this gap.

Reducing the gap is a false argument. It takes away focus from the real issue, which is giving the poor a decent life, and instead makes people think it's wrong being rich, which is the false issue.

that's your interpretation. i don't belive that it is WRONG being rich (that'd be rather silly...), i, for one, think that seems to be a rather pleasant thing to be.

How can we make life better for the poor? Not by fighting the rich, but making sure we redirect some of the wealth in such a way that it benefits the poor.

we are not fighting the rich, we're simply redistributing some of their excess wealth...

In Europe it is common to use a "relative" poverty definition. "Poor" is who has less than have of the average income. By this definition the number of poor would be the same even if the income of all people would double. That is a stupid definition. By the way: the "poor" people in Western and North Europe are still the "richest poor" in the world, though.

why is this definition stupid? and if everyones income would double their income would be, in regards to what they could buy (since of course the prices would go up, how else could you pay that much in salariy?) would be LESS than the rest...

You're happy because you've been brainwashed for the last few decades that giving the majority of your money to the government is a good thing.

namecalling. and down right insulting. i wont counter that inslut. just note that you deserve less respect than i thought.

what if I am content with being a blue-collar construction worker?
atleast you'll have the OPPORTUNITY. If you don't go, well then the money wont be spent on your higher education...

The real blessing in my oppinion is not socialism. The real blessing is having a small population. Saving that you need a very strong economy (US and Japan), and capitalism is a good way of achieving that.

Socialism is a luxury you may chose if you can afford to. But it will cost you, and in the long run ruin you.

we don't know that.. i don't think any "big" country have tried what the scandinavian countries have done (there are of course no way of doing an exact copy of it.
and wheter or not it will ruin us, we'll have to wait and see. the race is not over yet my friend. :)

All of these nations, except the US, has been blessed with living in peace and has avoided any serious conflicts. Only the US has had a strong enough economy to support a huge defense budget ($399 billion = 3.9% of GDP).

the US economy is in somesort of symbiosis with the american militairy, so it might not really be that suprising. although whether the big army came brought the big economy or the otherway around is another thing ;).

The whole idea of capitalism is that you are paid for your worth - Meritocracy. In this situation Opal is not underpaid. For the theatre to function it needs tight margins, and so it can't very well afford to give its staff a 30% cut each. You probably know very little - or are pretending very well - about small businesses, and for that matter, large businesses. I work for a small business and my father owns a small business. I bet you do nothing or have a cosy job, or are infact still a student who is comfortably middle-class. If you had worked in a small business you would realise that no one is being exploited, infact I am very well paid and I enjoy working there; I especially like my boss.Meritocracy is not capitalism. Those are two different things. You're exploited and you don't know it. If you work for $100, $10 is going to the investors at best, at worst, $99. If you own $90 you think noone is exploiting you but you pay a tax to a lazy guy who is exploiting you. The theatre need funds to expand, but the tax you pay is not for that, it is making the owner of the theatre live at your expense.

No, I am not underpaid and I doubt Opal is either. I have also worked for a large business and again I was not underpaid. What you fail to see is that there are margins in life which mean that staff cannot be paid extortionate amounts; yet the crucial thing you miss is that in capitalism there are opportunities to progress and to be paid more. That is the beauty of capitalism. I can begin at the bottom of the ladder, but - especially in a large business - I can progress as high as my ability and potential will allow me.Large businesses. Let's take Microsoft -> 85% profit margin. Actually in capitalism you can progress higher than your ability allows you, if you're lucky, whereas you are keeping people from progress up to their ability.

If you had lived a tol and spent your days working at the bottom of a ladder you would understand this. As it is, I would be interested to know what you have done or are doing to see whether it is simply your lack of experience in the world that gives you these views.I'm a software developer. I worked as a hotliner in a small business. I now work for a corporation bigger than you can imagine. I've also worked as a free-lancer. Is that relevant?

I can hear those cogs turning again, and I know your thinking why on earth would a "fat-cat" owner want to allow people up from the bottom of the ladder. Good people, hard workers, and intelligence improves performance. You want them to be near the top, making the tough decisions, and to one day take over. That is what socialists and communists are so scared of, a bit of competition. There is no exploitation anymore, that is history, there is simply competition and you're just scared.
I'm not scared of competition if it is fair and if we have equal rights. Actually I want real competition, not a tricked one.

40% tax sounds a lot to me too, but it isn't 40% on the first £30 000 you earn - that only gets 22%. And once you've got £30 000 you can't really complain that you only get 60% of the next few Ks can you? You grow up within a society and that society enables you to make it. It's your obligation not to wreck it for the folks who come after you.

agreeing. and THAT is the way our taxes works. but im quite sure you understand that... it works the same way in the US no doubt.

edit: my last post was loooong....

The US has the worst poverty rate amongst the 17 OECD countries. Dead last!! The richest country in the world no less.

Since Bush took office, 3 Million more Americans have become impoverished and another 3.8 Million Americans are without health insurance.

Meanwhile the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow.

I've touched on this before, but maybe it was another thread.

I for one live below the poverty line. But it is so cheap in my town that I get by just fine on 10k/year...I even live in a four bedroom house (w/two roomates), and hit the pub three nights a week.

Large businesses. Let's take Microsoft -> 85% profit margin.
I'm not scared of competition if it is fair and if we have equal rights. Actually I want real competition, not a tricked one.

Microsoft's profit margin is no where near 85%

Microsoft's profit margin is no where near 85%

And so what if it is. Gates started that company from nothing. Good for him.

Look, no-one is denying that you've worked really hard to get where you are. Just saying that it shouldn't have to be so hard. I just want everyone to have a minimum starting point.

Fine, if you've worked hard to provide for your kids they can start higher, but they already have someone who cares looking out for them. If you don't want them to get shot at school you want the poor kids without people looking out for them to get a decent shot at life too.

40% tax sounds a lot to me too, but it isn't 40% on the first £30 000 you earn - that only gets 22%. And once you've got £30 000 you can't really complain that you only get 60% of the next few Ks can you? You grow up within a society and that society enables you to make it. It's your obligation not to wreck it for the folks who come after you.

So I say lets invade all the tax havens...

But that is just it..Life isn't fair...and it's not easy..never was meant to be. Everyone already has a starting point..we have free education here..for elementary and secondary school, they can go to school just like anyone else, if they apply themselves they can request financial aid just like anyone else....so a rich kid doesn't have to pay..great for him..more money that can go to financial aid for someone who is not independently wealthy..

And yes I can complain if I only get 60% of the next few K's...damn right I can..it's MY money...let the other guy pay if he wants to...in fact..that should be the option..for those who want to pay that 60% then fine..wonder how many of those saying 40-60% isn't too high a price to pay would go for that option...if it was only them who are paying that high a taxes?

First you say that life isn't fair, then you continue to complain about taxes?!? Hurling your own "life isn't fair" at you is almost too easy.

And while Microsoft's total profit margin isn't 85%, the profit margin they have on Windows is.

why is this definition stupid? and if everyones income would double their income would be, in regards to what they could buy (since of course the prices would go up, how else could you pay that much in salariy?) would be LESS than the rest...
.
It is stupid because it is not measuring poverty but social differences. Following this definition means: there were no poor in Communists Albania because all were poor.
I rather see a better life standard for all and more social differences than to see a low but equal life standard for all.
And the life standard has increased. Just look around and compare it with the 1950s or 1960s or get a history book to inform yourself.
I´m not talking about printing more money I´m talking about promoting economic growth. We need more growth so that all can benefit from it. And to do that we have to deregulate our regulated economies in Europe. Steps in that direction were taken - Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria are the most advanced in the reform process. And now even France and Germany - and some signs are there in Italy as well - are doing some reforms in that direction.
And that is good. However it is not enough and too slow. But at least in the right direction.

Sorry all my previous post was intended for another thread.

It is stupid because it is not measuring poverty but social differences.

im sorry but that's what im intrested in. i don't find it intresting measuring my fortune against that of a homeless man in Cairo. to compair it with him would just enable the rich to say, "well you live like shit, but you still got it better than [i]them[/]...

And to do that we have to deregulate our regulated economies in Europe.

i've heard that mantra over and over again. the way i see it, it's just a way to push problmes ahead of you. bether to deal with 'em now.

But that is just it..Life isn't fair...and it's not easy..never was meant to be. Everyone already has a starting point..we have free education here..for elementary and secondary school, they can go to school just like anyone else, if they apply themselves they can request financial aid just like anyone else....so a rich kid doesn't have to pay..great for him..more money that can go to financial aid for someone who is not independently wealthy..

now you've almost stoped making sense amigo...

"life aint fair" oh well, doesn't hurt that I want to make it "less unfair" ne'est pas?

im sorry but that's what im intrested in. i don't find it intresting measuring my fortune against that of a homeless man in Cairo. to compair it with him would just enable the rich to say, "well you live like shit, but you still got it better than [i]them[/]...



i've heard that mantra over and over again. the way i see it, it's just a way to push problmes ahead of you. bether to deal with 'em now.



now you've almost stoped making sense amigo...

"life aint fair" oh well, doesn't hurt that I want to make it "less unfair" ne'est pas?

The problem is..you want to make life "less unfair" with my tax money..you want to make life "less unfair"..then you pay more for it...I think I made perfect sense. A person gets out of life what they make of it...

im sorry but that's what im intrested in. i don't find it intresting measuring my fortune against that of a homeless man in Cairo. to compair it with him would just enable the rich to say, "well you live like shit, but you still got it better than [i]them[/]...
i've heard that mantra over and over again. the way i see it, it's just a way to push problmes ahead of you. bether to deal with 'em now.

So you rather life in a low life standard and have everybody else on that level than to have a higher standard for all but more social differences????
I strongly disagree with you on that point.
Regarding deregulation: Continental Europe is speaking about it for long but many countries (especially France, Germany and Italy) haven´t done much yet.
The more succesful countries have done a lot, like Austria, Netherlands and Britain.

The problem is..you want to make life "less unfair" with my tax money..you want to make life "less unfair"..then you pay more for it...I think I made perfect sense. A person gets out of life what they make of it...

not only YOUR tax money. MINE too!

and i sure has hell think those recieving them are in far more need of them then the two of us (there are of course exceptions...).

not only YOUR tax money. MINE too!

and i sure has hell think those recieving them are in far more need of them then the two of us (there are of course exceptions...).

Exactly what I said...if you want to pay to make life less unfair fine then you do so..and let me keep my money for me and mine. And it's irrevelent if someone has more need of it...it's MY money...you do with YOURS as you see fit..

But that is just it..Life isn't fair...and it's not easy..never was meant to be. Everyone already has a starting point..we have free education here..for elementary and secondary school, they can go to school just like anyone else, if they apply themselves they can request financial aid just like anyone else....so a rich kid doesn't have to pay..great for him..more money that can go to financial aid for someone who is not independently wealthy..
So if life isn't fair you can't complain about your money being yours from a point of view of fairness, agreed?

So that leaves us social stability, I know that in the UK a large proportion of our tax burden (the actual money the govt ends up with) is from higher rate tax - 20% or something - if you take that away it leaves the police, schools, hospitals, highway authorities and so on with less money than before. Around where I live all these folks could do with more money, not less (except the police actually, who seem to escape budget cuts mysteriously when there is a right of centre government in power).
And yes I can complain if I only get 60% of the next few K's...damn right I can..it's MY money...let the other guy pay if he wants to...in fact..that should be the option..for those who want to pay that 60% then fine..wonder how many of those saying 40-60% isn't too high a price to pay would go for that option...if it was only them who are paying that high a taxes?
I'd love it if someone earning £1 000 000 a year only got £400 000, but here they get £600 000. And come on - that £200 000 isn't the difference between life and death for them, but it would pay for school for 1000 kids.

Is the difference between our viewpoints that I see my tax going to schools and you see it going to lying obnoxious politicians who are using it to feather their nests?