NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was sitting there, dying of boredom in anthropology, when I stumbled across something that was a little odd thing in my brain. Why isn't the US a welfare state like Western Europe? I mean, it's not like the often demonized big business is behind it, becuase Western Europe most certainly has and had big business. It's also not like there's some conspiracy, because the American voters have been voting in enough Republicans for the system to stay where it is. Anyone have any theories?

My current theory is based on the US political and social culture vs. the Western European political and social culture, but before I expound on that, I'm going to run to the drug store real quick, if you could respond

We like to buy things and a 15% sales tax is not going to be popular.

Because people abuse the welfare we've got. The biggest days of business for liquor stores are still the days the welfare checks come in. Personally, I think reditrib. of wealth is evil, esp. if its not being put good use.

My current theory is based on the US political and social culture vs. the Western European political and social culture, but before I expound on that, I'm going to run to the drug store real quick, if you could respond
Thread i started ages ago was on this difference between american and european attitudes - here, political attitudes. imo, its that america has stayed a church-going and right-wing country, while most of europe became, generally, more forward-looking and left-wing while dropping the religion. Generally, your typical centrist in the USA is likely to be more to the right than a european centrist. thus progressive policies, such as a larger scale welfare system have been shunned by both the politicians and the public who put them there.
bush's appeal - and subsequent victory - on the support of right-wing christian voters is just the latest, and most extreme, example of this.

Generally, people who believe that the state should take care of everything tend to live in Europe or in the blue states (which upon examination are even smaller in area than previously thought).

If you like getting your paycheck and all your care from the government, and want the government to raise your family for you, and do everything, and in exchange you want to give up your potential for social mobility and your right to defend yourself, and a lot of other things while we're at it, you go with the European model.

What's not to like? 60 days of vacation, a 4 day work week, universal health care, etc.

If you like having the potential to become more than the state can imagine, and want to plot your own course, you'll take the "rugged individualist" model, and be in the US.

What's not to like? Getting more affluent than your parents, protecting yourself when the police don't show up, getting the best doctor to work on saving your mom because he left some socialist state, etc.

I think it's because the US is typically more pro-business and looser on the corporation regulations than Europe. Our government is - though bloated, I may add - 'smaller' than your typical European governments, and the taxes comparatively fewer. A more extensive welfare system is both viewed to be contradictory to our current system and, as a consumer-based society, the taxes needed to cover that would not be highly popular.


Thread i started ages ago was on this difference between american and european attitudes - here, political attitudes. imo, its that america has stayed a church-going and right-wing country, while most of europe became, generally, more forward-looking and left-wing while dropping the religion. Generally, your typical centrist in the USA is likely to be more to the right than a european centrist. thus progressive policies, such as a larger scale welfare system have been shunned by both the politicians and the public who put them there.
bush's appeal - and subsequent victory - on the support of right-wing christian voters is just the latest, and most extreme, example of this.


A church-going country? While Europeans have become more 'forward-looking?' I think it's fairly obvious that there is tremendous bias in that statement of yours.

Difference in attitude, I think.

It's the American Dream - the opportunity to be free and Make It Big.
Of course, if you don't make it big, you may very well get squashed between the gears of society on account of not being able to afford, say, healthcare. But at least the taxes are low.

The "European Dream" - actually, I don't really think there is one. I suppose the Europeans would prefer to have bread today rather than take a gamble on the opportunity to have cake tomorrow. You pay more taxes and there's a heap more bureacracy (oh, the bureacracy), but at least should the very worst happen you won't fall far beneath the poverty line.

Well, I haven't gone to the drugstore yet, but I'll further expound on my cultural theory.

The US was founded by immigrants who came here to find a better life, as everyone in the US is of immigrant descent in some form or another. This belief is also called pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, or self reliance. On top of that the social and class problems in the US were never nearly as severe as those in Europe, class distinctions in the US have never been nearly as notable in the US as in Europe, as such there is more of a "we're all in it together" attitude.

The belief in self reliance has been passed down from parents to children for generations, and still manifests itself in a full healthy form all across the country.

I'd say that this is a good thing, that Americans have such attitudes, and that we don't rely on a government to take care of us.

Now this isn't to say that Europeans don't have these attitudes, just that circumstances in the US made these cultural attitudes stronger than they are in Europe, now I'll go to the kwik-e-mart.

So, I was sitting there, dying of boredom in anthropology, when I stumbled across something that was a little odd thing in my brain. Why isn't the US a welfare state like Western Europe? I mean, it's not like the often demonized big business is behind it, becuase Western Europe most certainly has and had big business. It's also not like there's some conspiracy, because the American voters have been voting in enough Republicans for the system to stay where it is. Anyone have any theories?

My current theory is based on the US political and social culture vs. the Western European political and social culture, but before I expound on that, I'm going to run to the drug store real quick, if you could respond
We just haven't been around long enough. Give us another 20 years and see where we stand. The voters have figured out how to get their hands in our pockets. Didn't some French guy warn about that?...Alexis de Tocqueville, I think.

We just haven't been around long enough. Give us another 20 years and see where we stand. The voters have figured out how to get their hands in our pockets. Didn't some French guy warn about that?...Alexis de Tocqueville, I think.
Not much room for the voter's hands with all those corporate hands in there.

Difference in attitude, I think.

It's the American Dream - the opportunity to be free and Make It Big.
Of course, if you don't make it big, you may very well get squashed between the gears of society on account of not being able to afford, say, healthcare. But at least the taxes are low.

The "European Dream" - actually, I don't really think there is one. I suppose the Europeans would prefer to have bread today rather than take a gamble on the opportunity to have cake tomorrow. You pay more taxes and there's a heap more bureacracy (oh, the bureacracy), but at least should the very worst happen you won't fall far beneath the poverty line.

I agree. The difference is between risk taking and security. Those who chose to leave their known world and voyage into the Americas, had to be, by definition risk takers. Those who, despite persecution, prefered the deveil they knew to the devil they didn't had a prefference for security.

Now, when you sort people on these types of criteria, and then allow the sorted groups to go on to create their preferred systems, you will have a high risk high reward system in one place and a low risk low reward system in the other.

Hence the Americas in general, not just the USA, have more billionaires than Europe, but also more people below the poverty line. The safe middle classes are a European ambition. Going broke is an American nightmare.

Not much room for the voter's hands with all those corporate hands in there.
The second part of the equation is that just over 50% of us pay the bulk of income taxes. When that ticks over to where less than 50% of us pay 100% of the income taxes, look out. We are on a downhill trip to Hell. I mean European paradise!

Don't forget other things, like Geography. Geography plays a large part of such conversations. For example, Europe is small, closely knit, and has relatively small rural areas. The US is vast, with many rural areas, and many fiercely independant people. If you take the Red State Blue State theory, you can see that denser population centers generally gravitate towards blue, while more sparse populations gravitate red.

There are many intertwined reasons for this of course, but taking the US as an example, it is possible to think of your question in terms of the following;

How close are the people to government services?
What percentage of daily needs (food, water, etc) are provided by outside sources, ie, not grown by family or neighbors?

Density of population leads to the concentration of resources; it wouldn't make sense for everyone in New York City to grow their own food. Also, it doesn't make sense for everyone in NYC to dig wells for water, etc. Relying on others for such basic needs as food and water leads to an atmosphere of permissible surrender of certain aspects of human aspiration.

Ooh, big words; what I mean is that when you already rely on others for food and water, it becomes less of an concern, less of an inposition, to rely on others for various other services. You're already not independent in many aspects of your life, why cling to others so strongly?

On the other side, if you grow your own food, or are not far removed from a cultural mindset that does, you are less likely to be attracted to outside sevices. This is a similar argument to the "Frontier living" argument that so many make.

I doubt the USA and western Europe will ever be the same on any level. It's just there's x hundred years of different cultures.

It could be argued, I suppose, that it stems from America's history as an immigrant nation: Western Europe, being divided into (for the most part) ethnically homogenous nationstates, is more inclined towards a feeling of community that won't let 'brothers' fall through the cracks. However, I don't particularly like this argument, as it insinuates a sort of xenophobia in these states, and the superiority of blood over civic belonging. It also ignores immigrant based statenations such as Canada with a more successful social security net than America. Any thoughts?

One theory I've heard :
Europe didn't have Vietnam, and America did. The amount of anti-government sentiment generated by the war was massive. The war also mainly coincided with LBJ's administration, which was engineering massive welfare programs. Johnson didn't run again, and RFK got assassinated, so Humphrey got the Democratic nod. Being part of the Johnson administration (whereas RFK was seen as more of an outsider), Humphrey lost the election in 1968 by over 100 electoral votes. The actual percentages between Nixon and Humphrey were very close, but is due to George Wallace's American Independent party. With even half of those votes, Nixon would have had increased his substantial lead in electoral, and widened his popular vote victory.

As it was, Nixon didn't dismantle the welfare state, but slowed down its expansion greatly, especially compared to what it would have been like under a Democratic administration. Nixon nearly swept the electoral college in '72, however soon after the Watergate scandal erupted and forced him to resign. Ford didn't really take it down, either, but he vetoed many spending bills and checked the expansion. In 1976, government started to expand again, but a very bad economy forced Carter out, and Reagan came in. While there were European counterparts to Reagan (such as Thatcher), Reagan was the most radical. The taxes on the richest fell over 40% during his administration. IIRC, he vetoed additional every non-military spending bill during his first term in office. During the 80's the idea of big government took a nosedive. '84 and '88 were huge wins for the Republicans against big-government candidates.

Don't forget other things, like Geography. Geography plays a large part of such conversations. For example, Europe is small, closely knit, and has relatively small rural areas. The US is vast, with many rural areas, and many fiercely independant people. If you take the Red State Blue State theory, you can see that denser population centers generally gravitate towards blue, while more sparse populations gravitate red.

Europe, as a whole is pretty damn big, but the individual states are small. If however the size were a factor, China and the USSR would never have existed as they do and did respectively.

There are many intertwined reasons for this of course, but taking the US as an example, it is possible to think of your question in terms of the following;

How close are the people to government services?
What percentage of daily needs (food, water, etc) are provided by outside sources, ie, not grown by family or neighbors?

Density of population leads to the concentration of resources; it wouldn't make sense for everyone in New York City to grow their own food. Also, it doesn't make sense for everyone in NYC to dig wells for water, etc. Relying on others for such basic needs as food and water leads to an atmosphere of permissible surrender of certain aspects of human aspiration.

Ooh, big words; what I mean is that when you already rely on others for food and water, it becomes less of an concern, less of an inposition, to rely on others for various other services. You're already not independent in many aspects of your life, why cling to others so strongly?

On the other side, if you grow your own food, or are not far removed from a cultural mindset that does, you are less likely to be attracted to outside sevices. This is a similar argument to the "Frontier living" argument that so many make.

Self reliance, is not something that becomes a value from not depending on others for food and water. It has to be there first, otherwise, the people would never have left the population centres of the old world. I can see your argument, but I feel it attributes as a cause, something that is an effect.

I'm not sure that welfare state is the appropriate term here, because we have an enourmous dependant class. It's not as if welfare, food stamps and other government programs don't exist. These programs have been in place long enough to ensure that generations of poor families stay right where they are, in that dependant class.

Unlike Europe, we've become far more hesitant in the past twenty years to become quasi-socialists.

Where do the more socialistic people live in the USA? At the coasts; boston, new york, san francisco etc. Where there is a large concentration of people! One can find the most right-winged conservative people, in small villages. People in those villages are culturally used to having no interferance from outsiders, such as the state. While in Europe, and in dense populations in the US, there is a more individualistic sociaty, but that means there has to be an organisation that takes care of you if you can't do it on your own.. That offcourse is the state.
So the reason we in Europe are a welfare state, is the lack of ranches and the lack of a history of 'lonesome cowboys/sheriffs'.

Where do the more socialistic people live in the USA? At the coasts; boston, new york, san francisco etc. Where there is a large concentration of people!
Half-truth. I guess Tampa, Florida isn't a coast anymore. :rolleyes:

We don't have cowboys either. Try surfers.

and ofcourse america's unreasonably big fear of (becoming) communists.

and ofcourse america's unreasonably big fear of (becoming) communists.
Unreasonable? Ohhhhh boyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Europe is more urban.

Bam, there you go.

If you like having the potential to become more than the state can imagine, and want to plot your own course, you'll take the "rugged individualist" model, and be in the US..
I tend to lean libertarian, but this argument is given WAY too much credence. If you're a truly exceptional person, you will achieve success and wealth in Europe or anywhere else except a communist country or a totally corrupt dictatorship (and even there, it's possible if you're also a ruthless bastard)

It strikes me as a pathetic whiny excuse like "mexicans done took all the good dishwashin' jobs an' that's why I'm banging my sister in my meth lab", only it tends to go "I'm a mediocrity because of that 2% of our taxes that goes to helping the poor, not because I have no imagination or drive"

Besides, we don't pay THAT much less tax than Europeans. The government takes 1/3 of my money before I even get my check, then they charge sales tax, fees, etc etc etc ad nauseum. I once calculated how much of my money went to taxes and it came to about 50%.

And what do I get for all those taxes? Fuck-all, unless you count the privilege of hearing about how my country's youth are dying for oil at a cost of millions of dollars per hour.

Where do the more socialistic people live in the USA? At the coasts; boston, new york, san francisco etc. Where there is a large concentration of people!

Which proves the axiom that if you cram too many animals into too small an area, they go crazy and turn on one another. :D

and ofcourse america's unreasonably big fear of (becoming) communists.
Fearing that it could actually happen is the sign of a paranoid moron, granted, but it is certainly something to avoid!

Europe is more urban.

Bam, there you go.

I wouldn't say it's more urban, because it's not. In holland, just 15% of all people live in a big city (>100.000). And in USA it's about 40%.
But there are just no southpark-like villages. You're never further than 15 minutes away from a city. So even though you live in a village, you still go to a city at least a couple a times a week. Hardly any small self-supporting villages in EU.

Which proves the axiom that if you cram too many animals into too small an area, they go crazy and turn on one another. :D
I guess so, since NYC, LA, etc. generate all the wealth and we carry the so-called "rugged individualist" areas on our back. Fact is, you wouldn't have telephone service in North Bumfuck if the big cities didn't pay all those taxes that the rural states slurp up like pigs at the trough (while they bitch and moan about 'socialism')

Fearing that it could actually happen is the sign of a paranoid moron, granted, but it is certainly something to avoid!
Post-Cold War, this term is a misnomer.
Replace communism with socialism, and fear with disfavor, and I'll give him that much.

Because even the "damn pinko socialist" Democrats are as conservative as the centrist parties, and some of the less radical conservative parties, in western Europe.

Damn you Weastern Europeans, you luky basterds, ecspecialy you Scandanvian countries. :mad: ;)

I guess so, since NYC, LA, etc. generate all the wealth and we carry the so-called "rugged individualist" areas on our back. Fact is, you wouldn't have telephone service in North Bumfuck if the big cities didn't pay all those taxes that the rural states slurp up like pigs at the trough (while they bitch and moan about 'socialism')

North Bumfuck isn't really a place is it? And if it is, are there still homeless that didn't flee? :D

Generally, people who believe that the state should take care of everything tend to live in Europe or in the blue states (which upon examination are even smaller in area than previously thought).

If you like getting your paycheck and all your care from the government, and want the government to raise your family for you, and do everything, and in exchange you want to give up your potential for social mobility and your right to defend yourself, and a lot of other things while we're at it, you go with the European model.

What's not to like? 60 days of vacation, a 4 day work week, universal health care, etc.

If you like having the potential to become more than the state can imagine, and want to plot your own course, you'll take the "rugged individualist" model, and be in the US.

What's not to like? Getting more affluent than your parents, protecting yourself when the police don't show up, getting the best doctor to work on saving your mom because he left some socialist state, etc.
Great! Then the Red States won't mind getting off the Blue States tit, then? After all, they are 'rugged individualists' who believe thier money is theirs, right?
Source (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html)
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

(list by this guy (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html))

The U.S. isn't a welfare state? Maybe not in actual name but certainly in practice. :headbang:

Post-Cold War, this term is a misnomer.
Replace communism with socialism, and fear with disfavor, and I'll give him that much.
Then it becomes a totally different thing...you know that there are plenty of idiots on the "right" in the U.S. who really do believe that social security and food stamps are a step away from Stalin, I think that's who he was referring to. Debate over how much "socialism" is healthy is totally different.

In plain capitalist terms, reasonable social programs are a good investment in everyone's quality of life. I would rather subsidize poor kids' college education than have a society full of people with no skills or hope. It makes my everyday life nicer, even though I'm unlikely to ever need any of those programs myself.

The whole "social programs ain't patriotic" thing makes decent people puke when they consider that a huge number of the people living on benefits are doing so because we ruined their fucking lives by sending them to a stupid war that we lost (I mean Vietnam - there are only a limited number of homeless Iraq vets...for now...)

We just haven't been around long enough. Give us another 20 years and see where we stand. The voters have figured out how to get their hands in our pockets. Didn't some French guy warn about that?...Alexis de Tocqueville, I think.

"The American rebublic will survive until Congress realizes that it can bribe the people with the people's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

I guess so, since NYC, LA, etc. generate all the wealth and we carry the so-called "rugged individualist" areas on our back. Fact is, you wouldn't have telephone service in North Bumfuck if the big cities didn't pay all those taxes that the rural states slurp up like pigs at the trough (while they bitch and moan about 'socialism')

Yeah, THAT explains why large cities are always having cash problems and going broke. Philadelphia leaps to mind, but mostly because that's MY state's large city.

They spend like crazy, and they get far more money than average. For example, New York gets an astounding $1,285 per capita from Washington in Medicaid spending, against a national average of just $425 per capita.

...Like I said. They go crazy.

Its really a pointless exercise to show what states get and what they pay, without showing where the money goes. Looking at Washington DC, it would seem like the tax money goes to the blue areas of any state (the cities). Of course, Washington DC is an exception in many ways, but without any more in-depth information, we can't really make any statements about the people inside the states.

Yeah, THAT explains why large cities are always having cash problems and going broke. Philadelphia leaps to mind, but mostly because that's MY state's large city.

They spend like crazy, and they get far more money than average. For example, New York gets an astounding $1,285 per capita from Washington in Medicaid spending, against a national average of just $425 per capita.

...Like I said. They go crazy.
Look at what areas pay the taxes vs. what areas suck the tittie - I believe someone posted a chart of this a few entries up. Your isolated example is meaningless by itself, so obviously cherry-picked that it actually harms the credibility of your argument.

Its really a pointless exercise to show what states get and what they pay, without showing where the money goes. Looking at Washington DC, it would seem like the tax money goes to the blue areas of any state (the cities). Of course, Washington DC is an exception in many ways, but without any more in-depth information, we can't really make any statements about the people inside the states.
If it's one or two outliers, yes-when it's such a recognizable pattern, it becomes something else.....

Fearing that it could actually happen is the sign of a paranoid moron, granted, but it is certainly something to avoid!
When one says "communist" to people, they automatically think of The Soviet Union, North Korea, DDR, Cuba and China.
The error that people always make here is that they assume Communism is the anti-thesis of democracy. Communism can be extremely democratic, way beyond what any county now is. (Yes, this statement includes even USA, whether you like it or not.). And the core in this whole cogitation is that neither The Soviet Union, North Korea, DDR, Cuba nor China were actually communist, but totalitarian dictatorships. Actually there are no real communist countries.

Communism is the radical branch of Marxism and initially they considered revolution the only option. Socialism, a term often confused with communism, promoted reforms as a method to gain social equality.
Social Democrats, some rather docile factions of Socialists, have become some of the most influental parties in Europe maily because they never tried to force changes by means of violence as communists tried.

Leftism isn't destructive, the question is just about how you implement it.

"The American rebublic will survive until Congress realizes that it can bribe the people with the people's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Exactly. And that's where we are now.

There's more Americans than there are in each individual European country meaning we'd have to dish out more. Or something primative like that (not really).

Because people abuse the welfare we've got. The biggest days of business for liquor stores are still the days the welfare checks come in. Personally, I think reditrib. of wealth is evil, esp. if its not being put good use.I would like to comment here that I am of the opinion that redistribution of wealth is useful exactly as far as it is useful. For example, weighting our taxation is helpful in that a tax cut weighted toward the middle class would have both a higher percentage cut than for wealthier citizens and a higher gross cut than for lower incomes, and for the middle class citizens, costs in taxation can affect which school and college their children go to. Also, channeling wealth to fledgeling businesses that are already made it off of the ground (rather than new businesses, which more often than not tend to fail), creates a more competitive environment that could potentially drive prices down and efficiency up (besides which, it serves to break up the blood-sucking, anti-competitive, pseudo-capitalist oligopoly that's strangling our economy in its vampiric tentacles to feed its unquenchable thirst). There is nothing the government can do that can be considered a fix-all. Any action the government takes can be harmful under the wrong circumstances.

I think that we should start reforming our welfare system not by giving more cash handouts but by coming up with effective ways to keep the system from being abused. What I would suggest is using something that can be used similarly to a credit card in participating stores that is automatically replenished on a whateverly basis but cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, or perhaps it would be better to restrict purchases to listed products that are classified as necessities. I got this idea from gift cards. You see, some stores do not allow the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products using their gift cards. The government adopting this idea would be a textbook example of the government taking ideas from the private sector to increase its effectiveness. I'm sure that several holes could be poked in this notion, but my general point is that the government should focus on closing all of the loopholes in the system.

This is a similar argument to the "Frontier living" argument that so many make.

i wonder if things don't go a level or two beyond "frontier living caused certain social developments". for one thing, i would be inclined to suspect that american social ideology might be influenced from the way land ownership was handled. at first you have the east coast village settlements, which are a fairly good reproduction of the european agricultural villages - farmers actually living in town and everything. in fact, they were explicitly chartered to be like that. but once the interior was 'claimed' (and somebody did something about those indigenous people) it was doled out to individuals. it seems to me that this method of colonization is probably what created the 'frontier lifestyle' rather than just more farming villages.

Looking at Washington DC, it would seem like the tax money goes to the blue areas of any state (the cities). Of course, Washington DC is an exception in many ways, but without any more in-depth information, we can't really make any statements about the people inside the states.

dc gets more federal money entirely because it is where the federal government is. that spike is federal payrolls and upkeep on all the various bits of monumental architecture. it certainly doesn't go to the actual residents of the city.

"Why isn't the US a welfare state like Western Europe?"

The US is a welfare state, just not "like Western Europe."

I would like to comment here that I am of the opinion that redistribution of wealth is useful exactly as far as it is useful. For example, weighting our taxation is helpful in that a tax cut weighted toward the middle class would have both a higher percentage cut than for wealthier citizens and a higher gross cut than for lower incomes, and for the middle class citizens, costs in taxation can affect which school and college their children go to. Also, channeling wealth to fledgeling businesses that are already made it off of the ground (rather than new businesses, which more often than not tend to fail), creates a more competitive environment that could potentially drive prices down and efficiency up (besides which, it serves to break up the blood-sucking, anti-competitive, pseudo-capitalist oligopoly that's strangling our economy in its vampiric tentacles to feed its unquenchable thirst). There is nothing the government can do that can be considered a fix-all. Any action the government takes can be harmful under the wrong circumstances.

I think that we should start reforming our welfare system not by giving more cash handouts but by coming up with effective ways to keep the system from being abused. What I would suggest is using something that can be used similarly to a credit card in participating stores that is automatically replenished on a whateverly basis but cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, or perhaps it would be better to restrict purchases to listed products that are classified as necessities. I got this idea from gift cards. You see, some stores do not allow the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products using their gift cards. The government adopting this idea would be a textbook example of the government taking ideas from the private sector to increase its effectiveness. I'm sure that several holes could be poked in this notion, but my general point is that the government should focus on closing all of the loopholes in the system.

Hmm, you make a good arguement. I'm just not sure its right to take money from people who rightfully busted their asses to get it and give it to people who don't give a shit. I also see no evidence that are economy is really being strangled; we're doing quite well right now. I do like the card idea for welfare. I think maybe it should also have a terminal span, so that you cannot live off of it for the rest of your life but long enough for those who actually try, to be able to get back on their feet if life has just been ultra shitty to them. Also, I think welfare should be less of just throwing money at people and more of trying to teach them job skills, etc. "You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." -Some dude whose name escapes me

Generally, people who believe that the state should take care of everything tend to live in Europe or in the blue states (which upon examination are even smaller in area than previously thought).

If you like getting your paycheck and all your care from the government, and want the government to raise your family for you, and do everything, and in exchange you want to give up your potential for social mobility and your right to defend yourself, and a lot of other things while we're at it, you go with the European model.

What's not to like? 60 days of vacation, a 4 day work week, universal health care, etc.

If you like having the potential to become more than the state can imagine, and want to plot your own course, you'll take the "rugged individualist" model, and be in the US.

What's not to like? Getting more affluent than your parents, protecting yourself when the police don't show up, getting the best doctor to work on saving your mom because he left some socialist state, etc.
I don't know where to start with this. My first instinct was to be extremely rude, but I thought better of it.
Now, I live in Europe. People don't expect the state to take care of everything. Most people want to take care of themselves and, no matter what you may believe, work damned hard to do it. I take care of myself and, if and when it should happen, I have a family I will take care of them. The Social security system is paid for (in the UK at least) by National Insurance contributions. This provides a state pension which is to be used to supplement your pension scheme (whether it be private or provided by your company). It also helps pay for our health service. I can get private health insurance if I want it, but at the time of need I can have access to free health care.
I can defend myself perfectly well, I just don't need a gun to do it. I can move freely around my country and as we are part of the EU move throughout many others with relative ease, so no problem with social mobility.
I would love to know where you get a 4day week and 60 day holidays a year , hell I'd work for the company. I used to work 7 days a week, until I moved to a different company and was a given an improvement in my hours, yes 6 days!
There is nothing so brilliant about the US model that happily allows its citizens to fall below the poverty level because they are unable to find work or are unable to work. There is nothing 'rugged and individualistic' about being self centered and ignorant about your fellows.
I apologise if this is seen as rude or bashing the US, I believe the Country as a whole is a good one, but I don't like this inane prattle about how easy everyone in Europe has it and only the US works hard for its money.

I think that we should start reforming our welfare system not by giving more cash handouts but by coming up with effective ways to keep the system from being abused. What I would suggest is using something that can be used similarly to a credit card in participating stores that is automatically replenished on a whateverly basis but cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, or perhaps it would be better to restrict purchases to listed products that are classified as necessities. I got this idea from gift cards. You see, some stores do not allow the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products using their gift cards. The government adopting this idea would be a textbook example of the government taking ideas from the private sector to increase its effectiveness. I'm sure that several holes could be poked in this notion, but my general point is that the government should focus on closing all of the loopholes in the system.

The minor problem with this is that you just generate a black market. In the UK, the unemployed with children, and those on low wages used to, and maybe still do, get milk tokens. This was to ensure that the kids had a decent supply of calcium so we coud produce more bone crunching tacklers like Jackie Charlton. Thes , however become cigarette and alcohol tokens as the shopkeepers swindled the system, or a black market appeared to exchange the tokens for other goods.
A similar thing happens here in Brazil with bus tokens that the law makes companies provide to their staff.
As you say, holes can be poked in the system. The only realistic way is for the Social services to actually distribute the food, cleaning products etc. Even then you would still get bartering for alcohol and cigarettes etc.

Hmm, you make a good arguement. I'm just not sure its right to take money from people who rightfully busted their asses to get it and give it to people who don't give a shit.Well, a lot of working-class citizens are, well, working. There are hundreds of millions of people in this country who work bust their asses at dead-end, low-paying jobs and barely have enough money to sustain their families. The amount you are paid is not equal to how much you bust your ass. In any event, let's not legislate based on fairness when something as important as keeping people from starving to death is at stake. The libertarians won't admit it, but they're as hot on legislating morality as any leftist, only their morality is based on "WAH! It just ain't FAIR!"

I also see no evidence that are economy is really being strangled; we're doing quite well right now.Not in the US. We're kinda limping at this point. Besides, that was just put there as a bit of levity. There's a bit of an oligopoly, but there isn't much that we can do about it other than pioneer our own businesses and see how far we can go in sopping away some of their consumer base.

I do like the card idea for welfare. I think maybe it should also have a terminal span, so that you cannot live off of it for the rest of your life but long enough for those who actually try, to be able to get back on their feet if life has just been ultra shitty to them.Actually, I had in mind an interesting way of dealing with that. For people who have education and experience and are going through some hard times, offer them as much as they could possibly need (enough to live in relative comfort) over a pre-specified period of time or until they can find a decent job. For the next ten years after, a figure is added to their taxes to insure that they will be able to pay back at least what was given to them. The max period would be one of, say, six months or less. Those who do not have job skills and are living off of welfare for the long term would have to attend classes at a business or trade school in order to continue recieving their life support, and those who are living on life-support welfare could optionally put in hours of community service in exchange for more benefits and consider that a salary.

Also, I think welfare should be less of just throwing money at people and more of trying to teach them job skills, etc. "You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." -Some dude whose name escapes meThis is perfectly true, which is why I think that people living on life-support welfare, barring legitimate disability, should be required to attend classes in order to continue recieving anything from the government.

Just having a few loosely connected thoughts here.
When George W. Bush became governor of Texas, the state was operating at a surplus. Dubya cut enviromental protection. He cut nearly 200,000 poor kids medical benefits. Women trying to move from welfare to work have had transportation and childcare benefits removed. Guess what? Texas is now a "red" state in more than one way. If you take money from the poor and give it to the rich corporations, it deosn't save any money. Since president he's cut headstart programs,RIF programs and school lunches. (again, he did it as gov too) He's done more "welfare reform" (one of Clinton's more ineptly handled ideas) See above for some of those cuts details. After admiring the courage of the nine miners rescued (Virginia or W. Virginia?) he cut mine safety regulation and money to enforce them. Cut money to Americorp after saying what a great program it was.

Good-ExxonMobil
ConocoPhillips
ChevronTexaco
Marathon Oil
Andarko Petroleum
Enron
Walmart
Conagra
Clear Channel
Merck
Bad- welfare moms
Reading is Fundamental
Americorp
OSHA
EPA
Health care for poor children
SEC

The number of poor people is up by 4.8 million in the last four years. Two-thirds of the jobs created in the last four years pay less than 20,000.00 a year. Most have no health insurance.

The minor problem with this is that you just generate a black market. In the UK, the unemployed with children, and those on low wages used to, and maybe still do, get milk tokens. This was to ensure that the kids had a decent supply of calcium so we coud produce more bone crunching tacklers like Jackie Charlton. Thes , however become cigarette and alcohol tokens as the shopkeepers swindled the system, or a black market appeared to exchange the tokens for other goods.
A similar thing happens here in Brazil with bus tokens that the law makes companies provide to their staff.
As you say, holes can be poked in the system. The only realistic way is for the Social services to actually distribute the food, cleaning products etc. Even then you would still get bartering for alcohol and cigarettes etc.That would be a problem, but if it became terribly serious, safeguards could be implaced. As for bartering for cancer sticks...heh, at least they're getting into the spirit of entrepreneurship, and little can be done about it other than conducting invasive tests at random intervals.

Western Europe can afford to be a welfare state because they don't consider almost all of their working class (Gypsies, Turks, North Africans) as citizens. The only people allowed citizenship in most European countries are those of the countrie's main ethnic group.

I don't know where to start with this. My first instinct was to be extremely rude, but I thought better of it.
Now, I live in Europe. People don't expect the state to take care of everything. Most people want to take care of themselves and, no matter what you may believe, work damned hard to do it. I take care of myself and, if and when it should happen, I have a family I will take care of them. The Social security system is paid for (in the UK at least) by National Insurance contributions. This provides a state pension which is to be used to supplement your pension scheme (whether it be private or provided by your company). It also helps pay for our health service. I can get private health insurance if I want it, but at the time of need I can have access to free health care.
I can defend myself perfectly well, I just don't need a gun to do it. I can move freely around my country and as we are part of the EU move throughout many others with relative ease, so no problem with social mobility.
I would love to know where you get a 4day week and 60 day holidays a year , hell I'd work for the company. I used to work 7 days a week, until I moved to a different company and was a given an improvement in my hours, yes 6 days!
There is nothing so brilliant about the US model that happily allows its citizens to fall below the poverty level because they are unable to find work or are unable to work. There is nothing 'rugged and individualistic' about being self centered and ignorant about your fellows.
I apologise if this is seen as rude or bashing the US, I believe the Country as a whole is a good one, but I don't like this inane prattle about how easy everyone in Europe has it and only the US works hard for its money.
well said, sir. although i would like to point out that the UK has by far the highest average hours of work of the states of the EU, below average productivity (on an index scale the UK has around 104, equal to Italy, while France and Germany have 130+ - heard it on the news), and the highest cost of living. basically, we are unproductive, work loads to compensate, don't get paid any better than our continental counterparts but have to pay more of what we earn to live. we also have lower taxes (contrary to popular opinion).
thus, in a way, continental europeans do have it easy - or rather, we have made it hard on ourselves. can't say comparatively to americans.

The only people allowed citizenship in most European countries are those of the countrie's main ethnic group.
simply not true.

"Why isn't the US a welfare state like Western Europe?"

The US is a welfare state, just not "like Western Europe."

It's bad enough, though.

To add to my semi-recollected historical events and sayings, I sort of remember New Zealand headed down the path of socialism, welfarism, and such. Didn't they go through a major reform of their government to avoid that some years back? I know it's late, there, but maybe there's a Kiwi awake that can fill me in.

Western Europe can afford to be a welfare state because they don't consider almost all of their working class (Gypsies, Turks, North Africans) as citizens. The only people allowed citizenship in most European countries are those of the countrie's main ethnic group.
uh....riiight.

Just to say I was really surprised when someone tried to claim that Western Europe didn't have most of it's population in cities.

Using CIA statistics you'll find that that the population density of the EU is over 3 times more densly populated than the USA. 112 people/sqkm compared to 33 people/sqkm

And they guys claim about most people not living in cities of +100,000 inhabitants. Well Holland has a population of 16 million living in 40,000 sqkm (7,000 of which are covered in water), which means the Holland has a population density of 400 people/sqkm. That's pretty damn crowded.

How much tax do you pay in the US?

and just for comparison, what do you THINK the tax rate is in a European country like the UK?

How much tax do you pay in the US?

and just for comparison, what do you THINK the tax rate is in a European country like the UK?
We have a "progressive" system. Graduated by income. I think it starts at about 15% for $1000 min and goes to about 38% for the top level, at around $125k, or so. If you make above $100k, you are in the top 5% of earners, I believe.

My guess is that in the UK, there is a similar graduated system. Plus, there is a VAT, isn't there?

We have a "progressive" system. Graduated by income. I think it starts at about 15% for $1000 min and goes to about 38% for the top level, at around $125k, or so. If you make above $100k, you are in the top 5% of earners, I believe.

My guess is that in the UK, there is a similar graduated system. Plus, there is a VAT, isn't there?
VAT is only placed on goods and services, not in the main system itself. It's often refered to as a "stealth tax".

VAT is only placed on goods and services, not in the main system itself. It's often refered to as a "stealth tax".
It's like a compounding sales tax, right? I mine some iron ore and sell it to the steel mill. Add a some VAT. The steel mill produces some sheet metal and sells it to the auto manufacturer. Add some more VAT. Then the auto company sells a car to a dealer and tacks on some more VAT. Then the dealer sells the car to me and I pay some more VAT.

All the while, is the percentage of VAT the same?

How about personal tax rates in the UK? What are those like?

We have a "progressive" system. Graduated by income. I think it starts at about 15% for $1000 min and goes to about 38% for the top level, at around $125k, or so. If you make above $100k, you are in the top 5% of earners, I believe.

My guess is that in the UK, there is a similar graduated system. Plus, there is a VAT, isn't there?

You pay more (slightly) income taxes that at least one European country.. Our system start at 12% below 4000 Euros, but 40% for the top level, which is more than 50000 Euros.

We have VAT, 19%
How do you call the taxes for companies? Our is 25%

We have a "progressive" system. Graduated by income. I think it starts at about 15% for $1000 min and goes to about 38% for the top level, at around $125k, or so. If you make above $100k, you are in the top 5% of earners, I believe.

My guess is that in the UK, there is a similar graduated system. Plus, there is a VAT, isn't there?

what so there's no sales tax in the US?

We have a "progressive" system. Graduated by income. I think it starts at about 15% for $1000 min and goes to about 38% for the top level, at around $125k, or so. If you make above $100k, you are in the top 5% of earners, I believe.


Tax rates are similar. As in your system it's graduated by income, with the lowest boundary being 10% up to £2020 moving to 40% for the highest earners with an average of 22%.

The US is not a Western European-type welfare state for a simple reason: it has never had reason to be. Consider:

*The US has not had to do any widespread rebuilding from war since 1865.
Thus, the concept of refugees, multitudes out of work, etc is not ingrained on the American psyche. Likewise, the US's territory has been mostly spared from foreign occupation and the destruction of war. Barring Pancho Villa's raid and the Japanese in the Pacific (Alaska, Midway, Pearl Harbor), no foreign army has attacked American soil since the British in the War of 1812 (Second War of American Independence to you Brits!).

*The US's geographic dispersal has historically meant that the majority of Americans do not live in a concetrated mass. In most European nations, the capital is the center of the nation and usually boasts the majority of the population, with other cities lagging far behind in terms of size. In the US, the capital is far from being the largest city. In fact, it's barely in the top 20.
Thus, the US's local economies are more dynamic than in the typical European nation. Not only is the US larger typically has more resources, but additionally it can by nature SUPPORT more jobs, as the population is more dispersed. Chicago needs as many or more police and telephone repairmen as DC. But can the same be said of Vienna and Graz? How about Paris and Lyon?

what so there's no sales tax in the US?

It depends on the state. Some do, some don't. But no, there is no national sales tax.

I paid 32% taxes last year. :(

what so there's no sales tax in the US?
It's only on retail goods. And it's a system that everyone gets to pile on. The federal government doesn't typically place "sales" taxes on goods, but there is a federal tax on gasoline. The individual states may not apply any sales tax at all. Oregon is the only state that I can think of in that category. Then again, the states may tax retail goods. The counties may also tax goods. My county has a "special option" sales tax of 1% that is routinely approved at the polls. It is designated to go to schools and civic projects. Why that is different than a regular sales tax is beyond me.

To answer Portu Cale, there are taxes on corporations, but in name only. No company actually pays tax. A company can do several things in the face of a tax, including the reduction of dividends, reduction of payroll, increase in prices. We pay the company's tax.

Tax rates are similar. As in your system it's graduated by income, with the lowest boundary being 10% up to £2020 moving to 40% for the highest earners with an average of 22%.

Most European nations have a VAT tax, and many other taxes that if you combine them, the average European probably pays more taxes than the average American.

Let's look at just the tax on gasoline, for instance. Or the tax on cigarettes (and I would bet that the percentage of European smokers is higher than the percentage of American smokers).

One of my relatives in Austria periodically sends a list of clothes that his family would like to purchase - he provides the money, and we make the purchases. We then send it all back in numerous small packages which we don't properly declare - we just say that they forgot to take these items of clothing when they left for home.

It saves him nearly 50 percent on the cost of the clothes. I can't figure out how many times an item gets hit by VAT, but for clothes, it's ridiculous.

It depends on the state. Some do, some don't. But no, there is no national sales tax.

I paid 32% taxes last year. :(
That was your effective tax rate? Wow, you need to buy a house, or something. My effective rate was about 17% after itemizing. Effective rate meaning tax/income*100.

Most European nations have a VAT tax, and many other taxes that if you combine them, the average European probably pays more taxes than the average American.

Let's look at just the tax on gasoline, for instance. Or the tax on cigarettes (and I would bet that the percentage of European smokers is higher than the percentage of American smokers).

One of my relatives in Austria periodically sends a list of clothes that his family would like to purchase - he provides the money, and we make the purchases. We then send it all back in numerous small packages which we don't properly declare - we just say that they forgot to take these items of clothing when they left for home.

It saves him nearly 50 percent on the cost of the clothes. I can't figure out how many times an item gets hit by VAT, but for clothes, it's ridiculous.
VAT is placed on those goods and services which are deemed to be "non-essential". I can't argue the VAT rates of other European Countries as I don't have those figures to hand, however UK VAT rates are set as being either 0% for things such as food, drink, childrens clothing, public transportation of passengers etc. A 5% VAT rate is introduced for goods such as domestic fuel and energy, building conversions etc. Most other products are rated at 17.5%, unless an arguement can be placed against these products for health reasons or environmental damage etc, this covers petrol (gas), cigarettes etc.
Self-employed people can re-claim a percentage of of VAT payment back at the end of the fiscal year, and businesses with a turnover of less than £55000 per annum are not required to place VAT on their products.

VAT is placed on those goods and services which are deemed to be "non-essential". I can't argue the VAT rates of other European Countries as I don't have those figures to hand, however UK VAT rates are set as being either 0% for things such as food, drink, childrens clothing, public transportation of passengers etc. A 5% VAT rate is introduced for goods such as domestic fuel and energy, building conversions etc. Most other products are rated at 17.5%, unless an arguement can be placed against these products for health reasons or environmental damage etc, this covers petrol (gas), cigarettes etc.
Self-employed people can re-claim a percentage of of VAT payment back at the end of the fiscal year, and businesses with a turnover of less than £55000 per annum are not required to place VAT on their products.
How is the unification in the EU going to affect things like VAT? Is there a lot of border crossing to take advantage of different tax rates?

So, I was sitting there, dying of boredom in anthropology, when I stumbled across something that was a little odd thing in my brain. Why isn't the US a welfare state like Western Europe? I mean, it's not like the often demonized big business is behind it, becuase Western Europe most certainly has and had big business. It's also not like there's some conspiracy, because the American voters have been voting in enough Republicans for the system to stay where it is. Anyone have any theories?

My current theory is based on the US political and social culture vs. the Western European political and social culture, but before I expound on that, I'm going to run to the drug store real quick, if you could respond

Because we outnumber the majority of the world in resources by an exceptionally large margin.

If stalin had all the gold, oil, coal, natural gas, arable land, temperate environment, solar and wind highpoints, uranium deposits, Iron, timber, and florida OJ that we had (and we were limited to his) we'd all be typing in cyrillic.

The US, just has a lot of different stuff going for us.

How is the unification in the EU going to affect things like VAT? Is there a lot of border crossing to take advantage of different tax rates?
There is a limited amount of border crossing to take advantage of different price and tax rates. Many people from the UK used to travel to Germany or France to purchase new cars as they were generally cheaper there, though this wasn't always due to taxation they just decided to up the cost of the vehicle in the UK, gits.
The unification of the EU, at the moment, doesn't unify taxation with individual Countries still controling their VAT and income tax rates. In the future this may well change within the Euro zone, but it isn't a given, no matter what some Eurosceptics may say. Contrary to what many outside observers may believe about Europe most Countries have rather strong ideas on what they perceive to be their national identity and no matter what amount of legislature is introduced this won't change. It's because of this that, in the short term at least, taxation rates for VAT etc are unlikely to become Europe wide.

Because we outnumber the majority of the world in resources by an exceptionally large margin.

If stalin had all the gold, oil, coal, natural gas, arable land, temperate environment, solar and wind highpoints, uranium deposits, Iron, timber, and florida OJ that we had (and we were limited to his) we'd all be typing in cyrillic.

The US, just has a lot of different stuff going for us.

I think that russia has quite large reserves of oil, gas, timber and sufficient iron. Maybe not gold but instead the more useful platinum and paladium.

so the main difference is Florida OJ. So there you go - never underestimate Vitamin C (how do you think the Brits managed to build their Empire whilst simultaneously getting the nickname "limeys"?)

That was your effective tax rate? Wow, you need to buy a house, or something. My effective rate was about 17% after itemizing. Effective rate meaning tax/income*100.

I *have* a house. I need a wife! And yes, I itemize...

I *have* a house. I need a wife! And yes, I itemize...
Maybe that 32% isn't such a bad rate. That's a small price to pay for independence. Just claim a couple dogs as dependents.

Western Europe can afford to be a welfare state because they don't consider almost all of their working class (Gypsies, Turks, North Africans) as citizens. The only people allowed citizenship in most European countries are those of the countrie's main ethnic group.
That is incorrect. Anyone can become a citizen of an European country if she or he meets certain requirements, of which ethnicity is not one.

That is incorrect. Anyone can become a citizen of an European country if she or he meets certain requirements, of which ethnicity is not one.

So all those 4th generation Turkish "guests" in Germany is due to???

So all those 4th generation Turkish "guests" in Germany is due to???

Not wanting to pay all the taxes that a German citizen has to pay, whilst receiving the benefits for working there. (Damn clever of them really)

what so there's no sales tax in the US?
It varies from county to county and state to state. For example, in Delaware, there is no sales tax, but in Stark county Ohio there is a 5% sales tax. It's very complicated and crazy.

It may have been said, but all those colonists managed on their own. Add to that a protestant work ethic.

A major factor is that some of us here still believe in personal responsibility and can see that government in general is among the least efficient ways of solving problems. In general, the bigger a government gets the less freedom its citizens have, whether it be in the form of amount of taxes paid and theyby the amount of freedom to spend what we earn, to choices in health care providers, to opportunity for self-improvement, to freedom of religion or absense thereof, etc.

There are still some U.S. citizens that believe it isn't the governments job to take care of us, that it is our own God given right and responsibility to care for ourselves and those around us.