It’s quite interesting (and pathetic) reading stuff online and here as well with all the hoopla surrounding Kamala Harris. Nonetheless, in many discussions here those on the Left tell us how the big government plans of libs will give us Norway not Venezuela. Obviously begs the question, what do they do in those countries and how feasible would that be here? I found this be be a very interesting read:
One thing that stuck out, which I’ve read elsewhere, is that the middleclass tax rate is over 40%. This idea that big government is only going to negatively impact so-called rich people and make everyone else’s life better is an absolute farce.
I have a question in regard to just this part. Right now, my deductions, taxes and benefits combined add up to 40%. I bring home 60% of my check every week. Would their 40% tax rate cover my benefits? If so, what difference does it make? I’m going to read the article now.
The Nordic reality doesn’t reflect the progressive caricature. Finland, Norway, and Sweden collect an average of 42.6 percent of GDP in taxes, versus the 26.6 percent collected by America’s federal, state, and local governments. However, 14 percentage points of this 16-percentage point overage come from higher payroll and value-added tax (VAT) revenues that broadly hit the middle class. These nations’ income and corporate tax revenues exceed America’s by only 3 percent of GDP, and the rest of their taxes raise less than those of America.
Another thing to factor in, which would be substantially different from countries like Norway and Denmark, is how they do immigration vs how the Left wants to do immigration. Immigration in those countries doesn’t grow the welfare state whereas the Lefts vision of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” would substantially grow the welfare state.
Good article. A lot of good information. This caught my eye:
To resuscitate its economy, Sweden slashed tax rates, eliminated wealth and inheritance taxes, deregulated key industries, liberalized trade, and pared back its famous cradle-to grave welfare state.
Beyond the scope of the article no doubt, the major obstacle is culture and scale.
Nordic countries are homogeneous. They are full of Nords. Do they have the climate variability we do (infrastructure)? For example.
The populations of Norway and Denmark, for example, is only about 5.5 million people, whereas the population if the US is closing in on 350 million people. Furthermore, as you note, those two countries are over 90% ethnically and culturally monolithic, which makes it easier as well. Lastly, I assume that the cost of living doesn’t fluctuate much in those countries like it does in the US.
This is such a great point that is so commonly ignored, and not only for medical costs (which is true) but also for other factors as well.
When I hear peoples say “Well the national average pay for …” fill in job (plumber, carpenter, secretary, teacher, policeman, web developer, nurse, etc.) I always want to roll me eyes.
Because of geographic changes, weather differences, populations, etc. - the “National Average” of anything is pretty useless.
The whole idea of paying for it is what caught my eye:
A Nordic-style approach to taxation would prove similarly elusive in the U.S. Washington already faces a baseline budget deficit that will rise to 6 percent of GDP within a decade and 10 percent of GDP within three decades. So simply paying for existing federal programs would require a near-doubling of middle-class taxes. A tax-the-rich agenda could not balance the long-term federal budget, much less finance vast new spending initiatives.
All these libs who talk about the Dems policies only hurting the wealthy is utter ■■■■■■■■■
Not sure what you are talking about? A population of 350 million spread throughout a much greater geological area is clearly going to have more logistical issues to manage than one of only 5 million.
The states could manage the systems (much like we currently do), adhering to a federal standard, and could be catered to address some state’s individual needs.
Not really a population argument as in X number of population.
The population argument is more a geographical cost of living argument in that one size fits all solution in terms of cost doesn’t make sense.
Medical costs in a costal area are different than the costs in a heartland area.
“X” number of people is simply a scaling issue, variations in costs then have to be address as (a) will the solution be one size fits all, or (b) will costs basis be determined by region. If by region what are those region sizes? North East, South West, South East? Or, by State? Or by Zip Code?
Why can’t the U.S. build a social democracy like those in the Nordic countries? Progressives have wistfully asked this question for more than half a century. Why can’t Americans enjoy universal health care, free college tuition with generous universal student grants, universal pre-kindergarten education, and 18 months of paid parental leave? Why don’t policymakers just tax the rich and usher in the social-democratic utopia?
On top of that America under Harris/Biden is massively growing welfare state by importing poor people from all over the world by about 3-4 million per year.
No.