Enter “Why should I have to pay for someone else’s kid!!!”
Because you live in a society, dipshit. Plus, it’s cheaper to feed him breakfast and cover his daycare than it is to incarcerate him in 20 years.
Enter “Why should I have to pay for someone else’s kid!!!”
Because you live in a society, dipshit. Plus, it’s cheaper to feed him breakfast and cover his daycare than it is to incarcerate him in 20 years.
I pay for insurance and then pay copay.
And then I pay a school tax and pay for school lunch and fees.
And my health insurance doesnt cover teeth so I have that as separate.
And I pay a tax on my food and then if it's a specific type of food, I pay a tax on that.
I also pay taxes and yet my friends pay $2800 to put their kids in a day care.
$2800 for a lifetime of daycare sounds like a deal
OK let's see. I pay no medical insurance. If I have to see a doctor I pay ~20€ for the visit. If I have to go to the emergency room, I pay nothing. Getting an ambulance is free. The ceiling for my pharmaceuticals bill is ~400€ per year, anything above that is free. Ads for pharmaceuticals are banned.
School and school lunch is free. University is free. Vocational training is free. I get a small stipend (~300€) every month that I study to help with expenses, for up to 5 years. If I live away from my parents it's not enough, but I can get a student loan with 2% interest to cover the rest.
Dental isn't covered from age 19 and up, so that sucks. A visit to the dentist costs ~130€.
I pay 12% VAT on food, and 24% on alcohol. This is flat across the country and included in every quoted price. When I pay income tax, it's already been precalculated for me so I electronically sign the bill unless I have a specific reason to contend it.
The cost of daycare is scaled to household income, but it works out to ~110€ per month for a dual income household. I also get ~130€ per child per month as a stipend regardless of household income.
There are walkways, bicycle paths and public transit. I do not need a car, but I have one.
Sweden. Median worker takes home ~€2800 per month after taxes. This is still significantly lower than most Americans make, but if it wasn't for the housing prices that have risen dramatically in the past decade, it has worked out pretty well overall.
Americans pay high taxes as well: they just don’t get as much for them.
Wait till Americans hear that Danes don't need to calculate their taxes and pay a fee to file them.
A fee to pay taxes? Why not include it in the taxes at that point? It's just ridiculous.
Similar to that time I went to the local garage, my car needed a new 12v battery. Fine, it got swapped for a new one. On the receipt, it had the costs broken down. The garage had the audacity to include a line for: "Charging battery 20 Euro".
Why not include it with thw taxes?
With Americans, the answer is always some private entity mixed in the middle that will make money out of it.
The "fee" is using a private tax preparation service. In theory skippable, but it's just a pain to do.
Once upon a time, maybe forgivable, private sector embracing useful technology before the government was ready, but now the government actively resists making it easier to file taxes, and coincidentally the tax prep companies give a lot of money to politicians....
well what did you expect
me with my business: selling uncharged, possibly unchargeable batteries
"dISCOUNT?"
But 90% don't even know libraries offer free help filing your taxes yet.
Here in Sweden you generally don't even need help. Naturally there are people with disabilities, or complex financial situations, but that's not most people. For me personally, filing taxes means I log on to the tax office's website, skim through the details to make sure there's no egregious clerical error, and then I click a button to sign off on it. It takes about 5 minutes a year.
If you deal in stocks or buy/sell property a lot it might get a bit more complicated. I think my roomie had deductions because of how much they drives for work, so that added like 5 minutes for supplementary information.
I'm convinced the U.S. makes it complicated for predatory reasons.
libraries have books in them, they are afraid they will catch the woke virus...
Is there any developed country that does that other than the US for the typical (i.e. not self-employed) worker?
Their taxes probably go to things like education and social services instead of bullets and bombs to kill brown people in other lands.
That's just ridiculous. You don't think that we're spending tax dollars on bullets and bombs to kill brown people in our own land? Look up the 1985 MOVE bombing and any one of the countless events where a cop shot an unarmed law-abiding minority. We don't need to go somewhere else to kill brown people when we have perfectly good brown people at home. Not endorsing it btw, just pointing out the fucked up thing that my country regularly does while somehow still trying to claim with a straight face that we're not racist and "this isn't who we are" every time we do this thing we keep doing...
Unfortunately if the orange buffoon gets his way they may end up wasting a lot of good money defending Greenland.
I wonder if the first guy is just engagement farming or genuinely confused. Either way, there probably are plenty of people who are so "brainwashed" that they can't fathom that "happiness" and "tax rates" aren't linked by some law of nature.
Swede here, I have said it before, and I'll say it again:
The Social Democratic is the best ideology humanity has found.
It combines the safety nets of government run services with the powerful incentive of a free market.
Sure, not all sectors are included in the free market, essential services like public transport, power, water, sewage, hospitals, schools, and similar stuff that you need to live and participate in society should be run by the government, and not just by decree, but actually running them.
Anything more should be on a (regulated) free market.
Progressive tax brackets should be kept st a high level, with a public highscore list with a awards like fancy dinners, medals, and other symbols of status for paying a lot of tax, creating more incentives to pay tax.
That to me sounds like a good society
Do say, what "incentive" do you see in this "free market"?
Because just FYI, an overwhelming majority of things that actually progressed humanity forward... We're not done for capital. They weren't done in the hopes of getting rich. True innovation, true progress comes not from the want of money or power or control, but by the want of knowledge. And the "free market" most definitely does not incentivise seeking knowledge - in fact said market heavily depends on keeping a big chunk of the population just smart enough to do the menial work they're "needed for" by the ruling elite.
Denmark and Sweden are definitely examples of the direction we should be going, but that's all - they're the direction, not the end goal.
If your goal is to lead the race (for best quality of life), then 1st place is the goal. 1st place doesn't slow down or they won't be 1st for long. If a utopia is the finish line, but not for another half marathon, then focus on the next mile and/or the next position in the race. That's how progress is made.
Except there's no nation-wide drive to be "number one" - except for maybe the US but then again they use that to cover up how shite their QoL is.
Progress on a societal level is made once it happens on an individual level, and society recognises the worth of that progress. See e.g. bicycles, cars, telephone, radio, electricity in general, vaccines, or pasteurisation, or literally any advancement - a personal need (let that be for the thing, or for knowledge) drives the individual discovery, which then gets adopted by society.
In fact you can see contrary examples of the "free market" not innovating but keeping innovation away from people. Not just today, but look back e.g. at the various industry battles that resulted in not the better product but the better capitalist winning. Edison v Tesla - even though we use mostly Tesla's work today, it's credited to Edison. For example, Tesla always promoted AC, while Edison was a proponent of DC. Guess which we are using today overwhelmingly? Guess who got rich, and who died penniless?
The free market isn't the source of innovation, it's the stifler of it. Period.
With the free market and a well designed tax system, we can exploit greed, let the ghouls work for us.
I totally agree with you, but it's not a simple as that is it? What prevents the wolves of this world from attacking and devouring your country and other countries like yours?
I feel sad when I think about stuff like this, but peace is so vulnerable and the world at large is so hungry.
I mean as a matter of fact it is better than the American system, but the rise of far right parties like the AFD in germany is terrifying. I mean what system do you recommend and could it be implemented in Europe?
The rise of the Swedish Democrats is also terrible.
Though the reason is easy to figure out, the other parties decided to not even engage in any way on the question of migration, this lead a LOT of people to feel disenfranchiced, and built up a huge movement.
I sadly have to admit that I have once voted for the Swedish Democrates, I seem to recall it was around the time of the migrant crisis, and I just felt like the political climate was insane, there was NO debate on the topic, and I remember just feeling like we were overrun, while the leadership closed their eyes, covered their ears, shouting "RACIST" at anything that moved.
This was at a time when we were told that there was no Swedish culture, and we needed multiculturalism, just insane stuff.
Then came stories about migrants destroying passports and faking their ages and nationalities to get approved for asylum, then when they get approved and get a ssigned to a facility to stay in, they complain that it wasn't good enough and hijack the bus that took them there.
Yeah, I know that last past was mostly caused by confusion and people being upset, but at the time, that just fueld the flames.
And through all of this our leaders kept shutting down any debate about the issue, kept cutting services, and increasing prices, while spending vast ammounts of money on strange forigners who not only had lied to get into Sweden, but had passed through several safe countries to pick and choose the "best" country, disregarding rules saying that they needed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they came to, and the EU would distribute them through the member nations.
And our leaders just kept their mantra, "open your hearts", while offering no real sollution or even debate.
Today it is easy to say that nothing could ever justify voting for racist parties like the Swedish Democrates, but at the time it felt like someone had to pull the emergency brake and let us a good honest discussion.
I didn't vote for the Swedish Democrates because I hate forigners, I voted for them as a protest against the status quo, I just wanted an honest, non hysterical debate, and they were the only choice for me at the time.
Since then, I have not voted for the Swedish Democrates again, they have too much support as it is right now.
I liken the situation to that of the lastest US ellection, the Dems had disenfranchiced a LOT of their normal voter base by just having the status quo rolling on, they didn't get any change, and when Trump cam with his ridiculous promises about change and prosperity, it was enticing, obviously.
People had experienced what the Dems gave them, and they were tired of it, so they voted to stir the pot, thikning any change might be a good change.
To claim that people who vote for these terrible parties only because of racism and refusing to try to understand the real reason is why Trump won, and it is why there is sadly a high likelyhood that the Swedish Democrates migh be able to gain real power in the 2026 ellection.
Me, I have got what I wanted, a debate about the issue, I will not be voting for the dickheads over at the Swedish Democrates and I wish they loose a lot of influence.
Regardless of who you are and what your opinions of the issue are, I wish you a very merry christmas and I hope you get a very happy new year.
Note how I said ideology, not party, I an not a super fan of how the current social democratic party has been handling things
So you hold separately the ideal of social democracy in your head from its actual implementation you see in the real world. Maybe you should consider how the fundamentals of social democracy might just naturally lead to the problems you see with the current social democratic party.
A lot of communists online do the same thing you're doing; not reconciling the ideal they have in their head with the actual implementation in reality. Just like how there are fundamental problems with Marxist theory that result in attempts to implement it devolving into authoritarianism (centralised state power, vangaurdism, "dictatorship of the proletariat", cults of personality, etc.), there are fundamental problems with social democracy that result in flaws in its implementation (weak/shallow analysis of power dynamics, reliance on imperialism/colonialism in the form of unequal exchange, regulatory capture, influence of money in politics, etc.)
Generally, as long as the economic system allows wealth to be converted to political power (as in the case of social democracy), or the political system allows political power to be converted to wealth (as in the case of centralized state communism), there will be corruption that eventually snowballs into major issues that cannot be solved by working within the same system.
Drop the condecending tone.
I am well aware of how the social democratic party has shifted their politics away from the social democratic ideology.
That does not change the ideology, it just re enforces the need to put stronger protections of government run companies.
I didn't intend to sound condescending, I just come across that way sometimes. I am just of the opinion that stronger protections are only a temporary fix because the capitalist economic system eventually erodes any protections you could possibly make, and I believe that is a fundamental flaw in the ideology of social democracy. Not to mention that preserving capitalism also preserves a system of exploitation that extends beyond the borders of the social democratic society and generates wealth for the in-group at the expense of the out-group.
Edit: I want to add that this isn't just speculation, it happens repeatedly throughout history. We actually had a social democratic government in the US under FDR, and it had enormous economic and social benefits, but it ultimately failed to curtail the power of big business and was rolled back. That's why I say - no half measures. Capitalism must be destroyed entirely or it will inevitably become the dominant power system in a society.
Similar line of thought regarding public vs private service providers. There's nothing preventing public services from being as good as or better than private ones, but private ones will always want to extract more value than they provide as profit (which is the extra money left over after paying for everything, including staff). Plus they pay a whole team of people whose whole job is about maximizing profit, which can come at the expense of the quality of the service.
And with public vs private healthcare, there's a whole health insurance industry extracting wealth from the public for the privilege of limiting their healthcare options (otherwise the healthcare providers would be the ones doing the fleecing by recommending unnecessary procedures, which probably still happens anyways). And on top of that, there's an attitude of "just try it, even if it would be illegal, consequences are always avoided by backing down before it gets to court".
Exactly.
This is what I've been saying for years.
If you have to pay it merely because you're alive, it's a "tax".
Have to pay healthcare insurance because otherwise you will die or lose everything you managed to get from decades of working if you get sick or have an accident: Tax!
Have no other option than to pay for a car and for gas because you have to drive everywhere since the entire infrastructures is designed for that to be the only option you have: Tax!
Need to have Internet access at home because a lot of things must be done via the Internet nowadays and/or you work from home and there only one or two expensive Internet providers: Tax!
Need a mobile phone for everything and there's only a handful of mobile telephony available, all expensive: Tax!
Need a place to live and because of all the realestate "investors" house prices are insane and totally beyond your reach, and rents are high because of being highly correlated with house prices: Tax!
Must pay for an expensive kindergarten for your young kids because both members of a couple must work to keep up with all the other taxes I described above: Tax!
And, guess what, the Taxes paid to the state (be it Local, State-level or Central Government) at least have a chance to partly get back to you as benefits, whilst the Taxes paid to the Private Sector go entirelly to shareholder pockets and fuck you plebe.
In the Neoliberal era even in Europe the whole Economy is riddled with these Taxes payed directly to the Private sector because politicians in the past were payed to make laws to distort certain markets or to remove the state from regulating markets prone to monopolies or cartels (or, even more subtly, to make sure the fines for breaking competition rules are a microscopic fraction of the gains from doing it) hence large sections of the Economy and Society are little more than rent-seeking, but the US is way more extreme than Europe in this because it's even more Neoliberal and its system even in the beginning of this era was way less tempered by a tradition of society-oriented politics than most of Europe.
A LOT of effort has been spent into brainwashing Americans to think that Taxes paid into the common pot which pays for benefits for everybody (even though, in all fairness, a large fraction of that pot just to subsidies for politically connected companies) are a great burden for them even whilst they don't count in the same way all that money they're forced to put in the hands of certain private entities, even though in both cases the system is structured to make sure they have no real choice but to pay and, you know, money is money so even in the purest most selfish logic it's no less a burden if you're forced to pay X amount to the Private sector for unearned profits from merelly having a monopoly or being part of a cartel as it would be to pay X amount to a Public sector that did absolutelly nothing for you (and even in the US the Public sector does do something for everybody, at the very least basic schools and roads).
This shit has been exported to Europe but people here aren't yet anywhere as brainwashed.
Americans are way too dumb to grasp the benefit of paying higher taxes in exchange for having more benefits. To be fair, Americans have some of the worst politicians on the planet, so they can't trust their representatives to use their tax dollars responsibly. But American stupidity is what put those politicians there in the first place. So........
americans are also exposed to constant propaganda, so no wonder they are messed up
Hey we may be dumb, and we may be exposed to constant propaganda, but...
What was the third thing you said?
At least we have enough junk food and oversized burgers covered in a pound of cheese that we'll die of a heart attack from clogged arteries before ever needing that health care we can't afford. Yeah baby.
You know how abuse produces abusers that perpetuate that abuse? That but on a national level.
this is so underrated. even smart people can do stupid things. but that's only half of the story... second half is culture (and here even european countries are not much better). in real life it is almost always worth more to look strong than to be smart. changing your opinion does not make you look strong - it makes the "other" person look like they've won an argument and that makes you look both weak (you didn't stand your ground) and stupid (you didn't know better). this is both entirely nonsense and perfectly understandable due to the culture (deeper level than propaganda). so nobody who makes it somewhere wants to do it. they will rather invent opposing false story and bend over backwards trying to defend it than concede a point to their percieved opponents... which brings us - here.
The biggest issue is that America is built on the concept that taxes are bad. The whole founding of the country is built on not paying taxes. It's something kids are taught from a very very young age and even though they are not being directly told that taxes are bad, they are being told how great and important it was to break away from English because they made us pay taxes.
Additionally the taxes that are paid in the USand used terribly. Pretty much no one is happy with how they are allocated. Right wing or left wing. So more taxes just feels like having more blood drained from us while getting nothing good in return.
We need a major tax reform not just an increase or a decrease. I would be happy to pay much higher taxes if I felt the benefits of it. Both for myself and for the people in this country. Instead I know most of what I pay gets wated or lines the pockets of the wealthy.
Can't miss an opportunity to mention the burger place A&W made a 1/3 pound burger to compete with McDonald's 1/4 pound burger... except the 1/3 burger was a complete failure due to Americans thinking the 1/4 burger had more meat cuz 4 is a bigger number than 3 lol
I live in Canada and we have some of the same stuff included in our taxes.
Our whole system is pretty fucked up when it comes to taxes, but it is what it is. At least we have things in place.
Sure, I'm "paying" for other people to get healthcare, or to get social assistance, police protection, help from fire departments, ambulances.... Good banks and even welfare....
I couldn't possibly give less of a shit.
I like knowing that, when it's my turn to rely on my fellow countrymen for support, I will get it. If I'm sick and unable to work, I can get financial support, and go see a doctor without having to take out a loan or anything.
Social services are good. I'm not going to get denied coverage for a medically necessary procedure. It gets booked and performed.
And I know that Canada's systems are way less comprehensive than most European countries. We have a lot to do before we can get to where we should be. But we're still better off than our southern neighbors.
In Ottawa I met a guy once who was asking for some money to buy a drinkable meal. You could clearly see that he had something going on with his jaw. Buddy, I think he said his name was Connor but it’s been nearly a decade, was homeless and apparently attacked for some change and even he was able to go to the hospital and get taken care of. Our post-surgery care still needs a shitload of work but at least my tax dollars helped get him that far. Anyone who could look at him and complain can go straight to hell, through it, and into some deep, dark abyss where only the truly rotten can suffer for the rest of eternity.
I mean really socialism is a scale. A true free market would have no regulations, meaning monopolies would form and the biggest company would basically become more powerful than the government (which is kind of what blackrock is, to most countries outside of the USA.) Whereas there's a system which is so regulated that everything is controlled and owned by the government.
The middle ground is whatever denmark is doing. Yes the middle ground, not communism, but the middle, where under a largely similar system to the USA, the capital owners, big companies etc, but still, the basic needs of the people are supplied by a governing body. This means that Democrats and other "left leaning" political governments who don't advocate for universal free healthcare are right wing.
It's not a scale at all, socialism is worker ownership over the means of production, socialists want things like free healthcare, yes, but free healthcare actually has nothing to do with socialism.
a society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
a society is either 100% capitalist or 100% socialist.
This is never true in the real world, everything is a spectrum. Do you think there are any countries that are 100% socialist in today's world? If yes, then I highly doubt it's actually true, if not, I suppose you count them as "100% capitalist", which is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
And then the spectrum not linear either, on the "capitalist" side of the spectrum you have capitalism and fascism, each controlling the working class through different means; and on the "socialist" side you have various ways in which the working class controls (or is told that they control) the means of production; everything from anarchism to councilism to syndicalism to leninism to maoism to stalinism, and a million varieties in between.
I do agree with your other point, though, universal healthcare is almost entirely unrelated to actual socialism/communism, it just turns out to be a (very beneficial) consequence of redistributing power to the working class.
This is never true in the real world, everything is a spectrum. Do you think there are any countries that are 100% socialist in today's world? If yes, then I highly doubt it's actually true, if not, I suppose you count them as "100% capitalist", which is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
it's not a no true scotsman, if it were I could use this argument against you if you tried to claim all cats are dogs, you fundamentally misunderstand how that fallacy works, these societies do not meet the well defined criteria and I would say no they are not socialist but may be attempting to build it. The point of this fallacy is when you baselessly claim something is not what it is not according to the defining characteristics but rather by a vague feeling. If I said no true cat mates with other dogs successfully, similarly, I would not be committing a fallacy.
i am stating that socialism is when the workers own the means of production, if they do not then it is simply definitionally not socialist in the same way that if it can only breed with other cats it is a cat and not a dog.
No, there is not a single currently socialist country. It is not a spectrum, either the workers own the means of production or they do not.
if it can only breed with other cats it is a cat and not a dog.
By this overly simplistic definition you would count infertile cats as non-cats. You also completely lose the ability to differentiate the species of non-sexually reproducing organisms. And then there's the insanity that is hybridization. Is a mule a horse or a donkey? They can occasionally reproduce with either of them.
In reality, differentiating species is a complicated science/art that involves not only the reproductive isolation, but also morphology and genetics, all with the goals of coming up with the most useful definitions for species.
In just the same way with economic systems. Workers in different societies and periods exercise different levels of control (which is the underlying meaning of ownership) on the means of production, it's not black and white. It can be very roughly defined as (workers control over the state) * (relative assets of state-controlled enterprises) + (relative assets of co-ops or other directly worker-owned enterprises). There is of course a lot more nuances to be discussed, such as the exact distribution of control between different subclasses of workers, or the social hierarchies arising from the structures of control. Once again, the goal is to come up with a useful scale to gauge how much a certain country or region has progressed on its way to socialism, to learn from their mistakes and to build better governance systems in the future.
By this overly simplistic definition you would count infertile cats as non-cats. You also completely lose the ability to differentiate the species of non-sexually reproducing organisms. And then there's the insanity that is hybridization. Is a mule a horse or a donkey? They can occasionally reproduce with either of them.
this is not the point at all... yes it was an overly simplistic way to explain how you're using the fallacy wrong. You still used it wrong.
In just the same way with economic systems. Workers in different societies and periods exercise different levels of control (which is the underlying meaning of ownership) on the means of production, it's not black and white. It can be very roughly defined as (workers control over the state) * (relative assets of state-controlled enterprises) + (relative assets of co-ops or other directly worker-owned enterprises). There is of course a lot more nuances to be discussed, such as the exact distribution of control between different subclasses of workers, or the social hierarchies arising from the structures of control.
no it cannot because it's referring to whether or not the workers control them and on a societal scale this is a binary flip, at some point the workers are more in control than the bourgoeis and at that point it is socialism and at any point before it is not.
no it cannot because it’s referring to whether or not the workers control them and on a societal scale this is a binary flip, at some point the workers are more in control than the bourgoeis and at that point it is socialism and at any point before it is not.
Aha, so you do agree that different societies have different levels of control the working class and the bourgeois have over production, but you seem to be convinced that if that "relative level of proletarian control" is below 50% the state is fully capitalist, and otherwise the state is fully socialist. Why do you think this definition is more useful than the obvious one, where we retain the scale instead of quantizing it into a binary form?
This question is especially relevant because you also seem to believe that there currently aren't any "socialist" countries by your definition. By retaining the spectrum, we can then make analytical statements like "China is more socialist than the US".
marxism does not define socialism as “more worker influence than before” but as an actual change in the relations of production. really the decisive question is which class controls surplus and exists and continues itself as a ruling class.
the binary is not 50 percent versus 49 percent. it is whether bourgeois property relations have been superseded.
I ll piss in the soup, but Denmark is also consistently pushing for a total surveillance of all communications in EU
top 97 comments