Us presidential election 2004

[denoir 0]

One more thing Karrillion, you say that you support military investments but want a cut on social security. Don't you see that it's actually the very same thing?

If you feel that the government should protect Americans from terrorists, why do you not feel that the government should protect Americans from poverty and hunger?

If you want to be consistent, then you should demand that the military be reduced as well. Why pay a lot of your hard earned money to a wasteful organization when you can buy yourself a shotgun and take care of the protection?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Probably been posted here in some form or other but..

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040304/D813IP7G1.html

yeah. same page, a few posts above.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

I agree with military spending because it is one of the constitutional mandates of the Federal gov't to provide for it.  I consider good defense to be a vital part of infrastructure.  As I've said before, I believe in limited government, not the abolishment of it.  Society should not be interfered with to a huge extent by gov't.

This is why I completely disagree with most of the cultural legislation that both the left and right try to pass.  I also disagree with the "War on Drugs" and think that many controlled substances should be legalized and taxed accordingly, rather than have billions wasted on it, not to mention the loss of life.

I think that when Gov't interferes with society, it can wreak havoc with the fabric of it, not quickly, but slowly over time.

[denoir 0]

Double-post Denoir, or are you really trying to hammer the point home?

Safety in numbers

Quote[/b] ]I agree with military spending because it is one of the constitutional mandates of the Federal gov't to provide for it. I consider good defense to be a vital part of infrastructure. As I've said before, I believe in limited government, not the abolishment of it. Society should not be interfered with to a huge extent by gov't.

What is the difference between defense from terrorists and defense from poverty? Do you not think that equally as Americans should not have to fear to be killed by a foregin power that Americans should not have to fear to starve to death?

I fully understand your libertarian logic, but it is based on one major flaw. It assumes that everybody has the same chances in life and that you just through hard work can achieve anything. While it may have been true when you all were poor colonists, it's not at all true today. You have a big social segregation and the outcome of your life is largely dictated by what social circle you are born in. If you are the son of a former president, born in a rich family then you can without too much effort become president. If you on the other hand are born in a ghetto in criminal surroundings, it's an achievement not to end up in prison. Due to these inequalities in the system the government, who is defending all Americans, not just the rich ones, has to step in and help out. And that means your money. That's the price of being part of the system.

The idea of you keeping your money to choose the medical services you want and planning your retirement as you wish is fine as long as you have any money. There is a huge social segment in America that does not have any money to keep. So some form of social security must exist for everybody, or you'll have a significant portion of your nation starving to death.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Yes, but your assumption about gov't protecting everyone is also based upon a faulty assumption: That gov't will always care and do what is best for the public.

Experience shows that this is not the case.

Think about it, companies who want your money will pander and treat you well to get your business. A fancy restaurant will, for example, not ignore and treat you poorly if they want your business. Most companies, at least the ones that want to survive, will work for your money. (There are always exceptions.)

The gov't doesn't need to worry about that. It has the force of law to take your money and can draft your bank account or garnish your wages to get your money. Customer Service is not a top priority. The larger the gov't, the worse it can be. Many people who work for the gov't at these lower-level clerical jobs are rude and cannot stand dealing with people. They're only working there because they can't get a job where they have to be nice and perform well.

Also imagine if the gov't became completely corrupt or tyrranical.

I think it's safer to have a smaller centralized gov't rather than a massive one that tries to take care of every need.

I understand that the playing field is not level, and I don't assume it is. Some of us will always have to work harder than others, but that's a reality of life. I don't think complicating it with a massive gov't will solve any of that. It will probably end up making things worse.

[denoir 0]

The government can be whatever you make it to be. You can elect officials that will make it more customer-focused. Ideally you should have no dealings with the government. You just need to have an efficient structure.

If you feel that your govenment isn't acting in your best interest, then you reform it by electing officials that support your idea. While the government may not end up serving your needs, it will for the majority of the public. If it doesn't, then it's broke and has to be fixed. That does not mean that it should be removed, which is a by far worse alternative.

Again, do you not think that every American citizen should have some form of guarantee that they won't starve to death?

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Again, do you not think that every American citizen should have some form of guarantee that they won't starve to death?

No. Life has no guarantees. Necessity is the mother of invention. If some people didn't have to worry about eating, etc. then they'd be a drag on society. I just don't believe government is a cure-all for what ails us. There are plenty of private organizations, like churches and charities, that are willing to help. Yes, I know charitable organizations don't always work, but there's a lot less red tape to go thru to get a square meal, plus you have a choice of where to go for help.

I come from a family of farmers and schoolteachers. One side of the family is from North Dakota (up near Canada), the other from Georgia (SE US). Both sides were dirt-poor, but worked their rear-ends off to make ends meet. Today both sides are doing well. Not rich, but better than average. I'm not a drag on the family, unlike one of my younger sisters. I just have seen first-hand the mentality of those who think they can get by with doing nothing. It's sad.

[denoir 0]

So why on earth do you want a government sponsored military? By your reasoning, the individuals should defend themselves. It sure is would be much more cost-effective than having a huge wasteful military organization! And what about the police? Same thing there. Medicare? Roads? Why any infrastructure? People should take care of themselves! Just me, my cows, my farm and my shotgun!

Well, that's a nice ideology if you live in the wild west. I hate to disappoint you, but these days even America has embraced civilization and all its advantages. So you're out of phase man. With about 150 years I'd say.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

It's called moderation. I don't want a massive gov't handling everything, nor do I want anarchy. It's not a zero sum game. If the existence of a federally controlled military means "wasteful" to you, then I'm assuming that you think that all non-social spending is wasteful?

Our constitution provides for certain things, and it makes more sense to have a federally controlled military. What doesn't make sense is trying to make sure every single person has a chicken in their pot through the gov't.

Why is it so hard of a concept to grasp that certain things are better centralized, and others aren't?

[denoir 0]

It's called moderation.  I don't want a massive gov't handling everything, nor do I want anarchy.  It's not a zero sum game.  If the existence of a federally controlled military means "wasteful" to you, then I'm assuming that you think that all non-social spending is wasteful?

Our constitution provides for certain things, and it makes more sense to have a federally controlled military.  What doesn't make sense is trying to make sure every single person has a chicken in their pot through the gov't.

Why is it so hard of a concept to grasp that certain things are better centralized, and others aren't?

It's not moderate to want social services eliminted. It's a ver radical suggestion, far more far-fetched than shutting down the military.

Some things are better not centralized, but basic intra-civilization cooperation for survival is not one of them. This is so fundamental that I cannot grasp that anybody would even come up with the idea. I'm not joking when I am saying that had we not shared basiv resources in the past, we would still be living in cages today. What you are suggesting isn't anarcy - no self-respecting anarchist today would even think of such a suggestion.

Well, as I said this is a very radical organization of a country you are suggesting and (very fortunately IMO) you'll find very few that share that radical view. Talk about our civilzation going down the drain should we ever implement a system like that!

[Certa 0]

One more thing Karrillion, you say that you support military investments but want a cut on social security. Don't you see that it's actually the very same thing?

If you feel that the government should protect Americans from terrorists, why do you not feel that the government should protect Americans from poverty and hunger?

If you want to be consistent, then you should demand that the military be reduced as well. Why pay a lot of your hard earned money to a wasteful organization when you can buy yourself a shotgun and take care of the protection?

The basics of all liberalism/libertarianism is a small government with one main purpose: To protect individuals from violence, theft and fraud, domestic or international. This was stated by the father of the original liberalism John Locke (1632-1704).

This does not include enforcing utilitarianis or feed people. That is up to people themselves to handle individually or voluntary together.

[denoir 0]

The basics of all liberalism/libertarianism is a small government with one main purpose: To protect individuals from violence, theft and fraud, domestic or international. This was stated by the father of the original liberalism John Locke (1632-1704).

This does not include enforcing utilitarianis or feed people. That is up to people themselves to handle individually or voluntary together.

Yes and this was stated before the industrial revolution when most people were farmers. As I said, it's a completely outdated ideology. Back then it was possible to be self-sufficient as you produced your own food. Today that is delegated to a special, small sector of the society. In short people are much more dependant on working for an indirect way of getting food on the table. Remove social security and any worker's protection will fall due to the fundamental instability in a market based economy. Bad economic times = people get fired = people lose their ability of getting food. Why do you think that the socialist movement started in the first place?

Going back to the economic/political system of 19th century Europe would not be very bright. You'd have a revolution on your hands before you knew it.

As I said, libertarianism is an extremely outdated philosophy that was constructed when the society looked a lot different from what it does today. America still has a lot of cowboy ideals, i.e a cultural nostalgia of the days when the settlers roamed the lands freely. Of course, having a completely outdated constitution doesn't help. Regardless, even America, the last stronghold of this outdated political philosophy is evolving and moving away from that. Even the American conservatives are talking about the importance of social security, medicare etc..

[Certa 0]

As I said, libertarianism is an extremely outdated philosophy that was constructed when the society looked a lot different from what it does today. America still has a lot of cowboy ideals, i.e a cultural nostalgia of the days when the settlers roamed the lands freely. Of course, having a completely outdated constitution doesn't help. Regardless, even America, the last stronghold of this outdated political philosophy is evolving and moving away from that. Even the American conservatives are talking about the importance of social security, medicare etc..

Being a right-wing liberal (individualist) is nothing more than realizing that the only person in this world that knows what is best for you is yourself.

You may live for others, for the state, for the leader, for the revolution, for the oppressor or for a master but the only one who got the moral right to your life is yourself. If you want to live for a greater cause, fine, don't force others to it because they own their own life. There will always be someone claiming to have a higher cause of your life but they will always be wrong.

Back to the subject Sweden, a good example for my point. Sweden was unique in most of Europe with a liberal era under the late 1800 and early 1900. During this period, the poor got their rights and equality, everyone got their right to vote, all the great Swedish companies we know of today were founded. Sweden went from one of the poorest farmer countries in Europe to a promising economy.

Then in the 1930's democratic reform socialists took over. After WW2, Sweden wasn't bombed to oblivion and could build an incredible wealth on export to all of the bombed Europe.

At the late 1960's Sweden peaked, 30 years after WW2 and the Swedish model was the envy of the world.

In my opinion, with the position Sweden had after WW2 any market oriented economy would flourish and of course you can create a fantastic Swedish model (welfare, healthcare, socialism, market economy) if you have that kind of a well. But from there on economy decayed and it still is, no socialism will ever change that.

During the 1970's the heavy reform socialism was introduced. Taxes doubled in a couple of years and so did unemployment. In the 80's reality caught up and it all fell apart. Not as hard as on the other side of the iron wall but it still fell pretty hard. Most swedes still don't understand what happened.

Today, if Sweden would be a state in USA, it would be the poorest of them all.

The average Swedish low income worker pays 55% of his salary cost in taxes. That includes employers share, income tax, goods and service and other taxes. The average low income worker pays more in tax during his lifetime than he ever gets back from the government (welfare, unemployment, healthcare, education, etc).

In Sweden, the country with the highest taxes in the world, the government is now charging extra for healthcare and the swede can not even write it off in the tax return.

Where in this is the superiority in this system in comparison to the old liberalism? Personally I would prefer a form of light social liberalism. Small government, a public insurance system for those who doesn't want to take care of it themselves, a basic welfare for the unlucky and a public education system. Not an extreme liberalism nor the extreme Swedish reform socialism.

For Americans: In Europe liberal means individualist, as in the American constitution and not socialist or red social-liberal which is the American meaning of the word today.

[denoir 0]

Today, if Sweden would be a state in USA, it would be the poorest of them all.

Actually, that's incorrect. Check the start of this thread for figures. Sweden has a higher BNP/Capita (2003 at current market rates) than the US. So it would in any way be above the average US state.

That is the first incorrect fact. The second one is on the 55% income tax. It depends in which region you live, but the highest in Sweden is around 35% and the lowest around 25%. That's kommunalskatt. In addition to that if you belong to the top 20% salary group then you pay an additional tax, marginalskatt, but it's together lower than the number you mentioned. The average low-income worker pays around 10-15% tax and gets a shitload of government subventions ranging everything from free childcare to that the government pays part of their rent.

Otherwise your analysis was fairly correct. We had a system that broke down in the early 90's and we're still paying for that failure. Other European countries have actually lower taxes and better social services.. but still, compared to the US, Sweden is a heaven for your average person. For the upper middle class and beyond the US has a better system. The point of social security is however not to please the rich but to save the poor.

There is nothing wrong with having choices. I personally go to a private doctor and a private dentist. There should however be a minimum protection for everybody for free. You should not wait longer for an operation just because you are poor. In Sweden, and in Europe in general the fundamental ideology is that human value cannot be measured in money. It's equal for everybody and the government has a duty of safeguarding that human value.

It's funny, how relative politics is. By Swedish standards, I'm a right wing liberal. By European standards, I'm a centrist liberal. By American standards I'm a communist..

[DracoPaladore 0]

Bush is losing numbers and is now being hassled by using the 9/11 attack as Ad campaign.

Quote[/b] ]Bush team defends use of 9/11 in campaign ads

Associated Press

E-mail this Article

Print this Article

Advertisement

New York ?

Members of U.S. President George W. Bush's re-election campaign are defending campaign ads that show images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center.

Some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Mr. Bush for airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and for the president's political gain.

?With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well,? Karen Hughes, a Bush campaign adviser, told

The Early Show on CBS.

?September 11th was not just a distant tragedy. It's a defining event for the future of our country. ... Obviously, all of us mourn and grieve for the victims of that terrible day, but September 11 fundamentally changed our public policy in many important ways, and I think it's vital that the next president recognize that.?

The first three ads, unveiled Wednesday at campaign headquarters in suburban Washington, will run on broadcast channels in about 80 markets in 18 states, most of which are expected to be critical to the election, and nationwide on select cable networks.

?It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people,? Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers, told the New York Daily News for its Thursday editions. ?It is unconscionable.?

Two of the spots show the destruction at the World Trade Center and include an American flag flying amid the debris. They also feature images of firefighters working through the wreckage.

?It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place,? said Firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270. ?The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics.?

The ads do not mention Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, focusing instead on improving Mr. Bush's image after criticism by Democrats in recent months.

?I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty,? said Tom Roger, whose daughter perished on American Airlines Flight 11. ?But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat.?

Ms. Hughes said the ads are a tasteful reminder of what the country has been through the last three years.

?I can understand why some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the president and first lady Laura Bush brought to our country in the aftermath of that,? she said.

Later in the day, Mr. Bush talked up his economic leadership Thursday, rounding out a California tour that gathered $5-million (U.S.) for his and other Republicans' campaigns and marked the start of more direct criticism of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry.

"The economy is getting stronger," Mr. Bush said from an outdoor stage at a family-owned company, Rain for Rent, an irrigation system business. "One of the reasons why I think we're doing so good here in America is because of the tax relief we passed, is because people have more money in their pockets."

Mr. Bush's positive picture on the economy was designed to counter criticism from Mr. Kerry and other Democrats, who blame the president for job growth that has lagged behind other signs of improvement in the nation's fiscal health.

The Kerry campaign distributed new numbers Thursday showing that the unemployment rate in Bakersfield rose to 13.6 per cent in January from 12.7 per cent in December. Statewide, the jobless rate was 6.1 per cent in January, compared with 5.6 per cent nationally.

"George W. Bush has consistently promised that his tax cuts will deliver jobs but the results are terrible," the Kerry campaign statement said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet....ational

[Balschoiw 0]

That´s disgusting.

Evil moron.

[raedor 8]

it's like in germany... schröder got re-elected cos of a flood. but fortunately he didn't begin a "war against water" after that

[havocsquad 0]

The man is getting desperate, once again he has promised something again that he fails to keep.   In my view the current White House administration lied right there to the entire American public when it was said the Bush campaign would not exploit 9/11 for political reasons.  

I don't care if those ads weren't paid for by the Bush campaign, those commericals are wrong and should NOT include ANY pictures of 9/11 in it, period.  This was a international tragedy and not something to be used to bolster one's view of being tough on terrorism.

I wouldn't be suprised if some of the conservative Republicans started quietly giving the Bush campaign flak for using it in their campaign.  I think people are tired of the current president constantly gloating about his efforts on combating terrorism.  The U.S. is not a military state, so there are also other priorities for a president in which take equal if not more importance than just fighting terrorism. (Economy, homeland security, education, etc.)

This approach by the Bush campaign is reckless, and is also a danger to the Republican party, some Republicans who have truely tried hard to keep the best interests of Americans in the forefront.

[denoir 0]

Weak jobs data spooks US markets (BBC)

Quote[/b] ]The dollar has dropped sharply, after weak US jobless figures raised questions about the pace of recovery in the world's largest economy. ...

So much for the recovering economy  

Anyhow, here's something interesting:

'Mr Blair... have you met President Kerry?'

Quote[/b] ]

If Senator John Kerry does become the next US president, no-one would be in a more interesting position than Tony Blair. Having been best pals with Bill Clinton and then George W Bush, how would the special relationship fare under another Democrat president?

 

This week something odd happened. A left-of-centre party chose its candidate to challenge for the presidency of the world's last remaining superpower. That superpower's closest ally happens to be led by the leader of another centre-left party.

You might imagine he would be the first on the phone to congratulate the newly elected candidate and wish him well in the forthcoming election. Yet this close ally did nothing, said nothing, and sent no message of congratulation.

So just what does Tony Blair have against John Kerry?

The prime minister's official spokesman was adamant. Tony Blair, he said, is so determined not to get involved in the American presidential elections that he will not even send his congratulations to Senator Kerry.

The spokesman referred to the prime minister's remarks at a recent news conference when he said he did not intend to get involved. Reporters pointed out that even President Bush had sent his congratulations to Mr Kerry. The prime minister's spokesman did not respond.

Talks shelved

More than that, behind the scenes, instructions have gone out: the Labour Party must stay out of the US presidential campaign. Plans for senior Labour figures to hold talks with senior Democrats have been shelved.

So what is going on? Mr Blair's critics say it shows he's so close to President Bush that he no longer even dares to be courteous to George W's political opponents. Mr Blair's supporters are just puzzled, bemused that their man is prepared potentially to risk alienating someone who is just one election away from the White House.

It is all a long way from the love-in between Mr Blair and Bill Clinton that continues to this day. There was golf at Chequers, the prime minister's official country residence, dinners at smart restaurants on London's south bank.

Their officials traded tactics and techniques, albeit a trade that flowed more from Washington to London than vice versa. No self-respecting Labour apparatchik could show his or her face at the party's Millbank Tower headquarters if they hadn't done a stint on a Democrat election campaign.

The prime minister looked to Mr Clinton for political succour and guidance, both men on the same wavelength, the same generation. The former president is still a frequent, albeit discreet, visitor to Number 10 and Chequers.

Power play

But the point is that all this had nothing to do with Bill Clinton being a Democrat. Instead, it had everything to do with Bill Clinton's personality, his electoral success, his approach to politics, his Third Way theories of big tents and triangulation, and above all his power. It was a relationship between two individuals who just happened to lead parties from the same neck of the political woods.

Many were equally puzzled when the prime minister transferred his allegiance so smoothly to George Bush. Well, relatively smoothly. The body language at their first meeting at Camp David three years ago was hardly warm.

There the conservative Texas oil man in his trademark bomber jacket was asked what he had in common with this Oxford-educated social democrat in jumper and jeans with hands jammed into his pockets like a teenager on a first date. Both men looked goofily at each other for a second before Mr Bush famously revealed that they shared the same taste in toothpaste.

But Mr Blair followed Bill Clinton's advice to be Bush's friend, to "be the guy he turns to".

The relationship grew slowly but was transformed by the 11 September attacks. Both men discovered a shared, common purpose in the war on terror. They also discovered they had a shared set of values, a Christian faith, a desire to do what they saw to be right.

Having to get on

The common point of Tony Blair's relationship with both presidents, though, is that he knew he simply had to get on with them. A Friend of Bill had to become a Friend of George. Presidents may change, but UK foreign policy remains the same - and that means whoever lives in Downing Street must be close to whoever lives in the large white building at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The respected political commentator of the Times, Peter Riddell, says: "The whole point of Tony Blair is that he's interested in who's in power. He's not particularly interested in ideology."

So this is why Mr Blair is staying out the presidential election. He knows he will, nay he must, get on with whoever wins. The UK's role in international politics, he believes, is to engage with the US, regardless of the cost. Post-war, post-Hutton, post-Clare Short, Mr Blair is painfully aware of that cost.

If President Bush were defeated, that would at first sight be difficult for Mr Blair. His ally in the war on terror would be gone, he would have to deal with the new President Kerry, who is much more equivocal.

The senator supported the war but was concerned about the distorted intelligence and the exaggerated threat. Some of his other views, such as his protectionist instincts, are already ruffling feathers in trade ministries around the European Union.

On a personal note, Mr Blair is not believed to have met Mr Kerry. But his neighbour Gordon Brown is more than chummy, an advantage that the chancellor's supporters are not slow in making clear. Mr Brown's aides are close to some of Mr Kerry's advisers, in particular Bob Shrum.

But in practice, none of this need prejudice any relationship between a President Kerry and a Prime Minister Blair. Both would need to deal with each other. On the war at least, Mr Blair's views appear closer to Mr Kerry's than some might think - both want the US to play a more multinational role in the world; both think it should get closer to its allies.

And there are spin-offs for Mr Blair. A Kerry presidency would improve his relations with his European partners. It would also calm the fevered brows of Labour MPs uncomfortable with Mr Blair's proximity to Mr Bush.

The bottom line is this: if John Kerry is elected to the Oval Office in November, Mr Blair would make it his business to do business with him. In other words, he would change his toothpaste without a moment's thought.

And to finish this post off, just a little humorous connection to the previous discussion:

German man wants state-paid sex (BBC)

Quote[/b] ]A German court has rejected a claim from an unemployed man who wanted the state to provide him with pornographic material and free visits to a brothel.

...

[Balschoiw 0]

I wonder if Blair will still be number one at that time.

The pressure on him rises by the minute as more and more lies come up. He should be tossed out of government. At least someone of those two warmongers should face trial.

[Certa 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, that's incorrect. Check the start of this thread for figures. Sweden has a higher BNP/Capita (2003 at current market rates) than the US. So it would in any way be above the average US state.

Will get back to this currency confusion when I'm straight with the facts.

In 2002 I moved from Sweden to Canada and improved my life in terms of wealth and living standard and I'm not even rich. Now going to western Europe in the summer is like traveling 10-15 years back in time. Going to Afghanistan is (I imagine) like traveling 150 years back in time. Going to USA from Canada is like traveling a few years into the future. I'm not comparing rich or slum, just the averages.

Quote[/b] ]That is the first incorrect fact. The second one is on the 55% income tax. It depends in which region you live, but the highest in Sweden is around 35% and the lowest around 25%. That's kommunalskatt. In addition to that if you belong to the top 20% salary group then you pay an additional tax, marginalskatt, but it's together lower than the number you mentioned. The average low-income worker pays around 10-15% tax and gets a shitload of government subventions ranging everything from free childcare to that the government pays part of their rent.

You are talking about the income tax only. I talk about the tax pressure for the low income worker, from income to spendings. The worker will not during his or her lifetime ever get these money back in subsidiaries or public services. That might be the case for some Canadians, Americans or other European countries but the average low income working swede is not getting value for the tax money, not by far. -Perhaps the ones that choose a life on wellfare.

The income tax itself varies from 25 to over 50% but on top of that you have a 35% employers share, part of the salary cost. The swede pays 25% sales tax on everything bought except groceries (food to live) where it's only 12%. The swede then pays 100% tax on electricity and perhaps 500% tax on gasoline and numerous taxes like property tax, house tax and even wealth tax if that's the case (not counted for in this example since I talk about poor people).

If I spend 10000 kronor monthly paying someone to take care of something, 5500 kronor will end up as taxes before the end of the month.

[GoOB 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, that's incorrect. Check the start of this thread for figures. Sweden has a higher BNP/Capita (2003 at current market rates) than the US. So it would in any way be above the average US state.

Will get back to this currency confusion when I'm straight with the facts.

In 2002 I moved from Sweden to Canada and improved my life in terms of wealth and  living standard and I'm not even rich. Now going to western Europe in the summer is like traveling 10-15 years back in time. Going to Afghanistan is (I imagine) like traveling 150 years back in time. Going to USA from Canada is like traveling a few years into the future. I'm not comparing rich or slum, just the averages.

Quote[/b] ]That is the first incorrect fact. The second one is on the 55% income tax. It depends in which region you live, but the highest in Sweden is around 35% and the lowest around 25%. That's kommunalskatt. In addition to that if you belong to the top 20% salary group then you pay an additional tax, marginalskatt, but it's together lower than the number you mentioned. The average low-income worker pays around 10-15% tax and gets a shitload of government subventions ranging everything from free childcare to that the government pays part of their rent.

You are talking about the income tax only. I talk about the tax pressure for the low income worker, from income to spendings. The worker will not during his or her lifetime ever get these money back in subsidiaries or public services. That might be the case for some Canadians, Americans or other European countries but the average low income working swede is not getting value for the tax money, not by far. -Perhaps the ones that choose a life on wellfare.

The income tax itself varies from 25 to over 50% but on top of that you have a 35% employers share, part of the salary cost. The swede pays 25% sales tax on everything bought except groceries (food to live) where it's only 12%. The swede then pays 100% tax on electricity and perhaps 500% tax on gasoline and numerous taxes like property tax, house tax and even wealth tax if that's the case (not counted for in this example since I talk about poor people).

If I spend 10000 kronor monthly paying someone to take care of something, 5500 kronor will end up as taxes before the end of the month.

What? No value for tax-payer money?

I don't pay taxes just yet, but I am confident my parents are satisfied with their tax money. Without it they would have to make alot of sacrifices for my hospital visits.

I have had, one, two, three, four, five yes six surgical operations during my life and I am sure that my parents paying for those and taking time off work for six weeks after each would have been alot more expensive than paying the taxes they pay and would have a heavy impact on their economy.

Not to mention the ability to actually choose freely where you want to go to school and what you want to do with your life regardless of your families economical situation. For me, this surely sounds like it's worthwhile especially for the blue-collar workers.

And add the great oppurtunities for more seriously handicapped* people than me to function great in scociety without their economy suffering. The system takes care of you if someting goes wrong, it might not work like it should but it is indeed working to a certain extent.

But I do agree that the taxation on houses is a bit too steep, people living near lakes are almost forced out of their housings due to this. And not to mention all the retired people that are forced to leave their houses.

Also, last time I looked the sale tax differs from item to item. The last game I bought for instance, 14% sales tax for books it is even lower.

*By seriously handicapped I mean people that are unable to walk, I have weak muscles and muscles that disentigrate with time. Due to a certain substance missing from my muscle-tissue.

EDIT: Added explanation.

[denoir 0]

In 2002 I moved from Sweden to Canada and improved my life in terms of wealth and  living standard and I'm not even rich. Now going to western Europe in the summer is like traveling 10-15 years back in time. Going to Afghanistan is (I imagine) like traveling 150 years back in time. Going to USA from Canada is like traveling a few years into the future. I'm not comparing rich or slum, just the averages.

No, you are not comparing averages, you are comparin personal experiences. I'm sorry, but that's anectdotal evidence and not facts.

I havn't been to Canada, but I've been to the US a couple of times and to me it felt like traveling 15-20 years back in time.

Edit: Great post GoOB, that's exactly what I am talking about.

[DracoPaladore 0]

In 2002 I moved from Sweden to Canada and improved my life in terms of wealth and  living standard and I'm not even rich. Now going to western Europe in the summer is like traveling 10-15 years back in time. Going to Afghanistan is (I imagine) like traveling 150 years back in time. Going to USA from Canada is like traveling a few years into the future. I'm not comparing rich or slum, just the averages.

No, you are not comparing averages, you are comparin personal experiences. I'm sorry, but that's anectdotal evidence and not facts.

I havn't been to Canada, but I've been to the US a couple of times and to me it felt like traveling 15-20 years back in time.

Edit: Great post GoOB, that's exactly what I am talking about.

What part of the US?

[denoir 0]

What part of the US?

That I've been to? LA, NYC, Boston and Columbus (Ohio). I liked Boston. New York also has its appeal. If I had a huge amount of money, then I probably would not mind living there.