7 ms·

I'm from Sweden, and we have the same policies but basically no natural resources that are worth anything anymore. Unlike the US of A. It's not about oil, it's

by zond 10y ago

I'm from Sweden, and we have the same policies but basically no natural resources that are worth anything anymore. Unlike the US of A. It's not about oil, it's about realizing that a healthy, well educated and happy population is an investment that pays itself over time.

pc86 10y ago
You've also got a top marginal personal income tax rate approaching 60% which is nearly twice that of the US and political suicide. I'm not making a judgment for or against high marginal taxes, I'm just saying "the US could do it too" ignores, well... the very core of economic and tax policy in the US.
- zond 10y ago
  So now you leave the realm of economical possibilities and start pointing at political problems. Isn't that a little too simple? "No, we can't do that because we don't want to."
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Well, it's important to engage the political realities. Doesn't make it impossible, but a hybrid proposal or smaller first step might be more practical, given the politics.
    - flavmartins 10y ago
      Hybrid proposal is the real solution. Yes, in the US, the taxation of the Nordic countries won't work and the socialist approach to services is also not accepted by half of the country. Two key ideas, however, could be implemented: --- IDEA 1 - REALLY EDUCATE people on WHY they need to get new vocational training. Currently too many people are being given false promises of the return of working class jobs that are not coming back. It's not just globalization that has caused the loss of these jobs, but also technology advances that have made many of these jobs obsolete. Your blue collar worker today isn't going to get a job moving metal equipment from one place to another because a machine can do it much more efficiently 24/7. Our capitalistic society means that a corporation will seek to create maximum efficiency to generate maximum profit. Corporations aren't in the business of maximizing the number of employees, but rather maximizing the return per resources invested in the organization. And that means, excuse my somewhat callous statement, that people are viewed as resources to the organizations, a means to generating profit. If a machine is able to perform a function faster, longer, for less overall money than an employee, a corporation will seek for that alternative. So when many politicians make promises of bringing back good jobs. They AREN'T telling people WHAT JOBS are coming back. In fact, when you look at manufacturing jobs in the US, we currently CAN'T FILL THEM. The problem is that your blue collar worker still expects a manual, low skill manufacturing job. But the job the US corporation wants is a manufacturing person who has a math or CS degree who can program or operate a high-end automation machine. Who can manage the CNC process or who can input the specifications for highly detailed technical operations. This requires specific training, math, engineering, or certifications. This is the truth that more politicians need to hammer home to the people, then government follows up making sure that there is an incentive for educational institutions to allocate resources to teach these people. But today, we're still stuck in: politicians claim that it's federal government's fault that they don't have a job, and that electing them instead will magically bring these low skill jobs back. --- IDEA 2 - DECENTRALIZE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Move them out of Washington D.C. A CNN op-ed suggested this as a way to bring the Federal government closer to the people in the country. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/government-departments-should-be-spread-out-price/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/government-department...) The capital, Whitehouse, and some executive services would remain in D.C., but many of the key departments would be moved to different regions of the country. For example: -The Veterans Administration in Phoenix -The IRS in Dallas -Treasury Department in NYC -FBI in SLC -The EPA in Portland or Seattle -Department of Agriculture in Iowa and so forth. Federal government jobs move to other places around the country bringing it closer to the people so they get a more personal connection with the government since it actually supplies jobs to the people they know. It also moves these departments into locations that cost less than the high prices of the D.C. beltway. Is there some loss of more interpersonal meetings between departments and cabinets? Sure, but high speed Internet access is readily available in ALL metropolitan areas around the country. We have video conferencing technology which eliminates the need for us to have the requirement of so many in-person meetings. It's a trade-off, but one that is greatly benefiting the people of the country. And as the Federal government this is a big win because today, much of the sentiment is that the Federal government DOESN'T DO anything for me. It's a bunch of "elites" who waste time and money and the people don't see anything direct benefit. Decentralizing the location of government agencies begins to eliminate this. Just like the US National Guard has a training camp just north of the city where I live, I can't say that the national guard doesn't do anything and isn't needed. They offer a great service and employ a lot of the people in my community, the surrounding communities. The national guard members, employees, and their families all buy homes in our communities raising home values (since these are stable jobs, homes aren't sold left and right, people stay, pay taxes, leading to general growth for our communities). These people also buy goods in our stores, contributing to the local economy. All because the Army put one of their national guard training camps here instead of concentrating them at West Point in New York.
      - ep103 10y ago
        I've never heard that second idea before. That's a really good idea.
        lb1lf 10y ago
        We (Norway) did just that a few years ago; mostly, it was a success once the dust settled. For instance, the coastal administration moved from the capital Oslo to Ålesund which is smack in the middle of a world-renowned maritime cluster; fisheries agency. moved to our #2 city (or #1 if you ask the locals) Bergen, historically the major export hub for the coastal fisheries, etc. The key benefit is that it ensures there is a need for highly skilled labour also outside the capital; also, as you mention, it provides for more closeness to government - the sectors affected by the whims of a government agency has said agency within spitting distance, which helps.
      - gshulegaard 10y ago
        I like your ideas...a lot actually. The only thing I would point out (see my comment a little further down about US budget) is that our current level of taxation supports comparable levels of spending to Nordic countries. I would guess, not doing an in depth analysis, that this is partly or even mostly due to the much larger relative size of the US GDP. And in the case of healthcare, we are flat out spending more, both in real dollars and per capita measurements, and getting less. So I view tax arguments as more or less red herrings: We already spend as much or more, instead we should ask what is wrong with our system? Changes to our systems should not require increases in our taxation (necessarily). But it's also why I really like your ideas since they are systemic in nature.
      - yellowapple 10y ago
        The second idea is also a great idea from a strategic perspective. At the risk of sounding doomsdayish, by spreading the federal government's agency headquarters around the country, it minimizes the risk of a single city-wide or even state-wide catastrophe (sea level rise, nuclear carbomb, Giant Meteor delivering on its one campaign promise, etc.) eradicating the leadership of most/all federal agencies.
      - 10y ago
  - weberc2 10y ago
    What's simple about making 300 million people want the same thing?
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  Yes, that's the price you pay for civilization.
  - gutnor 10y ago
    That's the price you pay maybe for civilisation. Take the other example of Belgium whose tax level is more or less equivalent but is scaling down on basically everything. People there complain that they pay a lot now, but are almost certain that when their turn come, they will not get anything. We are in a context where you can't predict the outcome of the next election a single day before, who will trust to current generation of politician with policies in 30 years ? Also, that's not just a question of egoism. I don't mind paying today so that people get unemployment benefit and a good pension. The problem is that if it goes the other way when I reach retirement age, I will neither receive the pension nor the year of tax cut to make up for it.
- nugator 10y ago
  It will be interesting to see how the US solves this problem without raising taxes. If it solves the problem (which i hope).
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  That's a red herring, just take a look at some budget breakdowns: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... The largest portion of our budget is mandatory spending (~65%). Of our mandatory spending, the largest portion of that is spent on Social Services (Social security, medicare and health, etc) and yet we still have worse services than almost any other western country (IMO). You start looking at percentages and an even more sinister picture starts to take shape: https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/ https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/how-countries-spend-t... > "Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending." > "Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care." > "Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care." > "In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of Frances yearly budget." This article needs citation, but see this report that seems to at least tangentially support some of the trends voiced: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-NORWAY-2014.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-NORWAY-... > "The United States is, by far, the country that spends the most on health as a share of its economy (with 16.9% of its GDP allocated to health in 2012)" So at this point we can conclude that the US spends roughly the same share, or more, of it's GDP on Health care as other countries...even those "socialist" ones...yet we have a much worse standard/level/cost of care. Even at our "lower" tax rates our GDP is by far and away the largest: https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+countries+by+GDP&oq=list+of+countries+by+GDP&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.2534j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+countries+by+GDP&oq=... But moreover, our PER CAPITA GDP is one of the highest in the world (higher than Norway and Sweden). So at the end of the day, America: * Spends more on healthcare in flat dollar terms than almost any other nation * Spends more on healthcare PER CAPITA than almost any other nation and yet we still have far worse levels of care. So this problem has nothing to do with economic or tax policy in the US. The question is: Where is the enormous sums of money we are ALREADY pouring into the system going?
  - 10y ago
- ckinnan 10y ago
  The top US marginal tax rate is 40% and the burden quickly exceeds 50% depending on the state you live in and factoring payroll taxes.
  - garyrule 10y ago
    and most folks in that tax bracket are doing things, other than paying short-term gains or regular income tax, to reduce their burden significantly.
  - thebspatrol 10y ago
    Marginal tax rates mean literally nothing. Nordic countries pay significantly more in taxes any way you look at it. You'd get laughed out of the room if you talked to someone like Donald Trump about paying a 40% marginal tax rate.
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    And then add on Healthcare, child-rearing, and education costs and guess what... USA Citizens pay more overall. Just not through "taxes." per -say.
- CorvusCrypto 10y ago
  We could anyway imo. Our "very core" of economic and tax policy is actually pretty flexible. Just look at how the markets have developed over the last several decades. Yes there will be pain, but I'd trade a little short-term pain with long-term benefit over short-term relief with long-term decline anyday. Not to say Scandinavia has the best of everything, but regardless... Jag skulle vilja bo i skandinavien istället USA
  - fapjacks 10y ago
    Marrying a Swede is unquestionably the best thing I ever did.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > I'm just saying "the US could do it too" ignores, well... the very core of economic and tax policy in the US. Hardly. It was the core of the tax policy for a very long time.[1] 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_...
  - pc86 10y ago
    And isn't anymore. If you want to argue that it should be, I'll listen to that, but you can't just throw out a link to graph about tax rates 50+ years ago and think that settles it and the US can be just like Norway.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > And isn't anymore. But it was, not not too long ago. 35 years ago it was 50%. 40 years ago it was 70%. Just saying it ignores the core of economic and tax policy in the US ignores, well... the the recent history of the economic and tax policy of the US. Rather than a rank dismissal of the idea, why not explain what's so different than now from then that makes it impossible? > you can't just throw out a link to graph about tax rates 50+ years ago and think that settles it and the US can be just like Norway. I didn't. I just meant to show that your reason for dismissing it seems poorly founded, or at least poorly explained.
      - PopsiclePete 10y ago
        70 decades ago, if I were a billionaire, I'd have no choice but to stay in the US and pay that tax rate. Europe is rebuilding from a war, Asia is an agrarian back-water and South America is about to start experimenting with Communism. Yeah, where am I going to run to, Mars? Now it's different. I'll be laughing with my other billionaire buddies about your tax rate plans while snorting coke of a hooker's tits on my private yacht and watching the Monaco F1 GP from the harbor. I've got all the luxuries I need over there, and in fact, everywhere, that I previously could only enjoy in the US. I can talk with who I need to talk to over Skype, I can do my business, banking, everything, remotely. It's not like other countries don't have equal or better infrastructure. It's not like I can get clean water and food only in the US that would somehow make this a magical place I'd never leave. So why would I just sit quietly and let you tax me at 90%, exactly?
- serge2k 10y ago
  And responses like this are why he US has these problems. Dismissing solutions as too hard or those won't for us.
- prasadjoglekar 10y ago
  "You've also got a top marginal personal income tax rate approaching 60% which is nearly twice that of the US and political suicide." That's only true if you count Federal Income Taxes alone. By the time you're done with Social Security, Medicare, state and city taxes (esp in NY, CA), the top marginal tax rate here approaches 50%.
  - phil21 10y ago
    Everyone ignores this when talking about taxes. I had an accountant do the math for me out of curiosity if I were to move to the Netherlands - and my marginal tax rate would have increased a whopping 7%. I would have saved more than that in health care related expenses, so it was more or less a wash with that included. People that say the US is low taxed are simply not paying attention. I pay comparable "all in" taxes as my Canadian co-workers.
- Nition 10y ago
  In New Zealand we have free public healthcare, education subsidies (though tertiary education is not free), and a top tax rate of 33%, while we still make most of our money from primary industries like beef, dairy and wood[1]. Public healthcare allows us to have a huge single buyer for our pharmaceuticals - Pharmac[2] - which brings a lot of power to negotiate good deals. It might not be reasonable for the US to become like the Nordic countries, but things could certainly be better. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/2014_New_Zealand_Products_Export_Treemap.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/2014_New... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Things can be made better in a way that's consistent with American principles of merit and competition. That's what Trump represents -- a return to the pre-Bush style of government that put reasonable economic restrictions in place and tried to provide an even playing field for everyone without introducing artificial government dependence. GHWB and Bill Clinton sold this country into servitude for the elite by allowing them to freely export their labor overseas where it costs less than a dollar per hour. GWB and Obama continued that. That's 28 years of policy that have seriously exacerbated the economic condition of the average American while the fat cats at the top have gotten ever-richer. Trump wants to make sure American money is used to help and employ Americans. That's good! There's no reason that all the money has to go overseas.
lerpa 10y ago
If people are so generous over there, why the need to put that burden to government and instead make funds so people can use what they need, and if a fund goes into corrupt hands you can always create a new one and vote with your wallet.
droidist2 10y ago
It helps when someone else is picking up the bigger ticket items like a national defense.
- lintiness 10y ago
  and healthcare r&d.
fredgrott 10y ago
Yes, BUT these small countries do not pay the heavy Global Police tax to keep the world safe for example from Terrorism..we DO! Thus its not the same thing fits both small and big countries..
- zond 10y ago
  Yeah, this is a chicken and egg problem. The US causes terrorism by steam rolling third world countries, but more or less has to do it now since these third world countries already hate the US enough to require this kind of policing.
woodpanel 10y ago
Whenever someone tells me about the "nordic blessings" I tell them to "junte" the "law" up. Smaller, more homogenic countries compare badly to more populated heterogenic ones. Also: norway's oil example holds up since the once poorer than Swedes Norse outperformed the Swedes because of this. 1-2 generations earlier, "nordicly blessed" Norse were the house maids and guest workers for the Swedes. Nowadays it's Swedish students doing Norway's dishes. Also Sweden maybe high rated in terms of social mobility, but only until the highest income percentiles are reached. Above that it's way way harder to reach compared to other first world countries. So while you can climb up more easily than normal the social latter, it's steps mean less than normal and you'll almost never make it into Sweden's 1%. A category that is the most open in the US of A.
- zond 10y ago
  Because in the US of A it is so very easy.
  - woodpanel 10y ago
    Of course not easy. But doable compared to Sweden. You have to look at the statistics. The top Swedish percentile is made up more than normal of inherited wealth (48% in Sweden, 12% in the US). The US doesn't have a Wallenberg family that owns 42% of the country's stocks.
    - zond 10y ago
      Of course you're right, but it doesn't mean anything. It's like saying that you should buy people lottery tickets instead of healthcare. I once heard that the US citizens most vehemently against raising taxes for the rich were the homeless, because they didn't want THEIR taxes raised once THEY became rich.
victor106 10y ago
Once the population is "well educated" they will start to ask intelligent questions which will then prevent them for voting for someone like Trump (or most republicans in general). So it's in his/their best interest to keep them uneducated.

by zond 10y ago

pc86 10y ago

You've also got a top marginal personal income tax rate approaching 60% which is nearly twice that of the US and political suicide. I'm not making a judgment for or against high marginal taxes, I'm just saying "the US could do it too" ignores, well... the very core of economic and tax policy in the US.

zond 10y ago
So now you leave the realm of economical possibilities and start pointing at political problems. Isn't that a little too simple? "No, we can't do that because we don't want to."
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Well, it's important to engage the political realities. Doesn't make it impossible, but a hybrid proposal or smaller first step might be more practical, given the politics.
  - flavmartins 10y ago
    Hybrid proposal is the real solution. Yes, in the US, the taxation of the Nordic countries won't work and the socialist approach to services is also not accepted by half of the country. Two key ideas, however, could be implemented: --- IDEA 1 - REALLY EDUCATE people on WHY they need to get new vocational training. Currently too many people are being given false promises of the return of working class jobs that are not coming back. It's not just globalization that has caused the loss of these jobs, but also technology advances that have made many of these jobs obsolete. Your blue collar worker today isn't going to get a job moving metal equipment from one place to another because a machine can do it much more efficiently 24/7. Our capitalistic society means that a corporation will seek to create maximum efficiency to generate maximum profit. Corporations aren't in the business of maximizing the number of employees, but rather maximizing the return per resources invested in the organization. And that means, excuse my somewhat callous statement, that people are viewed as resources to the organizations, a means to generating profit. If a machine is able to perform a function faster, longer, for less overall money than an employee, a corporation will seek for that alternative. So when many politicians make promises of bringing back good jobs. They AREN'T telling people WHAT JOBS are coming back. In fact, when you look at manufacturing jobs in the US, we currently CAN'T FILL THEM. The problem is that your blue collar worker still expects a manual, low skill manufacturing job. But the job the US corporation wants is a manufacturing person who has a math or CS degree who can program or operate a high-end automation machine. Who can manage the CNC process or who can input the specifications for highly detailed technical operations. This requires specific training, math, engineering, or certifications. This is the truth that more politicians need to hammer home to the people, then government follows up making sure that there is an incentive for educational institutions to allocate resources to teach these people. But today, we're still stuck in: politicians claim that it's federal government's fault that they don't have a job, and that electing them instead will magically bring these low skill jobs back. --- IDEA 2 - DECENTRALIZE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Move them out of Washington D.C. A CNN op-ed suggested this as a way to bring the Federal government closer to the people in the country. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/government-departments-should-be-spread-out-price/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/opinions/government-department...) The capital, Whitehouse, and some executive services would remain in D.C., but many of the key departments would be moved to different regions of the country. For example: -The Veterans Administration in Phoenix -The IRS in Dallas -Treasury Department in NYC -FBI in SLC -The EPA in Portland or Seattle -Department of Agriculture in Iowa and so forth. Federal government jobs move to other places around the country bringing it closer to the people so they get a more personal connection with the government since it actually supplies jobs to the people they know. It also moves these departments into locations that cost less than the high prices of the D.C. beltway. Is there some loss of more interpersonal meetings between departments and cabinets? Sure, but high speed Internet access is readily available in ALL metropolitan areas around the country. We have video conferencing technology which eliminates the need for us to have the requirement of so many in-person meetings. It's a trade-off, but one that is greatly benefiting the people of the country. And as the Federal government this is a big win because today, much of the sentiment is that the Federal government DOESN'T DO anything for me. It's a bunch of "elites" who waste time and money and the people don't see anything direct benefit. Decentralizing the location of government agencies begins to eliminate this. Just like the US National Guard has a training camp just north of the city where I live, I can't say that the national guard doesn't do anything and isn't needed. They offer a great service and employ a lot of the people in my community, the surrounding communities. The national guard members, employees, and their families all buy homes in our communities raising home values (since these are stable jobs, homes aren't sold left and right, people stay, pay taxes, leading to general growth for our communities). These people also buy goods in our stores, contributing to the local economy. All because the Army put one of their national guard training camps here instead of concentrating them at West Point in New York.
    - ep103 10y ago
      I've never heard that second idea before. That's a really good idea.
      - lb1lf 10y ago
        We (Norway) did just that a few years ago; mostly, it was a success once the dust settled. For instance, the coastal administration moved from the capital Oslo to Ålesund which is smack in the middle of a world-renowned maritime cluster; fisheries agency. moved to our #2 city (or #1 if you ask the locals) Bergen, historically the major export hub for the coastal fisheries, etc. The key benefit is that it ensures there is a need for highly skilled labour also outside the capital; also, as you mention, it provides for more closeness to government - the sectors affected by the whims of a government agency has said agency within spitting distance, which helps.
    - gshulegaard 10y ago
      I like your ideas...a lot actually. The only thing I would point out (see my comment a little further down about US budget) is that our current level of taxation supports comparable levels of spending to Nordic countries. I would guess, not doing an in depth analysis, that this is partly or even mostly due to the much larger relative size of the US GDP. And in the case of healthcare, we are flat out spending more, both in real dollars and per capita measurements, and getting less. So I view tax arguments as more or less red herrings: We already spend as much or more, instead we should ask what is wrong with our system? Changes to our systems should not require increases in our taxation (necessarily). But it's also why I really like your ideas since they are systemic in nature.
    - yellowapple 10y ago
      The second idea is also a great idea from a strategic perspective. At the risk of sounding doomsdayish, by spreading the federal government's agency headquarters around the country, it minimizes the risk of a single city-wide or even state-wide catastrophe (sea level rise, nuclear carbomb, Giant Meteor delivering on its one campaign promise, etc.) eradicating the leadership of most/all federal agencies.
    - 10y ago
- weberc2 10y ago
  What's simple about making 300 million people want the same thing?
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
Yes, that's the price you pay for civilization.
- gutnor 10y ago
  That's the price you pay maybe for civilisation. Take the other example of Belgium whose tax level is more or less equivalent but is scaling down on basically everything. People there complain that they pay a lot now, but are almost certain that when their turn come, they will not get anything. We are in a context where you can't predict the outcome of the next election a single day before, who will trust to current generation of politician with policies in 30 years ? Also, that's not just a question of egoism. I don't mind paying today so that people get unemployment benefit and a good pension. The problem is that if it goes the other way when I reach retirement age, I will neither receive the pension nor the year of tax cut to make up for it.
nugator 10y ago
It will be interesting to see how the US solves this problem without raising taxes. If it solves the problem (which i hope).
gshulegaard 10y ago
That's a red herring, just take a look at some budget breakdowns: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... The largest portion of our budget is mandatory spending (~65%). Of our mandatory spending, the largest portion of that is spent on Social Services (Social security, medicare and health, etc) and yet we still have worse services than almost any other western country (IMO). You start looking at percentages and an even more sinister picture starts to take shape: https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/ https://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/how-countries-spend-t... > "Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending." > "Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care." > "Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care." > "In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of Frances yearly budget." This article needs citation, but see this report that seems to at least tangentially support some of the trends voiced: http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-NORWAY-2014.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-NORWAY-... > "The United States is, by far, the country that spends the most on health as a share of its economy (with 16.9% of its GDP allocated to health in 2012)" So at this point we can conclude that the US spends roughly the same share, or more, of it's GDP on Health care as other countries...even those "socialist" ones...yet we have a much worse standard/level/cost of care. Even at our "lower" tax rates our GDP is by far and away the largest: https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+countries+by+GDP&oq=list+of+countries+by+GDP&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.2534j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+countries+by+GDP&oq=... But moreover, our PER CAPITA GDP is one of the highest in the world (higher than Norway and Sweden). So at the end of the day, America: * Spends more on healthcare in flat dollar terms than almost any other nation * Spends more on healthcare PER CAPITA than almost any other nation and yet we still have far worse levels of care. So this problem has nothing to do with economic or tax policy in the US. The question is: Where is the enormous sums of money we are ALREADY pouring into the system going?
- 10y ago
ckinnan 10y ago
The top US marginal tax rate is 40% and the burden quickly exceeds 50% depending on the state you live in and factoring payroll taxes.
- garyrule 10y ago
  and most folks in that tax bracket are doing things, other than paying short-term gains or regular income tax, to reduce their burden significantly.
- thebspatrol 10y ago
  Marginal tax rates mean literally nothing. Nordic countries pay significantly more in taxes any way you look at it. You'd get laughed out of the room if you talked to someone like Donald Trump about paying a 40% marginal tax rate.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  And then add on Healthcare, child-rearing, and education costs and guess what... USA Citizens pay more overall. Just not through "taxes." per -say.
CorvusCrypto 10y ago
We could anyway imo. Our "very core" of economic and tax policy is actually pretty flexible. Just look at how the markets have developed over the last several decades. Yes there will be pain, but I'd trade a little short-term pain with long-term benefit over short-term relief with long-term decline anyday. Not to say Scandinavia has the best of everything, but regardless... Jag skulle vilja bo i skandinavien istället USA
- fapjacks 10y ago
  Marrying a Swede is unquestionably the best thing I ever did.
kbenson 10y ago
> I'm just saying "the US could do it too" ignores, well... the very core of economic and tax policy in the US. Hardly. It was the core of the tax policy for a very long time.[1] 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_...
- pc86 10y ago
  And isn't anymore. If you want to argue that it should be, I'll listen to that, but you can't just throw out a link to graph about tax rates 50+ years ago and think that settles it and the US can be just like Norway.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > And isn't anymore. But it was, not not too long ago. 35 years ago it was 50%. 40 years ago it was 70%. Just saying it ignores the core of economic and tax policy in the US ignores, well... the the recent history of the economic and tax policy of the US. Rather than a rank dismissal of the idea, why not explain what's so different than now from then that makes it impossible? > you can't just throw out a link to graph about tax rates 50+ years ago and think that settles it and the US can be just like Norway. I didn't. I just meant to show that your reason for dismissing it seems poorly founded, or at least poorly explained.
    - PopsiclePete 10y ago
      70 decades ago, if I were a billionaire, I'd have no choice but to stay in the US and pay that tax rate. Europe is rebuilding from a war, Asia is an agrarian back-water and South America is about to start experimenting with Communism. Yeah, where am I going to run to, Mars? Now it's different. I'll be laughing with my other billionaire buddies about your tax rate plans while snorting coke of a hooker's tits on my private yacht and watching the Monaco F1 GP from the harbor. I've got all the luxuries I need over there, and in fact, everywhere, that I previously could only enjoy in the US. I can talk with who I need to talk to over Skype, I can do my business, banking, everything, remotely. It's not like other countries don't have equal or better infrastructure. It's not like I can get clean water and food only in the US that would somehow make this a magical place I'd never leave. So why would I just sit quietly and let you tax me at 90%, exactly?
serge2k 10y ago
And responses like this are why he US has these problems. Dismissing solutions as too hard or those won't for us.
prasadjoglekar 10y ago
"You've also got a top marginal personal income tax rate approaching 60% which is nearly twice that of the US and political suicide." That's only true if you count Federal Income Taxes alone. By the time you're done with Social Security, Medicare, state and city taxes (esp in NY, CA), the top marginal tax rate here approaches 50%.
- phil21 10y ago
  Everyone ignores this when talking about taxes. I had an accountant do the math for me out of curiosity if I were to move to the Netherlands - and my marginal tax rate would have increased a whopping 7%. I would have saved more than that in health care related expenses, so it was more or less a wash with that included. People that say the US is low taxed are simply not paying attention. I pay comparable "all in" taxes as my Canadian co-workers.
Nition 10y ago
In New Zealand we have free public healthcare, education subsidies (though tertiary education is not free), and a top tax rate of 33%, while we still make most of our money from primary industries like beef, dairy and wood[1]. Public healthcare allows us to have a huge single buyer for our pharmaceuticals - Pharmac[2] - which brings a lot of power to negotiate good deals. It might not be reasonable for the US to become like the Nordic countries, but things could certainly be better. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/2014_New_Zealand_Products_Export_Treemap.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/2014_New... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmac
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Things can be made better in a way that's consistent with American principles of merit and competition. That's what Trump represents -- a return to the pre-Bush style of government that put reasonable economic restrictions in place and tried to provide an even playing field for everyone without introducing artificial government dependence. GHWB and Bill Clinton sold this country into servitude for the elite by allowing them to freely export their labor overseas where it costs less than a dollar per hour. GWB and Obama continued that. That's 28 years of policy that have seriously exacerbated the economic condition of the average American while the fat cats at the top have gotten ever-richer. Trump wants to make sure American money is used to help and employ Americans. That's good! There's no reason that all the money has to go overseas.

lerpa 10y ago

If people are so generous over there, why the need to put that burden to government and instead make funds so people can use what they need, and if a fund goes into corrupt hands you can always create a new one and vote with your wallet.

droidist2 10y ago

It helps when someone else is picking up the bigger ticket items like a national defense.

lintiness 10y ago
and healthcare r&d.

fredgrott 10y ago

Yes, BUT these small countries do not pay the heavy Global Police tax to keep the world safe for example from Terrorism..we DO! Thus its not the same thing fits both small and big countries..

zond 10y ago
Yeah, this is a chicken and egg problem. The US causes terrorism by steam rolling third world countries, but more or less has to do it now since these third world countries already hate the US enough to require this kind of policing.

woodpanel 10y ago

Whenever someone tells me about the "nordic blessings" I tell them to "junte" the "law" up. Smaller, more homogenic countries compare badly to more populated heterogenic ones. Also: norway's oil example holds up since the once poorer than Swedes Norse outperformed the Swedes because of this. 1-2 generations earlier, "nordicly blessed" Norse were the house maids and guest workers for the Swedes. Nowadays it's Swedish students doing Norway's dishes. Also Sweden maybe high rated in terms of social mobility, but only until the highest income percentiles are reached. Above that it's way way harder to reach compared to other first world countries. So while you can climb up more easily than normal the social latter, it's steps mean less than normal and you'll almost never make it into Sweden's 1%. A category that is the most open in the US of A.

zond 10y ago
Because in the US of A it is so very easy.
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Of course not easy. But doable compared to Sweden. You have to look at the statistics. The top Swedish percentile is made up more than normal of inherited wealth (48% in Sweden, 12% in the US). The US doesn't have a Wallenberg family that owns 42% of the country's stocks.
  - zond 10y ago
    Of course you're right, but it doesn't mean anything. It's like saying that you should buy people lottery tickets instead of healthcare. I once heard that the US citizens most vehemently against raising taxes for the rich were the homeless, because they didn't want THEIR taxes raised once THEY became rich.

victor106 10y ago

Once the population is "well educated" they will start to ask intelligent questions which will then prevent them for voting for someone like Trump (or most republicans in general). So it's in his/their best interest to keep them uneducated.