4 ms·
I think the argument is that those countries prove the policies work and are affordable and cost-effective. Whether or not Americans can support those policies
by countrybama24 9y ago
I think the argument is that those countries prove the policies work and are affordable and cost-effective. Whether or not Americans can support those policies in light of their skepticism towards government, individualism, and a particular political strategy used historically to court southern voters is a good question - but one that doesnt necessarily disprove the benefits of greater spending on social programs in the United States per se.
- rayiner 9y agoThe Scandinavian model is much more than just "greater spending on social programs." Sweden and Denmark outrank the U.S. in the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index: https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking. Their tax system is very flat, with the top marginal rates kicking in at just 1.2-1.6x the average income: https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-the.... The top 10% in Sweden make 25% of the total income and pay 25% of the total taxes, while in the U.S. they make 33% of the total income and pay 45% of total taxes. Their corporate tax rates are around what the U.S.'s will be under the Trump tax plan. They're also highly deregulatory. Denmark just got rid of its version of the FCC: http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/04/deregulate-the-fcc http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/04/deregulate-the-fcc. Sweden's approach to building fiber in rural areas is a simple tax rebate of up to $600 for rural folks who choose to have a fiber line built. There's serious discussion in Sweden of things like water privatization. So the challenge to implementing the "Scandinavian model" isn't just our "southern voters," who oppose more social spending, but also our "San Francisco voters," who insist on a narrow tax base bankrolling that broad social spending, more government intervention, etc. And ultimately, it comes down to lack of trust. Americans don't trust each other, probably with good reason. Take abortion, for example. In Denmark, like most western European countries, abortion is only permitted up to 12 weeks absent special circumstances. And parental consent is required for minors. In Sweden it's 22 weeks, which is an outlier for Europe. In the U.S., 12 weeks with parental consent would probably be unconstitutional. Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, etc., match Sweden at 22 weeks, and most blue states are at 24-26 weeks. But in Scandinavia, there is some level of consensus, and abortions are readily available to women under 12 weeks. Even in "blue states," while one side has managed to wrangle 51% of the votes and get a 24-week deadline, the other side has managed to erect roadblocks like restrictions on abortion clinics, which make it very difficult for women to actually get an abortion when they're legally permitted to do so. We're a fragmented and distrustful society that doesn't trust each other, and our stalemates often leave us with the "worst of both worlds."
- jahaja 9y agoRegarding taxes: In Sweden this is a rather recent change pushed through by right-wing parties. This wasn't the case when the foundations of social-democracy was set.
- ytoi 9y agoWhat do you mean? As far as I know the major tax reform by the right-wing parties was the "work tax deduction" which makes taxes less flat. (The deduction is capped at roughly median income). Top marginal rates have been largely the same since the mid '90s.
- jahaja 9y agoSince mid '90s is "rather recent" for me in this domain. I'm talking about the significantly reduced tax burden for the wealthy and corporations due to various tax cuts and abolishments.