6 ms·

> Norwegians now have a sense of entitlement. You say that like it's a bad thing. One could say that us Americans have a "sense of entitlement" about things li

> Norwegians now have a sense of entitlement. You say that like it's a bad thing. One could say that us Americans have a "sense of entitlement" about things like clean drinking water, functioning emergency services, and a publicly-funded education system; alternatively, one could just as easily say that we have a set of baseline expectations about the sorts of things that a modern society is supposed to provide to its citizens (in exchange for taxes, etc.). It sounds like Norwegians have a different idea of where that baseline should be. > It all depends on what you want. If you want an easier start, but have your overall potential income limited, start a company in Norway. If you want a riskier start, with less limits in the long-run, start your company in the US. OK, fair enough, but again- remember why it is that you care one way or the other about how big your "overall potential income" is. There comes a point where you've got enough to live luxuriously, have all your material wants satisfied, and basically do whatever you want on a day-to-day basis- is there a point to accumulating more than that? From the article, and from what other posters on this thread have said, it sure sounds like the "limited" potential income level in Norway is still quite high, by any rational standard, so what does it matter? After five or six million dollars per year, would an increase actually impact your life in a noticeable way? By the way, I'm speaking from a strictly pragmatic standpoint here, not an idealogical one- some people see this as a moral issue, and that's not where I'm going here. I'm basically saying, "if my income is X millions of dollars, why do I care if the government takes half of that and I only have .5X?" Especially since I know that, by giving up that money, I'm ensuring that my neighbors and employees don't have to worry about medical costs and will be able to retire comfortably? Past a certain point, can you really spend more? And if you do, will it make you happy? Of course, I should point out that this is all very easy for me to say, seeing as I never have and probably never will earn enough to face this question personally. Maybe I'd feel differently if I were rich, who knows.

jarek 16y ago
> I'm basically saying, "if my income is X millions of dollars, why do I care if the government takes half of that and I only have .5X?" As I understand it, he fundamentally believes he should be the one making the decision what to do with X dollars he earns -- including potentially distributing it as charity -- rather than a government. I don't agree with this position, but it's fairly consistent.
rick888 16y ago
"You say that like it's a bad thing. One could say that us Americans have a "sense of entitlement" about things like clean drinking water, functioning emergency services, and a publicly-funded education system; alternatively, one could just as easily say that we have a set of baseline expectations about the sorts of things that a modern society is supposed to provide to its citizens (in exchange for taxes, etc.)." Having basics is a good thing (clean drinking water, police/fire). Too many of these things means there is less freedom for the people putting money into the system and less incentive for the people utilizing these services to get a job. There needs to be a balance. Too little or too much is a bad thing. "OK, fair enough, but again- remember why it is that you care one way or the other about how big your "overall potential income" is. There comes a point where you've got enough to live luxuriously, have all your material wants satisfied, and basically do whatever you want on a day-to-day basis- is there a point to accumulating more than that?" Like I said, it's not just me. With more money, I can help friends, family, and anyone else I choose. I don't want the government deciding what do do with my money. I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding. "From the article, and from what other posters on this thread have said, it sure sounds like the "limited" potential income level in Norway is still quite high, by any rational standard, so what does it matter? After five or six million dollars per year, would an increase actually impact your life in a noticeable way?" Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore. If I am limited to this, I probably would just keep the money in a bank. Otherwise, I might try to invest in other businesses and or start another one. One leads to more jobs and an improved economy and the other doesn't. "Especially since I know that, by giving up that money, I'm ensuring that my neighbors and employees don't have to worry about medical costs and will be able to retire comfortably? Past a certain point, can you really spend more? And if you do, will it make you happy?" The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer. You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you. Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea. I also think that people that engage in risky behaviors (smoking, drug use, etc) should have more money taken out in taxes. It's not really fair that I, a person that doesn't engage in that behavior, has to pay for your poor life choices.

jarek 16y ago

> I'm basically saying, "if my income is X millions of dollars, why do I care if the government takes half of that and I only have .5X?" As I understand it, he fundamentally believes he should be the one making the decision what to do with X dollars he earns -- including potentially distributing it as charity -- rather than a government. I don't agree with this position, but it's fairly consistent.

rick888 16y ago

"You say that like it's a bad thing. One could say that us Americans have a "sense of entitlement" about things like clean drinking water, functioning emergency services, and a publicly-funded education system; alternatively, one could just as easily say that we have a set of baseline expectations about the sorts of things that a modern society is supposed to provide to its citizens (in exchange for taxes, etc.)." Having basics is a good thing (clean drinking water, police/fire). Too many of these things means there is less freedom for the people putting money into the system and less incentive for the people utilizing these services to get a job. There needs to be a balance. Too little or too much is a bad thing. "OK, fair enough, but again- remember why it is that you care one way or the other about how big your "overall potential income" is. There comes a point where you've got enough to live luxuriously, have all your material wants satisfied, and basically do whatever you want on a day-to-day basis- is there a point to accumulating more than that?" Like I said, it's not just me. With more money, I can help friends, family, and anyone else I choose. I don't want the government deciding what do do with my money. I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding. "From the article, and from what other posters on this thread have said, it sure sounds like the "limited" potential income level in Norway is still quite high, by any rational standard, so what does it matter? After five or six million dollars per year, would an increase actually impact your life in a noticeable way?" Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore. If I am limited to this, I probably would just keep the money in a bank. Otherwise, I might try to invest in other businesses and or start another one. One leads to more jobs and an improved economy and the other doesn't. "Especially since I know that, by giving up that money, I'm ensuring that my neighbors and employees don't have to worry about medical costs and will be able to retire comfortably? Past a certain point, can you really spend more? And if you do, will it make you happy?" The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer. You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you. Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea. I also think that people that engage in risky behaviors (smoking, drug use, etc) should have more money taken out in taxes. It's not really fair that I, a person that doesn't engage in that behavior, has to pay for your poor life choices.