4 ms·

Don't feel too guilty about it, we pay our taxes and are proud of it. It's their own choosing, they have three major political parties that are all right wing

by tinco 13y ago

Don't feel too guilty about it, we pay our taxes and are proud of it. It's their own choosing, they have three major political parties that are all right wing (reps, dems, libs). If a political leader even hints at raising taxes the only valid excuse for it would be to go to war. They despise caring for your citizens so much, they made a slur out of the word 'social'. I'm sorry for making such harsh generalisations about the U.S. folk, but from a European standpoint U.S. anti-social culture is just so outlandish.

steego 13y ago
Two parties. (Dems = libs)
- lylejohnson 13y ago
  He may have been referring to "libertarians" and not "liberals", but I'm not sure it really affects the GP post's point.
- ap22213 13y ago
  I think he means libertarians, maybe?
  - tinco 13y ago
    I do yes :)
    - doyoulikeworms 13y ago
      While they're the third largest party, they are by no means major. That said, libertarians of various stripes are represented in both parties. Our democratic system is flawed and invariably leads to just two major parties.
BugBrother 13y ago
USA has 300 million people, the problems to organize a society does not increase linearly with the population size. I doubt the Scandinavian solutions work even in Scandinavia, long term! It is typically Swedish to judge that different places by your own irrelevant standards.
- tinco 13y ago
  You say that, even though the U.S. is actually composed of 50 largely self-governing states, most of which are within the scale size of a scandinavian country. Just assuming a more social system wouldn't work just because the U.S. is larger seems rather speculative to me. Have they tried, and did they fail? I am also not swedish :P
  - BugBrother 13y ago
    Every country has different levels of organization. (And I am Swedish.)
  - bmj 13y ago
    You say that, even though the U.S. is actually composed of 50 largely self-governing states, most of which are within the scale size of a scandinavian country. True, but not are as populous as a Scandinavian country. Additionally, it would take a massive (massive!) restructuring of the tax code across the federal, state, and local levels to allow the states to increases taxes enough to provide sufficient services on their own. The federal government would also need to cede a fair of power to the states (think education, health care, social services). I'm not necessarily suggesting this is a bad idea--there are just considerable obstacles to implement such a policy shift.
  - doyoulikeworms 13y ago
    > You say that, even though the U.S. is actually composed of 50 largely self-governing states Each war and crisis has ratcheted up centralized power, typically by way of granting war time powers that never seem to completely fade away. To help illustrate, money is an important proxy to government power, and the federal government spends roughly twice that of all state governments combined ($3.8T vs $2T). > Have they tried, and did they fail? The federal government has welfare programs that can be augmented by the states. California, for example, does this with food stamps (SNAP to CalFresh), health care for the poor (Medicaid to MediCal), and welfare for families (TANF to CalWORKS). To fund these, among other services (e.g., the University of California system), California has the highest state income tax in the nation (topping out at 13.3% for those earning over $1M). I imagine that some states do not go much beyond the minimal federal programs. For example, starting in 2014, Medicaid (health care for the poor) was expanded to cover those earning under 138% of the poverty line (a perfect example of the confusing way in which assistance is determined). Many states chose not to expand Medicaid, so they will not receive additional federal funding for the program. States that did, however, will. On the health care front, some states have attempted to introduce universal health care. California successfully passed a bill, only to be vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Only two successful instances come to mind: Vermont and Massachusetts. Vermont passed a single-payer universal health care system in 2011. Unfortunately, I am ignorant of details on its implementation. Massachusetts has "RomneyCare," which has since been augmented to strongly resemble (in my eyes) the Swiss health care scheme. Insurance is mandatory, but coverage cannot be denied. Private insurance is subsidized by government. Health care costs are heavily regulated.
doyoulikeworms 13y ago
IMO, "social" is a slur due to Cold War baggage. I think that it's unfair to say that we despise caring for our citizens. We're just really bad at it. We have old age retirement (Social Security; for workers), disability insurance (SSDI; for workers), welfare (TANF; for families), food stamps (SNAP), universal healthcare for the aged (Medicare; 65+), healthcare for the poor (Medicaid), subsidized housing, unemployment benefits, and so on. Much of the aid is temporary. All in all, it's a confusing, rickety system with different rules for different localities. Much of our social spending is devised to be "means tested," so it's confusing as hell to determine what kind of help you can expect based on your income, family size, state, city, etc... It's a mess. Things are improving on the health care front, thankfully. Though, not all states chose to go through with Medicaid expansion. That said, you have certainly painted some truth with your broad brush. As I understand it, many European systems are tilted towards higher taxes, lower economic growth, and more social welfare spending. America's system is tilted towards lower taxes, higher economic growth, and lower social welfare spending. For us, things like social welfare fall by the wayside. From my American perspective, things like economic growth tend to fall by the wayside on your continent (unless you're Norway, blessed with fossil fuels).
treerock 13y ago
I found this an interesting article on various tax rates, and the US is surprisingly high[1]. Difficult to compare countries, but (unless you've got kids) the tax you pay in the US is pretty average. And if you are a high earner, it seems you'd be better off in Germany or China. [1]:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26327114 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26327114 * What's with the tax breaks for having a couple of kids, are the government really keen for Americans to breed?
TheCoelacanth 13y ago
Libertarians aren't a major party. There are a lot of people in the Republican party who call themselves libertarians, but the actual Libertarian party is extremely minor.

by tinco 13y ago

steego 13y ago

Two parties. (Dems = libs)

lylejohnson 13y ago
He may have been referring to "libertarians" and not "liberals", but I'm not sure it really affects the GP post's point.
ap22213 13y ago
I think he means libertarians, maybe?
- tinco 13y ago
  I do yes :)
  - doyoulikeworms 13y ago
    While they're the third largest party, they are by no means major. That said, libertarians of various stripes are represented in both parties. Our democratic system is flawed and invariably leads to just two major parties.

BugBrother 13y ago

USA has 300 million people, the problems to organize a society does not increase linearly with the population size. I doubt the Scandinavian solutions work even in Scandinavia, long term! It is typically Swedish to judge that different places by your own irrelevant standards.

tinco 13y ago
You say that, even though the U.S. is actually composed of 50 largely self-governing states, most of which are within the scale size of a scandinavian country. Just assuming a more social system wouldn't work just because the U.S. is larger seems rather speculative to me. Have they tried, and did they fail? I am also not swedish :P
- BugBrother 13y ago
  Every country has different levels of organization. (And I am Swedish.)
- bmj 13y ago
  You say that, even though the U.S. is actually composed of 50 largely self-governing states, most of which are within the scale size of a scandinavian country. True, but not are as populous as a Scandinavian country. Additionally, it would take a massive (massive!) restructuring of the tax code across the federal, state, and local levels to allow the states to increases taxes enough to provide sufficient services on their own. The federal government would also need to cede a fair of power to the states (think education, health care, social services). I'm not necessarily suggesting this is a bad idea--there are just considerable obstacles to implement such a policy shift.
- doyoulikeworms 13y ago
  > You say that, even though the U.S. is actually composed of 50 largely self-governing states Each war and crisis has ratcheted up centralized power, typically by way of granting war time powers that never seem to completely fade away. To help illustrate, money is an important proxy to government power, and the federal government spends roughly twice that of all state governments combined ($3.8T vs $2T). > Have they tried, and did they fail? The federal government has welfare programs that can be augmented by the states. California, for example, does this with food stamps (SNAP to CalFresh), health care for the poor (Medicaid to MediCal), and welfare for families (TANF to CalWORKS). To fund these, among other services (e.g., the University of California system), California has the highest state income tax in the nation (topping out at 13.3% for those earning over $1M). I imagine that some states do not go much beyond the minimal federal programs. For example, starting in 2014, Medicaid (health care for the poor) was expanded to cover those earning under 138% of the poverty line (a perfect example of the confusing way in which assistance is determined). Many states chose not to expand Medicaid, so they will not receive additional federal funding for the program. States that did, however, will. On the health care front, some states have attempted to introduce universal health care. California successfully passed a bill, only to be vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Only two successful instances come to mind: Vermont and Massachusetts. Vermont passed a single-payer universal health care system in 2011. Unfortunately, I am ignorant of details on its implementation. Massachusetts has "RomneyCare," which has since been augmented to strongly resemble (in my eyes) the Swiss health care scheme. Insurance is mandatory, but coverage cannot be denied. Private insurance is subsidized by government. Health care costs are heavily regulated.

doyoulikeworms 13y ago

IMO, "social" is a slur due to Cold War baggage. I think that it's unfair to say that we despise caring for our citizens. We're just really bad at it. We have old age retirement (Social Security; for workers), disability insurance (SSDI; for workers), welfare (TANF; for families), food stamps (SNAP), universal healthcare for the aged (Medicare; 65+), healthcare for the poor (Medicaid), subsidized housing, unemployment benefits, and so on. Much of the aid is temporary. All in all, it's a confusing, rickety system with different rules for different localities. Much of our social spending is devised to be "means tested," so it's confusing as hell to determine what kind of help you can expect based on your income, family size, state, city, etc... It's a mess. Things are improving on the health care front, thankfully. Though, not all states chose to go through with Medicaid expansion. That said, you have certainly painted some truth with your broad brush. As I understand it, many European systems are tilted towards higher taxes, lower economic growth, and more social welfare spending. America's system is tilted towards lower taxes, higher economic growth, and lower social welfare spending. For us, things like social welfare fall by the wayside. From my American perspective, things like economic growth tend to fall by the wayside on your continent (unless you're Norway, blessed with fossil fuels).

treerock 13y ago

I found this an interesting article on various tax rates, and the US is surprisingly high[1]. Difficult to compare countries, but (unless you've got kids) the tax you pay in the US is pretty average. And if you are a high earner, it seems you'd be better off in Germany or China. [1]:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26327114 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26327114 * What's with the tax breaks for having a couple of kids, are the government really keen for Americans to breed?

TheCoelacanth 13y ago

Libertarians aren't a major party. There are a lot of people in the Republican party who call themselves libertarians, but the actual Libertarian party is extremely minor.