• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the Nordic model for the US?

Do you support the Nordic model along with the huge tax increases necessary to provide it?

  • Total voters
    52
aociswundumho said:
The Nordic model provides free healthcare, education, childcare, and more, but it comes at a very steep price compared to what we pay now:
Click to expand...
The Nordic countries consistently rank as the happiest countries in the world in the annual World Happiness Report, most usually appear in the top 10; the US does not.
 
Denmark ?

Civilians cannot own semi-automatic firearms and handguns require special authorization
People have been arrested and charged in Denmark for online posts - so much for freedom of speech huh ?
Denmark has a high rate of drug-induced deaths compared to the European average, often linked to opioids and the co-ingestion of multiple substances, including alcohol.

As of 2025, Denmark's income tax system is progressive and includes several components, such as a state tax, municipal tax, and an 8% labor market contribution (AM-bidrag). The combined top marginal tax rate is approximately 55.9%

Problems in Denmark's healthcare system include long waiting times for certain treatments, fragmentation due to its decentralized structure, challenges in recruiting and retaining healthcare staff, and ongoing issues with coordination between regions and municipalities. While the system provides universal and high-quality care, challenges persist, especially in areas like mental health, elective surgeries, and ensuring seamless care transitions.






no thank you
 
Gaius46 said:
I agree. The way we do high school in the US needs serious rethinking.
Click to expand...
I would make one very simple proposal. Politicians and their staffs would be required to send their children to the public schools in the districts they represent.

The funny part of this is I got the idea from the Nordic countries where it’s sport for the journalists to publicly lambast politicians who send their kids to private schools. But, I would make it law.
 
One thing that always confuses me about this discussion--i.e. that the wealthy will just leave the country if we raise taxes--is that we have the power to levy an exit tax. If I were just put in charge, I'd raise taxes on the uber-wealthy, but make the exit tax severe--approaching 100% of wealth. They can leave...they'll just lose everything doing so. Otherwise, they can stay and still be fabulously wealthy, just not quite to the level they've been used to.
 

Why not just put them in a concentration camp and expropriate everything they own? That's what people who think like you end up doing anyway.
 
Bighorn66 said:
Yeah, another example of a Progressive not liking science.
Click to expand...
What cultish response.

You never commented on the math I showed you. But again you probably don’t like being proven wrong.
 

I am well aware of our horrendous obesity rates. But much of that is because we let food production companies get away with doing things like putting high fructose corn syrup in everything they can. So many of our most pressing health problems could be mitigated or simply prevented by just outlawing such practices.
 
I would rather tax fat people.
 
NJBob said:
What cultish response.

You never commented on the math I showed you. But again you probably don’t like being proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn’t comment because I missed it in the avalanche of useless responses. Thanks for posting something meaningful. I’ll do some research on it as it is a very interesting subject.
 
Bighorn66 said:
I didn’t comment because I missed it in the avalanche of useless responses. Thanks for posting something meaningful. I’ll do some research on it as it is a very interesting subject.
Click to expand...
I thought you were blowing it off, apologies.
 
I
Bighorn66 said:
I would rather tax fat people.
Click to expand...

I would rather stop companies from poisoning us and making it easier for us to get fat.

Then, if all our food is made less unhealthy but someone manages to be an utter glutton and get fat, you can put a fat tax in place.
 
aociswundumho said:
Why not just put them in a concentration camp and expropriate everything they own? That's what people who think like you end up doing anyway.
Click to expand...
There's a reason that slippery slope is a fallacy...we can take a position at a certain point along a spectrum without going all the way to the extreme of that spectrum. There's no reason that what I suggested would necessarily devolve into a holocaust against the wealthy.

To answer your question, however: in my experience consulting with some of the wealthy and uber-wealthy...some of them might well deserve the concentration camp treatment--I suppose I'll say that in one case I can think of, even you might be likely to agree if you were to find out how that guy made his fortune. But I don't think such action would be necessary in general, and speaking on the same level (i.e. in general) I would prefer not to imprison someone if the same result can be gotten some other way.
 
Never ever say never.

Just one example why . . .

In the 1930s Roosevelts push to pass the first Social Security Act was met with fierce opposition by Republicans and conservative Democrats. They, along with the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, denounced the program as an attempt to Sovietize the country and impose a socialistic tax. They lost the argument and Congress more or less in both houses passed the bill with a bipartisan vote. Then, over the decades since, a program intended to supplement pensions and personal savings for retirees gradually expanded to become the primary retirement plan for many Americans.

As far as our government convincing us we live in the best country in the world, the reverse is actually true. The national zeitgeist has until quite recently been based upon individualism and individual achievement. National government rules and regulations were seen as an intrusion upon and an impediment to the individual's right to be left alone. That intrinsic belief has certainly changed over the centuries, has it not?

Over time everything changes. What is unknowable is the form it will take and how long it lasts before it transitions into something else.
 

We seem to be incrementally moving towards more folks having public medical care insurance. Those covered by Medicare, Medicaid and/or VA/TRICARE was 36.3% in 2023, which is up (by about 50%) from 24.2% in 2000. Of course, that doesn’t count those (about 13M) with ACA federally subsidized ‘private’ medical care insurance plans.
 
Allan said:
Up taxes on the wealthy and corporations to fund it.
Click to expand...
This. Also, the Canadian model, the Australian one, the British, French, etc. take the bits that work from all of these. America is a larger, federalised union, so it won’t be one size fits all.

But the current system is inegalitarian and economically, holds the country back by deliberately locking in a large, disadvantaged underclass. Some elements of socialism are needed or a country just ends up like Nigeria.
 

You have an insane road network where people can't walk anywhere.
Simply crossing the street is a huge hastle and many places have zero sidewalks.

The US is built for the car and the car alone and it'll come back to bite you in the srae soon enough.
One of the main reasons Europeans are on average fitter is simply because we can walk to the town for a small shoping trip and don't need the car.
Kids can also walk to school without fearing for their lives.

US urban planning is a disaster and having single ocupancy housing with zero shops or services within that zone is bloody stupid.
No UK town or city looks anything like an American town or city because they're designed so you don't need a car just for basic survival.
I have a supermarket at the end of my road for example and I work just a 30 minute walk away.
 
aociswundumho said:
Norway sells about 1.6 million barrels per day of crude oil. Perhaps you can explain how profiting from dirty fossil fuel is consistent with "climate policy" and Gaia worship.
Click to expand...

Norway uses the profits from oil in a completely different way than the UK and US.
They put much of the profit into a national pension fund and have limited the money the government can access now.

Even after the oil runs out that fund will still be paying out handsomely as it's one of the largest funds in the world.

Government Pension Fund of Norway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
Bighorn66 said:
It’s well-documented that Progressives are unhappier than conservatives.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?
Republicans only know about being the victim and claiming they're the most persicuted people in history.

They don't want people to be happy they want everyone to work themselves to death for the benefit of the billionaire class who they think are just better people.
Not wanting to work constantly is a sure sign of being a communist for them and having a work life ballance is for wimps and losers.

Just look at Trump, he's the President and yet he looks like he's never had a happy day in his entire life and acts like a spoiled toddler.
 

I agree with above.
But we haven't had a war or two to give our cities an opportunity to redesign their infrastructure.

In addition, again, as I said. We have strong property ownership rights and too many cooks when it comes to a major project.
 
L88 said:
I agree with above.
But we haven't had a war or two to give our cities an opportunity to redesign their infrastructure.

In addition, again, as I said. We have strong property ownership rights and too many cooks when it comes to a major project.
Click to expand...

Only a few UK cities were given the rapid redesign treatment by the Germans.
UK planning law doesn't allow US style towns and cities as we have rules like everyone needs to be within walking distance of a pharmacy and a basic shop.
We don't have single ocupancy areas as we just don't have the space even if we wanted them, which we don't.

Even when we did need to rebuild London we stuck with the Roman street layouts because that's just what we do.
It's one of the reasons London has so many oddly styled skyscrappers rather than just boring square towers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…