Do you support the Nordic model for the US?

[Hari Seldon]

A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’

Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’

Apparently it needs to be said, but America obviously deals with a multitude of demographic, geographic, and geopolitical hurdles and responsibilities which largely irrelevant countries like Denmark don't need to deal with. The concept of applying the Nordic model to America is functionally as retarded as saying since America has oil and Qatar has oil, and Qatar subsidizes its population with oil money, we ought to subsidize our population with oil money!

Alaska subsidizes it's citizens from oil money.

 

[Individual]

The Nordic model provides free healthcare, education, childcare, and more, but it comes at a very steep price compared to what we pay now:

View attachment 67593599

If you want the Nordic model, no matter where you are on the economic ladder, you will bend over for the tax man and no lubrication will be provided. All of the Nordic countries have a 25% VAT, they all tax the shit out of gasoline, diesel, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Norway is a petro-state, and gas is $8 per gallon there because of taxes. In Denmark, to register a $20,000 car, there is an 85% tax. A $40,000 car gets hit with a 150% tax. That's why you see pictures of miserable Danes riding their bikes in the rain and snow.

View attachment 67593604

This one is from Gemini:

View attachment 67593605

And their budget deficit each year?
The simplest solution for the U.S. would be the addition of a surtax to the Federal income tax form applied to ALL taxpayers, though a more rational solution would be a complete rewrite of the tax code, taxing gross income with NO deductions at all. Most every FY would then be deficit free, much like what Denmark experiences with Federal debt reduction in most FY's, AND a reduced need of inflation, and currency devaluation as existing money would be returned to grow the economy instead of new money in most years. Each generation would begin to live more within their means instead of reducing the means of future generations.

 

[Allan]

But they have not yet begun to suffer. Not really. When tens of millions of people’s health insurance premiums skyrocket in January, then they shall suffer. This is not going to be a slow boil. This is going to be like being dropped into the heart of a volcano.

My point is that you'll never have UHC.

I think the Republicans will have to compromise on subsidies, but that's the best you can expect.

 

[ataraxia]

The Nordic model provides free healthcare, education, childcare, and more, but it comes at a very steep price compared to what we pay now:

View attachment 67593599

If you want the Nordic model, no matter where you are on the economic ladder, you will bend over for the tax man and no lubrication will be provided. All of the Nordic countries have a 25% VAT, they all tax the shit out of gasoline, diesel, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Norway is a petro-state, and gas is $8 per gallon there because of taxes. In Denmark, to register a $20,000 car, there is an 85% tax. A $40,000 car gets hit with a 150% tax. That's why you see pictures of miserable Danes riding their bikes in the rain and snow.

View attachment 67593604

This one is from Gemini:

View attachment 67593605

It turns out that if you count the money Americans spend on things like private healthcare and transportation, higher education etc… the Nordic System ends up costing less per person, and is more effective. AND they have higher social mobility. AND they are happier.

There may not ever be perfect answers and perfect ways of doing some things- but their way of doing these things seems to be clearly better than our approach.

“ Although the United States leads the world in health care spending, it fares far worse than its peers on coverage and most dimensions of value.”

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-2415

 

[Individual]

I support higher taxes and universal health care. Less so for the other stuff.

If we want to help the poor (beyond health care expenditures) we should do it in the form of child tax credits or child basic income.

The big problem with the Nordic model, IMO, is that it has a lot of inherent tension with liberal immigration policies, as some of those nations are realizing themselves. They can choose to go full Stephen Miller, or they can curb some of their social spending. They tend to choose the former, but I think the latter would be a better solution.

Let's make America a good place to have kids and get medical care, and a good place for smart people from all over the world to come to live. We don't necessarily need a safety hammock, just a safety net.

I support taxing relative to budgeted spending. Pretty much what Denmark does, considering they show a surplus more often than a deficit.

 

[tharock220]

There needs to be an additional option.
Yes, but I’m a leftoids who wants the tax increases on everyone else.

 

[Taylor]

Quality of life in the Nordics is better than in the U.S.

That all depends on how you define it.

 

[ataraxia]

Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’
money!

Sure. The main reason for a lot of the poverty in America is … racism.

When the economic driver of so much policy is to keep vulnerable minorities who are already hurting down, then of course you are going to have a government that purposely doesn’t help its citizens rise up. In fact, it will adapt policies which are aimed at keeping them down.

You don’t have to believe me. Just listen to the most senior GOP political strategists:

Interview with Lee Atwater, chief campaign strategist for Ronald Reagan:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ataraxia]

That all depends on how you define it.

Parameters measured have included things like sense of happiness and well-being, social mobility, security, and public health parameters.

 

[Felis Leo]

All the more reason.
Dems are demanding $1.5 Trillion. Last year we spent about $7.5b; does anyone see the lunacy? And while they fiddle-f***s around

Yeah. Of course, we could stop cutting taxes while we are nearly 40 trillion dollars in debt and actually raise them to pay them down.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

or if that is taken from them, with guns.

And there's over four hundred million of them in private hands so no matter how much military shock and awe Trump could unleash on Americans,
once the shock and awe is over, our soldiers will face the largest, angriest and most well equipped insurgency in modern history.
The number of AWOL troops would be impossible to calculate.

 

[Hari Seldon]

There needs to be an additional option.
Yes, but I’m a leftoids who wants the tax increases on everyone else.

Also the repuke option. I git mine, **** you.

 

[Felis Leo]

Also the repuke option. I git mine, **** you.

That's the problem. Most of them do not even get theirs. I do not think even half of them got theirs. And many of them who managed to get theirs are about to lose theirs. Whether it is their paid-off house, their pension, their 401k, their successful business, Republican policies are going to destroy their wealth more effectively than the most nakedly-corrupt, confiscatory socialist Venezuelan leader.

 

[Bullseye]

Yeah. Of course, we could stop cutting taxes while we are nearly 40 trillion dollars in debt and actually raise them to pay them down.

Cuting taxes or cutting tax rates? They generally have opposite results.

 

[Felis Leo]

Cuting taxes or cutting tax rates? They generally have opposite results.

We need to end the tax cuts. We need to raise taxes to pay down our national debt.

 

[Exquisitor]

No, I think we can do better than the Nordic Model.

But who is going to install this? What Majorities are the people and their Masters going to trust us with to do this? 2028 for the March out of the Convergence, 2032, time to set a new course?

No, you will never get what they just gave the Republicans. How is it that Government is shut down? A couple Republicans? What happened to them? The next thing you know, they'll remove Trump. Do you know why? Because the Democrats are too dumb. They should be out before the Great Divine Director screaming and writhing that it's their turn.

But, he'll say, your turn to what?

Lose again, fail to chastise the Republicans?

The DNC has a pretty good presentation, if you like sanity, go with them, but in the mind of the people, three things reign, abortion, guns and transgenders in sports.

Why not listen to Exquisitor?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

since America has oil and Qatar has oil, and Qatar subsidizes its population with oil money, we ought to subsidize our population with oil money!

Hmmmmmmm.

I find your proposal fascinating......and I'd love to hear more about it Friend!

Whats your angle? How can I get up in some of that oil subsidy money?

 

[Gozaburo]

Hmmmmmmm.

I find your proposal fascinating......and I'd love to hear more about it Friend!

Whats your angle? How can I get up in some of that oil subsidy money?

It's quite simple really.

You get born gooder as a Qatari.

 

[Gatsby]

Cuting taxes or cutting tax rates? They generally have opposite results.

No.

 

[Felis Leo]

A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’

Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’

Apparently it needs to be said, but America obviously deals with a multitude of demographic, geographic, and geopolitical hurdles and responsibilities which largely irrelevant countries like Denmark don't need to deal with. The concept of applying the Nordic model to America is functionally as retarded as saying since America has oil and Qatar has oil, and Qatar subsidizes its population with oil money, we ought to subsidize our population with oil money!

Let us presume for the sake of a hypothetical that we had a major shock to the United States economy like that of the Great Depression along with a massive political realignment like that which followed the great depression, and progressive economically populist movement or even social democratic movement broke through into a position of veto-proof dominance at the national level. What is the argument against passing such legislation to enact a Nordic Model if there is a popular mandate for it?

Because I just do not buy the "We are too big and diverse with too many people" argument against the efficacy of implementing something that looks like Nordic Model in our country. Sure, we currently have 16 times the population of all the Scandinavian countries combined, and we are more ethnically diverse, but we had Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security for nearly a century across all 50 states. We had high taxes that paid for social services at every level, local, state and federal, at one point, before right-wing neo-liberal economic think tanks and lobbyists took hold of our lawmakers. Many states within our Union used to have free public colleges, more affordable healthcare, higher union membership, better wages, less income inequality and greater social mobility. There was a moment in history where the United States had what could effectively be described a Nordic Model. What made it insolvent were not the funding mechanisms, but political gamesmanship from the right-wing. That's it.

 

[Gozaburo]

Let us presume for the sake of a hypothetical that we had a major shock to the United States economy like that of the Great Depression along with a massive political realignment like that which followed the great depression, and progressive economically populist movement or even social democratic movement broke through into a position of veto-proof dominance at the national level. What is the argument against passing such legislation to enact a Nordic Model if there is a popular mandate for it?

Because I just do not buy the "We are too big and diverse with too many people" argument against the efficacy of implementing something that looks like Nordic Model in our country. Sure, we currently have 16 times the population of all the Scandinavian countries combined, and we are more ethnically diverse, but we had Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security for nearly a century across all 50 states. We had high taxes that paid for social services at every level, local, state and federal, at one point, before right-wing neo-liberal economic think tanks and lobbyists took hold of our lawmakers. Many states within our Union used to have free public colleges, more affordable healthcare, higher union membership, better wages, less income inequality and greater social mobility. There was a moment in history where the United States had what could effectively be described a Nordic Model. What made it insolvent were not the funding mechanisms, but political gamesmanship from the right-wing. That's it.

I'm not arguing against a particular policy, I'm saying that transplanting the "Nordic model" into America is silly because we have totally different variables to consider.

I could explain in detail, but in this case I think a summary is sufficient. The Nordic model works because it's operated and perpetuated by Nordic peoples who are generally highly educated, extremely competent, and manage superbly high trust societies. The trouble in America is that at least half of the population is fat and retarded and even if you address that glaring issue, there is the separate issue of racial and class tension which are only being exacerbated by Democracy.

Even if you somehow negotiate those hurdles - you're right - this would need to be a consistent and concentrated effort by a "veto-proof" regime which had 20 years in power i.e. you would need what is essentially a competent and benevolent dictatorship, which is (practically speaking) what FDR was.

 

[Mycroft]

Please, explain you point.

sigh...

Look at what I quoted. Then, look at what I posted. The point couldn't be clearer.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The Nordic model provides free healthcare, education, childcare, and more, but it comes at a very steep price compared to what we pay now:

It is pretty funny that you would open with that and then proceed to prove yourself wrong.

You came up with a total of an extra $14,500/yr. That was your figure for your OP.

Are you seriously contending that Americans currently pay less than $14,500/yr per capita on Healthcare, Education, Childcare, and everything else provided by the Nordic model?

Americans literally pay more than $14,500 per capita just on healthcare.

 

[Individual]

We need to end the tax cuts. We need to raise taxes to pay down our national debt.

What I've been trying to do is cut taxes on about the bottom 70% of tax payers and raise taxes on the top 30%.
But simply adding a surtax to the existing code could reduce, if not eliminate, most FY budget deficits with any surplus being applied to reducing the Federal debt.

 

[NJBob]

That all depends on how you define it.

I agree, somewhat. The Nordic nations have better access to good healthcare with better outcomes, better education and generally honest and trustworthy governments.

Also, Nordic peoples are satisfied with simpler lifestyles. They don’t measure happiness by the number of toys they have.

How would you define it?