Kalliokamu wrote: Commenting this from Scandinavia, don't ***** up your country with socialist ***** like we have done here. Otherwise I have to look for my future home country in Asia..
Socialist (leftist) generous welfare policy combined with irresponsible (leftist) refugee policy has driven these countries against a wall. The tax payer burden in here has become unbearable and all educated people join the brain-drain and leave for US or Asia. I'm joining them too with my family and looking for IT jobs near Seattle or San Francisco Bay area. Tell Obama not to screw it up . Gotta agree with Staxjax and Darwoth here..
"Sweden has the world's eighth-highest per capita income. In 2013, it ranked second in the world on the Democracy Index, seventh (tied with Ireland) on the 2013 United Nations' Human Development Index (third on the inequality-adjusted HDI), second on the 2013 OECD Better Life Index and third on the 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index.
In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the fourth-most competitive country in the world. According to the United Nations, it has the third-lowest infant mortality rate in the world. In 2010, Sweden also had one of the lowest Gini coefficients of all developed countries (0.25), making Sweden one of the world's most equal countries in terms of income. Sweden's wealth, however, is distributed much less equally than its income, with a wealth Gini coefficient of 0.85, which is higher than the European average of 0.8.
In 2013, The Economist declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world," with Sweden in first place. Also in 2013, The Reputation Institute declared Sweden to be the 2nd most reputable country on earth."
Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare come true. Clearly nothing good ever comes from "socialist *****".
"Sweden has the world's eighth-highest per capita income. In 2013, it ranked second in the world on the Democracy Index, seventh (tied with Ireland) on the 2013 United Nations' Human Development Index (third on the inequality-adjusted HDI), second on the 2013 OECD Better Life Index and third on the 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index.
In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the fourth-most competitive country in the world. According to the United Nations, it has the third-lowest infant mortality rate in the world. In 2010, Sweden also had one of the lowest Gini coefficients of all developed countries (0.25), making Sweden one of the world's most equal countries in terms of income. Sweden's wealth, however, is distributed much less equally than its income, with a wealth Gini coefficient of 0.85, which is higher than the European average of 0.8.
In 2013, The Economist declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world," with Sweden in first place. Also in 2013, The Reputation Institute declared Sweden to be the 2nd most reputable country on earth."
Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare come true. Clearly nothing good ever comes from "socialist *****".
To paraphrase the illustrious Margaret Thatcher, the problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money. It's a great ride until you do, though!
"Sweden has the world's eighth-highest per capita income. In 2013, it ranked second in the world on the Democracy Index, seventh (tied with Ireland) on the 2013 United Nations' Human Development Index (third on the inequality-adjusted HDI), second on the 2013 OECD Better Life Index and third on the 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index.
In 2012, the World Economic Forum ranked Sweden as the fourth-most competitive country in the world. According to the United Nations, it has the third-lowest infant mortality rate in the world. In 2010, Sweden also had one of the lowest Gini coefficients of all developed countries (0.25), making Sweden one of the world's most equal countries in terms of income. Sweden's wealth, however, is distributed much less equally than its income, with a wealth Gini coefficient of 0.85, which is higher than the European average of 0.8.
In 2013, The Economist declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world," with Sweden in first place. Also in 2013, The Reputation Institute declared Sweden to be the 2nd most reputable country on earth."
Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare come true. Clearly nothing good ever comes from "socialist *****".
To paraphrase the illustrious Margaret Thatcher, the problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money. It's a great ride until you do, though!
Faithfully,
-Paul the Paymaster
Exactly that. Living next to Sweden, it may still look good in paper. Sweden avoided the world wars nicely and has accumulated enormous wealth with trade deals and post-war trade. While it is slowly succumbing towards sharia law state, there are still some places where you can raise your family without fear. Whichever is an "Orwellian nightmare" to different people..
To paraphrase the illustrious Margaret Thatcher, the problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money. It's a great ride until you do, though!
Faithfully,
-Paul the Paymaster
My bad. Apparently it's all about one liners and soundbites. Didn't mean to be so underhanded and cheap as to introduce facts and statistics into the equation. Carry on!
To paraphrase the illustrious Margaret Thatcher, the problem with Socialism is eventually, you run out of other people's money. It's a great ride until you do, though!
Faithfully,
-Paul the Paymaster
My bad. Apparently it's all about one liners and soundbites. Didn't mean to be so underhanded and cheap as to introduce facts and statistics into the equation. Carry on!
The point I was making doesn't require a wall of text. Cranking up taxes will yield to boons in the short run and ruin in the long run. It's also morally indefensible to steal the fruits of a hardworking man's labor and redistribute them against his will.
Furthermore, acting indignant at my brief reply is a bit rich. How much effort was it for you to link a couple wikipedia articles and pull a quote from them? Your only original contribution was...
Spazzmaticus wrote:Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare come true. Clearly nothing good ever comes from "socialist *****".
...which isn't far off from the "one liners and soundbites" you decry. Finally, the facts and statistics you reference ("ratings" would be a better term than "statistics" here) don't address the charges being levied.
It wasn't meant to come across as a personal attack. I let my bad sides get the better of me and for that I apologize. I think I've said too much already.
Spazzmaticus wrote:It wasn't meant to come across as a personal attack. I let my bad sides get the better of me and for that I apologize. I think I've said too much already.
I hold no ill will and likewise apologize for escalating in kind.
What's the point of organizing governments if not for the common good? Let's emphasize the proper word here: common. We'll forget about all the rest of the reasons that start becoming selfish in nature. After all, any form of government can be used for selfish ends or for altruism.
Why did we even bother with founding a Democratic Republic in the USA with most of the rest of the first and second world countries following along? (Hell, even the US Constitution is strongly modeled on the Magna Carta.) If we didn't want the common good, we could have just remained under the King of England. Instead, we got upset over the amount of taxes collected, the amount of corruption and abuse exhibited towards the colonies, the lack of representation in the House of Commons (and for that matter, House of Lords). Ridiculous taxes were just one of many excuses. (And as I found out while watching a new show this week, sales taxes in many places are higher than taxes were that the colonists rebelled over.)
I'm trying to avoid the mudslinging between different parties and going back to basics. That is really where views start to diverge. I think it's easy to remember certain parts of important documents and forget others, especially if it helps support our arguments.
I am a moderator. I moderate stuff. When I do, I write in this color.
JohnCarver wrote:anybody who argues to remove a mechanic that allows "yet another" way to summon somebody is really a carebear in disguise trying to save his own hide.
Always nice to have a political discussion with civilized people. Religion may be the only other topic which creates so much emotions from every side. Luckily we still have many different countries in the world so we can find the one which matches our values and beliefs. Would be dull if all the countries had the same political view..
MagicManICT wrote:What's the point of organizing governments if not for the common good? Let's emphasize the proper word here: common. We'll forget about all the rest of the reasons that start becoming selfish in nature. After all, any form of government can be used for selfish ends or for altruism.
Why did we even bother with founding a Democratic Republic in the USA with most of the rest of the first and second world countries following along? (Hell, even the US Constitution is strongly modeled on the Magna Carta.) If we didn't want the common good, we could have just remained under the King of England.
I'm trying to avoid the mudslinging between different parties and going back to basics. That is really where views start to diverge. I think it's easy to remember certain parts of important documents and forget others, especially if it helps support our arguments.
You are making the assumption that high levels of taxation, disproportionately targeting those who bring in higher levels of income, helps the common good more than a low-taxation alternative. This is folly, and I disagree with that assumption. This issue has been addressed by someone with a far greater control of prose than I, and so I will defer (spoiler'd, as it's quite lengthy):
When you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.
When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing...
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong.
MagicManICT wrote:Instead, we got upset over the amount of taxes collected, the amount of corruption and abuse exhibited towards the colonies, the lack of representation in the House of Commons (and for that matter, House of Lords). Ridiculous taxes were just one of many excuses. (And as I found out while watching a new show this week, sales taxes in many places are higher than taxes were that the colonists rebelled over.)
Benjamin Franklin wrote:When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Tax levels for productive members of society are far higher than is reasonable - you pointed out that sales taxes alone in many places are higher than the taxes colonists rebelled over, trying to make the point that taxes don't matter and the colonists had it wrong. However, from another perspective your point just underscores how out of hand the tax burden has become. You redistribute from the productive to the unproductive, at level far higher than can be justified as helping those "down on their luck." You create a entire social caste which does not try to better its position, but instead expects to be given things for free, as is "their right." In exchange, this caste votes for those who steal from others, to give to them. Such a system will destroy any community, in time.
. Gotta agree with Staxjax and Darwoth here..
