Socialism guarantees that everyone will live in which house?

healthmyths

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
30,375
Reaction score
11,936
Points
1,400
In reading this thread " Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality" I wondered if the converse socialism would guarantee each of us would live which way?

So every person on earth should be like this person ?

$brothershut.webp

Or like the above person's brother that lives in this house?

$Screen Shot 2014-04-28 at 7.04.48 AM.webp
 
Just in case here is a clue..
do a google on the phrase:"obama i am my brother's keeper" and there are 155,000 results.
Doesn't it just seem a tad bit hypocritical that the millionaire president that reported $662,076 income in 2013
and deducted gifts of $150,000 couldn't donate a little to help HIS OWN BROTHER live in something other then a $12/year hut?
 
Socialism can easily exist in a capitalist system and is not it's polar opposite. Socalist parties are in power in over half of the capitalist countries of the world. Wouldn't marxism or communism be better examples?.
 
Socialism is bad for America because it results in large, intrusive and controlling government that diminishes the role and value of individual citizens; it is largely based on “false compassion” that promotes victimhood and big government solutions; and it offers a false hope of utopian brotherhood and equality, resulting in the loss of freedom and the rise of governmental tyranny.

It's the reason that the middle class is being destroyed.

Socialism results in large, intrusive and controlling government that diminishes the role and value of individual citizens. It is a form of statism, which sees the state as all-powerful, all-wise, and more capable of determining and supplying the needs of its citizens than the citizens themselves. Socialism empowers government, through its bureaucrats, to act as a great benevolent mother caring for her people by appropriating and redistributing the fruits of the people’s labor, as it sees fit, through high taxation and generous social welfare programs.

Socialists believe that all the ills and inequities of society can be remedied by government programs that require ever more tax dollars to fund them. Professor Arndt stated that the belief that government intervention was needed to correct “market failure” and protect the weak resulted in “big government, widespread government failures, excessive bureaucratic regulation of business and the lives of citizens, and a ‘political market’ which dispenses protection, subsidies and welfare expenditures in response to organized lobbying.” He contended that such ambitious spending and redistribution triggered inflation, increased unemployment and enlarged the government.

Ever-increasing levels of taxation, social welfare programs, and restrictions on business result in numerous unsustainable consequences, such as deep national debt, unfunded liabilities, wasted capital and loss of productivity, creativity, innovation and consumer choices. F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944), showed that “soft socialism–social democratism-will in the long run produce the same results as hard, fundamentalist socialism, namely the bankruptcy of government and enormous opportunity costs: the prosperity that society misses out on as compared to a genuine free market order.

Ever-increasing levels of taxation, social welfare programs, and restrictions on business result in numerous unsustainable consequences, such as deep national debt, unfunded liabilities, wasted capital and loss of productivity, creativity, innovation and consumer choices. F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944), showed that “soft socialism–social democratism-will in the long run produce the same results as hard, fundamentalist socialism, namely the bankruptcy of government and enormous opportunity costs: the prosperity that society misses out on as compared to a genuine free market order.”

Why Socialism is Bad for America | Todd Weber's Random Thoughts

Radnitzky noted that redistributing wealth from the productive segments of society (industry, commerce, etc.) to the non-productive (the political class, bureaucracy, social welfare recipients, etc.) “reduces the rewards for enterprise and production and cuts innovation and employment.”

The same thing that our Founders knew and was against.

Another reason why socialism is bad for America is that socialism is largely based on false compassion, which results in a host of serious, though unintended, consequences. The term “false compassion” is used for two reasons. First, because socialism takes the care of those in need out of the willing hearts and hands of truly compassionate individuals, and places it in the hands of the impersonal bureaucracy of government, which then takes by force from those who have, via taxation, and redistributes it, often with great inefficiency and waste, to others who have not, the recipients have no connection to the source of such benefits (the taxpayer). Secondly, this involuntary benevolence often results, not in good will, gratitude, and a sense of community, but rather resentment among those who are taxed, and a sense of entitlement and continuing dependency among those who benefit. This false compassion is seen in the socialist obsession with equality and fairness accompanied by the conviction that capitalism and those who espouse it are inherently unfair, insensitive and cruel.

It promotes big Government elites who have it all, while the rest of us have little or nothing.

Socialists consider inequality in wealth and incomes as injustice; and the greater the disparity, the greater the injustice. Mises observed that this view then justifies the confiscation of wealth from the rich in order to provide for the poor, presumably resulting in a more equitable situation. However, this always proves to be a slippery slope of never-ending redistribution. Mises noted:

The history of the taxation of profits, incomes, and estates in all countries clearly shows that once the principle of equalization is adopted, there is no point at which the further progress of the policy of equalization can be checked…As long as any degree of inequality is left, there will always be people whom envy impels to press for a continuation of the equalization policy.

In the end, socialist efforts toward economic equalization result in universal poverty, except perhaps among the ruling class. Rather than achieving a higher quality of life for all, the forces of socialism invariably push everyone down to equal impoverishment and misery. This has been demonstrated everywhere that all-out socialism has been practiced, most notably in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China, among many others. Muravchik astutely observed, “There is no escape from inequality, except through uniform poverty.”

The final reason we will note as to why socialism is bad for America is that it offers false and empty hope in an idealistic fantasy that has never succeeded in practice, and which has repeatedly resulted in tyranny and terrible human suffering. Those who would implement socialist or quasi-socialist policies in the United States of America are either unaware of the bleak history of socialism and have not considered the long-term consequences of their aims, or they are so enamored of their ideology that they don’t care. Ludwig von Mises wrote that politicians who recommend socialist policies while claiming that they want to preserve the market economy and economic freedom are “either hypocrites who want to bring about socialism by deceiving the people about their real intentions, or they are ignoramuses who do not know what they are talking about.”
 
Last edited:
Tell that to Norway, the socialist country with a better quality of life than the US.
 
Tell that to Norway, the socialist country with a better quality of life than the US.

really, and what do you pay in taxes to your masters in government, for that free and wonderful life? they leave anything to spend on yourself?
 
Sounds like tax tax tax Utopia....

SNIP;
The thing that I was most curious about is Norway's tax system. I've heard from friends that used to live in the country that their taxes were really high, but I wanted to find out for myself.

Here are some of the major components of the Norwegian tax system. Most of this information is from a publication from KPMG called "Tax Facts Norway 2009: A survey of the Norwegian Tax System", which I have linked to below.

1. Income Tax.

Income tax is charged at a flat rate of 28% on net income.

A 9% surtax is charged on gross income if you earn between the equivalent of $73,641 - $119,662 USD, while a 12% surtax (on gross income) is charged if you earn anything over that.

In addition, taxpayers must make social security contributions based on whatever they make over $6,612 USD. 7.8% of any salary made over this amount goes towards social security contributions. Pension income is charged at a lower 3.0% rate.

2. Value Added Tax.

A Value Added Tax (or VAT) is charged on the sale of most goods and services in the country.

The general rate is 25%. A reduced rate of 14% applies to the sale of food and drink, while an even lower rate applies to hotel lodging, cinema shows, public transportation services and broadcasting charges.

The 14% rate does not apply to eating out at a restaurant. So, if you decide to take the family out for a dinner that ends up costing the equivalent of $100 USD, be prepared to pay an extra $25 in taxes (before the tip, of course).

3. Wealth Tax / Net Asset Tax.

Norwegians must pay an annual "wealth tax" on their net "worldwide assets".

There is an exemption (up to the equivalent of $78,483 USD), with any amount over that being subjected to a 1.1% "wealth tax".

In order to figure out how much you would pay, take the total worth of your assets (house, cash in the bank, etc) and subtract any liabilities (mortgage, etc).

As mentioned, there is an exemption up to 470,000 NOK (which works out to $78,483 USD) - any amount over that, and you are paying a 1.1% wealth tax.

As far as I am aware, this includes houses, cash in the bank, etc.

4. Property taxes.

Norwegian municipalities can choose to impose a property tax of between 0.2-0.7% on the total "fiscal value of the property". Not all Norwegian municipalities choose to levy this tax.

5. Death / Inheritance Tax.

Children, foster children and parents of the deceased pay a progressive rate for an inheritance or death tax. Here are the USD equivalents:

First $78,483 - Nothing
Next $55,105 - 6%
Anything Over $133,589 - 10%

"All other beneficiaries" pay this rate:

First $78,483 - Nothing
Next $55,105 - 8%
Anything Over $133,589 - 15%

--

These are five major taxes that apply to the average citizen of Norway.

There are obviously also corporate taxes (which is a flat rate of 28% of taxable profits), but we won't get into that here.

--

According to Forbes magazine, Oslo, Norway is the 14th most expensive city in the world to live in, just behind Paris and Milan.

As a whole, Norway is one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in, according to various cost of living indexes.
from
The Norwegian Tax System

a lot of people don't seem to mind living off the backs of others so they don't have to take care of themselves...what a life...a drone
 
Last edited:
Yep.. they don't want to realize the true tax burden in those socialist utopias they always bring up.. it is ridiculous..

of course they don't...
is Norway even as big as California? I know it's small
but the people have decided to give over their live to the ("central planners") aka Government aka Masters and hey, they seem happy just working to be slaves to others and government, more power to them
 
Tell that to Norway, the socialist country with a better quality of life than the US.


Apparently you did not read some of my post and we would not be having this conversation again, but do I really need to go get the 2 articles that I previously posted depicting life in that region??

If you thought any of that sounded better that what we have currently in the USA, I will be the first to tell you, that you need a check up from the neck up!!
 
The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked
26 Replies

A popular argument in support of high taxes is to bring up the success of the Scandinavian socialist system. Liberals like to point out that Scandinavia (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland) enjoys a strong economy and high standard of living despite high taxes and a cradle-to-grave welfare system.

If you talk to a liberal about Scandinavia, you’ll often see them make some variation of the following points:

Scandinavian countries rank high in the UN Human Development Index
Scandinavian countries rank among the top in various quality of life indexes
Everyone gets free healthcare and education
Scandinavia has low crime rates
Scandinavia is a shining example of how successful socialism can be if implemented correctly
Scandinavian countries rank well on happiness indexes

If only those stupid, gun-clinging, bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, inbred, bucktoothed, ignorant, racist, backwards redneck hick republicans would just get out of the way, the left could make life fair and equal for everyone. The large-government welfare state works in Scandinavia and it would work here too!

The problem is that the success of Scandinavian socialism is a myth. It’s false. It doesn’t work for them and it wouldn’t work for us.
The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked - The great liberal myth

And so it begins ....
 
1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist

Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism.

Let’s look at a few key indicators of free enterprise in Scandinavia.

Denmark:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Finland:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, fiscal freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Iceland:

Iceland ranks a little lower than the US in most of these key indicators. It’s close, though. Remember also that Iceland has a smaller total population (320,000) than Wichita, KS.

Source

Norway:

Ranks higher than the US in trade freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Sweden:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

The overall point here is that Scandinavian countries have fairly capitalistic business environments. It is foolish to point to any Scandinavian country and call it an example of socialism working.

We can also look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In the “capitalist” United States, government spending is equal to roughly 40% of the national GDP. In the “socialist” Norway, government spending is equal to roughly 46% of the national GDP. (Source.)

It is dishonest to compare Norway to the US and call one an example of successful socialism and the other an example of failed capitalism when both governments spend similar amounts of money on a percentage basis.

.....
 
2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim

A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.

Next, the study compared individual US states to various countries in the EU. Once again, individual states ranked higher in economic output per person than each EU country. Only Luxemburg ranked near the top. Most EU nations ranked alongside the poorest states in the US.

So, that does it for economic output. Next, the study took a look at private consumption. Once again, we find that the US as a whole outranks the entire EU, including those Scandinavian countries that are EU member nations.

The study also found several other interesting facts: those classified as “low income” in the US live better than those classified as low income in the EU – including Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The US also ranked higher in average dwelling space and domestic appliance ownership (clothes washers, dishwashers, radios, etc.).
.....
 
2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim

A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.

Next, the study compared individual US states to various countries in the EU. Once again, individual states ranked higher in economic output per person than each EU country. Only Luxemburg ranked near the top. Most EU nations ranked alongside the poorest states in the US.

So, that does it for economic output. Next, the study took a look at private consumption. Once again, we find that the US as a whole outranks the entire EU, including those Scandinavian countries that are EU member nations.

The study also found several other interesting facts: those classified as “low income” in the US live better than those classified as low income in the EU – including Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The US also ranked higher in average dwelling space and domestic appliance ownership (clothes washers, dishwashers, radios, etc.).
....
 
Tell that to Norway, the socialist country with a better quality of life than the US.

Norway? With a homogeneous 96% white population equal to the boroughs of Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens?
 
15th post
4. But money isn’t everything! What about the poor?

It’s clear that the United States outranks Scandinavia in most economic indicators. Americans make more money. But, the ever-empathetic liberal may say that money isn’t everything. More important than how much money people make is how well a country takes care of its poor.

Your liberal friends may claim that the low poverty rates in Scandinavian countries show that its massive welfare systems are working as intended. What’s so bad about everyone making a little less money if we can make a dent in poverty? You know, it’s the old “the rich can afford to pay a little more” argument…

It’s almost impossible to compare poverty levels between the US and various Scandinavian countries due to differences in the definition of “poverty.” There are serious problems with how poverty is determined. For example, some countries only take current income into account and therefore count students and retired wealthy people among the poor.

But having said that, we can generally agree that Scandinavian countries have fairly low poverty levels. Does this mean that the high-tax, big-welfare system is better?

Nope.

First of all, it is quite a leap to point to tax rates or welfare programs as the single determinant of poverty or prosperity. For example, the extremely capitalistic country of Switzerland has a lower poverty rate than most Scandinavian countries. Switzerland is a unique example (international tax haven), but the point is that you cannot point to any one factor as the single determinant of poverty rates.

There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that high taxes reduce poverty. Just because a few countries with high taxes have low poverty rates does not mean high taxes are good. There are plenty of counter examples of countries with high taxes and high poverty rates and vice versa.

Look at the United States. The War on Poverty was declared nearly 50 years ago and has pumped roughly 7 trillion tax dollars into combating poverty. At current spending levels, we could just straight up give $27,000 a year to every poor person in the US and they’d be better off.

Look at what all that public spending has accomplished:

Source

High taxes do not help the poor; economic growth does.

We also have to take into account the massive immigrant population in the United States. In a country of 310 million people, 14.5% of the US population is foreign-born. Most other countries with high levels of immigration also have high levels of poverty. There are numerous studies that show high immigration rates actually do affect a country’s poverty rates.

Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a foreign-born population comparable to the United States. However, poverty among immigrants in Sweden has been growing rapidly over the past few years. According to this study, immigrant children accounted for 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008. By comparison, only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty.

According to that same study:

“The Swedish model appeared to produce amazing results as long as the country was completely homogeneous and full of Swedes. But the much admired welfare state was unable to deal with even moderate levels of ethnic diversity (still far below the levels of the United States) without a collapse in social outcomes.”

The conclusion we can draw from all this is that the Swedish system is not responsible for low poverty rates. Other factors, such as homogenous population and the industrious spirit of the Swedes, is responsible. If immigration and government spending continue unchecked in Sweden, the model will eventually become unsustainable.

Note: I got some help from this article in making this point.
....
 
5. Norway is backed by big oil

When liberals point to the per-capita GDP of Norway, they forget to mention that much of this is a result of big oil interests. Norway is the largest oil producer and exporter in all of Western Europe. Norway produces roughly 200 barrels of oil per person per year. That puts it at number 5 in the world for per capita oil production. (Source.)

The conclusion we can draw from this is that a significant portion of Norway’s per capita GDP is based on oil revenues. In other words, Norway is successful despite its government, not because of its government.

Incidentally, I find it funny that those same liberals who vehemently vilify big oil are happy to ignore that little fact when pointing to the success of Norway.
6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans

Liberals (and Scandinavians) love to claim that Scandinavian countries top various “happiness indexes.” They say that Scandinavians are so much happier and more content than Americans for a variety of reasons.

Let’s just ignore all the problems that come with trying to assign a number to “happiness.” Let’s ignore that there is no single definition for happiness. Let’s also ignore how easy it is for left-leaning organizations to manipulate these studies to show what they want to show. Let’s just forget all of that.

Instead, let’s look at suicide rates. Suicide rates are cold, hard numbers not subject to interpretation. You’re either dead by your own hand or not.

Every single Scandinavian country ranks higher than the United States in suicide rates. Every single country. Finland ranks 5th in the world for suicides per 100,000 people. By comparison, the United States ranks 18th.

Suicide rankings compared:

Finland: 5th in the world
Denmark: 11th in the world
Sweden: 12th in the world
Norway: 13th in the world
Iceland: 15th in the world
United States: 18th in the world
....
 
Conclusion

In a conclusion based on facts and hard numbers, we can see that Scandinavia is not an example of successful socialism by any measure. It’s not a terrible place to live, but it’s clearly not the utopia that liberals love to make it out to be.

The above facts and figures prove that socialism did not make these countries great. These countries have small, homogenous populations, oil money and free markets. These countries do well despite high taxes, not because of high taxes.

Plus, if you look around the world at true socialisms, you’ll see massive failures. Historically, socialism (and other forms of collectivism) has always resulted in poverty, starvation and widespread death. Scandinavians are fortunate that they don’t yet live in an all-out socialism.

Did you get it this time??
 
In reading this thread " Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality" I wondered if the converse socialism would guarantee each of us would live which way?

So every person on earth should be like this person ?

View attachment 30017

Or like the above person's brother that lives in this house?

View attachment 30018

Damn it!

You gave away the surprise ending of every single Progressive story!

The middle class gets fucked and is much worse off, the poor are murdered and the ruling class gets all the wealth
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom