Is it just me or is the Nordic standard of living way better than that of America. In Scandinavia, people are all entitled to free education and it is mainly this aspect of the Nordic model which makes Scandinavia (particularly Norway) a more peaceful place than the US. Sure, the taxes are higher than any other place in the world but don't you think that the money is being put to good use and being wisely invested. Furthermore, this type of model is better at promoting egalitarianism which doesn't create so much tension among people. Most problems of the US are mainly centered on money and avarice and people not wanting to pay taxes, and also about people on welfare who want to freeload from the economy. (a circle of cause and effect) I know that America is the type of place where people can all strive for success but it's still lacking in a slightly collectivist mentality that's present in the Nordic model. This is just my opinion. I've lived in America before but I've never lived in Scandinavia. (and my name is not Leif Erikson. This is the name of the Viking who discovered America) Give me your feedback but please try to keep your language clean. If you think that I'm wrong, please correct me in a nice way.

This is a pending very long debate,but I do not have the knowledge, politically, neither have I lived in America or any of the Scandinavia countries, therefore I will only give a brief statement of how I see it.

Scandinavian countries are very small in comparison to America, there population is vastly different, I don't see how you can compare the two in what you suggest... standard of living...

No one, where ever they are in the world, wants to pay taxes, least of all me, here in the UK.

The welfare state is a necessity, for which many people at some point in there life need to call upon, for what ever their reason, myself included, if you have worked the whole of your life, you have paid in and are perfectly entitled to do so... there will always an element that do cry wolf, no matter where they are in the world, on the whole though most people have a genuine need.

The higher standard of living that you speak of in the Scandinavian countries, also spells out.. communist society, where everyone is equal.. the same.
There has to be higher positions in society.. leaders,etc...
These require higher incomes, people in these countries cannot be all equal.
There will be those who pay high taxes for the education, via their wages automatically, who don't even have children,but still they will be stopped the money,having no say in the matter.
To me it seems very big brother...

I have a few American friends, who are the nicest people I have ever had the pleasure to meet, there are many on this board who are lovely genuine people,I would say that their country, regarding tax and welfare is much the same as my own and many others.
They make a stand for what they believe is right and protest for that which they consider to be wrong, again the same in the UK.

There are all classes of people regarding money issues, all over the world, some have more some have less... it's the way of the world.

America is rich in it's own right, without a big brother economy, as is the United Kingdom, despite it's taxes.

It may work in the Scandinavian countries,some of whom have a much richer economy, and that's fine for them, but America and American people would never allow it, they prefer to stay free to make their own decisions,not to be controlled by what I see, as big brother.

There are many other things that contribute to a standard of living, money is just one.

That's it... just my opinion

Leif the key is in the words you use... egalitarianism... collectivist ,
If the sociatal model you are looking for is socialist communist then I'm sure the Scandanavian model would attract. If you are more into individualism then you would find their system bordering on oppressive ,especially regarding the taxing and other controls the central government has on the individual.
We in America believe the right to life, liberty, property ,and the so called pursuit of happiness is indeed individualistic and not collective .We think that freedom and liberty by definition is an individualist pursuit .

Collectivism by contrast gives primacy to the state .Collectivism ultimately leads to serfdom as more liberty is surrendered to the collective. Regardless whether it is brutal or soft ,it leads to state tyranny. The Scandanavian willingly admits that their system is a form of consensual authoritarianism. I submit that it may very well work there well where cultural conformity is accepted ;but in a multi-cultural society the system would not succeed.
I also predict that the Scandanavians will need to be intollerant to their growing Muslim immigrants for their system to last. I predict that the solution will be to shut down immigration .

It seems you are up for a bit of a hiding here Leif and one of the problems is you are making the comparison you make without on the ground experience of the system. Now we all tend to do that here to some extent because we are all separated by distance and ideology. The scandanavian countries have to deal with extremes of climate which mean that a high level of expenditure must be devoted to inferstructure. As the populations are small the burden of taxes falls heavier on the people to provide that inferstructure and this creates a different social environment so that you cannot make comparisons between countries with a few million population and a nation like the US where the scale of everything is very different. I could lament that the citizens of the US pays less for fuel than I do, but the difference is in taxes or exises and these taxes are used at least in part to maintain the road system. You also have to realise that the political system is very different and this changes the way people view their nation. You also have to realise that once these places were not the peaceful places they are today but that once the people were the scourge of Europe their culture had to produce people who were very cooperative to survive

OK, I've read all of the answers and I agree with most of what everyone is saying. Like I said, I've never lived in Norway before so I wouldn't know too much about it. That's why I posted this question.

After reading these, I've already come to the realization that both political systems can be detrimental and lead to serfdom in the end. Too much collectivism is not a very good thing. I completely agree with that statement. I wouldn't really say that there's such a thing as too much individualism but I strongly wish for higher taxes on the wealthy. (although it is their money and they can do whatever they please) In America, there isn't any free education or healthcare (like there is in Norway) and I believe that raising the taxes on wealth can help to solve that problem. Everybody deserves the opportunity to strive for success but having such limitations on who can receive higher education is just the capitalist's way of pre-choosing who gets to be at the top. It parallels serfdom in a sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leif_erikson

OK, I've read all of the answers and I agree with most of what everyone is saying. Like I said, I've never lived in Norway before so I wouldn't know too much about it. That's why I posted this question.

After reading these, I've already come to the realization that both political systems can be detrimental and lead to serfdom in the end. Too much collectivism is not a very good thing. I completely agree with that statement. I wouldn't really say that there's such a thing as too much individualism but I strongly wish for higher taxes on the wealthy. (although it is their money and they can do whatever they please) In America, there isn't any free education or healthcare (like there is in Norway) and I believe that raising the taxes on wealth can help to solve that problem. Everybody deserves the opportunity to strive for success but having such limitations on who can receive higher education is just the capitalist's way of pre-choosing who gets to be at the top. It parallels serfdom in a sense.

---

Lief From observation everyone in the capitalist system except the business owner is a wage slave, slavery hasn't been abolished, it has evolved. What socialist governments have achieved is to redistribute some of the national wealth in the form of education or health care, etc but you have to be very careful you don't kill the goose by a heavy level of taxation to meet these socialist goals. The fairest way is that everyone pays a levy to provide these socially desirable goals but this won't stop the person who says I have no need of the service so I won't pay the levy and this is essentially the thinking in the american system. The education system has to be selective because not everyone has the ability or inclination to succeed unfortunately that selectivity is tied to money but there are places in the world where this problem has been overcome by the government providing student loans so the education is not free but people are not restricted by lack of money. This is not a tax on someone else's income. In the same way health care has been provided by making the service available to everyone and taking a levy from income to make it possible.

We must not destroy the incentive for the rich to make more money by investment and return by heavily taxing their income but provide incentive for investment to take place so that more employment will be available and the pool of income to be taxed is broadened.10% from 100 million is better than 50% from 1000 and taxing what is spent is far better than taxing what is earned. The experience of my own country demonstrates this. Transferring the tax burden from income to expenditure has fueled continual income tax reductions while increasing the overall revenue collected