# How do Europeans tolerate...



## tvdxer

The ridiculous taxes levied upon them?

(LINK with chart: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp )

A typical American family, consisting of a married couple and two kids, making the country's average income (well above that of almost all Eurocountries), can expect to have 11.1% of their earnings taxed.  Yet for the same in Germany it is 35.3%, Belgium 40.3%, and in France, a ridiculous 41.7%.

And with half of one's income being taken by the government in some cases, why are far-left parties still viable there?

Yes, I know that most of these countries have advanced social welfare "nanny states" providing free healthcare and certain other services - but do these really make up for 30% higher taxes, especially when you consider that healthcare in most of those countries accounts for a smaller part of the GDP than in the US?  

There are a few exceptions....Ireland has, for example, just a 8.1% tax rate.  Not surprisingly, it is the richest sizable state in Europe and actually has a vibrant economy (4.7% GDP growth, per CIA World Factbook), something Germany, for example, can't brag about (0.9% GDP growth).  Luxembourg 

Now, while you can see this article does contain a bit of opinionated venting, my real desire here isn't to start a debate but rather to ask: Why are Europeans so tolerant of high taxes?  Or, in reality, are these usually paid in full, or evaded?  Is tax evasion looked upon down there as it is here, or is it seen as clever (as I have heard repeatedly that it is in Italy)?


----------



## Markus

If it's what you're used to, it's normal. Also, people haven't been brainwashed with the "taxes are evil" meme in Europe like they are in the USA. If anything, the typical European sees the US as quite backwards in terms of not taking care of its middle and lower class and letting the rich rule the country. Just like people in the US don't think it's weird that someone without a good job might not be able to pay for a night in the hospital, people in Europe don't think it's weird that taxes are a social responsibility.

In terms of tax evasion, I don't really know, but at least in France I haven't heard of anyone doing this. As a Canadian living in France I do feel somewhat over-taxed, but I do get to see immediate results, such as paid lunches and 6 weeks of holidays per year. What good is low taxes if you have no time off to spend all your money?


----------



## pickypuck

The systems are completely different. That's why. There, health system is private. Here it is public and universal and it must be paid through taxes. University education is far cheaper, etc., etc.


----------



## Thomas1

I remember I heard (perhaps it was on the radio) that the Polish people work for taxes for around half of the year and after that they start "earning".
The general attitude is that everyone complains about taxes since they are huge, people only hear from the politicians that we have too little money for almost everything (education, salaries for doctors, infrastructure, etc., etc...).
It isn't looked upon down, many people evades paying taxtes as only can. People look for gaps in the law and make the most of them without any qualms. On the other hand we have health care which is pretty good in comparsion with other countries, but people complain about this one too which is incomprehensible for me since I know how it looks in other European countries and in States and I think it is not so bad--maybe because the rates are pretty high. The education is free too at least untill high school after that you may be the lucky one to get to a uni studying for free or go to private college paying a high fee.

Tom


----------



## whattheflock

Have you heard the song "Taxman", by George Harrison? It seems The Beatles became rich before they had the chance to learn about handling money (they were all middle-class/working class), so when they were finally in the money, they were paying like 90% taxes! But soon enough they learned that, like I'm sure happens in many countries, there are all kinds of _*legal*_ manoeuvres to shelter their earnings.
Even in the States regular working class families can shelter a lot of their earnings using several methods (do you have your own business? $) before resorting to shady tax-evading schemes.
But I think the USA is probably the only country that believes that the Government is optional and that taxes are voluntary. Not sure, though.


----------



## don maico

tvdxer said:


> The ridiculous taxes levied upon them?
> 
> (LINK with chart: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp )
> 
> A typical American family, consisting of a married couple and two kids, making the country's average income (well above that of almost all Eurocountries), can expect to have 11.1% of their earnings taxed.  Yet for the same in Germany it is 35.3%, Belgium 40.3%, and in France, a ridiculous 41.7%.
> 
> And with half of one's income being taken by the government in some cases, why are far-left parties still viable there?
> 
> Yes, I know that most of these countries have advanced social welfare "nanny states" providing free healthcare and certain other services - but do these really make up for 30% higher taxes, especially when you consider that healthcare in most of those countries accounts for a smaller part of the GDP than in the US?
> 
> There are a few exceptions....Ireland has, for example, just a 8.1% tax rate.  Not surprisingly, it is the richest sizable state in Europe and actually has a vibrant economy (4.7% GDP growth, per CIA World Factbook), something Germany, for example, can't brag about (0.9% GDP growth).  Luxembourg
> 
> Now, while you can see this article does contain a bit of opinionated venting, my real desire here isn't to start a debate but rather to ask: Why are Europeans so tolerant of high taxes?  Or, in reality, are these usually paid in full, or evaded?  Is tax evasion looked upon down there as it is here, or is it seen as clever (as I have heard repeatedly that it is in Italy)?



nanny state ?? its called public services for those who need them and as long as we get good value in return then the taxes are worth paying. Health care is only free at the point of deliverybtw as are all other services. There is no such thing as a free lunch .
We also have care for the elderly,good education, unemployement benefit , sickness benefit which all helps to prevent acute poverty and deprivation. We like it like that. The Scandinavians are even better and we should all be emulating them.


----------



## fenixpollo

DXer, your question shouldn't be "How do Europeans tolerate taxes?", but rather, "Why do Americans NOT?"





whattheflock said:


> But I think the USA is probably the only country that believes that the Government is optional and that taxes are voluntary. Not sure, though.


 I disagree with this assessment, although I agree with the sentiment behind it. The Republican and Libertarian political parties in the US generally believe that the government should give little and take less, but people who are to the left of "center" tend be accepting of taxes because they enjoy the benefits and protections of responsible government.  Many of us wish that the US weren't so backwards in this regard. 





			
				Markus said:
			
		

> Also, people haven't been brainwashed with the "taxes are evil" meme in Europe like they are in the USA. If anything, the typical European sees the US as quite backwards in terms of not taking care of its middle and lower class and letting the rich rule the country.


 Not all of us have been brainwashed, Markus.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> DXer, your question shouldn't be "How do Europeans tolerate taxes?", but rather, "Why do Americans NOT?"


I agree.

I am quite happy to pay taxes knowing that these taxes support my nanny state.  There have been a couple of occasions when I fell flat on my face and the state was there to help out.  I like my nanny state.  I am sad to see and hear of homeless and sick people dying in countries with no effective social welfare system and am even happier about my nanny state.

.,,


----------



## karuna

Although I am a European, this time I agree with USians. The taxes are too high in Latvia. 33% social security tax + 25% flat income tax + 18% VAT for practically everything, including groceries, gas and electricity. And we still have quite a lot homeless people and unemployment is ~8%. How do people complain about this? Easy, half of businesses pay under the table. When starting a job employers usually ask directly: which way you prefer to get paid – legally with all taxes paid or under the table. And these are usually poor people who opt the later because otherwise they woudn't be able to pay the bills and feed their children.


----------



## Scrooge

Why are you people so tolerant of government taking money away from you and giving it to people who don't deserve it? If anyone can't even afford the basic necessities of life, it's generally because of their own irresponsibility, and handouts don't do anything to make these people become any more responsible. As you can probably tell from my username, I'm a diehard capitalist. I believe that capitalism is the fairest system because it distributes goods and services to people who work hard for them. Why work hard if you can get handouts? Are you socialists honestly naive enough to think that no one would ever take advantage of the nanny state?


----------



## ElaineG

One way some Europeans tolerate those kind of taxes is by not paying them.

Karuna cites the example of Latvia above.

Tax evasion is so bad in Italy that Prodi's great economic innovation in his 2007 budget is largely simply trying to clamp down on tax evaders.  According to the _Economist, _27% of Italy's GDP is in the "nero", i.e. doesn't pay taxes_:_



> According to the Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (Istat, the National Statistics Institute), the underground economy accounts for 15% of GDP, but the most recent IMF estimate puts this figure at 27% of GDP. Underground businesses are widespread in agriculture, construction and services.


 
Despite being American, and despite not getting health care or free university education for my trouble, I pay close to 45% of my income in taxes, federal, state, local and Social Security.  That figure does not include sales tax, which I also pay.  I'll be surprised if I even collect a Social Security check when the time comes for me to retire.  I suppose that according to the tax charts I'm in an "upper income" bracket and shouldn't bitch, but I find it outrageous that my hard work goes to pay for disastrous wars, subsidies to agribusiness,  and pork barrel projects.  (And besides, I'm far from wealthy and don't know how I'll live in retirement, send my eventual children to university etc. etc. -- I could use that 45% a hell of a lot better than the government does.).

I _might_ feel better if the federal government had a different set of priorities, but in general, I think the larger scale anything is done on, the worse it is done.  Government should do as little as possible directly, in my book, and let people who know how to do things get on with doing them.  Grrr.


----------



## Flyingskull

Well, I wouldn't call it 'nanny state', I'd call it 'res publica' - forgive my Latin - a state is supposed to be an organism administrating the public or common wealth - its individual characteristic aren't influent - so taxes should be monies paid to have essential services provided.

Actually there's not a country that I know that works exactly like that. In USA taxes are lower than in other countries, but in the spirit of capitalism there should be none really. If citizens have to pay for everything (I mean schools, health, old age care and so on) from their own pockets, why pay taxes at all? Why, in fact, have a government at all? 

The res publica is a sort of socialism in which citizen pay in advance for services which are then given free to all who need them. It is an unequal system, but then what system is equal? It works - more or less - in Europe.

Am not saying one system is better than another, here, the point is I don't like the contemptuous expression 'nanny state'. It's just a res publica, one of the several form of government available to modern democracies. There's nothing 'nanny-ish' in getting services for monies paid, after all. And yes, I know I may be paying for someone else's health and services right now as I'm young enough and healthy and have a job, but I'll need the services as I get older and it's the same thing, to me, as putting money in a bank or giving it to some insurance.

I'm prolly a misguided European sissy, here, but I can see nothing wrong with the premise about taxes and the common wealth.


----------



## .   1

Scrooge said:


> Are you socialists honestly naive enough to think that no one would ever take advantage of the nanny state?


This is taking an extremist view.
My answer is of course not.
My reverse question to you is this.
In a capitalist system how many very wealthy people employ shysters to ensure that they pay little or no tax.
Does some poor down and outer scamming just enough to live cause as much drain on a system as does an Enron or similar?

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's start with the starting premise...that this is accurate data.  I strongly doubt it.  It includes only a portion of the taxes paid by that mythical "average"  US family.



> the tax "wedge" for each -- the combined effects of personal income tax, employee and employer social security contributions, payroll taxes and cash benefits.


That does not include personal property taxes on one's home.  It does not include the vast variety of excise taxes Americans pay.  It does not include some states' taxes on personal property such as automobiles.  It may or may not include state income taxes, country taxes, and lots of other small taxes that, in the aggregate, are the cost of a skinny, parsimonious "nanny".  

Bad data is a bad start to a discussion, but let's just wink at the huge omissions and pretend that this is more or less accurate.   





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> The ridiculous taxes levied upon them?


Ridiculous?  That's not a fact.  That's an opinion.  Some would say that we have a shameful dearth of public services, and that it is ridiculous to pay for such a paltry array of services.
On the other hand, Americans pay a lot more in taxes to support military misadventures than Europeans do.  We also pay a portion of our taxes to subsidize certain European intelligence services, in return for which we receive more flawed intelligence than the CIA could generate on its own.
Europeans pay taxes that, for the most part, pay for services received within Europe.  French farmers are grateful for CAP-provided tax revenues from Germany, Belgium, etc. 



> And with half of one's income being taken by the government in some cases, why are far-left parties still viable there?


  Far-left parties?  Where?   Chirac is not exactly a leftist.  Blair's New Labour is centrist.  Prodi's government is not far left.  Where are the far left parties?
In the imagination of a Rotary Club member in the midwestern US, anything short of Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond is probably called a leftist, but that doesn't make it a reality.  It's just superficial name calling in the interest of frightening people who don't know that the Republican party accepts socialistic principals such as Social Security and public schools (unless they are wealthy enough to pay for private schools.)  



> Yes, I know that most of these countries have advanced social welfare "nanny states" providing free healthcare and certain other services - but do these really make up for 30% higher taxes, especially when you consider that healthcare in most of those countries accounts for a smaller part of the GDP than in the US?


  Whooooooooaaa Nelly!!   "Nanny states"?  That's a stupid slogan.   The services provided are not free. Taxes pay for them.  There is a social contract between governments and electorates as to how much service will be provided, and thus bought with taxes.  That, Mr. Free Enterprise, is called Democracy!  Mr. Bush says (believe him at your risk) that democracy is a noble objective.  

If you add the cost of private medical insurance to a true US tax bill...including all the taxes paid, you may be unpleasantly surprised to discover that Americans pay as much or more for similar services.   A large chunk of American spending on health care goes to profit-seeking individuals and organizations.  In Europe, a similar amount probably goes to pay for inefficient burrrocrats.  When all is said and done, a similar amount per capita probably goes to providing medical care to people.  The differences are just ideological and rhetorical.


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:


> A typical American family, consisting of a married couple and two kids, making the country's average income (well above that of almost all Eurocountries), can expect to have 11.1% of their earnings taxed.  Yet for the same in Germany it is 35.3%, Belgium 40.3%, and in France, a ridiculous 41.7%



Statistical bladerdash, with an added sprinkling of selective reporting!
The page you link to states…


			
				tvdxer's link said:
			
		

> The OECD collects data on 30 member countries and annually calculates what it calls the tax "wedge" for each -- the combined effects of personal income tax, employee and employer social security contributions, payroll taxes and cash benefits.


I fund my state in ways other than the small way mentioned, and - I'm sure - so do most people in the world.

Are you not forgetting, for instance, that sales taxes apply to purchases? I certainly paid taxes when I was in America on holiday.

I get many benefits here which I wouldn't get in the US.
I have a totally different lifestyle than I would have in the US.
If I were to be hospitalised here for any reason (and if I were to opt to be treated as a public patient, and there are few good reasons not to) there is a charge of €60 a day up to a maximum of €600 in a year for the privilege. And it should be borne in mind that Irish public health services are not, by any means, the best in Europe.
What would it cost me in America?


----------



## badgrammar

One thing comes to mind about the health care thing...  In my familly back in Texas, I have a brother and sister in law who each pay about 750$ a month for health care coverage (they're around 40, non-smoking), and this "coverage" is limited, and has deductibles.  My parents, now in their late sixties, have had premius as high as 1000$ a month.  All this without ever actually being sick!!!

If you add to the balance sheet all the services and expenses individuals have to shell out for in the absece of "social programs" like health care, individual Americans aren't doing any better financially than individual Europeans.  

Are Americans really financially better off because they pay lower taxes but have to pay through the nose for private services?  I really doubt that.  

As per Scrooge, there...  Are children responsible for their financial status?  At what age should chidren be held responsible for paying for their vaccinations?  From your perspective it's a dog-eat-dog world and that's how it should be?  Maybe the U.S. should abolish free public schools, and that way only the ones who _really_ want to go to school or have rich parents will get an education.


----------



## maxiogee

> As per Scrooge, there... Are children responsible for their financial status? At what age should chidren be held responsible for paying for their vaccinations? From your perspective it's a dog-eat-dog world and that's how it should be? Maybe the U.S. should abolish free public schools, and that way only the ones who really want to go to school or have rich parents will get an education.



I love this - it would be fun to take it further, but we'd be shot for being off topic!

… And sure don't half of all children waste the education they get anyway, ending up unable to figure out the right change from $5.00 for a item costing $1.23. Aren't they robbing the more attentive students of the teacher's time?

… schools would then be obliged to "let the market decide" which subjects would be taught. Algebra and trigonometry would die instant deaths, as would social sciences and other 'irrelevant' subjects.

… Pupils would fire their teachers.​
and all so that the parents could save a few dollars tax.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Am completely stunned!  I come from the country that can boast in having the highest taxes in the world (Sweden for those of you who guest wrongly). And yes we may have problems with our healthcare, and yes we may be disappointed with our school system BUT we would never want to trade that in with the reality, "the average" American family has to put up with!!! 


Our schools, high-schools and Universities/Colleges (even the private ones) are free-of-charge. 
Our healthcare is free of charge. 
We have free dental care until the age of 19 and a new law is currently going to change that so that free dental care will be prolonged until the age of 21 or 22. 
We have excellent Public Service television and Radio. 
We have good infrastructure and well equipped means of public transport. 
As a student I receive a monthly sum of money to aid my learning which I never have to pay back (the sum is almost as much as an “average” American earns in a month). 
Our money does not aid warfare or the military, in case you were wondering that! 
The money goes also too parks, museums, libraries etc. funding different events and renovations. 
The list can go on and on and on and on...I have no problem paying taxes even if they are high, because not only do I get much in return but also every other citizen in this country. I presume that it's mostly like this in the other EU countries and darn it to say that I’m happy to be a European! 

 robbie


----------



## Outsider

tvdxer said:


> And with half of one's income being taken by the government in some cases, why are far-left parties still viable there?


Do you mean communists? They haven't been very popular for a long time now, in most places. 
Careful with terms like "far left". A lot about them is in the eye of the beholder.



tvdxer said:


> Yes, I know that most of these countries have advanced social welfare "nanny states" providing free healthcare and certain other services - but do these really make up for 30% higher taxes, especially when you consider that healthcare in most of those countries accounts for a smaller part of the GDP than in the US?


I think you've just aswered your own question. European countries have "ridiculous" tax systems to finance their health care and social security systems -- and yet they end up spending _less_ on health and social security than the U.S.! And, I might add, with better results for the health of most citizens, according to several international surveys. How's that for fiscal responsibility?



tvdxer said:


> Or, in reality, are these usually paid in full, or evaded?  Is tax evasion looked upon down there as it is here, or is it seen as clever (as I have heard repeatedly that it is in Italy)?


Oh, come on! Do you really believe that Americans are somehow inherently more honest than Europeans, when it comes to tax evasion?


----------



## übermönch

Equal chances and social mobility for every single member of the soceity is worth paying for. Education, Healthcare, security, social security, justice, a roof over head and sufficient nourishment is essential for everybody - it's more important that any other affair. 
The USA suffer an incredibly high crime rate, high violence rate, high infant mortality, inequality and social injustice - I'd ask how US-americans tolerate that! 

EDIT: the situation in FRG is, indeed, horrible. Aside from class segregation at school starting from 5th grade, recently university and doctor visit fees were introduced! while the high taxes support the absolutely useless sexist slave driver facility called army with draft and church servants who got the status of governmental authorities! It's horrible, with those fundamentalist conservatives ruling,we're the shame of europe.


----------



## Brioche

robbie_SWE said:


> Am completely stunned! I come from the country that can boast in having the highest taxes in the world (Sweden for those of you who guest wrongly).
> 
> _Our money does not aid warfare or the military, in case you were wondering that!_
> 
> robbie


 
Sweden makes lots of money selling military hardware to othe countries - around $700 million a year.
Sweden is the 15th leading weapons exporter in the world.


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche said:


> Sweden makes lots of money selling military hardware to othe countries - around $700 million a year.
> Sweden is the 15th leading weapons exporter in the world.



That may or may not be a non sequitir.  This thread is about personal tax rates and services provided with tax money.  Unless Swedish taxes are used to subsidize the domestic armaments industry, the remark about revenues and profits from military sales is off topic.  Even if the Swedish government does provide support to arms manufacturers, which has not been established here, the potential effects on tax rates and services would not likely be of great consequence.

That said, Robbie's statement, "_Our money does not aid warfare or the military, in case you were wondering that!_ " seems wrong.  If Sweden has any military forces at all, they are paid for with tax revenues.


----------



## robbie_SWE

cuchuflete said:


> That may or may not be a non sequitir. This thread is about personal tax rates and services provided with tax money. Unless Swedish taxes are used to subsidize the domestic armaments industry, the remark about revenues and profits from military sales is off topic. Even if the Swedish government does provide support to arms manufacturers, which has not been established here, the potential effects on tax rates and services would not likely be of great consequence.
> 
> That said, Robbie's statement, "_Our money does not aid warfare or the military, in case you were wondering that!_ " seems wrong. If Sweden has any military forces at all, they are paid for with tax revenues.


 
You're right Cuchuflete, but the Swedish government is currently dismantling the military. The only thing we still do is produce weapons that we sell to other countries. But these companies will probably be privatised soon if our new government has there way. My point was that unlike the US, we do not put our moneys worth on military actions (the author of this thread was also sceptical if all our tax revenues go to the wealth fare state) in other countries. I read somewhere that the US uses extremely (if not the most in the world) much revenue from taxes to fund the military and wars overseas. We don't do that here!

robbie


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Robbie,
Perhaps you could look here and tell us what the armed forces budget proposal is:  http://www.mil.se/article.php?id=15217
Sorry, I cannot read your language.

I haven't found current budget data, but this indicates that your country still uses some tax money for military purposes:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...den+"defense+budget"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2


----------



## Brioche

According to the CIA World Fact Book, 
Sweden spends 1.5% of GDP of the military.
Ireland spends 0.9% of GDP,  US  4% of GDP, and China 4.3% of GDP.


----------



## robbie_SWE

My point is that the Swedish state is not going to use more revenue from taxes as other countries are doing. The state is going to use less, because the military is becoming less important. Your statistics Brioche might very well be accurate, but in comparison to how it was before in Sweden, 1,5 % is very little and that number will be even smaller in the years to come. Chuchuflete the site you published tells us that the military budget is much smaller than the preceding year (2005) and that the military is going to become smaller. 

 robbie

PS: just remembered something from last year. When the state made budget cuts last year, most money was taken from the military. The military experienced a very drastic reform, a reform that is going to continue.


----------



## LV4-26

> How do Europeans tolerate the ridiculous taxes levied upon them?


No ridiculous tax is levied on me. Although I'm working, and have been working for a long time, I don't pay any income tax because I don't earn enough (and have 3 children). But I wouldn't mind paying them for the reasons that have been described by a few other forer@s.


			
				Scrooge said:
			
		

> Are *you* socialists honestly naive enough to think that *no one* would ever take advantage of the nanny state?


 (my emphasis)
- Has anyone before your post proclaimed themselves to be "socialists"?
- "No one"? Of course not. OK, some may "take advantage" of it. It's a risk I'm willing to take. Or is it a "risk"? I'm not obsessed by that fear. My ultimate goal in life is not to make sure no one is taking advantage of me.


----------



## cirrus

I wish we had a left leaning government here. The UK has not had one since 1945 and that was pretty much a one off.

The reason we have the level of taxes that we do in most of W Europe is that people expect everyone to have health care, roads, schools and a decent public transport system. 

When taxes were lower, and the state smaller for example in the 30s depression, poverty was much more extreme. This caused huge unrest and some argue may well have been the trigger for the second world war.  

The post war settlement across W Europe included welfare  in the country and working together between countries to make further conflict unthinkable and saving millions of lives in the process. This was a radical project based on common ground which crossed both the left and the right of the political spectrum.  As someone from the first generation in the UK which didn't have to go to war in Europe, I deeply resent this consensus being dismissed as mad left wing nonsense.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> According to the CIA World Fact Book,
> Sweden spends 1.5% of GDP of the military.
> Ireland spends 0.9% of GDP,  US  4% of GDP, and China 4.3% of GDP.



I regularly see people cite the CIA World Fact Book — Is this the same CIA that said Saddam Hussein had WMD? The same CIA that has been involved for years in destabilising governments deemed as 'unfriendly'? 

Just how fact-based is it? I have no idea how much we spend on our military, but apart from UN duties and ceremonial roles they aren't put to much use here.


----------



## maxiogee

Snigger


----------



## cuchuflete

Well, if we are going to snigger on one side of the pond, let's not forget the other:

"He was a founding member of the *Minnesota* Christian Coalition and was active in the state GOP for quite some time."


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> I agree.
> 
> I am quite happy to pay taxes knowing that these taxes support my nanny state.  There have been a couple of occasions when I fell flat on my face and the state was there to help out.  I like my nanny state.  I am sad to see and hear of homeless and sick people dying in countries with no effective social welfare system and am even happier about my nanny state.
> 
> .,,


I feel the same way, and find the screaming (by the media, not the population!) for tax cuts, incomprehensible! 

We had enough in the 1990s, of monetarism...


----------



## karuna

MOD EDIT: The post quoted here and karuna's first question were deleted from this thread for being off-topic.

I appologise for the offensive question. I am just trying to understand the question of this thread: why do people tolerate extremely high taxes? One answer that I see from the above is through hypocrisy. It is ok to pay high taxes if we scratch each others back.

I don't think that taxes should ever be more than 50% to make things at least balanced between government and citizens. But in Latvia it is already 76% (%33 + %25 + %18). And yet we have more homeless people than we have ever had in our history. And our social services is a joke. I have been associated with religious organization that has been providing free meals – for about 1000 persons per day for several years. All it took us to organize it was to approach a few local businesses and ask for little donations. 

Now the EU has assigned funds to the government to distribute bread to Latvia's poor. We thought, great, we can close our shop now. But this EU operation is plighted with so many problems. At first, the EU rules says that they can distribute only wheat bread that is not well accepted in Latvia. Latvians, especially poor ones, prefer to eat rye bread especially it is considered healthier and cheaper. But let's us not stop at technicalities. In the first few days there was a big scandal when bread distributors refused to give bread to Gipsies (one of the poorest minorities in Latvia btw) because one Gipsy boy kicked a loaf of bread. Then after one month of operation, the bread distribution was stopped completely and funding was withdrawn because someone in the long chain of buerocratic organizations, that are working for the fullfilment of this aim, is not filling their reports correctly. 

Sorry, I don't believe that these high taxes are used properly. If we really want, we can take care about poor and homeless with very little money. Most of the tax money goes to pay salaries to paper pushers in abstruse governmental organizations. And such people have lost ability to protest high taxes because their jobs are depending on them. 

The USA has their own problems, military spending etc., but they have also NASA. If European high taxes were used properly they could have 10 times better space program than NASA or USSR.


----------



## Qcumber

It is quite possible a percentage of the heavy taxes paid by EU citizens are sent to African countries with all the more gusto as politicians can pocket part of the money in the process and stash it in secret bank accounts in Switzerland, the Bahamas - you name them.


----------



## Fernando

I think tvdxer figures are not completely accurate. US taxes are, granted, smaller than European ones, but the difference is not so big as 11%-50%.

While I endorse the European system I , for sure, would like to be NOT taxed to maintain:

- Public TVs (both national and autonomous TV), wich amounts to around 2 billion euros a year.

- 90% subsidies

among other useless expenditure.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:


> among other useless expenditure.


 The real debate here is: "What does one consider a 'useless' expenditure?"  Americans consider a state medical system and many other features of European social support "useless".  Therefore, they are unwilling to create them and thereby raise their own tax burden.  Europeans, it appears, consider a state medical system to be a key role of government, so they are willing to pay for it.


----------



## Fernando

In general, you are right. That is the debate. But I am a bit more radical. Public TV (at least, Spanish public TV) is completely useless. If it would dissappear, the mankind (specially, Spaniards) would be better (and richer, of course).

On the medical system, I am pro-European system (though in Spain, dental care is not covered while sex changes are).


----------



## Fernando

Namakemono has answered you correctly. Spanish (national) public TV has accumulated a debt of 7 billion euros or so.

Autonomous TVs are much the same. There are THREE autonomous channels. Each of them defend their own governing political party.

Furthermore, why should I pay a TV? Maybe I could agree a good (and cheap) cultural TV, which is the role that sceond public Channel (La 2), but why is State making soap operas, news and TV shows?


----------



## pickypuck

Fernando said:


> There are THREE autonomous channels. Each of them defend their own governing political party.


 
TV is power so I think we would have first a private health system than the elimination of public TVs.

Btw, did you mean thirteen instead? I don't know the number exactly but there are more than three.


----------



## Fernando

pickypuck said:


> Btw, did you mean thirteen instead? I don't know the number exactly but there are more than three.



Sorry, I meant that there are up to 3 aut. channels in some autonomies. Summing up all autonomies, the number of channels will amount as much as 20.


----------



## Jérémie

cuchuflete said:


> Let's start with the starting premise...that this is accurate data. I strongly doubt it. It includes only a portion of the taxes paid by that mythical "average" US family.
> 
> 
> Additionally, most individual states levy a state income tax, as well as some municipalities, such as New York City.  Another "tax" that went undiscussed in the US, so far, is the Social Security tax, which functions differently than in the EU.  For us, Social Security is our pension system.  In France, securité sociale is your health care account and it is employer-paid.  I believe current Social Security tax is upwards of 8.5%, flat for all earnings up to about $90,000.  That is most wage-earners.  When this tax, alone, is added to the 11% or so that is quoted by msn, you reach a bit clearer of a picture.  The, as stated earlier, the taxation goes skyward with each additional hidden tax.
> 
> I believe, in the end, Americans are taxed only marginally more heavily than French people.  I have lived in both places and I don't think middle-earner French people have any less pocket money than their American counterparts.
> 
> Perhaps the only thing I notice is the size of personal living space most Europeans consider to be tolerable.  Americans have larger kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms, etc.  However, there is more space here to be enjoyed, per person, which is possibly why Australians and Canadians also display this trait.  We do pay less for more space - this is a supply/demand market feature, however, not one of taxation.


----------



## John-Paul

If you want to compare US and EU taxes you have to look at life time expenses. At first sight the US seems to be less demanding from its tax payers. But if you add in costs for health care and education you'll get a different picture. Yes, there are single (probl. white) healthy males with no children and a high paying job who reap the benefits of living in the US, all the others are screwed big time.


----------



## Fernando

I guess that "single (probl. white) healthy males with no children and a high paying job" are not very badly treated in the Netherlands.


----------



## don maico

Scrooge said:


> Why are you people so tolerant of government taking money away from you and giving it to people who don't deserve it? If anyone can't even afford the basic necessities of life, it's generally because of their own irresponsibility, and handouts don't do anything to make these people become any more responsible. As you can probably tell from my username, I'm a diehard capitalist. I believe that capitalism is the fairest system because it distributes goods and services to people who work hard for them. Why work hard if you can get handouts? Are you socialists honestly naive enough to think that no one would ever take advantage of the nanny state?


You are makiong some veryu crude generalisations based on bigotry and prejudice. The reason the welfare state came into being is millions fell into poverty and deprivation through no fault of their own.Also many millions who  work hard do so for very inadequatye wages and as such need the state to give them that bit extra so they can have a decent health care education for their kids and meet their every day obligations. Naked capitalism can never fill those needs particularly if those capitalists are scrooges as well.Its about recognisisng that we live in a society and as such we have obligations to one another. Of course there are people who abuse the system but even in those countries with little or no welfare many beg or steal or commit other crimes to survive. Some, as in India, will cut their hands off to increase their begging potential. Is that the way a civilsed society should go

My mother who is 95 receives attendance allowance which pays for her daily care needs . My mother in law not only gets her tv licence paid for but also a big subsidy on her gas bill and income support which  improve her pension. I am VERY happy about those things


----------



## don maico

robbie_SWE said:


> You're right Cuchuflete, but the Swedish government is currently dismantling the military. The only thing we still do is produce weapons that we sell to other countries. But these companies will probably be privatised soon if our new government has there way. My point was that unlike the US, we do not put our moneys worth on military actions (the author of this thread was also sceptical if all our tax revenues go to the wealth fare state) in other countries. I read somewhere that the US uses extremely (if not the most in the world) much revenue from taxes to fund the military and wars overseas. We don't do that here!
> 
> robbie


My question is do Swedes complain about their high taxes or do they . as I suspocet demand high quality services in return. The only thing I would complain about Sweden if I was a Swede would be the high cost of alcohol


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Scrooge said:


> Why are you people so tolerant of government taking money away from you and giving it to people who don't deserve it? If anyone can't even afford the basic necessities of life, it's generally because of their own irresponsibility, and handouts don't do anything to make these people become any more responsible. As you can probably tell from my username, I'm a diehard capitalist. I believe that capitalism is the fairest system because it distributes goods and services to people who work hard for them. Why work hard if you can get handouts? Are you socialists honestly naive enough to think that no one would ever take advantage of the nanny state?


 
Scrooge, I agree with you : there are many cases in which people do nothing to get out of their poverty.
I've been living on temporary jobs for 4 years, and if I had just let myself go every time a contract was over, I'd be on the street.
As soon as the contract finished, instead of staying home and crying upon myself, I kicked my butt out of home and went in every agency I could find in the directory. The result is that I've never been unemployed for more than 3 weeks. And if I hadn't found a job that matches my profile within 3 or 4 weeks, I'd have accepted any job, even if that meant collecting garbage or cleaning toilets... who cares!
I really don't understand how people can end up homeless in a city like Paris.
Even if I were an engineer, I'd rather clean the toilets than end up homeless.

The french "nanny state" encourages poverty, because it gives you almost the equivalent of your salary for several months when you are unemployed, therefore, who wants to move and find a new job?
There are even lots of people who work for about 6 months a year and then live the remaining 6 months on the "unemployment assistance".

And we pay for them!

On the other hand, I think that it's a good thing that the national health service pays for most of the health care. Health is sacred!


----------



## Lemminkäinen

don maico said:


> The only thing I would complain about Sweden if I was a Swede would be the high cost of alcohol



High cost? Norwegians car pool to Strömstad and other Swedish cities close to the border to hoard alcohol because it's so cheap.  

Also, the new Swedish Prime Minister (a conservative) has promised 38 billion _kroner_ (I think it's Norwegian as it wasn't specified in the paper) in tax relief next year.
Where will these money come from? Well, they'll cut in social securities such as the money you get when you're without work (*trygd*, can't remember the English word) and ill. 

They'll also raise the tax (!) on snuff (a very popular type of tobacco in Sweden) and dismantle some institutions like the governmental animal protection.

All that and more, just so the average Swede can pay a little less in taxes.


----------



## don maico

My problem here is that too many people assume that because someone is out of work he must be by definition malingering and that is not always the case.There are many people out there who are simply unemployable, that is no one will take them on . I have a met a few like that and for whatever reason these people just cannpot fit into the nortmal working environment. They may well have some kind of mental or physical issues but I know employers just wont give them a chance. There maybe an arguement for requiring them to do some kind work for the community but that would have to be paid for the taxpayer.
Anyway I fully favour a welfare system which encourages people into work by topping up their pay thus making it a worthwhile thing to do.No one should have to work hard for starvation wages.A decent minimum wage is a must. For eg here in the Uk it stands at about £5.00 per hr which is about 9 US dollars. A low wage earner can then apply for family tax credits which greaty reduces the amount of tax he pays if he has a family. I personally would favour the raising of the  threshold  where people start paying tax to about £10000 per year.That would aleviate much poverty.

trygd used to be called unemployment benefit. Dont know what its called now.


----------



## John-Paul

Comparing cost of living and the amount of money paid to common causes is very complicated. Comparing values als means you have to facture in elements like time, access to health care, education etc. In Europe people have much  more leisure time and their jobs are better protected. In the US people seem to have more posessions but less time, more stress and no job security whatsoever. Many people here are afraid to go on vacation because they think someone else will take their job. It's a plantation mentality when it comes to employer- employee relationships. People really think they have ownership when they pay you. You always have to pay for what you get - even if it's low taxes.


----------



## robbie_SWE

don maico said:


> My question is do Swedes complain about their high taxes or do they . as I suspocet demand high quality services in return.


 
Well it depends on the Swede. If he/she has a high income, owns a company or would benefit from tax cuts, being disappointed with the taxes is a necessity. But for the rest of us, regular Swedes who make enough to get by, taxes don't really bother us. I mean, how spoiled can some Swedes get??!! You can't eat the cake and still have it whole! So, back to your question I think that most Swedes are content with the taxes (even though we would like tax cuts, but naturally maintain the same standard of life) as long as the quality is equal to the taxes. This however can be discussed if it is do in Sweden today. 




Lemminkäinen said:


> High cost?





Lemminkäinen said:


> Norwegians car pool to Strömstad and other Swedish cities close to the border to hoard alcohol because it's so cheap. *Maybe for you guys, but we Swedes down here go to Denmark to buy our booze!  *
> 
> Also, the new Swedish Prime Minister (a conservative *He is not conservative, but a moderate in a coalition party*) has promised 38 billion _kroner_ (I think it's Norwegian as it wasn't specified in the paper) in tax relief next year.
> Where will these money come from? Well, they'll cut in social securities such as the money you get when you're without work (*trygd **a-kassa is the Swedish word anyway*, can't remember the English word) and ill.
> 
> They'll also raise the tax (!) on snuff (a very popular type of tobacco in Sweden) and dismantle some institutions like the governmental animal protection. *And sell state owned companies for billions of kroners!!!*
> 
> All that and more, just so the average Swede can pay a little less in taxes. *Sad but true...*







don maico said:


> My problem here is that too many people assume that because someone is out of work he must be by definition malingering and that is not always the case.There are many people out there who are simply unemployable, that is no one will take them on . I have a met a few like that and for whatever reason these people just cannpot fit into the nortmal working environment. They may well have some kind of mental or physical issues but I know employers just wont give them a chance. There maybe an arguement for requiring them to do some kind work for the community but that would have to be paid for the taxpayer.





don maico said:


> Anyway I fully favour a welfare system which encourages people into work by topping up their pay thus making it a worthwhile thing to do.No one should have to work hard for starvation wages.A decent minimum wage is a must. For eg here in the Uk it stands at about £5.00 per hr which is about 9 US dollars. A low wage earner can then apply for family tax credits which greaty reduces the amount of tax he pays if he has a family. I personally would favour the raising of the threshold where people start paying tax to about £10000 per year.That would aleviate much poverty.
> 
> trygd used to be called unemployment benefit. Dont know what its called now.




I must totally agree with you Don Maico! Many people think that it is so easy to just get a job. Our biggest problem in Sweden today is that the ones that are unemployed are the immigrants. These immigrants may be doctors, professors, scientists or what not, but they still don't get jobs because of discrimination. It's hard to work your whole life for a diploma just to flush it down the drain and start all over again. 

 robbie


----------



## Lemminkäinen

robbie_SWE said:


> Maybe for you guys, but we Swedes down here go to Denmark to buy our booze!



And the Danish go to Germany...  




> He is not conservative, but a moderate in a coalition party



I meant conservative in a more general sense, i.e. right of the center on the political spectre - mea culpa


----------



## maxiogee

Scrooge said:


> Why are you people so tolerant of government taking money away from you and giving it to people who don't deserve it?


How do you know that they don't deserve it?




Scrooge said:


> I believe that capitalism is the fairest system because it distributes goods and services to people who work hard for them.


So US companies shifting their manufacturing base to third world countries so as to pay hugely reduced wages (to call them 'pittances' would be to be generous) and still sell the product at the price they charged when it was made by US labour is a _good_ thing? How distributive is it? I think you need to explain that to me?

Should goods (and more particularly, services) only be distributed to those who work hard for them, or should there be some consideration given to 'need' also


----------



## Victoria32

don maico said:


> My problem here is that too many people assume that because someone is out of work he must be by definition malingering and that is not always the case.There are many people out there who are simply unemployable, that is no one will take them on . I have a met a few like that and for whatever reason these people just cannpot fit into the nortmal working environment. They may well have some kind of mental or physical issues but I know employers just wont give them a chance. There maybe an arguement for requiring them to do some kind work for the community but that would have to be paid for the taxpayer.
> Anyway I fully favour a welfare system which encourages people into work by topping up their pay thus making it a worthwhile thing to do.No one should have to work hard for starvation wages.A decent minimum wage is a must. For eg here in the Uk it stands at about £5.00 per hr which is about 9 US dollars. A low wage earner can then apply for family tax credits which greaty reduces the amount of tax he pays if he has a family. I personally would favour the raising of the threshold where people start paying tax to about £10000 per year.That would aleviate much poverty.
> 
> trygd used to be called unemployment benefit. Dont know what its called now.


You're absolutely right, Don Maico! Here the minimum wage is about $7.50/hr, hardly generous, but the same top-ups apply for people with children. My son, a nursing student who has just finished a placement in drug and alcohol rehab is havibng an argument on a motorsport forum (!) about people with substance abuse issues and their entitlement to invalidity benefit... he gets cross, when people assume that a drug addict can just 'snap out of it'. As if! 
Even being too old forthe market can render someone unemployable ....





robbie_SWE said:


> I must totally agree with you Don Maico! Many people think that it is so easy to just get a job. Our biggest problem in Sweden today is that the ones that are unemployed are the immigrants. These immigrants may be doctors, professors, scientists or what not, but they still don't get jobs because of discrimination. It's hard to work your whole life for a diploma just to flush it down the drain and start all over again.
> 
> robbie


We have that problem here, many of my friends from India and Pakistan are driving taxis (!) because of their real or _alleged_ problems with language, even though they are doctors, lawyers and teachers. The real problem is prejudice.


----------



## Qcumber

Normally these professionals should return to their native countries and bring the benefit of their acquired knowledge and know-how to their fellow countrymen. By remaining in the Western country where they studied, they create problems both at home and in the West. Do you think Dr. Sun Yat-Sen would have been useful to China if he had remained in Honolulu?


----------



## Victoria32

Qcumber said:


> Normally these professionals should return to their native countries and bring the benefit of their acquired knowledge and know-how to their fellow countrymen. By remaining in the Western country where they studied, they create problems both at home and in the West. Do you think Dr. Sun Yat-Sen would have been useful to China if he had remained in Honolulu?


These are people (in the case of my friends) who have lived in and served their own countries, but in middle age, decided to emigrate... 
Generally, I agree with you...


----------



## robbie_SWE

I don't agree at all! These people come from countries torn apart by war or political instability/oppression. These countries can’t offer them the jobs they deserve. Even native Swedes move from Sweden, because there are no jobs that suit them. We have many immigrants from Iraq; do you guys think that these people should go home to a country, lacking the most elemental parts of a functioning society and start looking for a job??!! Better to be unemployed here or make a living here than die and struggle to survive in their home countries! In Sweden, we are firm believers of "SOLIDARITY". 

robbie


----------



## cuchuflete

We are drifting off into an interesting topic> Does capitalist theory support the right of a person to immigrate in search of work?

Those who would like to discuss that at greater length are invited to open a new thread, while this thread will attempt to treat the assertions in Post #1.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Agree Cuchuflete (couldn't help myself from posting my last post...I promise to stick to the subject from nowon  ). 

 robbie


----------



## jess oh seven

well, for one, we have free health care as a result. 

as a child of a man who was in the US military, and now as an adult living in the UK, i've never had to pay to go to the doctor nor the dentist... i even had my appendix out for free earlier this year. i can go anywhere within the EU and receive free treatment. 

hell, i even go to university for free... but that only applies to Scotland and i'm not sure if it has anything to actually do with taxation.

but.... i am a student and taxes aren't deducted from my (minimal!) wages either... i´m sure i'll have something to complain about in a year or so, when i'm no longer one  but it seems like a small sacrifice for a better standard of life.


----------



## djchak

cirrus said:


> I
> The reason we have the level of taxes that we do in most of W Europe is that people expect everyone to have health care, roads, schools and a decent public transport system.
> 
> I deeply resent this consensus being dismissed as mad left wing nonsense.



I think the thing to realize here is that, in the culture of the US, we have different expectations compared to W. Europe.... expectations that have evolved from 1776 and up... for example, our taxes do include roads, and schools (up to high school), but public transport is based on need. Health Care is a private matter, literally.

Just becuase we are different (from W Europe) does not mean people in the US are mad right wingers either.

It does seem we clearly fail to understand each other, though.

It seems to me more productive to understand what the benefits of each system is...then to claim the the USA or W. Europe is clearly flawed.

Then again, dumping on other countries tax rates does seem fun. 

It helps us to forget the flaws of the countries we live in.


----------



## invictaspirit

This debate drives me NUTS and has done so for the last 20 years.

Europeans and Americans are fully entitled to shout "Mind your own goddamn business!" at each other. Each side is guilty of the most ridiculously uninformed, bigotted ignorance of the other system, in entirely equal measure.

I live in the UK, one of the least taxed nations in the EU. I earn $80,000 as a Head of English at a high school. So does my wife. (We met at teacher training  ). Our combined household income of $160,000 is vastly more than any American highschool teaching couple could ever dream of earning. In many US states, teachers earn just half what we do. The tax we pay (when you factor in every concievable tax, duty, sales tax, liquor tax, local tax...the whole shebang) is probably about 45% of our income, no doubt more than any American high school teaching couple would ever dream of paying.

We drive two pretty good cars, own a summer home in Italy, take 3 vacations a year, live in a nice house, eat out at least twice a week, do a lot of fun cultural stuff and shop a great deal. In addition to this, this family has received healthcare (pregnancy/labour/midwifery/post-natal care and also cardiac arrythmia corrective surgery), that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the USA, for nothing. Also, having just had a kid, despite our relatively comfortable income, we are receiving over $250 a month in child benefit and tax credits from the government (generally these are incentives to have kids in the first place and have them materially cared for). I have earned this. I pay a lot of tax and now it's collection time. 

Yeah...life really sucks.  

I'm tolerating nothing.

By the way, I would feel just as passionate about your average European anti-American who was whining the other way around.

We are different. Let's get over it and move on. I wouldn't want to to live in the USA (I tried it and gratefully moved home). You wouldn't want to live here. You respect the rights of the individual, we respect civic collectivism. Let's just agree to disagree and change the subject.


----------



## Outsider

Although the original poster worded it that way, I really don't think this is a U.S.-vs.-Europe irreconcileable difference. There are lobbies in Europe that complain about the madness of our system, and try to convince everyone that the American way is the wave of the future. And there are also political sectors in America (and common folks) who think universal health care might be a good idea.
Who knows, perhaps the original post itself, for all its confrontational language, betrayed a certain interest in whether and how the "other system" works.


----------



## cuchuflete

Before we change the subject and move on,   you have a few facts wrong, which is no surprise, since you live where you live, and know that place better than a far away place.  

I have friends who teach elementary school.  They live in a wealthy suburb of N.Y. City.  That is not typical of the entire US.  They earn a bit more than you do, based on seniority and advanced university degrees.   They pay, between federal, NY State, and local taxes, just a bit higher rate than you do.  Their employer-paid insurance gives them all the benefits you have described.  The do not get a state payment for having had a child.   Add it all up, and the numbers are remarkably close, despite the difference in politcal philosophy.

The discrepancies for higher income people are not significant.  For those towards the bottom of the income scale, the European model provides better care.  

This debate doesn't drive me nuts at all.  If the facts are presented honestly, the supposed gulf between systems shrinks quite a lot, and the real differences become more clear.  Some Neanderthals will yell, "Mine is better! Your way sucks!", but they are easily ignored while the rest of us focus on learning and understanding the differences.  



invictaspirit said:


> This debate drives me NUTS and has done so for the last 20 years.
> 
> Europeans and Americans are fully entitled to shout "Mind your own goddamn business!" at each other. Each side is guilty of the most ridiculously uninformed, bigotted ignorance of the other system, in entirely equal measure.
> 
> I live in the UK, one of the least taxed nations in the EU. I earn $80,000 as a Head of English at a high school. So does my wife. (We met at teacher training  ). Our combined household income of $160,000 is vastly more than any American highschool teaching couple could ever dream of earning. The tax we pay (when you factor in every concievable tax, duty, sales tax, liquor tax, local tax...the whole shebang) is probably about 45% of our income, no doubt more than any American high school teaching couple would ever dream of paying.
> 
> We drive two pretty good cars, own a summer home in Italy, take 3 vacations a year, live in a nice house, eat out at least twice a week, do a lot of fun cultural stuff and shop a great deal. In addition to this, this family has received healthcare (pregnancy/labour/midwifery/post-natal care and also cardiac arrythmia corrective surgery), that would cost tens of thousands of dollars in the USA, for nothing. Also, having just had a kid, despite our relatively comfortable income, we are receiving over $250 a month in child benefit and tax credits from the government (generally these are incentives to have kids in the first place and have them materially cared for). I have earned this. I pay a lot of tax and now it's collection time.
> 
> Yeah...life really sucks.
> 
> I'm tolerating nothing.
> 
> By the way, I would feel just as passionate about your average European anti-American who was whining the other way around.
> 
> We are different. Let's get over it and move on. I wouldn't want to to live in the USA (I tried it and gratefully moved home). You wouldn't want to live here. You respect the rights of the individual, we respect civic collectivism. Let's just agree to disagree and change the subject.


----------



## djchak

I think one main difference is:

Health Care and public transport is seen as an option, partially based on american ideals of individualism and self reliance. Again, the United States has had a much different history than that of Western Europe....attitudes are going to be different based on on sorts of factors.

No matter how many statistics we dig up...we are only looking at the tip of the iceberg. "Government Healthcare" would scare the crap out of many americans, as they don't trust the government, regardless of what party is in office. Spending money of "public transport" would be a waste of money in Montana and South Dakota. Let's get real.


----------



## fenixpollo

djchak said:


> "Government Healthcare" would scare the crap out of many americans, as they don't trust the government, regardless of what party is in office.


The U.S. already has "government healthcare" -- Medicare. People get the crap scared out of them because "socialized medicine" is demonized and people are let to believe that they will have to give 50% of what they make to the government so that unemployed people can stay at the Mayo Clinic when they get sick. 

 Americans' individualism, which is often a strength, can make them selfish. 





> Spending money of "public transport" would be a waste of money in Montana and South Dakota. Let's get real.


You don't think that some of Sioux City's 145,000 residents would benefit from a better bus system? What about the various Montana cities with more than a quarter-million people?  Let's get real.


----------



## ps139

Very interesting thread.

I've read through and have a few questions/comments. 

1. Is it really true that in Spain, dental care is not covered, while a sex-change is?? How did this possibly happen??

2. A friend of mine whose father is English told me that if you are over 65 in England, you can be denied healthcare, because you are "too old" and apparently the state doesn't want to "invest" in you.

3. She also told me that a lot of English women go out and get pregnant because they get a free house/apartment or something. This one sounded pretty unbelievable to me.

5. What is the deal with Medicare in the USA. As far as I know, this was introduced by Clinton and since I was about 14 years old I have no clue what it did, all I noticed was that I always seemed to need a "referral" and that ticked me off. But I really have no idea about this and would appreciate if someone would explain it to me. 


The problem with the virtually non-existent US public transportation has to do with the car companies. Back when automobiles were becoming popular, GM bought just about all of the above-ground light rail public trains in the US, and ripped them up. They own the rights to them but they will never give them up, they want people to have to buy a car. I am thankful that we have subways in some places, and some like DC are pretty clean... but New York's subway looks like a sewer compared to Madrid or Barcelona.


I am a single 25 year old male American. I live right outside NYC and the cost of living is so high here that I cannot afford to pay for my own place to live, so I am still with my parents. I have about $15,000 left to pay in college loans, and I consider myself lucky. Some people I know are in over $50,000. I have a 15 year old sister and I have no idea how my parents are going to send her to college. Hopefully she will get a soccer or academic scholarship. I think that the money I pay to social security will be gone by the time I am old enough to retire. I think that 2 weeks vacation is just wrong, and I am very envious of those in Europe that get time to enjoy their lives. Like someone said here, Americans have more stress and more "things," Europeans have more time to enjoy what they do have, which is usually less than Americans. In my opinion time is much more valuable than "things." 

I think it is a sin that in the USA, many people do not have healthcare. Absolutely horrible. Well, of course they would be treated in a hospital, but when they get out, they would probably have to sell their home to pay for it.... if they even have a home. Anyway that's about all I have to contribute for now, and I'd be so appreciative if anyone can help me with some of the questions above. Thanks.


----------



## invictaspirit

Cuchuflete

You put it better than me, but our points are the same. I taught class in a high school in the 'burbs of Kansas City for a couple of years. I would certainly hope a NYC teacher was paid more than I am! Living expenses here are high, but not quite (or yet!) on the level of New York. My ex-coworkers in Missouri, though, earn very significantly less than the non-London 'common pay spine' for teachers in England and Wales. Lower taxes and cheaper living in MO evens most of this out...but in MO you still have to have a really *fantastic* health package to match what you get for 'free' in Europe. Free at the point of delivery, anyway. One can of course argue that we still pay for it in taxes. But... what we are paying for is unlimited free meds and unlimited treatment of any ailment, no matter what your medical history, no questions asked, period. That, I think, would cost several hundred dollars a month if you were fronting the bill for health insurance.


----------



## invictaspirit

ps139 said:


> Very interesting thread.
> 
> I've read through and have a few questions/comments.
> 
> 1. Is it really true that in Spain, dental care is not covered, while a sex-change is?? How did this possibly happen??
> 
> 2. A friend of mine whose father is English told me that if you are over 65 in England, you can be denied healthcare, because you are "too old" and apparently the state doesn't want to "invest" in you.
> 
> 3. She also told me that a lot of English women go out and get pregnant because they get a free house/apartment or something. This one sounded pretty unbelievable to me.
> 
> 5. What is the deal with Medicare in the USA. As far as I know, this was introduced by Clinton and since I was about 14 years old I have no clue what it did, all I noticed was that I always seemed to need a "referral" and that ticked me off. But I really have no idea about this and would appreciate if someone would explain it to me.
> 
> 
> The problem with the virtually non-existent US public transportation has to do with the car companies. Back when automobiles were becoming popular, GM bought just about all of the above-ground light rail public trains in the US, and ripped them up. They own the rights to them but they will never give them up, they want people to have to buy a car. I am thankful that we have subways in some places, and some like DC are pretty clean... but New York's subway looks like a sewer compared to Madrid or Barcelona.
> 
> 
> I am a single 25 year old male American. I live right outside NYC and the cost of living is so high here that I cannot afford to pay for my own place to live, so I am still with my parents. I have about $15,000 left to pay in college loans, and I consider myself lucky. Some people I know are in over $50,000. I have a 15 year old sister and I have no idea how my parents are going to send her to college. Hopefully she will get a soccer or academic scholarship. I think that the money I pay to social security will be gone by the time I am old enough to retire. I think that 2 weeks vacation is just wrong, and I am very envious of those in Europe that get time to enjoy their lives. Like someone said here, Americans have more stress and more "things," Europeans have more time to enjoy what they do have, which is usually less than Americans. In my opinion time is much more valuable than "things."
> 
> I think it is a sin that in the USA, many people do not have healthcare. Absolutely horrible. Well, of course they would be treated in a hospital, but when they get out, they would probably have to sell their home to pay for it.... if they even have a home. Anyway that's about all I have to contribute for now, and I'd be so appreciative if anyone can help me with some of the questions above. Thanks.


 
Number 2 is totally wrong. Your entitlement to free healthcare is based on your citizenship, not your age. As long as you are a European citizen, you will not be asked to pay for any healthcare or treatment and can not be denied it by law. The only exceptions to this are some districts who penalise the grossly obese and smokers by not exactly hurrying their treatment if it is believed their ailments are entirely self-inflicted.  However, this is rare and highly controversial. In fact, over-65s are seen as *more* entitled to free healthcare, as they have spent a lifetime paying tax into the system. My father is 70 and although not really badly sick, has a few ailments. He is treated regualrly and well for these. With some of the non-urgent stuff he has to wait a while, but when it is more critical, he gets everything he needs immediately.

Number 3 is a political point and is partially right. It is true that some young women who might be called called white/trailer trash in the USA do this. In most local districts, a child/baby has an automatic right to socialised housing if its mother is 'homeless'. Therefore, many late-teen girls get pregnant and then cliam they can not live with their parents. The local council is obliged to find her somewhere to live. Some people say this problem is massively exaggerated by the media, others say it is a real problem.

I would also politely enquire what 'things' you think we don't have here. I'm not aware from my time living in Missouri or my frequent visits to the USA of anything that most Americans own that most Brits do not. Have you spent much time in Europe? I don't mean to sound partonising...but in MO I had a neighbour who in 1993 tried to explain to me what a TV remote was and then again how an ATM works. She was genuinely shocked when I told her that Brits had been using ATMs sicne the early 70s and remote controls from about the same time. She was FAR from an idiot, this woman. But she thought England was all castles and haystacks.


----------



## bianconera

The moral of the story -  there is no perfect system.


----------



## robbie_SWE

bianconera said:


> The moral of the story - there is no perfect system.


 
Maybe...but I think that some systems work better for some kind of people. If the people of a country are individualistic, then they should have a system that resembles the American one. In Europe it would never work, due to the strong "solidarity" tradition and social inclined mentality ("_spiritul de fraternitate_" as I like to call it in Romanian) which is present in most European countries. So, the European system is better for us, while the American system fits the American people (more or less). 

 robbie


----------



## ps139

invictaspirit said:


> Number 2 is totally wrong. Your entitlement to free healthcare is based on your citizenship, not your age. As long as you are a European citizen, you will not be asked to pay for any healthcare or treatment and can not be denied it by law. The only exceptions to this are some districts who penalise the grossly obese and smokers by not exactly hurrying their treatment if it is believed their ailments are entirely self-inflicted.  However, this is rare and highly controversial. In fact, over-65s are seen as *more* entitled to free healthcare, as they have spent a lifetime paying tax into the system. My father is 70 and although not really badly sick, has a few ailments. He is treated regualrly and well for these. With some of the non-urgent stuff he has to wait a while, but when it is more critical, he gets everything he needs immediately.



Thank you invicta, I am glad to know this is not true. I've got to have a little chat with my friend. 



> Number 3 is a political point and is partially right. It is true that some young women who might be called called white/trailer trash in the USA do this. In most local districts, a child/baby has an automatic right to socialised housing if its mother is 'homeless'. Therefore, many late-teen girls get pregnant and then cliam they can not live with their parents. The local council is obliged to find her somewhere to live. Some people say this problem is massively exaggerated by the media, others say it is a real problem.


Thanks for explaining that. The situation in the US is similar, but not the same... I do not think anyone gets a place to live, but there definitely are some women who have as many babies as they can so their welfare checks from the government increase. Every now and then on the news you hear about these horrible parents who do not take care of the children, or use their existence to support a drug habit, etc. Sometimes you hear the same with foster parents. It seems like both instances (USA & UK) are people who are dishonestly taking advantage of a well-meaning system. 



> I would also politely enquire what 'things' you think we don't have here. I'm not aware from my time living in Missouri or my frequent visits to the USA of anything that most Americans own that most Brits do not. Have you spent much time in Europe? I don't mean to sound partonising...but in MO I had a neighbour who in 1993 tried to explain to me what a TV remote was and then again how an ATM works. She was genuinely shocked when I told her that Brits had been using ATMs sicne the early 70s and remote controls from about the same time. She was FAR from an idiot, this woman. But she thought England was all castles and haystacks.



I was referring to this post by John-Paul earlier:
_In Europe people have much more leisure time and their jobs are better protected. In the US people seem to have more posessions but less time, more stress and no job security whatsoever._

From my experiences, I agree. I've only been abroad twice and my longest time was 3 weeks, but it does seem to me that in Spain and Germany, consumerism is not as rampant as in the USA. It is just the general feeling I got, nothing more, nothing less. I didn't mean to imply that Europeans were living in the stone age or anything, on the contrary I meant that you probably enjoy life more.

So many of the young kids where I live have cell phones, iPods, and are always on the computer either playing video games or on instant messenger or in front of the TV watching music videos or some brainless "reality" show. This kills family time, it makes a much more individualistic society, which I believe is a bad thing. Maybe it is a naive romantic impression of mine, but it seems to me that a kid the same age in Italy or Spain would be more likely to spend time with the family, than instantly rush to the computer or iPod when they've finished their last bite of dinner. Again, just an impression based on my experiences and observations. 

I appreciate your responses.


----------



## robbie_SWE

ps139 said:


> So many of the young kids where I live have cell phones, iPods, and are always on the computer either playing video games or on instant messenger or in front of the TV watching music videos or some brainless "reality" show. This kills family time, it makes a much more individualistic society, which I believe is a bad thing. Maybe it is a naive romantic impression of mine, but it seems to me that a kid the same age in Italy or Spain would be more likely to spend time with the family, than instantly rush to the computer or iPod when they've finished their last bite of dinner. Again, just an impression based on my experiences and observations.
> 
> I appreciate your responses.


 
Very interesting point Ps139. Maybe starting a new thread with this subject might interest you. Your impression might be true, but it depends which country you are visiting. The family is unfortunately not a strong institution anymore as it was before here in Sweden (except in my family  ). But in Italy on the other hand, the family does seem to be much more important. Consumerism maybe is more evolved in the US than here in Europe. 

 robbie


----------



## invictaspirit

> From my experiences, I agree. I've only been abroad twice and my longest time was 3 weeks, but it does seem to me that in Spain and Germany, consumerism is not as rampant as in the USA. It is just the general feeling I got, nothing more, nothing less. I didn't mean to imply that Europeans were living in the stone age or anything, on the contrary I meant that you probably enjoy life more.
> 
> So many of the young kids where I live have cell phones, iPods, and are always on the computer either playing video games or on instant messenger or in front of the TV watching music videos or some brainless "reality" show. This kills family time, it makes a much more individualistic society, which I believe is a bad thing. Maybe it is a naive romantic impression of mine, but it seems to me that a kid the same age in Italy or Spain would be more likely to spend time with the family, than instantly rush to the computer or iPod when they've finished their last bite of dinner. Again, just an impression based on my experiences and observations.
> 
> I appreciate your responses.


 
Hmmm...I think it is pretty similar here. In the school where I work, a kid who does not have an iPod, mobile phone and goodness knows how much stuff waiting at home is very rare.  It is hard to wrench my teen neices away from their laptops/MSN.  We have an ongoing debate in the British media that our kids are materially spoiled and emotionally neglected.

I think the difference is how much people pay for these things.  There is not a lot of 'stuff' that isn't cheaper to buy in the US.  It's not dramatically cheaper...but every time I go there I always notice that pretty much everything is a little less.


----------



## Victoria32

invictaspirit said:


> By the way, I would feel just as passionate about your average European anti-American who was whining the other way around.
> 
> We are different. Let's get over it and move on. I wouldn't want to to live in the USA (I tried it and gratefully moved home). You wouldn't want to live here. You respect the rights of the individual, we respect civic collectivism. Let's just agree to disagree and change the subject.


Ah, but you don't understand! We have a duty to try to improve life for the poor benighted Americans! 


ps139 said:


> Very interesting thread.
> 
> I've read through and have a few questions/comments.
> 
> 1. Is it really true that in Spain, dental care is not covered, while a sex-change is?? How did this possibly happen??
> 
> 2. A friend of mine whose father is English told me that if you are over 65 in England, you can be denied healthcare, because you are "too old" and apparently the state doesn't want to "invest" in you.
> 
> 3. She also told me that a lot of English women go out and get pregnant because they get a free house/apartment or something. This one sounded pretty unbelievable to me.






IMO, ps139, your friend is misinformed (and I see that Invicta has already answered that.
The accusation about girls getting pregnant for the 'welfare lifestyle' is made here as well, but is just not true in my experience...


----------



## invictaspirit

I would ahve to disagree with you there, Victoria.

As a sec. school teacher of 14 years standing, I can absolutely assure you that quite a number of late-teenage girls certainly do choose to have babies to open the gates to social housing, welfare and so on. It is just not as common or widespread as some of the media/pub-talk makes out.

But if it were legal or professionally correct for me to do so, I could give you the names and locations of at least 20 girls I have taught since 1992 who have done just that.

It is true that some of them don't sit down and black and white declare:  "I am going to needlessly have a baby to get a council house and a load of free money."  They do, however, come from a sub-culture or community in which the idea of work is seen as pointless because 'you don't need to'.  They are often unthinkingly copying the choices their mothers and grandmothers made and in some instances, are acting on their advice.  In this culture, a woman who has not had a child by the age of 20 is often looked upon as odd.

The decision is not always to wantonly and knowingly rip-off the tax payer.  But it is a decision which they believe offers an easy and desirable route to a life of leisure and, in their terms of reference, a reasonable standard of living.


----------



## djchak

ps139 said:


> Very interesting thread.
> 
> 5. What is the deal with Medicare in the USA. As far as I know, this was introduced by Clinton and since I was about 14 years old I have no clue what it did,




Oh boy, introduced by Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)


----------



## djchak

Things like this will *ALWAYS* be a problem as long as there is welfare of any sort. But it shouldn't get out of hand if the system is self correcting. (regardless of witch nation we are talking about)

But welfare *reform* can be just as controversial.


"We have a duty to try to improve life for the poor benighted Americans!"

No idea what point you are trying to make here.






invictaspirit said:


> I would ahve to disagree with you there, Victoria.
> 
> As a sec. school teacher of 14 years standing, I can absolutely assure you that quite a number of late-teenage girls certainly do choose to have babies to open the gates to social housing, welfare and so on. It is just not as common or widespread as some of the media/pub-talk makes out.
> 
> But if it were legal or professionally correct for me to do so, I could give you the names and locations of at least 20 girls I have taught since 1992 who have done just that.
> 
> It is true that some of them don't sit down and black and white declare:  "I am going to needlessly have a baby to get a council house and a load of free money."  They do, however, come from a sub-culture or community in which the idea of work is seen as pointless because 'you don't need to'.  They are often unthinkingly copying the choices their mothers and grandmothers made and in some instances, are acting on their advice.  In this culture, a woman who has not had a child by the age of 20 is often looked upon as odd.
> 
> The decision is not always to wantonly and knowingly rip-off the tax payer.  But it is a decision which they believe offers an easy and desirable route to a life of leisure and, in their terms of reference, a reasonable standard of living.


----------



## Victoria32

invictaspirit said:


> I would ahve to disagree with you there, Victoria.
> 
> As a sec. school teacher of 14 years standing, I can absolutely assure you that quite a number of late-teenage girls certainly do choose to have babies to open the gates to social housing, welfare and so on. It is just not as common or widespread as some of the media/pub-talk makes out.
> 
> But if it were legal or professionally correct for me to do so, I could give you the names and locations of at least 20 girls I have taught since 1992 who have done just that.
> 
> It is true that some of them don't sit down and black and white declare: "I am going to needlessly have a baby to get a council house and a load of free money." They do, however, come from a sub-culture or community in which the idea of work is seen as pointless because 'you don't need to'. They are often unthinkingly copying the choices their mothers and grandmothers made and in some instances, are acting on their advice. In this culture, a woman who has not had a child by the age of 20 is often looked upon as odd.
> 
> The decision is not always to wantonly and knowingly rip-off the tax payer. But it is a decision which they believe offers an easy and desirable route to a life of leisure and, in their terms of reference, a reasonable standard of living.


The thing is that I spent pretty near 18 years on a solo mothers' benefit, a term of what I regarded almost as imprisonment which ended last year, when I was finally able to get a job (something I would have done years ago, had one been available! Of the women I knew in the same position over these 18 years, probably a hundred of them, in different cities, not one of them fit what is a popular middle class belief about what are called here "solo Mums on the DPB - spit"... 
I am willing to accept that they exist - it's just that I have yet to meet one, the women on the DPB I knew (and know) were all pretty much like me - previously married 30 somethings, traded in for younger models!  

(Just my experience - but still valid I think).

"We have a duty to try to improve life for the poor benighted Americans!"

Ooops, just an attempted joke which fell a wee bit flat... Sorry!


----------



## ps139

djchak said:


> Oh boy, introduced by Clinton?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)


I told you I don't know anything about medicare!


----------

