- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
I do not understand the attractiveness of Sweden as a model. They too are staring the coming demographic nightmare in the face along with the rest of Europe.
I do not understand the attractiveness of Sweden as a model. They too are staring the coming demographic nightmare in the face along with the rest of Europe.
Another example of government intervention success tho … especially about welfare or health care.
Wouldn't the definition of success imply that any government programs be sustainable in the long-run? Any government run pyramid scheme like pensions or medical care that rely on fleecing future generations for benefits now don't really fit the definition of successful except in a very narrow sense do they? Now if they could proveide benefits and be sustainable in the long-term then I will happily clap and call it successful.
Sweden's 57% tax rate is a success?? For whom???
health care, education and more. Just check, Sweden isn't considered as a communist country and it works.
Just FYI – a little while back this thread took over the title for having “most replies” on this forum from “Bulgarian people, the forgotten saver of Europe”.
Just FYI – a little while back this thread took over the title for having “most replies” on this forum from “Bulgarian people, the forgotten saver of Europe”.
Success ;D
Sweden's 57% tax rate is a success?? For whom???
health care, education and more. Just check, Sweden isn't considered as a communist country and it works.
I don?t think anyone has said they are a communist country, socialist yes, communist no. However, I am questioning the long term fiscal viability of Sweden?s and indeed most countries social welfare systems. The whole idea of social spending is predicated on more people paying into the system than draw benefits from it. That model worked fine until about 30 years ago when most western nations quit having so many kids. Now all of these countries are staring at a fiscal reality that says either taxes must increase or benefits must drop or the system will go bankrupt.That is why there are riots in France and the Tea Party in the states. No-one is saying get rid of social support, they are however, saying that this support must be put on and stay on a sound financial basis so that they stay viable over the long term even in the face of a declining birthrate. There is an easy fix for this, people could have more kids. I don't see that happening though as most westerners are too selfish for that, Kids are a drag you know; they cramp the fun in life.Here are some info links:Net social expenditure > % of GDP (most recent) by country The debate on the sustainability of social spendingSUSTAINABLE SOCIAL SPENDING IN A GREYING ECONOMY WITH STAGNANT PUBLIC SERVICES: BAUMOL?S COST DISEASE REVISITEDCommentary on: Social Expenditures and Fiscal Sustainability: the Case of FranceBetween a Rock and a Hard Place: Debt Distress vs. Debt ?Sustainability? It is difficult to make the case given current demographic trends that current levels of social spending are viable and sustainable in the long term.
Just FYI – a little while back this thread took over the title for having “most replies” on this forum from “Bulgarian people, the forgotten saver of Europe”.
Forgotten again ;D
Just FYI – a little while back this thread took over the title for having “most replies” on this forum from “Bulgarian people, the forgotten saver of Europe”.
It just proves the power and influence of the Tea Party movement.
Just FYI – a little while back this thread took over the title for having “most replies” on this forum from “Bulgarian people, the forgotten saver of Europe”.
I had forgotten about that thread until you inconveniently brought it back up. 🙁
the “common” politician (a democrat this time 😉 )http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/did-jack-conway-go-too-far.html
