Why the Swedes love doing something that Americans hate
Why the Swedes love doing something that Americans hate
Sweden has some of the world's highest taxes, so why is the taxman so popular with the Swedes?
Sweden is infamous for having some of the highest taxes in the world, and yet the country's tax agency is still one of Sweden's most trusted institutions.
The Swedish attitude towards tax contrasts sharply with many countries where taxes can be a deeply divisive issue. We investigate what this says about Swedish society and how the popularity of the welfare state might survive growing challenges in the future.
You're viewing a single thread.
Because here in America, when they take my money, it's to give away to oil companies and weapons dealers. Not to give us all health care and affordable housing.
Americans actually pay more per capita towards public healthcare than most Europeans, but it just covers so much less (Medicaid and Medicare) because of insane healthcare prices.
Don't forget bailing out hospitals etc. when people invariably default on their medical debt. On expensive ER bills that only exist because people couldn't afford to visit a GP five years earlier and get some cheap off the shelf preventive medicine.
Also, and this really shouldn't be underestimated: Laws concerning everything from food regulations over transportation polity to sports promotion that don't take people's health into account because health is a private matter. With socialised healthcare, suddenly all those new fancy bike paths have a tangible ROI in yet another public budget (not just the transportation agency's one, that is).
On expensive ER bills that only exist because people couldn't afford to visit a GP five years earlier and get some cheap off the shelf preventive medicine.
A few years ago, I went to the ER because I was feeling abnormally unwell. Sat in the ER for an hour then nurse finally took me into a room. They had to leave to do something immediately after putting me in a room. Sat there for 15 minutes and realized that my body was starting to feel much better so I left.
I got a $3000 bill after insurance. The hospital declined my financial assistant application to get my bill reduced because they said I made too much money. I made $16/hr at the time in an expensive metro area. Ended up paying it off on a 3 year plan.
Important thing to remember, don't leave after you get put in a room. Get formally discharged, or it becomes AMA, and insurance will always deny coverage.
If you check in at the desk and leave, it's not a big deal, but once you start to receive care you really should stay.
Two word to solve this: Public Healthcare.
Iinm medicaid/medicare is a government health insurance scheme that only given to selected individuals, and care is provided by private owned hospital, while Europe(and a lot of other place in the world) practice universal public healthcare, where the hospital is owned and run by government. This way, the government wouldn't get squeezed dry by the exorbitant cost of private healthcare, while at the same time wouldn't need to pick and choose who is eligible. Private hospital is there to provide value added service for people who can afford it.
In many places in Europe, they have a so-called "treatment guarantee," which means that if the wait is longer than 30 days for non-emergency treatment and procedures referred by a doctor, you can elect treatment at the private hospital instead of a public hospital. No charge.
For emergencies, you are always treated immediately at either a public or private hospital.
E: I'm mentioning this because I've encountered a large number of uninformed Americans who always start crying about "people dying on wait-lists in Europe and Canada unlike in America." No.
What country is that? Definitely not the UK.
E.g. Denmark.
55% of tax dollars in the united states goes to social programs, social security, and healthcare.
I saw them give trillions of free dollars to companies that had just received three years of extremely vigorous tax cuts.
Yeah, the military spending is actually pretty loosely connected to the shitty safety net. It's basically hostile to the poor just because. Historically, racial resentment drove a lot of it.
And tax dollars from the US are funding Palestinian genocide through ISRAHELL.
Changing the name of countries and groups every time you mention them is cringe.
Difficult considering social security isn't a tax. Without looking it up my guess is that number rolls up the 14-15% of SS and Medicare taxes so the real number is lower.
It's considered a tax by the social security administration.
Source?
Handy Infographic from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
.- Total Federal outlays: $6.1 Trillion
- Federal Social Spending
- Social Security: $1.3T
- Medicare: $0.839T
- Medicaid: $0.616T
- Income Security Programs: $0.448T
- Total Social Spending: $3.203T
Math warning:
(3.203T / $6.1T) * 100% = 52.5%So, not quite the previous poster's 55%, but pretty close. There is also an "Other" column which likely includes other social spending and may have gotten us to that number. But, it's enough of a mixed bag, and way too much work, to try and pick it all out.
While the US could certainly adjust it's spending in a lot of good ways, the idea that the US spends "nothing" on social programs is provably false. These numbers also get weird and much harder to pin down when we look at State level taxes and spending. Many years ago, I dug into education spending in the US. And while Federal Education spending is a drop in the bucket, the actual number is pretty large, because it's considered a State responsibility and each State spends large amounts of money on it.
For example, my home State of Virginia budgets $29.9 Billion for "Health and Human Services" this Fiscal Year 2024 and $25.0 Billion for "Education", those two line items eating up about 62% of the State budget.
Thanks, and your math makes sense, but I think this is a misinterpretation by op. It's fair to say that as a percentage of expenditure... But not tax dollars.
Social security gets complicated because it's set up as a trust fund and has investments that grow to support disbursement rates. It also means that the expenditures should be carved out, same as the inbound tax. This should shift the calculations meaningfully.
Social security is a Ponzi scheme, not a trust fund. There's no growing pot of money, the inbound payments are directly used to pay current benefits.