Here in America, people (or at least Republicans and Libertarians) are conditioned to think that Big Government = Bad Goverment. One of the argument against Big Government is that a nanny state prevents a strong and vibrant society that takes care of itself through volunteerism.
But is that necessarily true? Consider the case of Sweden:
Sweden's vibrant civil society exists in a country with one of the world's most interventionist welfare states. Swedes' personal income tax can be as little as 29% of pay, but anyone earning over £32,000 will pay between 49% and 60% through a combination of local government and state income tax. The country's tax burden, at 47.1% of GDP, is the world's second largest, after Denmark.
In exchange, Swedes enjoy the benefits of arguably the world's most generous welfare state. Parents get universal nursery coverage capped at £130 a month, free schools, free health and dental care for under-18s, as well as generous personal benefits such as a child allowance of £1,070 a year per child. Most jobseekers can expect to receive 80% of their previous salary for the first 200 days of inactivity (dropping to 70% for the next 100 days). Couples can have joint parental leave lasting 480 days, which they can divide as they want, most of the time paid at 80% of their income. By and large, people are well taken care of.
Sweden's expansive welfare state helps to explain the vitality of the volunteer organisations in the country, says Svedberg. "The welfare state plays a very important part by giving people the practical and mental space necessary to be able to be active. It creates possibilities for citizens." Strikingly, the people who volunteer the most are those you might think have the least time available. "Most volunteers are working full time and have one or two children," he says. "They tend to be well educated and well connected. If you are connected to different social arenas, you are more likely to be recruited into volunteering activities."
*shakes cane angerly*
(cuz they can't really "think" can they?)
And hey, huge chronic unemployment (more than in the US), conformity, deference to authority, hostility to immigrants, near universal military conscription, scarcity of entrepreneurship, heavy government meddling in media, cultural stagnation, and political stagnation - in short, a lack of freedom - are well worth the benefits of welfare! Hey, it's free!
Sweden also has a huge non-profit sector that advances the social causes of well-educated, well-connected, well-off white people.
Sounds like a great place to be - if you're a well-educated, well-connected, well-off white person. Not so much for the rest of us.
I hope you're just trying to open a debate on this topic, Alex, and not incite anger and impose judgments on people who have a differing attitude on this subject than you do.
"Sounds like a great place to be - if you're a well-educated, well-connected, well-off white person"
Hey, I am those things, I should move to Sweden! Except I've been there and it's pretty, um, well cold, not weather but emotionally. I understand it's a culture thing but blah, it's like trying to make friends at a med school during finals or something.
f-350 with nice rims, something is out of whack. What is the money really paying for?
Bottom line...the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.
Here we have a Government bigger than Sweden, we work 5 months per year to pay Taxes, but with a goverment so huge we can not supervise it.
On big countries (USA, China, brasil, Russian) big govenment mean huge corruption.
You know what else is oppressive?
U.S. higher education costs
U.S. healthcare costs
U.S. transportation costs
U.S. childcare costs
U.S. retirement costs
A 50% tax rate sounds pretty high until you realize that the average American pays substantially more for the same services enjoyed by
other citizens in the western world through their governments.
Entrepreneurship is a wonderful thing, but the conservative, low tax vision for this country doesn't leave much room for it. Low taxes mean
fewer government services. Fewer services means that citizens must rely on the private sector for basic services like healthcare, etc. The private sector, by definition, is motivated primarily by profit, meaning that the private sector has substantial incentive to keep pay and benefits low to keep profits high (and bargaining power to keep those benefits low, since every worker is under the same stress).
This isn't a recipe for entrepreneurship; its a recipe for producing a vast underclass of scared, docile workers too terrified of losing their benefits to even attempt to make their fortunes.
Wise government spending doesn't oppress the average worker--it liberates her from penury. Just imagine how much more entrepreneurial Americans would be if they could graduate from college without $30-100k in student loan debt, or worry about paying for healthcare, childcare, and retirement.
The limited government crowd isn't interested in helping those making
under $100k per year survive, and they certainly aren't interested in
entrepreneurship and "free markets". They're interested in maintaining a pliant, desperate workforce scared shitless at the prospect of losing
what few benefits they have. A scared workforce serves the interest of corporate America much more than a healthy, confident, debt-free workforce.
I question the statistical validity of this silly and self-justifying claim. Nevertheless, despsite my skepticism I remain willing to volunteer my services to the Swedish Bikini Team.
1 Protect their citizens against wrongful and unjust actions by internal or external factors
2 Promote the improvement of each citizen's value of existence through education, medical support, civil support structures, working transportation systems, etc
3 Provide platforms for individuals to live a wholesome, fulfilling life (which extends beyond just earning large sums of money)
To be honest, I think that the ideology of the American Dream is more real in Sweden than in the States. Here people work to add value towards the greater community out of choice (proving it's place as a charity/welfare state), as opposed to working purely to pay the bills and maximize profit margins.
Also, one comment mentioned how charity is based on individualist involvement and not so much governments; as someone that's spent a large chunk of his life in the NonProfit sector I can promise you welfare is firstly the responsibility of state, secondly of private industry (vecause they are usually the causes of massive inequalities in profit states) and LASTLY the responsibility of individuals.
Many Scandinavians here, my self included.
I find it terribly funny, more so sad, that most of the people who volunteer in MN are white folk and you hardly ever see "people of color/people on welfare" volunteer.
Why that's sad is, if you're on welfare and not looking for a job (most are like that here)...you have more time than anyone else to volunteer?
So, with that logic...I say the more government assistance you get the less you volunteer!
/facepalm
Just because something works for some small country does not mean it will work here.
A society that coddles the weak breeds the weak!
If the government is doing everything for me why would I want to get up and do anything? I know too many damn lazy people who collect welfare and disability (note not all disabled, just saying a FEW here I know personally) who COULD work but do not contribute anything to society, while I have to break my back just to scrape by. This is obviously a leftist blog judging by the first page of posts. Don't you guys get it, theres a reason we're conditioned to think big goverment is bad government, the founding fathers warn of it. And we can see with our own eyes what it does. The goverment needs to get the hell out of my business. Period. Aron makes a good point, you're simply pointing out it's not perfect, of course it's not perfect but what would you perfer? If you like the way another country operates nothing is stopping you from hoping on a plane.
Now we have a country dominated by financial institutions with ever decreasing social mobility. What I'd call 'stagnation', that's where capitalism always leads.
Unlike Sweden who with their small 9-10 million population dominate the world with such innovative companies as some of the worlds largest drug and pharmaceutical companies (e.g. AstraZeneca, 3H Biomedical), telecommunications (e.g. Ericsson), and other household brands (Electrolux, ) and industrial giants (Saab, Volvo, even Tetra Pak).
Sure, the US has had the luxury of being bigger and better than everyone else for a while, those wide open spaces and limitless resources have helped, but they do comparatively little compared to what they put in to doing it. They're way down in league tables for income per capita and even number of millionaires per capita, as for access to healthcare ...
As for restrictions on your lifestyle, just try getting in to debt with serious health problems.
And which country holds the most prisoners per capita in it's Jails? China? Russia? Chechenia? Nope, the good old USA! So much for land of the free!