that looked interesting RvW but it is way to long to read u should think about making ur posts shorter

Priceless!

TexasJohn:

Also, am I correct in believing that the citizens of socialist-leaning states, such as the aforementioned Scandinavians, and even good portions of the EU, pay up to 40-50% of the monthly income in taxes?

Can't speak for the Nordic Region, but in the Netherlands the system works approximately as follows. Your income below Y euro (don't know the exact number of the top of my head) is taxed at 30% (if memory serves), your income between Y euro and Z euro is taxed at 40% (or thereabouts) and everything over Z euro is taxed at 55% (that number I'm reasonably sure about). [Just to be clear, if you go from Z euro to Z+1 euro for instance, only that extra euro is taxed at the higher rate, you won't suddenly have you net income decrease because you went over the limit.]
After that initial calculation, you tax is reduced by a fixed amount (we used to have a 0% tax for income below X, but the new system is more favourable to people with lower incomes, giving less benefit to high incomes). And of course there's a whole load of exceptions, special cases, tricks, loopholes and complications, but I don't know them too well myself and even if I did..., let's just say I already know Ryan's response. ;)

For completeness' sake, our VAT is (for nearly all products, of course there's exceptions...) 19%.

You might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIT_in_World_Barry_Kent.png

---

Zilmorph:

Paying through insurance premiums is not socialistic because it leaves the poor to fend for themselves, since the system doesn't pay for the people.

Ehm, yes it is; people who have no expenses themselves help pay for the (high) expenses of the few unlucky people who have them by paying a relatively low amount.

In countries like the US, where the medical system is a private sector held in the fist of the insurance companies, the system is not out for the benefit of the population but are out for the almighty dollar.

I'm talking about the situation where everyone has a healthcare insurance (either because they know it's a good idea, or because required to by law). And I'm talking about insurance companies with a healthy (not an obsessive) desire for making a profit. By the way, I know for a fact such situations exist (the Netherlands for one).

Another thing in countries with socialized medical systems, (like the one I live in), there is no insurance whatsoever, healthcare is free in the sense it is payed through taxes only.

Meh, minor difference. What does it matter whether the government tells you "you have to pay taxes and we'll use (part of) those taxes to pay for healthcare" or the government telling you "you have to have healthcare insurance, which will pay for healthcare"? It's just the difference between the money going through the government or through private companies. If you take your current situation and privatise the paying-for-healthcare branch of government, you'll have the situation I'm talking about. Personally, for most sectors, I'm in favour of privatisation; it sure seems like companies work more efficiently than government.

Watch the film Sicko by filmmaker Michael Moore.

Ehm no, I will not; last time I watched anything by him he had a point, but his "documentary" was not about making that point, it was nearly-exclusively about "look how interesting/awesome/cool I am" with just enough "point" to get people to watch his egotrip.

RvW why do you try so hard to appear smart? Who indoctrinated you with all this neoliberal nonsense? Did you fall for it all by yourself?

Meh, minor difference. What does it matter whether the government tells you "you have to pay taxes and we'll use (part of) those taxes to pay for healthcare" or the government telling you "you have to have healthcare insurance, which will pay for healthcare"? It's just the difference between the money going through the government or through private companies.

If you can`t make out a difference, you should reflect upon your shortsightness. The tax load is never distributed equally among the population. Lower income normally (should) get taxed significantly lower than higher income. Leading to a situation, where if you have a low income you have lower taxes, thus the state paying for your health insurance provides you with a better healthcare than you could afford in an uncontrolled market. That leads to more social stability and equality.
The situation as it is in the USA for example, where there is no population wide cover of an affordable and adequate healthcare system paid by the state, leads to exploitation of the already weak. The private companies natural behaviour of abusing their power for profit, or even only the "healthy" pursuit of profit, especially in such sensitive areas as medical treatment forces the precariat into poverty or even more final destinations, like death.

And I'm talking about insurance companies with a healthy (not an obsessive) desire for making a profit.

The only thing restricting companies from making an obsessive and not an healthy profit is either governmental/juridical control (works best) or public opinion (is the last resort in highly capitalistic societies, doesnt always work well and works only if severe damage has be done already). There never was, is no and never will be a healthy selfristriction in private companies when it comes to profit.


I understand that you must be very young, with such an urge to radiate your onedimensonal knowledge about whatever, but having to look at your posting spree all the time without commenting on the halftruths and wrong perceptions, makes my head ache.

The tax load is never distributed equally among the population.

I said "minor difference", not "no difference". From personal experience, my healthcare insurance is just a fraction of my taxes, so adjusting for income wouldn't make that much of a difference on the whole (it would probably decrease (not cancel out) the benefit of increased efficiency in corporations).
Besides, if you really want to make sure the lower incomes pay less than the higher incomes, you can always invent some benefits (is that the word - when the government gives you some money to help out) programme. By the way, we actually have that too.

The situation as it is in the USA for example

Find one post where I defend the "current" (as in: before Obamacare) USA healthcare system... (I cannot comment on how things will work out once the reforms have fully completed; that would require much more knowledge of how well the insurance market in the USA works.)

The only thing restricting companies from making an obsessive and not an healthy profit is either governmental/juridical control (works best) or public opinion (is the last resort in highly capitalistic societies, doesnt always work well and works only if severe damage has be done already).

Ehm, I think you missed one: competition by other companies (you know, pretty much the whole reason why privatisation works...).

There never was, is no and never will be a healthy selfristriction in private companies when it comes to profit.

My reasoning relies on competition, not self-restriction (which doesn't work when there's a monopoly of course, in that case you indeed need legal safeguards).

I said "minor difference", not "no difference".

I expected you are the kind of guy that is happy when he can argue, so I also expect you to use any of Schoppenhauers "Kunstgriffe" if it helps you distract from the point made.

From my personal experience ...

who cares about your personal experience? Is your personal experience in any way representative? How many people do you represent? One billion? or just one, namely yourself?

Besides, if you really want to make sure the lower incomes pay less than the higher incomes, you can always invent some benefits (is that the word - when the government gives you some money to help out) programme.

Yes, you can. You can use benefit programs adjusted to income levels and then you can rename it ...into taxation. Thats arguing about whether to serve cream or sugar to the coffee, not if you serve coffee or go sking instead.

The situation as it is in the USA for example

Find one post where I defend the "current" (as in: before Obamacare) USA healthcare system... (I cannot comment on how things will work out once the reforms have fully completed; that would require much more knowledge of how well the insurance market in the USA works.)

Which parts of the words "for example" dont you understand? Do you translate "for example" into "as you said before" in dutch?

Ehm, I think you missed one: competition by other companies (you know, pretty much the whole reason why privatisation works...).

Ehm, I think I didnt miss that, but ehm, I think you missed that in reality competition by other companies does only exist if there is some form of external control as jurdical/governmental or public. (you know, pretty much of the reasons why privatisation doesnt work and leads to oligopols [but not the only one]), but what was i thinking, expecting from you to understand something that gets more complicated, than what is taught in highschool.

My reasoning relies on competition, not self-restriction (which doesn't work when there's a monopoly of course, in that case you indeed need legal safeguards).

A monopoly is rare, oligopols are the rule. The Energy sector and the health care sector are among the most vulnerable to this in any society that has them privatized. They dominate state and country politics, corrupt politicians, scientists and press and make the whole system highly expensive and inefficient. The BKA (Bundeskriminalamt) calls the german health care system highly corrupt and controlled by an organized crime and the USA fights wars directly for the Energylobby. But yeah go on and preach the salvation of privatization you read about in the newspaper. It sounded so logical to you didnt it? Also you felt so smart in being able to understand it, right?
Please inform yourself about failed privatization all over the globe before you continue you bugging me again with your superficial attempt to show insight into socioeconomical interconnections.
Also, research when and why industry or service sectors have actually been nationalized. Maybe , ehm, there has been a logical transparent reason for all this? (you know as in improving the lifes of the states citizens, not the rich)

myhandisonfire,
You disagree with me; no problem, you are fully entitled to. However, if you feel the need to consider

but what was i thinking, expecting from you to understand something that gets more complicated, than what is taught in highschool
(..)
But yeah go on and preach the salvation of privatization you read about in the newspaper. It sounded so logical to you didnt it? Also you felt so smart in being able to understand it, right?
(..)
Please inform yourself (..) before you continue you bugging me again with your superficial attempt to show insight into socioeconomical interconnections.

a valid way to have a discussion, then you'll have to find someone else to do it with.

I never asked for an discussion, all i felt was the strong urge to disagree. If that keeps you from posting in the future, i am okay with it

Well, the 'strong urge to disagree' AND the urge to insult...

Nice comeback there RvW, myhandisonfire and Richard Sharpe.

I feel insulted by ignorance and impertinence Richard, sadly you would rarely recognize either one.

Ehm, I think I didnt miss that, but ehm, I think you missed that in reality competition by other companies does only exist if there is some form of external control as jurdical/governmental or public.

Would you please elaborate on that?

Anyways, French being seen as failures in wars... anyone? I feel like just about every thread on these forums derail into OT-discussions.

The French have had their spankings since Napoleon onward. The vast majority of post-Roman western history, France was THE power in Western Europe, the model for national pride and sentiment such as is the common way today.

Also, WTF does it matter? How many losses can you recollect the Mongolians suffered? Would you say that Mongolia's military successes have led to them to eclipse France's fame as a center of art, learning, culture, philosophy, and innovation? Perhaps the Huns? The France of today is a direct descendent (political turmoil notwithstanding) of a national identity that begain in the 7th century, which is far more than the Germans can say seeing as they didn't even coalesce into a true national identity until the early 1800's. The last time Germany was semi-united (in a way not even close to being as cohesive as its French contempary) under one rule, it was under the moniker of "The Holy Roman Empire" which was previously known as the "East Frankish Kingdom." In other words, Germany's national identity had its roots in a FRENCH political unity under Charlemagne that was split into twain upon his death. The seeds of Charlemagne's empire (And the Carolingian dynasty) were sown when his father Charles Martel joined forces with the Catholic Papacy to completely spank the Visigoths in France. You know, the Visigoths that previously sacked Rome? Yeah.. Those.

Just to seriously entertain the question of whether France is full of wimpy cowards or not is to betray a narrow, bigoted, and essentially uneducated world-view. But by all means, Durpa-herp away! It's entertainment of a sort.

Wooooohooooo!

Fuck you.

Such a kind and mature soul you are myhand... a true gentleman.

RvW do you just spend you days on here trying to come up with long tedious responses and not actually playing the game or is this a multi account because people refused to talk to you in real games just assuming you answers would be way too long

Made a simple statement that the U.S. is wold dominant because of military tech advancements.
Sasha Grey thought to be witty by replying "What about Nazi Germany? They had tech advances, where are they now?"

Uh.... Nowhere......the U.S. killed them

Not the US. You forget that you were helped by countless other countries. It's more like you helped them, then otherwise.

While the view that the US singlehandedly beat Nazi Germany is completely false, I dunno how many other nations contributed.

France helped, a bit, but the post-Normandy French Army was almost completely equipped with US weapons and vehicles.

Obviously the British stayed the course alone for quite some time, but their involvement after the US got into the war was mostly limited to minor theaters (North Africa and Italy), while their forces in NW Europe were very small in number. Not an insult to them, but they were simply spread too thin after years of war and their involvement in numerous theaters.

The Polish had "free armies" on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but were essentially subordinate to the British and the Soviets, respectively.

I believe there were a few Czech units, but again, the numbers were quite low.

Any others?

I am pretty sure that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Americans, and to a much greater extent, by the Soviet Union. Others may have contributed, but were not exactly vital cogs in the Allied war machine...

Any thoughts on this?