4: No one ever said anything about equal wages regardless of work. That’s radical communism. I’m not a radical communist. I’m saying higher taxes on high incomes are a good thing. Low tax high incomes are economically inefficient. When you reach a certain level of fortune, you’re not spending your money anymore. There’s a lot of money lying dormant in bank accounts in Switzerland, just going from generation to generation. Taxing high incomes and private fortunes has little impact on the economy, unless you’re going for a completely flat income rate, which takes away the incentive to get a good education. Studies have shown, though, that altering income levels actually has little real effect on education, unless you go to extreme measures.
Personal note: Please don’t blame political choices on national safety issues. That’s the rhetoric of people like Mubarak, Afwerki, and North-Korean leaders. Friends of me have fled from these regimes.

3: As I said, the differences in military funding aren’t that big. And about the oil: It’s not necessarily a big saint for the economy. In Holland, the discovery and exploitation of gas led to a huge crisis, with enormous unemployment rate, and a completely decapitated government. It’s called Dutch disease. Look it up. The reason for oil being that important for Norway was the way it was decided it should be used. They decided to keep partial government ownership in major oil companies, and made sure the income came directly to the populace. Because of this, there’s now a well built out welfare system. There’s free health care and education, amongst other things.
There are certain services that shouldn’t be a priority. It’s in the US constitution, as well as the declaration of universal human rights. Having to spend your life paying down a debt for saving the life of a family member is just cruel.

2: First: Relatively, USA actually doesn’t spend that much more than Norway on the military. Per citizen, that is. Second: Paying for the military has little to do with privatizing. If your goal is increasing the income of the state, privatizing companies is a short term solution. The reason is their precious market liberalism, the belief that the market works best without government interference. Also, the US government has been pushing an expansive economic policy for ages, with the government spending a lot of money, and low government income from taxes. This works well for building up the economy, and looks good for voters, but in the long run, it completely wears down the state and all it’s institutions. Next step is lending huge amounts of money to finance it all, and that’s how the US ended up in their debt crisis.
So then they’re left with a government little true national power, which has been given to major companies and non-elected individuals. So you can say they are closer than ever to the liberalist ideal. How’s it working out?

1: No, nothing is free, but with the nordic model, the poorer part of society is generally more, thanks to a well grown tradition of preserving the rights of workers, such as a high minimal wage. Those who pay for much of the welfare are the rich half, either by income tax, or luxury-tax. Thanks to this, no one are left behind.
In the US, there are huge income differences. The conditions for the poor workers are harsh, with low income rates, and comparably high tax rates. They are also practicing true social dumping. If you’re born in the black/Hispanic communities, chances are you’ll stay there. And even if you do make it, your parents are still poor, so you won’t have the money to attend a good college.
Obama tried pushing higher high-income taxes, but Americans are so scared of socialism, so apparently there won’t be any progress there for some time. Higher taxes on high income could have financed a not great, but at least better welfare system, and could have financed tax cuts for lower income, so they wouldn’t have to live in relative poverty.

I am NOT missing the point. First of all, nothing is free, the entire country pays high taxes for those services. Second of all, unlike Norway, the US has to spend a lot of money on military, that's why it has more privatized services. Third of all, it is not a tried and proven method. It works in Norway due to, as I said, much less money put into national defense, and a high income from oil exportation. Fourth of all, I completely agree that a politician should be paid less than they are being paid, but not everyone should have the same wages regardless of their work.

4: No one ever said anything about equal wages regardless of work. That’s radical communism. I’m not a radical communist. I’m saying higher taxes on high incomes are a good thing. Low tax high incomes are economically inefficient. When you reach a certain level of fortune, you’re not spending your money anymore. There’s a lot of money lying dormant in bank accounts in Switzerland, just going from generation to generation. Taxing high incomes and private fortunes has little impact on the economy, unless you’re going for a completely flat income rate, which takes away the incentive to get a good education. Studies have shown, though, that altering income levels actually has little real effect on education, unless you go to extreme measures.
Personal note: Please don’t blame political choices on national safety issues. That’s the rhetoric of people like Mubarak, Afwerki, and North-Korean leaders. Friends of me have fled from these regimes.

3: As I said, the differences in military funding aren’t that big. And about the oil: It’s not necessarily a big saint for the economy. In Holland, the discovery and exploitation of gas led to a huge crisis, with enormous unemployment rate, and a completely decapitated government. It’s called Dutch disease. Look it up. The reason for oil being that important for Norway was the way it was decided it should be used. They decided to keep partial government ownership in major oil companies, and made sure the income came directly to the populace. Because of this, there’s now a well built out welfare system. There’s free health care and education, amongst other things.
There are certain services that shouldn’t be a priority. It’s in the US constitution, as well as the declaration of universal human rights. Having to spend your life paying down a debt for saving the life of a family member is just cruel.

2: First: Relatively, USA actually doesn’t spend that much more than Norway on the military. Per citizen, that is. Second: Paying for the military has little to do with privatizing. If your goal is increasing the income of the state, privatizing companies is a short term solution. The reason is their precious market liberalism, the belief that the market works best without government interference. Also, the US government has been pushing an expansive economic policy for ages, with the government spending a lot of money, and low government income from taxes. This works well for building up the economy, and looks good for voters, but in the long run, it completely wears down the state and all it’s institutions. Next step is lending huge amounts of money to finance it all, and that’s how the US ended up in their debt crisis.
So then they’re left with a government little true national power, which has been given to major companies and non-elected individuals. So you can say they are closer than ever to the liberalist ideal. How’s it working out?

1: No, nothing is free, but with the nordic model, the poorer part of society is generally more, thanks to a well grown tradition of preserving the rights of workers, such as a high minimal wage. Those who pay for much of the welfare are the rich half, either by income tax, or luxury-tax. Thanks to this, no one are left behind.
In the US, there are huge income differences. The conditions for the poor workers are harsh, with low income rates, and comparably high tax rates. They are also practicing true social dumping. If you’re born in the black/Hispanic communities, chances are you’ll stay there. And even if you do make it, your parents are still poor, so you won’t have the money to attend a good college.
Obama tried pushing higher high-income taxes, but Americans are so scared of socialism, so apparently there won’t be any progress there for some time. Higher taxes on high income could have financed a not great, but at least better welfare system, and could have financed tax cuts for lower income, so they wouldn’t have to live in relative poverty.

1) Yes

2) Norway ain't part of EU.

I don't know much about Norway's economy, but I do know it's economy is highly dependent on the exportation of oil. It's tax rates are also not as high as they used to be. In fact, it's individual tax rate is pretty average when it comes to other countries.

It's still under protection of the EU due to it being a member of the EEA. Also it doesn't change the fact that they have a small military.

I am NOT missing the point. First of all, nothing is free, the entire country pays high taxes for those services. Second of all, unlike Norway, the US has to spend a lot of money on military, that's why it has more privatized services. Third of all, it is not a tried and proven method. It works in Norway due to, as I said, much less money put into national defense, and a high income from oil exportation. Fourth of all, I completely agree that a politician should be paid less than they are being paid, but not everyone should have the same wages regardless of their work.

4: No one ever said anything about equal wages regardless of work. That’s radical communism. I’m not a radical communist. I’m saying higher taxes on high incomes are a good thing. Low tax high incomes are economically inefficient. When you reach a certain level of fortune, you’re not spending your money anymore. There’s a lot of money lying dormant in bank accounts in Switzerland, just going from generation to generation. Taxing high incomes and private fortunes has little impact on the economy, unless you’re going for a completely flat income rate, which takes away the incentive to get a good education. Studies have shown, though, that altering income levels actually has little real effect on education, unless you go to extreme measures.
Personal note: Please don’t blame political choices on national safety issues. That’s the rhetoric of people like Mubarak, Afwerki, and North-Korean leaders. Friends of me have fled from these regimes.

3: As I said, the differences in military funding aren’t that big. And about the oil: It’s not necessarily a big saint for the economy. In Holland, the discovery and exploitation of gas led to a huge crisis, with enormous unemployment rate, and a completely decapitated government. It’s called Dutch disease. Look it up. The reason for oil being that important for Norway was the way it was decided it should be used. They decided to keep partial government ownership in major oil companies, and made sure the income came directly to the populace. Because of this, there’s now a well built out welfare system. There’s free health care and education, amongst other things.
There are certain services that shouldn’t be a priority. It’s in the US constitution, as well as the declaration of universal human rights. Having to spend your life paying down a debt for saving the life of a family member is just cruel.

2: First: Relatively, USA actually doesn’t spend that much more than Norway on the military. Per citizen, that is. Second: Paying for the military has little to do with privatizing. If your goal is increasing the income of the state, privatizing companies is a short term solution. The reason is their precious market liberalism, the belief that the market works best without government interference. Also, the US government has been pushing an expansive economic policy for ages, with the government spending a lot of money, and low government income from taxes. This works well for building up the economy, and looks good for voters, but in the long run, it completely wears down the state and all it’s institutions. Next step is lending huge amounts of money to finance it all, and that’s how the US ended up in their debt crisis.
So then they’re left with a government little true national power, which has been given to major companies and non-elected individuals. So you can say they are closer than ever to the liberalist ideal. How’s it working out?

1: No, nothing is free, but with the nordic model, the poorer part of society is generally more, thanks to a well grown tradition of preserving the rights of workers, such as a high minimal wage. Those who pay for much of the welfare are the rich half, either by income tax, or luxury-tax. Thanks to this, no one are left behind.
In the US, there are huge income differences. The conditions for the poor workers are harsh, with low income rates, and comparably high tax rates. They are also practicing true social dumping. If you’re born in the black/Hispanic communities, chances are you’ll stay there. And even if you do make it, your parents are still poor, so you won’t have the money to attend a good college.
Obama tried pushing higher high-income taxes, but Americans are so scared of socialism, so apparently there won’t be any progress there for some time. Higher taxes on high income could have financed a not great, but at least better welfare system, and could have financed tax cuts for lower income, so they wouldn’t have to live in relative poverty.

Heard of Norway? World's highest HDI and second highest GDP per citizen? Would you like to know about their taxing and welfare policies?

Two things:
1 I don't know about Norway's rights, but are public service workers allowed to strike?

2 Norway does not need to spend as much money on the military as other countries due to it's small population and protection from the EU, giving it a great help in the economy

1) Yes

2) Norway ain't part of EU.

I don't know much about Norway's economy, but I do know it's economy is highly dependent on the exportation of oil. It's tax rates are also not as high as they used to be. In fact, it's individual tax rate is pretty average when it comes to other countries.

It's still under protection of the EU due to it being a member of the EEA. Also it doesn't change the fact that they have a small military.

I am NOT missing the point. First of all, nothing is free, the entire country pays high taxes for those services. Second of all, unlike Norway, the US has to spend a lot of money on military, that's why it has more privatized services. Third of all, it is not a tried and proven method. It works in Norway due to, as I said, much less money put into national defense, and a high income from oil exportation. Fourth of all, I completely agree that a politician should be paid less than they are being paid, but not everyone should have the same wages regardless of their work.

4: No one ever said anything about equal wages regardless of work. That’s radical communism. I’m not a radical communist. I’m saying higher taxes on high incomes are a good thing. Low tax high incomes are economically inefficient. When you reach a certain level of fortune, you’re not spending your money anymore. There’s a lot of money lying dormant in bank accounts in Switzerland, just going from generation to generation. Taxing high incomes and private fortunes has little impact on the economy, unless you’re going for a completely flat income rate, which takes away the incentive to get a good education. Studies have shown, though, that altering income levels actually has little real effect on education, unless you go to extreme measures.
Personal note: Please don’t blame political choices on national safety issues. That’s the rhetoric of people like Mubarak, Afwerki, and North-Korean leaders. Friends of me have fled from these regimes.

3: As I said, the differences in military funding aren’t that big. And about the oil: It’s not necessarily a big saint for the economy. In Holland, the discovery and exploitation of gas led to a huge crisis, with enormous unemployment rate, and a completely decapitated government. It’s called Dutch disease. Look it up. The reason for oil being that important for Norway was the way it was decided it should be used. They decided to keep partial government ownership in major oil companies, and made sure the income came directly to the populace. Because of this, there’s now a well built out welfare system. There’s free health care and education, amongst other things.
There are certain services that shouldn’t be a priority. It’s in the US constitution, as well as the declaration of universal human rights. Having to spend your life paying down a debt for saving the life of a family member is just cruel.

2: First: Relatively, USA actually doesn’t spend that much more than Norway on the military. Per citizen, that is. Second: Paying for the military has little to do with privatizing. If your goal is increasing the income of the state, privatizing companies is a short term solution. The reason is their precious market liberalism, the belief that the market works best without government interference. Also, the US government has been pushing an expansive economic policy for ages, with the government spending a lot of money, and low government income from taxes. This works well for building up the economy, and looks good for voters, but in the long run, it completely wears down the state and all it’s institutions. Next step is lending huge amounts of money to finance it all, and that’s how the US ended up in their debt crisis.
So then they’re left with a government little true national power, which has been given to major companies and non-elected individuals. So you can say they are closer than ever to the liberalist ideal. How’s it working out?

1: No, nothing is free, but with the nordic model, the poorer part of society is generally more, thanks to a well grown tradition of preserving the rights of workers, such as a high minimal wage. Those who pay for much of the welfare are the rich half, either by income tax, or luxury-tax. Thanks to this, no one are left behind.
In the US, there are huge income differences. The conditions for the poor workers are harsh, with low income rates, and comparably high tax rates. They are also practicing true social dumping. If you’re born in the black/Hispanic communities, chances are you’ll stay there. And even if you do make it, your parents are still poor, so you won’t have the money to attend a good college.
Obama tried pushing higher high-income taxes, but Americans are so scared of socialism, so apparently there won’t be any progress there for some time. Higher taxes on high income could have financed a not great, but at least better welfare system, and could have financed tax cuts for lower income, so they wouldn’t have to live in relative poverty.

The other provinces push so much socialism yet Alberta foots the bill for it with equialization payments. I think Quebec got something like 2 billion from us last year. And education in Alberta is still higher....

No, the benefits do NOT outweigh the disadvantages. The amount of money being put into public service is truly ridiculous where I live (Ontario). All government workers have guaranteed jobs and wage, and pay no taxes, and they make more money than a private sector worker. A public transit coin collector (required education is high school level) makes more than double of what a private sector engineer would make. Public sector workers also don't really care about the quality of their work, since they don't have to worry about losing their jobs or pay. All the money that goes into their pocket for low quality work comes out of our pockets. And being broke does NOT mean you can't go to school. As for the military, the US needs military more than any other country in the world, since it's the most powerful country in the world.

Also, Germany being a socialist country is a common misconception. Their main income is through exportation of products made by private manufacturing companies (eg engineering, vehicles, etc)

Heard of Norway? World's highest HDI and second highest GDP per citizen? Would you like to know about their taxing and welfare policies?

Two things:
1 I don't know about Norway's rights, but are public service workers allowed to strike?

2 Norway does not need to spend as much money on the military as other countries due to it's small population and protection from the EU, giving it a great help in the economy

1) Yes

2) Norway ain't part of EU.

I don't know much about Norway's economy, but I do know it's economy is highly dependent on the exportation of oil. It's tax rates are also not as high as they used to be. In fact, it's individual tax rate is pretty average when it comes to other countries.

It's still under protection of the EU due to it being a member of the EEA. Also it doesn't change the fact that they have a small military.

I am NOT missing the point. First of all, nothing is free, the entire country pays high taxes for those services. Second of all, unlike Norway, the US has to spend a lot of money on military, that's why it has more privatized services. Third of all, it is not a tried and proven method. It works in Norway due to, as I said, much less money put into national defense, and a high income from oil exportation. Fourth of all, I completely agree that a politician should be paid less than they are being paid, but not everyone should have the same wages regardless of their work.

4: No one ever said anything about equal wages regardless of work. That’s radical communism. I’m not a radical communist. I’m saying higher taxes on high incomes are a good thing. Low tax high incomes are economically inefficient. When you reach a certain level of fortune, you’re not spending your money anymore. There’s a lot of money lying dormant in bank accounts in Switzerland, just going from generation to generation. Taxing high incomes and private fortunes has little impact on the economy, unless you’re going for a completely flat income rate, which takes away the incentive to get a good education. Studies have shown, though, that altering income levels actually has little real effect on education, unless you go to extreme measures.
Personal note: Please don’t blame political choices on national safety issues. That’s the rhetoric of people like Mubarak, Afwerki, and North-Korean leaders. Friends of me have fled from these regimes.

3: As I said, the differences in military funding aren’t that big. And about the oil: It’s not necessarily a big saint for the economy. In Holland, the discovery and exploitation of gas led to a huge crisis, with enormous unemployment rate, and a completely decapitated government. It’s called Dutch disease. Look it up. The reason for oil being that important for Norway was the way it was decided it should be used. They decided to keep partial government ownership in major oil companies, and made sure the income came directly to the populace. Because of this, there’s now a well built out welfare system. There’s free health care and education, amongst other things.
There are certain services that shouldn’t be a priority. It’s in the US constitution, as well as the declaration of universal human rights. Having to spend your life paying down a debt for saving the life of a family member is just cruel.

2: First: Relatively, USA actually doesn’t spend that much more than Norway on the military. Per citizen, that is. Second: Paying for the military has little to do with privatizing. If your goal is increasing the income of the state, privatizing companies is a short term solution. The reason is their precious market liberalism, the belief that the market works best without government interference. Also, the US government has been pushing an expansive economic policy for ages, with the government spending a lot of money, and low government income from taxes. This works well for building up the economy, and looks good for voters, but in the long run, it completely wears down the state and all it’s institutions. Next step is lending huge amounts of money to finance it all, and that’s how the US ended up in their debt crisis.
So then they’re left with a government little true national power, which has been given to major companies and non-elected individuals. So you can say they are closer than ever to the liberalist ideal. How’s it working out?

1: No, nothing is free, but with the nordic model, the poorer part of society is generally more, thanks to a well grown tradition of preserving the rights of workers, such as a high minimal wage. Those who pay for much of the welfare are the rich half, either by income tax, or luxury-tax. Thanks to this, no one are left behind.
In the US, there are huge income differences. The conditions for the poor workers are harsh, with low income rates, and comparably high tax rates. They are also practicing true social dumping. If you’re born in the black/Hispanic communities, chances are you’ll stay there. And even if you do make it, your parents are still poor, so you won’t have the money to attend a good college.
Obama tried pushing higher high-income taxes, but Americans are so scared of socialism, so apparently there won’t be any progress there for some time. Higher taxes on high income could have financed a not great, but at least better welfare system, and could have financed tax cuts for lower income, so they wouldn’t have to live in relative poverty.

Polish indeed :)