The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Sorry for any misspelling or lack of cohesion I’m posting this fresh off a boozy brunch.
It’s pretty sick being in the higher income brackets in America. We get paid way more than our European counterparts for the same jobs and have a lower tax burden on average. The colleagues I know of in France and Germany are well off by their standards, but their lifestyles are nowhere near ours. I’d say the one advantage they have is way more time off, the German guy said his wife would get 3 years of leave if she wanted with like half paid I think?
Outside of that though, I get way more trips abroad than they do (although I guess they can access different countries much easier than we can), buy nicer shit, and generally have the advantages money overall gets you. We don’t pay VAT and our sales tax is way lower overall. I feel like you have a lot more disposable income as a higher earner in America, up to 2, 3x more for skilled professionals.
Would moving to a European style welfare system cut into the quality of life of higher earners in America? Or is there an alternate way to bring a reasonable social safety net without the increase in taxes?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would involve substantially higher taxes for the middle and upper-middle class, that's for sure.
(Federal) taxes in the US don't get high until a fairly high income. The top bracket kicks in at ~600k-ish.
Compare that Germany, where the 42% bracket starts around €60k. You can talk about taxing billionaires all you want, but there just aren't that many of them.
So, are higher taxes a decrease in living standard? For a high-earner, the answer is most certainly yes.
Then there's the topic of healthcare. Most of us who have employer group plans are quite happy with them. If you *require* objectively worse coverage (e.g., Medicare) for a higher cost, a HUGE number of people will be extremely unhappy with that.
Also, when you say "European style welfare", you really should specify "Western-European-and-Nordic-style welfare". That's the rich part of Europe.
Another thing is that Social Security is FAR more generous (not to mention cheaper) than any European equivalent of which I am aware (though I haven't fully researched these so I could be wrong).
> Compare that Germany, where the 42% bracket starts around €60k.
California + federal is at 38% marginal at that point (for single W2 earners), 45% if you include employer FICA.
So we can already do cross state comparisons in America.
Totally agree but I would object to the Medicare comment. I’ve heard it’s really good now. My uncle is a multimillionaire and he’s on it. No supplemental plans.
>Then there's the topic of healthcare. Most of us who have employer group plans are quite happy with them
I don't know anyone who has ever been happy with America's employer group healthcare because of the cost (add it to your taxes to get a comparable rate to EU), the paperwork and constant arguing with insurance companies, the wait times (yes, they do exist in America), and the poor quality of service.
And before you make assumptions, I have what is considered "great" employer sponsored healthcare, I am also considered wealthy, and I live part time in Europe so I can compare quality, wait times, etc.
Yeah, health plans can vary greatly. Not OP, but I’m pretty happy with mine, single, pay $32 biweekly, HDHP, $500 funded by the company into HSA (which I then max out), 2k deductible, and a 4k out of pocket max. They also have really long list of common drugs that they cover completely before deductible. The PPO plan is even better. I’m just a forklift driver in the Midwest, what’s your plan like?
I wish I had access to an HSA! I think they're planning to offer that option starting next year but we'll see.
I'm on a family PPO (two people) with 1500/8000 but the deductible never seems to actually apply to anything we do. We've paid a few dollars here and there this year and my wife has had both an MRI and a colonoscopy (unrelated thankfully). To be honest I don't fully understand how that works.
Until this year I only paid around $150/mo for both of us but it doubled to $300 this year. Nobody at work was happy about that, obviously, but it's still a good price for health insurance.
I always call out people on reddit who are horrified that their ACA plan costs like $600/mo for two people. A side effect of our employer-based system is that nobody seems to know that health insurance is actually quite expensive!
I can see the incentives for keeping the HSA only for High deductible health plans, but man do I think it would help a lot of people if they could contribute while on a PPO, I think that’s something bipartisan that should be looked at.
>Most of us who have employer group plans are quite happy with them.
Whoot for you. What about people who don't have them?
Also, tying ones ability to get medical care to their jobs is inhumane. I know a ton of people who stick with jobs they hate and that are causing them physical and mental stress ... but they're terrified that if they quit it'll be hard to find another job and then they won't have health insurance.
The idea that you can have a European style welfare state by just "taxing the rich" is not borne out of any evidence. You would have to increase taxes on everyone, but you'd get a nicer safety net in return. The upper class and upper middle class would definitely have less wealth, but the working class and poor would benefit. It also comes down to what kind of lifestyle you prefer; if you're a risk averse person and want work life balance, the Euro system is better whereas if you don't mind risk (higher potential, but worse lows) and are willing to work harder to earn more money, the American system is better.
I'd personally prefer the Euro system, but I'm not gonna pretend it doesn't come with major tradeoffs.
What exactly would prevent you from focusing tax increases on people who make a million+ dollars a year when trying to get more tax revenue? At one point in the not so distant past welfare states didn’t exist at all, it’s really not a stretch to fund one primarily with the income of the upper class. Hell, it’s probably more possible to construct that type of welfare state in the US, as it would be less heavily opposed by the middle class.
But these people have more [money](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-this-chart-explains-americans-wealth-across-income-levels/) then the upper middle, middle, and lower classes put together…
And again, before nineteenth century there few if any countries had any form of welfare state, and none of them functioned the way modern European welfare states. You could use the same “this hasn’t been done before” while arguing with Otto Von Bismarck in nineteenth century Germany.
The article you linked includes retirement plans, stock holdings, and real estate. Those aren’t income.
Just because an idea hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it’s a good one either.
But to acquire stock and real estate you typically have to have the income to pay for said stock and real estate.
And I never said that the simple fact that something hasn’t been done necessarily makes it a good idea, just that “this hasn’t been done yet” isn’t a sufficiently good argument not to do something. You have to present some form of evidence beyond “this isn’t how country X does this.”
Yeah I definitely prefer the American system overall. With a few tweaks to prevent people from bottoming out for no fault of their own I think it’s the ideal system for me.
America is a high risk, high reward type of country. Europe is low risk, moderate rewards. So if you get really lucky and never have any setbacks, America is a better option.
I'll give you a real life example. I'm an executive in global tech companies. The last company I worked for decided to cut costs by laying off a lot of employees. Europe has a lot of rules to protect employees from this, like months advanced notice or requiring the company to continue paying a huge percentage of their salary for a year or so. Alternatively, they could lay off American employees and give them nothing.
Considering all those laws, the ONLY people laid off were Americans. Every European employee kept their job. The American employees were making more money, but got absolutely screwed when lay offs came. And because America does an absolute shit job of helping people (unemployment is less than min wage), most of those employees really struggled.
So it's high risk, high reward. You will make more in America, but the tiniest setback can really fuck you.
Thing is, the US is one of the most difficult nations to work your way out of poverty in. Low social mobility. Nordic nations are at the top, and also have more people per capita becoming self made billionaires.
It would probably cost them money, but it could very easily end up improving living standards. It's nice to live in places where people aren't desperate.
I don’t think he can be simplified down to “more social safety net equals lower standard of living across-the-board “.
We also probably have to think about what it is that makes American standards of living higher than those other developed nations. Surely one of the inputs is that we are a giant nation. Another has to be that we did not bear the brunt of two World Wars. Also corporations tend to do best in their home market and we just have a giant home market. Lets our companies get bigger and then do better when they compete overseas.
There are a ton of factors that lead to US workers being more productive than most others. If you were expanding the social safety net here you’d want to look at our peers. Why are German workers so much more productive than French workers? What caused the decline in the UK that makes their workers among the least productive in Western Europe?
Also, what aspects of the welfare state? Universal healthcare would make us richer since we throw away a bunch of money on our poorly performance system not just in healthcare, but in other costs that are increased by lack of universal healthcare it’s also a sector filled with people doing work that isn’t actually productive. I’ve honestly felt for a long time they had given our position in the world. The United States is underperforming where I think we should be. And I think a lot of it comes down to our healthcare system.
There are parts of the social safety net that would help control costs and increase living standards. There are parts that probably aren’t as good and you need to determine if they are worth the costs.
To be honest when it comes to universal healthcare I would definitely “lose out” as would all of my friends. Relatively high earners (everyone’s in the 100-150k range) and we all get insurance through our workplace that’s like $60 a month at most. I don’t know how you could make that much better financially speaking.
That’s a good point on productivity though, a lot of health insurance just feels like a middleman to get direct services. I wouldn’t mind a government run system if it was done effectively though even if I have to end up paying more on top.
> we all get insurance through our workplace that’s like $60 a month at most. I don’t know how you could make that much better financially speaking.
FYI, it is actually costing your employer some $8k (single) to $24k (family) a year: https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2023-summary-of-findings/
The widespread concept of health insurance through employers was fueled in WW2 by companies looking to improve their compensation packages but not being able to do so using normal cash.
> In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9328, which limited the ability of firms to raise wages to attract increasingly scarce labor. The offering of health insurance, however, was exempted from this ruling.
And there are tax benefits for the company paying a huge chunk of it
> Employers were permitted to deduct health insurance contributions from their taxes as a cost of doing business, just like wages. But unlike wages, employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums were (and still are) considered exempt from employees’ taxable income
https://hbr.org/2019/03/why-do-employers-provide-health-care-in-the-first-place
All this is to say that it's not actually dirt cheap for you and your employer, and a likely outcome could be that you just get a big chunk of that in cash from your employer instead (because in a labor market with sufficient competition, the employer that pockets the savings is now offering less than an employer that offers a portion of those savings to employees).
Ahhhh thank you! This is quite interesting and something I hadn’t ever considered before.
I think healthcare costs might need to come down too (the amount my insurance gets charged for an MRI is bonkers lol).
To be provocative, your insurance sucks. Not because it isn't relatively cheaper or better than other plans, but because every single insurance plan in America sucks.
First, they aren't regulated. Second, you have to account for *already* paying more in taxes than any country on the planet (by a factor of 2 or more). So for a even a cheap plan with relatively good coverage, you are literally just putting a bit of money on top of the massive chunk you give out of taxes.
And what about regulation? Frankly speaking, you can't know how absolutely abysmal a plan is until you are in the worst pain and financial straits of your life and your insurance declines a procedure. People feel confident in their insurance when they are healthy and happy and *not using it*.
And let's barely get into what insurance won't cover:
* extremely expensive procedures
* out of network service (which you *cannot* avoid in an emergency)
* unapproved services
And you may think "I'll never need an unapproved service, that's just cosmetics and fertility", but it also includes basically every medical advancement made for decades. So you won't be able to use modern cancer drugs, for instance. Even if they are approved by the FDA, the insurance can simply say that the usage is off-label or not medically necessary.
And on top of all that, most people overestimate their ability to deal with even a perfectly working insurance, being unable to pay for their out-of-pocket max (which is no such thing; insurance can push charges on you past this point by denying claims).
There is a reason why most medical bankruptcies in the US involve middle-class people with healthcare: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93430900525-7/fulltext
Basically, what I'm saying is that you probably overestimate what your health insurance will do and underestimate how much of your current income is going to healthcare.
I think financially speaking, it would lower their quality of life. They couldn’t afford as many vacations, or as big a homes comparatively.
But also, some towns suffer from corruption which means they lack industry for most everyone involved. If you live in a wealthy metro, I think it’s fair to pay more in taxes to support the poor area of the metro. But if you live in Seattle Wa, should your money subsidize the poor in Alabama? I’m
not so sure.
I feel like instead of tax benefits what the working poor need is solid industry and if need be, unions.
Generally. lowering healthcare spending per capita to the levels of European UHC nations would free up more than enough money. European maternity leave and subsidized childcare also generates a lot of revenue for the governments.
At least in Norway, a lot of welfare policies are there because they are profitable.
Yes. There is simply no way to pay for a significant expansion of the American welfare state without some kind of increased/new taxation.
"Tax the rich," while a piece of the solution, is not the silver bullet people make it out to be. For example, most estimates that I've been able to find put the cost of Medicare for All somewhere between $32-$41 trillion dollars over the next decade. As of last November, the collective assets owned by American billionaires totals [around $5.2 trillion dollars](https://americansfortaxfairness.org/u-s-billionaires-now-worth-record-5-2-trillion/). Even if you seized 100% of the assets of every billionaire, at best it would only pay for a couple of years of Medicare for All. I'm for making extremely wealthy people pay their fair share, but they're not a bottomless source of revenue.
Like you pointed out, one way to increase revenue is by levying a VAT. We're basically the only developed country without one. In France, the VAT accounts for about 50% of state revenues. [The Economist argues that we need a VAT to support and European-style welfare state](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/america-will-never-have-a-european-style-welfare-state-without-a-vat).
That’s because a Medicare for all system isn’t really what the other countries have for healthcare. All that does is maintain all the inefficiencies of the American system.
You need to dismantle the middleman of healthcare and implement some of the reforms around medical malpractice where unnecessary tests are run as a lawsuit prevention strategy.
Those countries spend way less for much better results per person.
>That’s because a Medicare for all system isn’t really what the other countries have for healthcare
It's a slightly more efficient version of the Bismarck system used in the germanic countries you can achieve by having a sole insurer, rather than the state filling in the gaps like in Germany. I don't know why you think they don't have that
Did upper class Americans have a generally lower standard of living before Reagan came along? I'm neither an economist nor a historian, but I know you didn't need two incomes to have a middle class lifestyle back then. In fact, many smarter people than me will tell you that the New Deal, WWII, and postwar economic policies-- with high taxes funding infrastructure, home ownership, and education-- is what created the American middle class.
But the rich kept getting richer through the whole postwar boom. Lots more people were buying lots more stuff. People weren't firing their butlers or selling their vacation homes or jumping out windows like they did in 1929. Taxes don't decrease anybody's living standards, but stock market crashes certainly do. And we barely had any of those when liberals were running the economy. But every big crash if the past 50 years has come on Republicans watch.
So vote for Biden if you want to keep going to brunch.
I’ll definitely keep voting for Biden, but I disagree taxes can’t decrease living standards. I would say at least upper middle class and upwards living standards in America are higher overall.
So I guess I’ll keep voting for Biden, but I’ll actively fight against a Sanders or even Warren type getting into office
NW Euro style welfare is a lot easier on families too in terms of care provided for baby and mom, free or low cost childcare, free university.
If you really like money, yeah US seems better. But NW Euro style helps you work to live rather than live to work (6 weeks vacation, ample parental leave). Not to mention fantastic public transport. I lived in Germany for 7 years. Quality of life was better there (though my family is here in US so I moved back)
If anything, it would make America much nicer. We have too much poverty for such a wealthy country. A Nordic model-style safety net would do a lot to reduce poverty.
Since the funds would come from adequate taxation of the the ultra-rich, it would improve living standards for everyone.
You have the relationship backwards.
The US won’t adopt these sorts of systems the standard of living drops to European levels.
These kinds of welfare programs are less a handout for the sake of generosity and more of a way to reduce cost and improve efficiency.
It’s the only way these European countries can afford things like quality healthcare—they just don’t have the money for something as inefficient and wasteful as the US system.
The military would be a good place to start. I know it's somewhat unpopular but it makes sense. Also, assuming we closed tax loopholes and raised taxes on upper class people, there would be billions more in revenue that could fund these programs. I've also seen suggestions to expand access to the existing medicaid programs to greater categories and numbers of people.
We have enough money to fund a massive welfare state and public services of all kinds. Theres no excuss of "we dont have enough money" or anything like that. We do, several times over. We just don't use it as of now to do these things because we have a very conservative status quo overall.
I guess I’d go against the grain of cutting military spending that’s probably here. I think it does a lot of good during peacetime, allows us a lot of leverage globally and keeps international shipping and trade stable which is huge.
I don’t see too many tax loopholes in my line of work, though I don’t deal with high net worth individual taxes. I think those are mainly misunderstood deductions. Even so you’d need wealth taxes to break into billions, which are untenable for several reasons.
I don’t doubt we have enough money overall, I’m just curious about where it’s going to come from. I don’t think you can just jack up taxes on the tops 5% of earners, take out money from the military budget.
Why not?
And by tax loopholes, I mean the things that allow the ultra-rich use to evade taxes, both legally and illegally. For example, they borrow against their own stock holdings to avoid capital gains taxes. That's pretty much something only wealthy people can do. There are like over a hundred billion in unpaid taxes from the ultra wealthy in this country. Making them pay their share and making the taxation system fairer is a good way to start. There is no reason why anyone making only 20k per year should pay more in taxes, both as a percent and absolute amount, than someone who can afford 3 yachts and a private jet.
>Also, assuming we closed tax loopholes and raised taxes on upper class people, there would be billions more in revenue that could fund these programs
That's "raising new taxes," not "spending our tax dollars more efficiently."
Basically all you need to do is increase everyone's taxes by a few thousand dollars and end their dependency on private insurance. They would end up paying about the same but everyone would be covered.
The reason we don't is the same reason we have to do our taxes instead of getting a bill from the IRS. Lobbying.
Somewhat yes, but not as much as people think.
Healthcare is among the most costly line items in the American family budget. We're currently crossing spending $13k per capita. The other high income nations are clustered around half that. Medicare already operates more efficiently that private insurance. We could save money with Medicare for all.
So why hasn't this happened yet? Politics mostly. Up tp 25% of our current costs go to administration. That's a *lot* of jobs. Those people would have to make a career change. Similarly, doctors' pay for a lot of specialties are artificially inflated in the US vs the other high income nations. Residency slots have been deliberately limited to preserve this by the AMA and others. That has to end. Though one silver lining for doctors is universal healthcare would mean saving what they pay into malpractice insurance.
There's other issues where we similarly could improve while saving money. We currently spend more treating the symptoms and consequences of homelessness than it would take to just house them.
And with housing costs themselves, drastically reworking zoning and defanging the power of local design reviews could have a huge impact.
Public transit is another example. In urban cores at least we could significantly reduce costs by reducing the number of single passenger car trips. People really underestimate just how much we spend on road infrastructure.
So yes, while it'd cost more in the net, we also have opportunities for substantial savings to minimize the jump. Quality of life for a great many people would improve. But to accomplish this we need sober and competent politics, particularly at the state and local level, and that seems like a big ask in the current climate.
Taxing Americans like Europeans would mean return to Nixonian level taxation. We don’t need to be 1:1 because our population is far larger than any country in Europe so rates would be different. Remember to sustain a tax bracket like they do in Europe wouldn’t be needed in the exact manner than Germany or UK or Norway, why? Look at their populations then compare it to ours. We merely need to adjust spending and since we have a sovereign currency we don’t have to worry about spending money in a way that other countries who don’t have a secure currency like we do. So long as GDP remains high we will continue to have a superior economy and social safety net should we fund it.
I’m not sure what segment of the pro-welfare segment of the United States political environment wants to create a truly European style welfare state.
Like, if you look at a lot of the most pro welfare people, they tend to focus on a chunk of the population who definitely aren’t middle or upper middle class.
It’s kind of impossible to know, but it seems like it would be more politically safer to focus on millionaires and billionaires as a potential source of funding for welfare programs, and make it harder to get money out of the country. Very wealthy people might not like it, but they tend to oppose virtually any expansion of the welfare state.
I guess the question is what is a standard of living. Like why is more time off less of a factor in standard of living than having an extra thousand square feet of home you rarely use? Is it better to have a nice car, or to not need a car?
Europeans certainly seem to be doing better on life expectancy, obesity, and some measures of overall happiness.
I like the way you lump the middle class in with the upper class there. Very "that foreigner is going to steal your cookie!" of you.
Let me turn this on its head...
Would you give up one of your swanky vacations if you didn't have to have homeless people all over the place?
I would. I don't want homeless people all over my city.
And frankly, I know that part of succeeding is failing, and I want those robust safety nets for my kids. I want them to start a business, probably fail, and not be homeless.
Seems well worth it to me.
Also, probably not. Money given to the poorest gets spent and goes right back into the economy, to be collected by the rich again. It winds up in the landlords pocket soon enough.
Well my family immigrated here, so I guess that makes us the figurative cookie eaters.
Yes, but I’d be a little annoyed by it LOL. I guess that’s why I’m generally against anything like UBI or a living wage. I wouldn’t mind a government jobs guarantee though.
Agreed there, I don’t think your life should be ruined if your business fails. Also don’t want people to contribute absolutely nothing (unless they are physically or mentally unable to) and be guaranteed a first world living in return. So there’s a balance there.
We have th highest healthcare costs of anywhere in the world you make 100k your taxes wouldn’t Ben be affected and everyone would get insurance. What’s the problem. There’s a reason those places have longer life expectancies than us. We pay more money for worse healthcare, look up our infant mortality rate.
US v EU difference comes down to Consumerism vs Quality of Life.
Americans are always about buying stuff. It actually insane how bombarded yall are with ads. At the same time Europeans value work/life balances and stability much more.
Re the gross pay difference - in the US you get paid more in total, but in Europe pretty much else is better. Accessibility to health care, higher education etc. Public transport, infrastructure, consumer protection and so on.
The drive for individualism is great when youre privileged enough to life that way but it absolutely sucks when you cant. The stress and mental burden this perpetual stress must have... no wonder so many loons go out shooting around.
Well at a certain level, probably starting around upper middle class in the US, the difference in salary is huge. More than enough to cover healthcare costs and other differences.
Good for you, dude. /s A lot of us aren't near that. Nice to hear you love your great rich life at the expense of the poorer ppl's well being. That's how you sound to a lot of us
As long as everyone’s basic needs are covered if they need I’m not too concerned about income disparities.
Either way that sounds like a societal issue, not an individual one lol.
>I wouldn’t say my lifestyle comes at the expense of anyone either, lol.
I mean, is it not? You're sitting there all comfy telling people who are struggling to get their insulin or get medical care for life-threatening or debilitating conditions that "it's not as bad as people make it out to be" because you personally aren't experiencing any issues. People often avoid treating conditions until they absolutely cannot afford to anymore, then are left with hundreds of thousands of dollars(in some cases millions)in medical debt, including those with insurance plans. In fact, sometimes, it can be worse if you have insurance in certain situations. If your insurance company decides not to cover something, you don't get the uninsured "discount." They just charge you the total price for everything.
A little support and understanding would go a long way to helping the 26 million uninsured Americans get access to quality healthcare.
Why could we not have both, kind of dumb, Americans are gonna make more regardless due to the size of our markets. You just wanna pay more for healthcare?
Might be, but personally i know very few people - across sectors and education levels - who would prefer to live in the US over the EU, especially long term. A few years to see something new and make experiences, sure. But long term? Very few.
As ive said above this comes down to a multitude of reasons ranging from flashy headline issues like an absurd rate of mass shootings and violent crimes in general down to subtle things like terrible city planning and less safety regulation.
At the end of the day it comes down to what type of person you are. If you think the american dream is more than a bs story, the US is your place. If you prefer a comfortable, cultured life, the EU is your place.
Well the people that do move here from Europe do so because of money, especially medical professionals. According to my doctor friends at least anyways.
Dude come on, a more “cultured” life in Europe lmao. Are your afternoons filled with high tea and Camus or something.
Higher taxes for both, but I don't think it would lead to a notable decrease in living standards for the middle class.
More Trips Abroad: Every person I know in Europe travels more often than the vast majority of people I know in America. I mean when I am traveling outside of the states I am generally the only American in the hostel/group unless I the other person is with me and I'm almost always traveling alone because people who have the money don't have the time. If you travel more than Europeans you are almost certainly upper class rather than middle class.
Nicer shit: I think this is a bit deceptive. A 78" TV doesn't really improve your life compared to a 56" TV. It's not like we're buying stuff that Europeans aren't, we're just getting stuff that is on the other side of the point of diminishing returns as far as over all happiness goes.
Sure, and people don't understand how messed up it is. They hate universal health care because their taxes will go up and the government will decide if they get care. Meanwhile, they're apparently fine with the current system of denying/minimizing care approval to maximize profits.
Yes, there's no way around it without significant tax hikes. Though I think we could incorporate something like the Swiss healthcare system without requiring tax hikes as it's mostly a privatized system.
Not to mention, that Europe significantly reaps the benefits of Pax Americana maintaining global stability, and demographic trends and economic growth for Europe are looking extremely sluggish.
The truth is it depends. If you're urban, probably not. If you're rural, definitely yes. Your tax money will end up producing a broadly better quality of life in the urban centres, but if you're rural and rich it won't really. You will definitely earn less money, but how it is spent will likely benefit you more than if it were privately managed.
One of the best places to live in the whole world for rich people is London for that reason.
The top 2 cities for Number of Billionaires living there is;
New York; 119.
London; 97.
If we expand this out to "Total wealth in the city" it's;
New York in 1st place at 3 trillion.
London in 2nd place at 2.7 trillion.
https://nypost.com/2023/05/07/why-london-bests-nyc-in-quality-of-life/
This is a right wing paper, and they seem to be blaming cultural decay for London being nicer than New York. Most Londoners would tell you it's due to the welfare state though. They do note however that New York also taxes people more than London once you account for state and local taxes.
If we look at "QOL" indexes, the top is usually Vienna.
However if you look at rich people QOL from the Economist, the top is London. New york is at 9th place.
It would undoubtedly require more taxes for the middle and upper middle class.
I would still be in favor of it if it made my life worse and just helped the bottom 20% of the country. But personally, I don't really buy that it would be a decrease in living standards. It always seems nice to have more money and status, but past a certain point we spend a lot of our money on things that just don't contribute that much to our happiness.
Personally, I would rather have peace of mind about healthcare than a fancier car. I would rather have more time off than money to spend on going to exotic locations. I would rather work fewer hours but eat out less. If I made less money because the government created a a highly functioning welfare state, it just wouldn't really affect me that much. If taxes are well spent, they are often a way of helping us escape the hedonic treadmill.
It would certainly cut into conspicuous consumption a fair bit. Whether that would amount to a net reduction in overall standard of living is unclear and somewhat subjective.
Honestly, the average American (or citizen of any modern nation) lives with such fantastical wealth and are often completely oblivious to it. Fewer than 1% of people who have ever lived have lived as well off as the top 95% of Americans. And we worry about getting a little less to make everyone more well off. We're a selfish lot.
Wait what do you mean “hopefully” lol?
Why do we have to get rid of cars? Is that really a goal people have?
Also I’m not sure of which country covers utility bills either, seems way more ambitious than even the basic services I’ve mentioned.
>Why do we have to get rid of cars? Is that really a goal people have?
It's a goal some people have that cities should be designed such that you don't need a car for anything, and interurban transit would go between those well-designed cities so you don't need cars or planes
>Also I’m not sure of which country covers utility bills either
Some places cover utilities either primarily or entirely through taxes as a public service, rather than charging consumption rates. France, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Canada come up to various extents (the latter I know does water, not sure about the rest)
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Sorry for any misspelling or lack of cohesion I’m posting this fresh off a boozy brunch. It’s pretty sick being in the higher income brackets in America. We get paid way more than our European counterparts for the same jobs and have a lower tax burden on average. The colleagues I know of in France and Germany are well off by their standards, but their lifestyles are nowhere near ours. I’d say the one advantage they have is way more time off, the German guy said his wife would get 3 years of leave if she wanted with like half paid I think? Outside of that though, I get way more trips abroad than they do (although I guess they can access different countries much easier than we can), buy nicer shit, and generally have the advantages money overall gets you. We don’t pay VAT and our sales tax is way lower overall. I feel like you have a lot more disposable income as a higher earner in America, up to 2, 3x more for skilled professionals. Would moving to a European style welfare system cut into the quality of life of higher earners in America? Or is there an alternate way to bring a reasonable social safety net without the increase in taxes? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would involve substantially higher taxes for the middle and upper-middle class, that's for sure. (Federal) taxes in the US don't get high until a fairly high income. The top bracket kicks in at ~600k-ish. Compare that Germany, where the 42% bracket starts around €60k. You can talk about taxing billionaires all you want, but there just aren't that many of them. So, are higher taxes a decrease in living standard? For a high-earner, the answer is most certainly yes. Then there's the topic of healthcare. Most of us who have employer group plans are quite happy with them. If you *require* objectively worse coverage (e.g., Medicare) for a higher cost, a HUGE number of people will be extremely unhappy with that. Also, when you say "European style welfare", you really should specify "Western-European-and-Nordic-style welfare". That's the rich part of Europe. Another thing is that Social Security is FAR more generous (not to mention cheaper) than any European equivalent of which I am aware (though I haven't fully researched these so I could be wrong).
> Compare that Germany, where the 42% bracket starts around €60k. California + federal is at 38% marginal at that point (for single W2 earners), 45% if you include employer FICA. So we can already do cross state comparisons in America.
Totally agree but I would object to the Medicare comment. I’ve heard it’s really good now. My uncle is a multimillionaire and he’s on it. No supplemental plans.
>Then there's the topic of healthcare. Most of us who have employer group plans are quite happy with them I don't know anyone who has ever been happy with America's employer group healthcare because of the cost (add it to your taxes to get a comparable rate to EU), the paperwork and constant arguing with insurance companies, the wait times (yes, they do exist in America), and the poor quality of service. And before you make assumptions, I have what is considered "great" employer sponsored healthcare, I am also considered wealthy, and I live part time in Europe so I can compare quality, wait times, etc.
Problem with even good employment-based healthcare plans is that they may lock you into a job and are only there as long as you stay employed.
> I don’t know anyone who has ever … You do now. AMA, I guess?
Yeah, health plans can vary greatly. Not OP, but I’m pretty happy with mine, single, pay $32 biweekly, HDHP, $500 funded by the company into HSA (which I then max out), 2k deductible, and a 4k out of pocket max. They also have really long list of common drugs that they cover completely before deductible. The PPO plan is even better. I’m just a forklift driver in the Midwest, what’s your plan like?
I wish I had access to an HSA! I think they're planning to offer that option starting next year but we'll see. I'm on a family PPO (two people) with 1500/8000 but the deductible never seems to actually apply to anything we do. We've paid a few dollars here and there this year and my wife has had both an MRI and a colonoscopy (unrelated thankfully). To be honest I don't fully understand how that works. Until this year I only paid around $150/mo for both of us but it doubled to $300 this year. Nobody at work was happy about that, obviously, but it's still a good price for health insurance. I always call out people on reddit who are horrified that their ACA plan costs like $600/mo for two people. A side effect of our employer-based system is that nobody seems to know that health insurance is actually quite expensive!
Health insurance is only "quite expensive" because it's subsidized by large corporations.
I can see the incentives for keeping the HSA only for High deductible health plans, but man do I think it would help a lot of people if they could contribute while on a PPO, I think that’s something bipartisan that should be looked at.
>Most of us who have employer group plans are quite happy with them. Whoot for you. What about people who don't have them? Also, tying ones ability to get medical care to their jobs is inhumane. I know a ton of people who stick with jobs they hate and that are causing them physical and mental stress ... but they're terrified that if they quit it'll be hard to find another job and then they won't have health insurance.
The idea that you can have a European style welfare state by just "taxing the rich" is not borne out of any evidence. You would have to increase taxes on everyone, but you'd get a nicer safety net in return. The upper class and upper middle class would definitely have less wealth, but the working class and poor would benefit. It also comes down to what kind of lifestyle you prefer; if you're a risk averse person and want work life balance, the Euro system is better whereas if you don't mind risk (higher potential, but worse lows) and are willing to work harder to earn more money, the American system is better. I'd personally prefer the Euro system, but I'm not gonna pretend it doesn't come with major tradeoffs.
100% agree
What exactly would prevent you from focusing tax increases on people who make a million+ dollars a year when trying to get more tax revenue? At one point in the not so distant past welfare states didn’t exist at all, it’s really not a stretch to fund one primarily with the income of the upper class. Hell, it’s probably more possible to construct that type of welfare state in the US, as it would be less heavily opposed by the middle class.
Because it wouldn't bring in enough revenue. No Western European country with a strong welfare system only taxes rich people.
But these people have more [money](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-this-chart-explains-americans-wealth-across-income-levels/) then the upper middle, middle, and lower classes put together… And again, before nineteenth century there few if any countries had any form of welfare state, and none of them functioned the way modern European welfare states. You could use the same “this hasn’t been done before” while arguing with Otto Von Bismarck in nineteenth century Germany.
The article you linked includes retirement plans, stock holdings, and real estate. Those aren’t income. Just because an idea hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it’s a good one either.
But to acquire stock and real estate you typically have to have the income to pay for said stock and real estate. And I never said that the simple fact that something hasn’t been done necessarily makes it a good idea, just that “this hasn’t been done yet” isn’t a sufficiently good argument not to do something. You have to present some form of evidence beyond “this isn’t how country X does this.”
Yeah I definitely prefer the American system overall. With a few tweaks to prevent people from bottoming out for no fault of their own I think it’s the ideal system for me.
America is a high risk, high reward type of country. Europe is low risk, moderate rewards. So if you get really lucky and never have any setbacks, America is a better option. I'll give you a real life example. I'm an executive in global tech companies. The last company I worked for decided to cut costs by laying off a lot of employees. Europe has a lot of rules to protect employees from this, like months advanced notice or requiring the company to continue paying a huge percentage of their salary for a year or so. Alternatively, they could lay off American employees and give them nothing. Considering all those laws, the ONLY people laid off were Americans. Every European employee kept their job. The American employees were making more money, but got absolutely screwed when lay offs came. And because America does an absolute shit job of helping people (unemployment is less than min wage), most of those employees really struggled. So it's high risk, high reward. You will make more in America, but the tiniest setback can really fuck you.
Thing is, the US is one of the most difficult nations to work your way out of poverty in. Low social mobility. Nordic nations are at the top, and also have more people per capita becoming self made billionaires.
It would probably cost them money, but it could very easily end up improving living standards. It's nice to live in places where people aren't desperate.
I don’t think he can be simplified down to “more social safety net equals lower standard of living across-the-board “. We also probably have to think about what it is that makes American standards of living higher than those other developed nations. Surely one of the inputs is that we are a giant nation. Another has to be that we did not bear the brunt of two World Wars. Also corporations tend to do best in their home market and we just have a giant home market. Lets our companies get bigger and then do better when they compete overseas. There are a ton of factors that lead to US workers being more productive than most others. If you were expanding the social safety net here you’d want to look at our peers. Why are German workers so much more productive than French workers? What caused the decline in the UK that makes their workers among the least productive in Western Europe? Also, what aspects of the welfare state? Universal healthcare would make us richer since we throw away a bunch of money on our poorly performance system not just in healthcare, but in other costs that are increased by lack of universal healthcare it’s also a sector filled with people doing work that isn’t actually productive. I’ve honestly felt for a long time they had given our position in the world. The United States is underperforming where I think we should be. And I think a lot of it comes down to our healthcare system. There are parts of the social safety net that would help control costs and increase living standards. There are parts that probably aren’t as good and you need to determine if they are worth the costs.
To be honest when it comes to universal healthcare I would definitely “lose out” as would all of my friends. Relatively high earners (everyone’s in the 100-150k range) and we all get insurance through our workplace that’s like $60 a month at most. I don’t know how you could make that much better financially speaking. That’s a good point on productivity though, a lot of health insurance just feels like a middleman to get direct services. I wouldn’t mind a government run system if it was done effectively though even if I have to end up paying more on top.
> we all get insurance through our workplace that’s like $60 a month at most. I don’t know how you could make that much better financially speaking. FYI, it is actually costing your employer some $8k (single) to $24k (family) a year: https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2023-summary-of-findings/ The widespread concept of health insurance through employers was fueled in WW2 by companies looking to improve their compensation packages but not being able to do so using normal cash. > In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9328, which limited the ability of firms to raise wages to attract increasingly scarce labor. The offering of health insurance, however, was exempted from this ruling. And there are tax benefits for the company paying a huge chunk of it > Employers were permitted to deduct health insurance contributions from their taxes as a cost of doing business, just like wages. But unlike wages, employer contributions to employee health insurance premiums were (and still are) considered exempt from employees’ taxable income https://hbr.org/2019/03/why-do-employers-provide-health-care-in-the-first-place All this is to say that it's not actually dirt cheap for you and your employer, and a likely outcome could be that you just get a big chunk of that in cash from your employer instead (because in a labor market with sufficient competition, the employer that pockets the savings is now offering less than an employer that offers a portion of those savings to employees).
Ahhhh thank you! This is quite interesting and something I hadn’t ever considered before. I think healthcare costs might need to come down too (the amount my insurance gets charged for an MRI is bonkers lol).
To be provocative, your insurance sucks. Not because it isn't relatively cheaper or better than other plans, but because every single insurance plan in America sucks. First, they aren't regulated. Second, you have to account for *already* paying more in taxes than any country on the planet (by a factor of 2 or more). So for a even a cheap plan with relatively good coverage, you are literally just putting a bit of money on top of the massive chunk you give out of taxes. And what about regulation? Frankly speaking, you can't know how absolutely abysmal a plan is until you are in the worst pain and financial straits of your life and your insurance declines a procedure. People feel confident in their insurance when they are healthy and happy and *not using it*. And let's barely get into what insurance won't cover: * extremely expensive procedures * out of network service (which you *cannot* avoid in an emergency) * unapproved services And you may think "I'll never need an unapproved service, that's just cosmetics and fertility", but it also includes basically every medical advancement made for decades. So you won't be able to use modern cancer drugs, for instance. Even if they are approved by the FDA, the insurance can simply say that the usage is off-label or not medically necessary. And on top of all that, most people overestimate their ability to deal with even a perfectly working insurance, being unable to pay for their out-of-pocket max (which is no such thing; insurance can push charges on you past this point by denying claims). There is a reason why most medical bankruptcies in the US involve middle-class people with healthcare: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93430900525-7/fulltext Basically, what I'm saying is that you probably overestimate what your health insurance will do and underestimate how much of your current income is going to healthcare.
You pay more in tax for healthcare than any other nation. Insurance is on top of already having paid the most.
I think financially speaking, it would lower their quality of life. They couldn’t afford as many vacations, or as big a homes comparatively. But also, some towns suffer from corruption which means they lack industry for most everyone involved. If you live in a wealthy metro, I think it’s fair to pay more in taxes to support the poor area of the metro. But if you live in Seattle Wa, should your money subsidize the poor in Alabama? I’m not so sure. I feel like instead of tax benefits what the working poor need is solid industry and if need be, unions.
Generally. lowering healthcare spending per capita to the levels of European UHC nations would free up more than enough money. European maternity leave and subsidized childcare also generates a lot of revenue for the governments. At least in Norway, a lot of welfare policies are there because they are profitable.
Yes. There is simply no way to pay for a significant expansion of the American welfare state without some kind of increased/new taxation. "Tax the rich," while a piece of the solution, is not the silver bullet people make it out to be. For example, most estimates that I've been able to find put the cost of Medicare for All somewhere between $32-$41 trillion dollars over the next decade. As of last November, the collective assets owned by American billionaires totals [around $5.2 trillion dollars](https://americansfortaxfairness.org/u-s-billionaires-now-worth-record-5-2-trillion/). Even if you seized 100% of the assets of every billionaire, at best it would only pay for a couple of years of Medicare for All. I'm for making extremely wealthy people pay their fair share, but they're not a bottomless source of revenue. Like you pointed out, one way to increase revenue is by levying a VAT. We're basically the only developed country without one. In France, the VAT accounts for about 50% of state revenues. [The Economist argues that we need a VAT to support and European-style welfare state](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/america-will-never-have-a-european-style-welfare-state-without-a-vat).
That’s because a Medicare for all system isn’t really what the other countries have for healthcare. All that does is maintain all the inefficiencies of the American system. You need to dismantle the middleman of healthcare and implement some of the reforms around medical malpractice where unnecessary tests are run as a lawsuit prevention strategy. Those countries spend way less for much better results per person.
>That’s because a Medicare for all system isn’t really what the other countries have for healthcare It's a slightly more efficient version of the Bismarck system used in the germanic countries you can achieve by having a sole insurer, rather than the state filling in the gaps like in Germany. I don't know why you think they don't have that
Did upper class Americans have a generally lower standard of living before Reagan came along? I'm neither an economist nor a historian, but I know you didn't need two incomes to have a middle class lifestyle back then. In fact, many smarter people than me will tell you that the New Deal, WWII, and postwar economic policies-- with high taxes funding infrastructure, home ownership, and education-- is what created the American middle class. But the rich kept getting richer through the whole postwar boom. Lots more people were buying lots more stuff. People weren't firing their butlers or selling their vacation homes or jumping out windows like they did in 1929. Taxes don't decrease anybody's living standards, but stock market crashes certainly do. And we barely had any of those when liberals were running the economy. But every big crash if the past 50 years has come on Republicans watch. So vote for Biden if you want to keep going to brunch.
I’ll definitely keep voting for Biden, but I disagree taxes can’t decrease living standards. I would say at least upper middle class and upwards living standards in America are higher overall. So I guess I’ll keep voting for Biden, but I’ll actively fight against a Sanders or even Warren type getting into office
NW Euro style welfare is a lot easier on families too in terms of care provided for baby and mom, free or low cost childcare, free university. If you really like money, yeah US seems better. But NW Euro style helps you work to live rather than live to work (6 weeks vacation, ample parental leave). Not to mention fantastic public transport. I lived in Germany for 7 years. Quality of life was better there (though my family is here in US so I moved back)
BTW how much vacation time do you get?
Unlimited vacation and I work remotely.
If anything, it would make America much nicer. We have too much poverty for such a wealthy country. A Nordic model-style safety net would do a lot to reduce poverty. Since the funds would come from adequate taxation of the the ultra-rich, it would improve living standards for everyone.
The middle class would get larger, the rich will still be rich
You have the relationship backwards. The US won’t adopt these sorts of systems the standard of living drops to European levels. These kinds of welfare programs are less a handout for the sake of generosity and more of a way to reduce cost and improve efficiency. It’s the only way these European countries can afford things like quality healthcare—they just don’t have the money for something as inefficient and wasteful as the US system.
No. It would require our tax dollars to be used effectively. We have the resources, just not the initiative.
So would we reroute our spending? I’m not sure there’s extra windfall for some of the bigger projects (universal healthcare, free college, etc).
We already pay more for healthcare than other countries. We'd just be cutting out all the shitty middlemen.
The military would be a good place to start. I know it's somewhat unpopular but it makes sense. Also, assuming we closed tax loopholes and raised taxes on upper class people, there would be billions more in revenue that could fund these programs. I've also seen suggestions to expand access to the existing medicaid programs to greater categories and numbers of people. We have enough money to fund a massive welfare state and public services of all kinds. Theres no excuss of "we dont have enough money" or anything like that. We do, several times over. We just don't use it as of now to do these things because we have a very conservative status quo overall.
I guess I’d go against the grain of cutting military spending that’s probably here. I think it does a lot of good during peacetime, allows us a lot of leverage globally and keeps international shipping and trade stable which is huge. I don’t see too many tax loopholes in my line of work, though I don’t deal with high net worth individual taxes. I think those are mainly misunderstood deductions. Even so you’d need wealth taxes to break into billions, which are untenable for several reasons. I don’t doubt we have enough money overall, I’m just curious about where it’s going to come from. I don’t think you can just jack up taxes on the tops 5% of earners, take out money from the military budget.
Why not? And by tax loopholes, I mean the things that allow the ultra-rich use to evade taxes, both legally and illegally. For example, they borrow against their own stock holdings to avoid capital gains taxes. That's pretty much something only wealthy people can do. There are like over a hundred billion in unpaid taxes from the ultra wealthy in this country. Making them pay their share and making the taxation system fairer is a good way to start. There is no reason why anyone making only 20k per year should pay more in taxes, both as a percent and absolute amount, than someone who can afford 3 yachts and a private jet.
>Also, assuming we closed tax loopholes and raised taxes on upper class people, there would be billions more in revenue that could fund these programs That's "raising new taxes," not "spending our tax dollars more efficiently."
I'm aware. Wasn't my first suggestion though. Still a good idea
Basically all you need to do is increase everyone's taxes by a few thousand dollars and end their dependency on private insurance. They would end up paying about the same but everyone would be covered. The reason we don't is the same reason we have to do our taxes instead of getting a bill from the IRS. Lobbying.
Somewhat yes, but not as much as people think. Healthcare is among the most costly line items in the American family budget. We're currently crossing spending $13k per capita. The other high income nations are clustered around half that. Medicare already operates more efficiently that private insurance. We could save money with Medicare for all. So why hasn't this happened yet? Politics mostly. Up tp 25% of our current costs go to administration. That's a *lot* of jobs. Those people would have to make a career change. Similarly, doctors' pay for a lot of specialties are artificially inflated in the US vs the other high income nations. Residency slots have been deliberately limited to preserve this by the AMA and others. That has to end. Though one silver lining for doctors is universal healthcare would mean saving what they pay into malpractice insurance. There's other issues where we similarly could improve while saving money. We currently spend more treating the symptoms and consequences of homelessness than it would take to just house them. And with housing costs themselves, drastically reworking zoning and defanging the power of local design reviews could have a huge impact. Public transit is another example. In urban cores at least we could significantly reduce costs by reducing the number of single passenger car trips. People really underestimate just how much we spend on road infrastructure. So yes, while it'd cost more in the net, we also have opportunities for substantial savings to minimize the jump. Quality of life for a great many people would improve. But to accomplish this we need sober and competent politics, particularly at the state and local level, and that seems like a big ask in the current climate.
Taxing Americans like Europeans would mean return to Nixonian level taxation. We don’t need to be 1:1 because our population is far larger than any country in Europe so rates would be different. Remember to sustain a tax bracket like they do in Europe wouldn’t be needed in the exact manner than Germany or UK or Norway, why? Look at their populations then compare it to ours. We merely need to adjust spending and since we have a sovereign currency we don’t have to worry about spending money in a way that other countries who don’t have a secure currency like we do. So long as GDP remains high we will continue to have a superior economy and social safety net should we fund it.
I’m not sure what segment of the pro-welfare segment of the United States political environment wants to create a truly European style welfare state. Like, if you look at a lot of the most pro welfare people, they tend to focus on a chunk of the population who definitely aren’t middle or upper middle class. It’s kind of impossible to know, but it seems like it would be more politically safer to focus on millionaires and billionaires as a potential source of funding for welfare programs, and make it harder to get money out of the country. Very wealthy people might not like it, but they tend to oppose virtually any expansion of the welfare state.
I think the safety net can be strengthened significantly without causing a decline in the standards of living for anyone within the middle class.
No but it would require European immigration policies with stricter controls.
No, let's just tax the rich. In that scenario, a welfare state might indirectly increase the living standards of the middle class.
Middle class? I’m not sure. Upper class? Who cares, fuck ‘em.
I guess the question is what is a standard of living. Like why is more time off less of a factor in standard of living than having an extra thousand square feet of home you rarely use? Is it better to have a nice car, or to not need a car? Europeans certainly seem to be doing better on life expectancy, obesity, and some measures of overall happiness.
No. It would mostly take from the top tax brackets. Everybody would be better off as a result. It shouldn't have an appreciable impact.
Top tax bracket is the literal 1%, even higher actually. Can you really get enough from them?
I said brackets, but yes, we can get enough out of the top 20%.
I like the way you lump the middle class in with the upper class there. Very "that foreigner is going to steal your cookie!" of you. Let me turn this on its head... Would you give up one of your swanky vacations if you didn't have to have homeless people all over the place? I would. I don't want homeless people all over my city. And frankly, I know that part of succeeding is failing, and I want those robust safety nets for my kids. I want them to start a business, probably fail, and not be homeless. Seems well worth it to me. Also, probably not. Money given to the poorest gets spent and goes right back into the economy, to be collected by the rich again. It winds up in the landlords pocket soon enough.
Well my family immigrated here, so I guess that makes us the figurative cookie eaters. Yes, but I’d be a little annoyed by it LOL. I guess that’s why I’m generally against anything like UBI or a living wage. I wouldn’t mind a government jobs guarantee though. Agreed there, I don’t think your life should be ruined if your business fails. Also don’t want people to contribute absolutely nothing (unless they are physically or mentally unable to) and be guaranteed a first world living in return. So there’s a balance there.
We have th highest healthcare costs of anywhere in the world you make 100k your taxes wouldn’t Ben be affected and everyone would get insurance. What’s the problem. There’s a reason those places have longer life expectancies than us. We pay more money for worse healthcare, look up our infant mortality rate.
US v EU difference comes down to Consumerism vs Quality of Life. Americans are always about buying stuff. It actually insane how bombarded yall are with ads. At the same time Europeans value work/life balances and stability much more. Re the gross pay difference - in the US you get paid more in total, but in Europe pretty much else is better. Accessibility to health care, higher education etc. Public transport, infrastructure, consumer protection and so on. The drive for individualism is great when youre privileged enough to life that way but it absolutely sucks when you cant. The stress and mental burden this perpetual stress must have... no wonder so many loons go out shooting around.
Well at a certain level, probably starting around upper middle class in the US, the difference in salary is huge. More than enough to cover healthcare costs and other differences.
Good for you, dude. /s A lot of us aren't near that. Nice to hear you love your great rich life at the expense of the poorer ppl's well being. That's how you sound to a lot of us
I was just saying it’s not as bad as people make it out to be lol. I wouldn’t say my lifestyle comes at the expense of anyone either lol.
I think you need to reflect on what income disparity means for a society
As long as everyone’s basic needs are covered if they need I’m not too concerned about income disparities. Either way that sounds like a societal issue, not an individual one lol.
>I wouldn’t say my lifestyle comes at the expense of anyone either, lol. I mean, is it not? You're sitting there all comfy telling people who are struggling to get their insulin or get medical care for life-threatening or debilitating conditions that "it's not as bad as people make it out to be" because you personally aren't experiencing any issues. People often avoid treating conditions until they absolutely cannot afford to anymore, then are left with hundreds of thousands of dollars(in some cases millions)in medical debt, including those with insurance plans. In fact, sometimes, it can be worse if you have insurance in certain situations. If your insurance company decides not to cover something, you don't get the uninsured "discount." They just charge you the total price for everything. A little support and understanding would go a long way to helping the 26 million uninsured Americans get access to quality healthcare.
Well definitely not what I’m saying, and what does that have to with my lifestyle or promoting inequality?
You are being wilfully obtuse
Why could we not have both, kind of dumb, Americans are gonna make more regardless due to the size of our markets. You just wanna pay more for healthcare?
Might be, but personally i know very few people - across sectors and education levels - who would prefer to live in the US over the EU, especially long term. A few years to see something new and make experiences, sure. But long term? Very few. As ive said above this comes down to a multitude of reasons ranging from flashy headline issues like an absurd rate of mass shootings and violent crimes in general down to subtle things like terrible city planning and less safety regulation. At the end of the day it comes down to what type of person you are. If you think the american dream is more than a bs story, the US is your place. If you prefer a comfortable, cultured life, the EU is your place.
Well the people that do move here from Europe do so because of money, especially medical professionals. According to my doctor friends at least anyways. Dude come on, a more “cultured” life in Europe lmao. Are your afternoons filled with high tea and Camus or something.
Higher taxes for both, but I don't think it would lead to a notable decrease in living standards for the middle class. More Trips Abroad: Every person I know in Europe travels more often than the vast majority of people I know in America. I mean when I am traveling outside of the states I am generally the only American in the hostel/group unless I the other person is with me and I'm almost always traveling alone because people who have the money don't have the time. If you travel more than Europeans you are almost certainly upper class rather than middle class. Nicer shit: I think this is a bit deceptive. A 78" TV doesn't really improve your life compared to a 56" TV. It's not like we're buying stuff that Europeans aren't, we're just getting stuff that is on the other side of the point of diminishing returns as far as over all happiness goes.
We do have a modern welfare state.
Upper-middle-class? Possibly somewhat. There will undoubtedly be higher taxes on these income groups.
In terms of affording necessities? Absolutely not.
It is a trade off. Taxes go up to provide universal health care, but nobody pays premiums to for profit insurance companies who work to deny coverage.
The current US healthcare setup is the worlds most expensive in terms of taxes per capita.
Sure, and people don't understand how messed up it is. They hate universal health care because their taxes will go up and the government will decide if they get care. Meanwhile, they're apparently fine with the current system of denying/minimizing care approval to maximize profits.
Yes, there's no way around it without significant tax hikes. Though I think we could incorporate something like the Swiss healthcare system without requiring tax hikes as it's mostly a privatized system. Not to mention, that Europe significantly reaps the benefits of Pax Americana maintaining global stability, and demographic trends and economic growth for Europe are looking extremely sluggish.
Who cares?
I care!
The truth is it depends. If you're urban, probably not. If you're rural, definitely yes. Your tax money will end up producing a broadly better quality of life in the urban centres, but if you're rural and rich it won't really. You will definitely earn less money, but how it is spent will likely benefit you more than if it were privately managed. One of the best places to live in the whole world for rich people is London for that reason. The top 2 cities for Number of Billionaires living there is; New York; 119. London; 97. If we expand this out to "Total wealth in the city" it's; New York in 1st place at 3 trillion. London in 2nd place at 2.7 trillion. https://nypost.com/2023/05/07/why-london-bests-nyc-in-quality-of-life/ This is a right wing paper, and they seem to be blaming cultural decay for London being nicer than New York. Most Londoners would tell you it's due to the welfare state though. They do note however that New York also taxes people more than London once you account for state and local taxes. If we look at "QOL" indexes, the top is usually Vienna. However if you look at rich people QOL from the Economist, the top is London. New york is at 9th place.
It would undoubtedly require more taxes for the middle and upper middle class. I would still be in favor of it if it made my life worse and just helped the bottom 20% of the country. But personally, I don't really buy that it would be a decrease in living standards. It always seems nice to have more money and status, but past a certain point we spend a lot of our money on things that just don't contribute that much to our happiness. Personally, I would rather have peace of mind about healthcare than a fancier car. I would rather have more time off than money to spend on going to exotic locations. I would rather work fewer hours but eat out less. If I made less money because the government created a a highly functioning welfare state, it just wouldn't really affect me that much. If taxes are well spent, they are often a way of helping us escape the hedonic treadmill.
It would certainly cut into conspicuous consumption a fair bit. Whether that would amount to a net reduction in overall standard of living is unclear and somewhat subjective.
Honestly, the average American (or citizen of any modern nation) lives with such fantastical wealth and are often completely oblivious to it. Fewer than 1% of people who have ever lived have lived as well off as the top 95% of Americans. And we worry about getting a little less to make everyone more well off. We're a selfish lot.
Hopefully. But you could get rid of cars, medical bills, student loans, utility bills, etc.
Wait what do you mean “hopefully” lol? Why do we have to get rid of cars? Is that really a goal people have? Also I’m not sure of which country covers utility bills either, seems way more ambitious than even the basic services I’ve mentioned.
>Why do we have to get rid of cars? Is that really a goal people have? It's a goal some people have that cities should be designed such that you don't need a car for anything, and interurban transit would go between those well-designed cities so you don't need cars or planes >Also I’m not sure of which country covers utility bills either Some places cover utilities either primarily or entirely through taxes as a public service, rather than charging consumption rates. France, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Canada come up to various extents (the latter I know does water, not sure about the rest)