FDR Caps Income At $25,000

[Electric Monk]

In 1942 FDR proposed what amounted to an income cap (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/shared_sacrifice_shared_glory.php), by bringing in a 100% tax over the $25,000 mark (roughly 300,000 dollars today).

Let's say it passes, essentially making the idea of a maximum income acceptable in American politics. Does anybody do anything with that?

I can think of two ways to approach the issue after WWII and (presumably) the ending of the tax. The first is to bring it back in at some point. The other, more interesting, approach would be to combine a non-100% tax with a multiplier—i.e. The top income possible is either minimum wage times 25 or (if you're part of a corporation) 25 times higher than the lowest paid employee.


Thoughts on how this might develop?

[Thande]

I can't imagine this being accepted once the war's over. I think even the most statist continental European countries nowadays would balk at something like this. Besides, the very rich would simply uproot and go and live in other countries or tax havens, ultimately damaging the American economy.

[Electric Monk]

I can't imagine this being accepted once the war's over. I think even the most statist continental European countries nowadays would balk at something like this. Besides, the very rich would simply uproot and go and live in other countries or tax havens, ultimately damaging the American economy.

The banking system post WWII is pretty much entirely controlled by the USA. It's a simple matter to tell anyone who wants to leave that if they do so, they leave their money behind.


The larger point I'm going for is not that I think a 100% tax will continue (it won't, but even in the '60s IOTL it was 90%+) but that it makes the idea of capping income or limiting income in some way acceptable.

For example, the executive at GM making x dollars would now be dependent on his lowest paid worker for his own pay raise. I consider that a very interesting dynamic to explore.

[Bear Flag Oligarch]

I think that when the cold war starts people will start to view such a tax as, well communist. It could end up back firing and damaging the democrats/ FDr's image.

[xchen08]

The banking system post WWII is pretty much entirely controlled by the USA. It's a simple matter to tell anyone who wants to leave that if they do so, they leave their money behind.


The larger point I'm going for is not that I think a 100% tax will continue (it won't, but even in the '60s IOTL it was 90%+) but that it makes the idea of capping income or limiting income in some way acceptable.

For example, the executive at GM making x dollars would now be dependent on his lowest paid worker for his own pay raise. I consider that a very interesting dynamic to explore.

That's not really true. The U.S. banking system would not retain dominance if the government does something so stupid. And there is no such thing as leaving their money behind. Once the rich are in another country, any income they earn would not be taxeable by the U.S. Sure, you can tax capital gains and dividends from their money in the U.S., but just taking that money would be illegal and unconstitutional.

Of course, that brings up the fact that any sort of 100% tax would be confiscation and thus violation of the right to property, which is why no such proposal could ever pass.

[Electric Monk]

Of course, that brings up the fact that any sort of 100% tax would be confiscation and thus violation of the right to property, which is why no such proposal could ever pass.

Did you read the linked article? No one really had a problem with the 100% tax (and of course it's not confiscation or violation of the right to own property because it only applies over 25,000 dollars).

[xchen08]

Did you read the linked article? No one really had a problem with the 100% tax (and of course it's not confiscation or violation of the right to own property because it only applies over 25,000 dollars).

I read it. It's just that it gave no evidence that there truly was little opposition to the proposal. For that matter, it's possible that FDR's lawyers told him just how illegal the proposal was, which is why it got dropped. And only taking your house when you also have a car is still confiscation. It doesn't stop being confiscation if you don't take everything.

[Johnestauffer]

It would be interesting to see.
A couple of flaws.
First, it would seen to provide no incentives for growth. If you could never earn more than X dollars, why make a big effort.

It would seem to negatively impact invention & production. If the purchasing power remained consistant, would their be incentives for new developments that might have high initial costs (like PC's for example)

Does this 25K cap include stock market earnings? If so, then there would be zero reason to invest. If you did earn money, you would just lose it so why bother.
What about earnings from the sale of personnel possessions or property?
How would this impact the 25K cap?

Would be be limited to showing 25K of income from all sources?

[David S Poepoe]

A high rate of taxation is agreeable during a national emergency, like war time. However, that is compensated in the near total lack of consumer goods and rationing that allows one to live so little. To continue such a feat during peace time is a horrible idea since it penalizes those that strive to do better and work harder. Why should one apply oneself to any great degree if one is not rewarded for ones effort. Talk about providing a reason for a brain drain.

[basileus]

The banking system post WWII is pretty much entirely controlled by the USA. It's a simple matter to tell anyone who wants to leave that if they do so, they leave their money behind.


The larger point I'm going for is not that I think a 100% tax will continue (it won't, but even in the '60s IOTL it was 90%+) but that it makes the idea of capping income or limiting income in some way acceptable.

For example, the executive at GM making x dollars would now be dependent on his lowest paid worker for his own pay raise. I consider that a very interesting dynamic to explore.

[Enters COMMIE mode] Me too.

[Draco]

I think during the war the differences would be negligible it could even be presented as a measure to remove the incentive for people to try engaging in war-profiteering thus it’s presented as being a patriotic measure. However after the war anyone who supports trying to keep it at 100% is likely committing political suicide and gets branded a communist.

FDR’s reputation would also likely take a hit since it was his idea in the first place. Nevertheless since he did die while the war was still going on his supporters will say he always intended it solely as a war measure and never meant it to continue into peace time thus protecting him from the brunt of the criticism I imagine.

[mtg999]

The UK had a 98% maximum tax rate for some investment income in the 1960's, so I can see it being conceivable that the USA could have had something similar (perhaps not 100% though).

Also immediately after WW2 the USA did have such a control on the international banking system that it would have been possible for this to have occurred. It would be relatively easy to stop US citizens moving overseas (to escape the tax rates) from emptying their bank accounts and taking the money with them. In fact exchange controls such as this were a common feature of all Western economies until the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970's. There was a plan by the UK Wilson government called Operation Brutus (which never got implemented) in the late 1960's which planned to solve the balance of payments crises that afflicted the UK at the time by implementing an effective ban on unauthorised currency outflows from the UK. If the UK believed they could implement this at a time when they no longer controlled international banking then I am sure the USA could have.

Not that any of this would IMHO be desirable, but I think it would be possible.

[Expat]

The multiplier idea was played with briefly in In His Own Right (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=31068) but the idea was sold off for political capital. That's certainly the most likely scenario, depending on when it gets scrapped.

One effect I think people might underestimate is in the phrasing of the debate. Americans tend not to rise in exodus or open arms if something is passed through the accepted channels of governance. They moan, but they get on with it (current example: as we speak there's no Manhattan-on-the-St.-Lawrence refugee camp.)

What this will do is rephrase the debate, making Taft/Goldwater conservatives look more extreme.
They'll probably get it repealed before too long, but they'll expend political capital doing it. If they can gain power on the backs of anti-communists or something like that, then maybe this falls incidentally as well, but it'll still be a battle, and it still means a longer push back to the center.

If the Democrats can make the argument that this is the savior of blue collar workers, that will translate to votes and make the fight even harder.

But what my thoughts keep coming back to is what happened to industry IOTL. Why would executives up and move when they can just ship the jobs across the border? I doubt the law is phrased in such a way to account for foreign workers.
Maybe this kicks off NAFTA or something similar much sooner?
Maybe Democrats get locked into protectionism?

[Fearless Leader]

This might make the 1944 election a whole lot closer than it was. Especially if the GOP nominate Thomas Dewey...

[Dave Howery]

I'd think the immediate affect of an income cap is that suddenly, no one would be making more than 25,000/year. Why bother?

[Expat]

I'd think the immediate affect of an income cap is that suddenly, no one would be making more than 25,000/year. Why bother?

Why bother? It's 1942! They have a sacred duty to provide material for conservative analogy-makers for the next 60 years. Sacrifices must be made!
:p

As for the election of '44 I think Thande is at least right in saying that FDR is safe as long as the war goes on (though I disagree anybody leaves the country off of this) and since this isn't likely to butterfly away a whole year of the war, that means FDR wins in '44 too.
I suppose his health was delicate enough that any change brings butterflies in that, but who can say?

[Mark E.]

An absolute income cap creates a black market of perks and corruption. After all, that is how it worked in the USSR before 1992.

For the US, you would see an income cap in the 90%-98% range at certain levels, more like the UK system. The end result might be very much the same as the proposed $25,000 cap in the thirties. The national debt stays small, as current wealth gets cycled into the public sector.

WWII will require a tighter level of sacrifice. But once the war is over, you allow wealth to accumulate, however high the tax rate (always less than 100%).

One consequence: Large state lotteries are gone. There will be no games if income above $500,000 is sent back to the state at 99%.

[Inferus]

Bye bye capitalism. Why bother to push yourself if the glass ceiling is unbreakable? This is a ridiculous cap that not only ruins the system but stunts American growth. Now if you said that CEOs could only make 10 to 25 times the lowest pay rate of their employees, then I would agree. This would help to improve the pa6y rate of the co0mmon man. But to cut absolute salary and not reward merit is absolutely insane. That is what killed the USSR and all other communist countries. Why work hard if the laziest guy next to you gets paid just as well?

[alt_historian]

So, the general consensus is if this happened, nobody would bother working and the entire economy would have collapsed?

Interesting.

Laugh if you will, but... surely there are motivations other than money to do a good job?

[Thande]

Laugh if you will, but... surely there are motivations other than money to do a good job?

You're either Gene Roddenberry or a New Labour focus group.

[Cloudy Vortex]

No, there's not. Not for the vast majority. There are those who aren't interested in money, or are only interested in making ends meet. But nowhere near enough to build an economy around. Without greed and blind competition, we'd all be stone age hunter-gatherers. Our desire to have more, so much more than we need and to outdo some other fool no matter what the cost has propelled us to where we are, for better and worse. I'm not saying we're better off because of our greed instinct. Hunter-gatherers bands (in the few places they still exist) seem to be no more miserable than anyone else. But those bands who develop (or acquire) better tools and organization due to greed soon can do whatever they want to those bands who do not.

[CDurham]

Did they forget about a little thing called inflation?

[Expat]

Not that anyone need spend their time convincing me, but I'm still not convinced that the predictions here would come to pass. I don't see anybody fleeing the country over this, and I don't see it bringing down capitalism or the American Way of Life* (either in the 100% tax or with the multiplier caveat.)

Sure, it won't last long- I give it until 1954 at the most, with '46 a more likely reversion date. I don't see violent reaction over this if it really is designed to only hit the very richest people. Comfort tends to make one non-violent.
So the country's not going to swing violently to the right any more than OTL, and the effort to get this thing off the books may even result in a more liberal median voter (file this under my pseudo-scientific co-option of Newton's Third Law.)

But honestly, is all the talk of systems breaking down and the exodus of industry from the native shores just hyperbole, or do people actually have theories to hang that talk on?



*(hey, anybody ever notice if you acronym that you get AWoL?:D)

[alt_historian]

You're either Gene Roddenberry or a New Labour focus group.
No, I'm not - and since when are New "Labour" anti-capitalist?

I, personally, don't give a shit as long as I have enough to live on, and am doing something I like.

True, I might think differently if I actually made a lot of money, but I don't.

No, there's not. Not for the vast majority. There are those who aren't interested in money, or are only interested in making ends meet. But nowhere near enough to build an economy around. Without greed and blind competition, we'd all be stone age hunter-gatherers.
And the proof of this is..?

[The Militant One]

No, I'm not - and since when are New "Labour" anti-capitalist?

I, personally, don't give a shit as long as I have enough to live on, and am doing something I like.

True, I might think differently if I actually made a lot of money, but I don't.


And the proof of this is..?

Alt, money is the driving force of not only competition of others but personal competition. This is the same reason why socialism never worked. Think of it this way: lets say you're a machinist in a factory making 20k a year, that is the maximum and minimum you will ever recieve. Even if you were to get promoted to the supervisor position of all other machinists, you'd still make the same.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try anymore, I wouldn't care about promotion or pushing myself harder. I would end up just maintaining enough not to get fired.

The proof is what I just explained.

[David S Poepoe]

Alt, money is the driving force of not only competition of others but personal competition. This is the same reason why socialism never worked. Think of it this way: lets say you're a machinist in a factory making 20k a year, that is the maximum and minimum you will ever recieve. Even if you were to get promoted to the supervisor position of all other machinists, you'd still make the same.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try anymore, I wouldn't care about promotion or pushing myself harder. I would end up just maintaining enough not to get fired.

The proof is what I just explained.

Your example also missed something important. With such a promotion comes increased responsibilities if an individual is not compensated for the more that is asked for him why seek promotion. Also want about the various jobs that need a higher education. Why seek a higher degree if it doesn't won't get one an advantage somewhere.

I suspect accounting for inflation the maximum wouldn't remain $25,000 dollars. Yet, how will someone safe the money necessary to buy a house, own a car or let alone put gas in it? Are we contemplating price controls also?

[The Militant One]

Your example also missed something important. With such a promotion comes increased responsibilities if an individual is not compensated for the more that is asked for him why seek promotion. Also want about the various jobs that need a higher education. Why seek a higher degree if it doesn't won't get one an advantage somewhere.

I suspect accounting for inflation the maximum wouldn't remain $25,000 dollars. Yet, how will someone safe the money necessary to buy a house, own a car or let alone put gas in it? Are we contemplating price controls also?

Ah! I knew I was forgetting a few things. Been about four years since I was in an economics class, which by the way; we spent more time talking about the failures of socialism than we did studying economic principles.

[Dave Howery]

So, the general consensus is if this happened, nobody would bother working and the entire economy would have collapsed?


no, IMO, people wouldn't stop working... but nobody would bother to make more than $25,000 per year. There's no point to it if the government is just going to take it all. People will reduce their salaries and take other perks (more vacation, etc.), basically find ways to make their income stop at $25,000....

[Inferus]

The problem with creating a cap is that you remove rewards for specialized work. Why bother to be the best if those far inferior to you and your work stand to make the same amount of money. This is just a manner to reward mediocrity and hurt excellence. You know, socialist.

[Expat]

The problem with creating a cap is that you remove rewards for specialized work. Why bother to be the best if those far inferior to you and your work stand to make the same amount of money. This is just a manner to reward mediocrity and hurt excellence. You know, socialist.

Well if we're worried about rewarding mediocrity, maybe FDR can bargain this away in favor of doing away with the trust fund culture.:p

And anyway, what exactly does the current, spectacularly collapsing system reward if not the mediocre pseudo-science of economics?

(I should just walk away from this thread. the capitalists are just itching to bait someone and now I'm baiting back.)

[mtg999]

Alt, money is the driving force of not only competition of others but personal competition. This is the same reason why socialism never worked. Think of it this way: lets say you're a machinist in a factory making 20k a year, that is the maximum and minimum you will ever recieve. Even if you were to get promoted to the supervisor position of all other machinists, you'd still make the same.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't try anymore, I wouldn't care about promotion or pushing myself harder. I would end up just maintaining enough not to get fired.

The proof is what I just explained.

Money is not the only driving factor. I'd say power and prestige are strong motivating factors. Now these are strongly related to income and wealth, but not fully. For instance there would be some who would want the supervisor's job even if it didn't pay anymore (or very little more), they would want the rank rather than the money, ie for reasons of personal esteem, even control freakery.

Likewise consider the vast number of people who are willing to leave high-flying business careers to go into the affluent but far less lucrative world of politics. Obviously they are willing to give up money for power and prestige.

I'm not saying that an income cap is a good idea, it would be a very bad idea IMHO, but I think there are other motivators apart from money.

[alt_historian]

Money is not the only driving factor. I'd say power and prestige are strong motivating factors. Now these are strongly related to income and wealth, but not fully. For instance there would be some who would want the supervisor's job even if it didn't pay anymore (or very little more), they would want the rank rather than the money, ie for reasons of personal esteem, even control freakery.

Likewise consider the vast number of people who are willing to leave high-flying business careers to go into the affluent but far less lucrative world of politics. Obviously they are willing to give up money for power and prestige.

I'm not saying that an income cap is a good idea, it would be a very bad idea IMHO, but I think there are other motivators apart from money.
Thank Christ for that, it's not just me.

BTW, wow, people are really down on socialism.

Because, you know, Sweden's such a horrible place isn't it?

[Dave Howery]

BTW, wow, people are really down on socialism.


not really socialism per se, just an absurdly low income cap. Does the one imply the other?

[alt_historian]

not really socialism per se, just an absurdly low income cap. Does the one imply the other?
No, of course they don't. Someone once asked me "you're a socialist? So you want everyone to be poor?"

...

I didn't know where to start on how she was wrong... :rolleyes:

Anyway, why is $300,000 (~£150,000) 'absurdly low'? More than most people see in a year...

I'm just not seeing the problem with an income cap as such here. I feel that, for instance, MDs of large companies are massively overpaid, or rather, 'rewarded' with their bonuses. Whether or not they are good at their job or they run the company into the ground doesn't seem to matter. However, that's an issue for a different debate.

Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on it...

[mtg999]

not really socialism per se, just an absurdly low income cap. Does the one imply the other?

Also, whilst I think that a 100% tax is unlikely to have ever have been implemented, if we are to assume a tax over 90% (which I believe the USA did have until the 1960's), then it is usually the case that nations with such high tax rates have massive amounts of tax deductions which predominantly benefit the very rich. In other word most don't end up paying any near the amount of tax you would assume that they do. Of course this can have many bad effects by distoring investment decisions, but it is likely to assuage the concern of the very rich.

[Dave Howery]

Also, whilst I think that a 100% tax is unlikely to have ever have been implemented, if we are to assume a tax over 90% (which I believe the USA did have until the 1960's), then it is usually the case that nations with such high tax rates have massive amounts of tax deductions which predominantly benefit the very rich. In other word most don't end up paying any near the amount of tax you would assume that they do. Of course this can have many bad effects by distoring investment decisions, but it is likely to assuage the concern of the very rich.

true... but can you blame them? They have the money and influence, why wouldn't they use it to have laws written to allow them to keep the bigger part of their earnings rather than giving it to the government. I personally think it's gone too far and that there are too many tax loopholes for the rich, but I understand just why and how we ended up there....

[Dave Howery]

Anyway, why is $300,000 (~£150,000) 'absurdly low'? More than most people see in a year...


because any kind of income cap is a whopping big incentive killer. If someone invents something extraordinary, or is a superb CEO who takes his company into the top ten profit earners, why shouldn't they personally make millions off of it? Even in you tax part of their income at 75%, they at least have some incentive to do well and earn that extra income. This doesn't mean that I approve of all the tax loopholes for the rich or think that mediocre CEOs should make as much as they do, but I highly approve of the "American dream" concept of getting rich by doing something extraordinary in business....

[alt_historian]

because any kind of income cap is a whopping big incentive killer. If someone invents something extraordinary, or is a superb CEO who takes his company into the top ten profit earners, why shouldn't they personally make millions off of it? Even in you tax part of their income at 75%, they at least have some incentive to do well and earn that extra income. This doesn't mean that I approve of all the tax loopholes for the rich or think that mediocre CEOs should make as much as they do, but I highly approve of the "American dream" concept of getting rich by doing something extraordinary in business....
...
I'd be fine with that.

[Jape]

I've actually thought that the bracket idea in corporations (eg: top dogs earning 500% more than the lowest etc.) is a good basis for business tax, with brakes for companies that pay more, offer higher bonuses for Joe Bloggs and higher tax for those that don't, as a flag-waver for partial employee ownership in business (a proud Labour/Co-Op Party drone) its always interested me.

Still its got little to do with this POD I'm just rambling :rolleyes:

[Admiral Canaris]

Thank Christ for that, it's not just me.

BTW, wow, people are really down on socialism.

Because, you know, Sweden's such a horrible place isn't it?

But it is. We have over one million unemployed, hiding out in makework schemes and reeducation. The government takes a net 70 % of Joe Average's salary and uses it to pay for multiculture, foreign aid and support to "cultural" activities. You can go to jail if you preach against homosexuality, and the media brands you as a Nazi if you voice the slightest opposition to unlimited immigration. Under the last government, people were forcibly retired if they were on sick leave for more than a month or two. And everything's regulated; we have no freedom. Getting permission to own a gun is next to impossible. The government has a monopoly on all sale of off-the-shelf alcohol (except beer), all gambling, and an oligopoly on electricity, among other things.

And then THINGS ARE STILL MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Sweden might be a dream for liberals, but it's a horror for anyone who values his freedom.

[mtg999]

But it is. We have over one million unemployed, hiding out in makework schemes and reeducation. The government takes a net 70 % of Joe Average's salary and uses it to pay for multiculture, foreign aid and support to "cultural" activities. You can go to jail if you preach against homosexuality, and the media brands you as a Nazi if you voice the slightest opposition to unlimited immigration. Under the last government, people were forcibly retired if they were on sick leave for more than a month or two. And everything's regulated; we have no freedom. Getting permission to own a gun is next to impossible. The government has a monopoly on all sale of off-the-shelf alcohol (except beer), all gambling, and an oligopoly on electricity, among other things.

And then THINGS ARE STILL MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Sweden might be a dream for liberals, but it's a horror for anyone who values his freedom.

I will admit that I do find it interesting in Australia where I am how right-wing and left-wing people tend to idolise different nations. For instance right-wing Australians tend to want us to become like the USA, whereas left-wing Australians want us to become like Sweden. (By the way in Sweden, who do your left-wingers look to for a model?). As a left-winger myself I tend to look to Sweden and the other Nordic nations as a model (and one of the politicians I admire the most is Olof Palme, so I'm a bit of stereotypical social democrat I suppose!).

The reason I admire your nation is that I think the model of social democracy you have is better than that tried in most other nations, espeically in English-speaking nations, in that left-wing politics was never as virulently anti-business as in places like Australia and the UK. For instance, from what I can gather, strong unions in Sweden don't necessarily mean workplace conflict, whereas here in Australia the era of strong unions meant constant strikes.

Also when you say that there is little freedom in Sweden, I suppose it depends on what sort of freedom you are talking about. Are you talking about the freedom to have good quality healthcare? Or to attend university without getting into massive debt? Or to earn a living wage?

Of course if you are talking about the freedoms that tend to be exercise by the rich, such as being able to operate business untrammeled, then Sweden would rank lower than the USA. However as a Danish woman from an article I was reading about their welfare state said when comparing their nations with the USA (and the same would apply for Sweden I assume), 'Nothing that good will happen here, but nothing that bad will happen either'.

[Admiral Canaris]

I will admit that I do find it interesting in Australia where I am how right-wing and left-wing people tend to idolise different nations. For instance right-wing Australians tend to want us to become like the USA, whereas left-wing Australians want us to become like Sweden. (By the way in Sweden, who do your left-wingers look to for a model?). As a left-winger myself I tend to look to Sweden and the other Nordic nations as a model (and one of the politicians I admire the most is Olof Palme, so I'm a bit of stereotypical social democrat I suppose!).

Depends on what you mean with left-winger. There are a few pseudo- and cryptocommunists (the only ones who're "left-wing" by Swedish standards; our entire political spectrum is way left of centre, "centre" here being the Social Democrats) who miss the Soviet Union, but they're not too influential (occasionally get a say by being the tip on the scale, though). Otherwise, Swedish left-wingers (in the international sense) tend to idealise the past, not other nations. In particular, the '60s, when the economy was booming enough to support ultra-ultra welfare spending (for a while, at least, it built up a nasty debt over time).

The reason I admire your nation is that I think the model of social democracy you have is better than that tried in most other nations, espeically in English-speaking nations, in that left-wing politics was never as virulently anti-business as in places like Australia and the UK. For instance, from what I can gather, strong unions in Sweden don't necessarily mean workplace conflict, whereas here in Australia the era of strong unions meant constant strikes.

It's more that Swedish business is too cowed to fight, so they don't need to strike to get their way. Here, if you don't grant the workers Union standards, they'll just put you out of business, so no one's even trying. It happened to a small restaurant a while ago; they had two or three employees, IIRC. The Union physically blockaded them till the owner had to give in and sell it.

Of course, another part in making things run smoothly is that the largest unions are run by the Social Democratic Party, which is in government in any given year, so they don't mess too much with the state-run corporations.

Also when you say that there is little freedom in Sweden, I suppose it depends on what sort of freedom you are talking about. Are you talking about the freedom to have good quality healthcare? Or to attend university without getting into massive debt? Or to earn a living wage?

In my mind, those are not rights or freedoms, but something that you earn. Welfare should be there primarily as a short-time support measure; only the genuinely incapable warrant long-term aid. The focus should be on help for self-help, and a lot could probably be run by private charities instead. But I digress.

As for debts, those can still grow quite big if you study fulltime; the regulations don't allow you to work (more than a very little) extra while you study, or they cut your allowance.

Of course if you are talking about the freedoms that tend to be exercise by the rich, such as being able to operate business untrammeled, then Sweden would rank lower than the USA.

How about basic things like just buying a bottle of wine when you feel like it, instead of queueing at the monopoly like it was on wartime rationing? Or owning a gun? Or not having most of your income redistributed to others?

However as a Danish woman from an article I was reading about their welfare state said when comparing their nations with the USA (and the same would apply for Sweden I assume), 'Nothing that good will happen here, but nothing that bad will happen either'.

Sums it up in a nutshell. Sweden is the country of mediocrities, where people expect nothing else and you're penalised for being above average (we even have a term for that - the Jante Law). You won't get rich, but you'll have your food served every day. Panem et circenses.

[zoomar]

There is absolutely NO CHANCE such a proposal would have been enacted and found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.

[mtg999]

Depends on what you mean with left-winger. There are a few pseudo- and cryptocommunists (the only ones who're "left-wing" by Swedish standards; our entire political spectrum is way left of centre, "centre" here being the Social Democrats) who miss the Soviet Union, but they're not too influential (occasionally get a say by being the tip on the scale, though). Otherwise, Swedish left-wingers (in the international sense) tend to idealise the past, not other nations. In particular, the '60s, when the economy was booming enough to support ultra-ultra welfare spending (for a while, at least, it built up a nasty debt over time).



It's more that Swedish business is too cowed to fight, so they don't need to strike to get their way. Here, if you don't grant the workers Union standards, they'll just put you out of business, so no one's even trying. It happened to a small restaurant a while ago; they had two or three employees, IIRC. The Union physically blockaded them till the owner had to give in and sell it.

Of course, another part in making things run smoothly is that the largest unions are run by the Social Democratic Party, which is in government in any given year, so they don't mess too much with the state-run corporations.



In my mind, those are not rights or freedoms, but something that you earn. Welfare should be there primarily as a short-time support measure; only the genuinely incapable warrant long-term aid. The focus should be on help for self-help, and a lot could probably be run by private charities instead. But I digress.

As for debts, those can still grow quite big if you study fulltime; the regulations don't allow you to work (more than a very little) extra while you study, or they cut your allowance.



How about basic things like just buying a bottle of wine when you feel like it, instead of queueing at the monopoly like it was on wartime rationing? Or owning a gun? Or not having most of your income redistributed to others?



Sums it up in a nutshell. Sweden is the country of mediocrities, where people expect nothing else and you're penalised for being above average (we even have a term for that - the Jante Law). You won't get rich, but you'll have your food served every day. Panem et circenses.

Actually I was just reading about the Jante Law not long ago, I find it interesting as we have something very similar in Australia, the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Australia and Sweden are probably at the opposite ends of most tables comparing Western nations but one thing we do have in common is what I would assume is called social egalitarianism (as opposed to economic egalitarianism, where Australia is far more unequal than Sweden). For instance there is very little use of titles for people in Australia and you are not encouraged to talk to much about your achievements.

I think this is both bad and good. It is bad in that we should acknowledge more the high achievers in society. But it is also good in that we don't have the strict and rigid social hierarchies that still exist in places like France and Germany.

[alt_historian]

I've actually thought that the bracket idea in corporations (eg: top dogs earning 500% more than the lowest etc.) is a good basis for business tax, with brakes for companies that pay more, offer higher bonuses for Joe Bloggs and higher tax for those that don't, as a flag-waver for partial employee ownership in business (a proud Labour/Co-Op Party drone) its always interested me.

Still its got little to do with this POD I'm just rambling :rolleyes:
Sounds good if I've understood it right.

But it is. We have over one million unemployed, hiding out in makework schemes and reeducation. The government takes a net 70 % of Joe Average's salary and uses it to pay for multiculture, foreign aid and support to "cultural" activities. You can go to jail if you preach against homosexuality, and the media brands you as a Nazi if you voice the slightest opposition to unlimited immigration. Under the last government, people were forcibly retired if they were on sick leave for more than a month or two. And everything's regulated; we have no freedom. Getting permission to own a gun is next to impossible. The government has a monopoly on all sale of off-the-shelf alcohol (except beer), all gambling, and an oligopoly on electricity, among other things.

And then THINGS ARE STILL MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO!
Ummm... OK. That sounds VERY different to what I've heard before...
Sweden might be a dream for liberals, but it's a horror for anyone who values his freedom.
Well, that's nonsensical, don't tell me you use the weird "liberal = socialist = Stalinist" thing too...