Average Salary in Norway

[Frosted]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...o-live-in.html

Top 20 countries on the Human Development Index:
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States
14. Austria
15. Spain
16. Denmark
17. Belgium
18. Italy
19. Liechtenstein
20. New Zealand

[precious007]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...o-live-in.html

Top 20 countries on the Human Development Index:
1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States
14. Austria
15. Spain
16. Denmark
17. Belgium
18. Italy
19. Liechtenstein
20. New Zealand

Nice List

Australia also has a high-living standard yep

[truthwolf1]

I was really surprised that you can still get $3 rail drinks and domestic beers in most bars. The smoking ban closed a ton of bars and with the downturn in the economy prices just seemed to adjust to keep people actually going.

So with a 20 dollar bill I could get 5 drinks with tip! Eyeball all the local single ladies and then head home with a gallon of milk for my family.

[Frosted]

Notice how the UK doesn't even register. Wonder why that is? Might be something to do with trying to pack 65 million people into a tiny island - all because the EU says we have to. France on the other hand has a similar population but with a huge land mass.

Notice the countries that can make their own immigration policies are at the top of the list.

F*** the EU.

[truthwolf1]

Notice how the UK doesn't even register. Wonder why that is? Might be something to do with trying to pack 65 million people into a tiny island - all because the EU says we have to. France on the other hand has a similar population but with a huge land mass.

Notice the countries that can make their own immigration policies are at the top of the list.

F*** the EU.

Sorry Frosted. I have a few third cousins over there from Eastern Europe. The only reason is for work, because austerity measures have left many without anything to do on the east side. There are huge blocks that left to Ireland also. My house has a couple immigrants in it also! lol. The EU is a bunch of crap but I do put some blame on my EE people for somewhat of creating a bubble on themselves also. TOO MUCH TOO FAST MATERIALISM

To be honest I dont think the better off countries in Europe have seen the peak of what is to come or a big or??? The EU will start to disband with rising pressure from native's.

[truthwolf1]

I just this weekend signed a petition for a ballot initiative here in CA to increase taxes on those making over a million$ to help support social programs. Today, I also did my tax refunds. I make about $80k with my wife and I combined, but we pay over $25,000 in taxes each year. And guess what, we owe another $1,500 this year which is due by April. For reference $80,000 in CA is shit, we rent our place because we can't afford anything else. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney pays 15% and has assets hidden in swiss bank accounts.

So no, I do not support tax increases on the middle class. Why you ask? Because I live in CA where they constantly raise taxes and we don't get SHIT in return. I am already paying nearly double what someone with $500 million in assets pays and don't see shit in return other than roads with little upkeep. I receive no pension, no healthcare bonuses, nothing from the state etc. So sorry if I don't support middle class tax increases, our representatives like to squander the money on wars and other bullshit that does not benefit us. This is not Norway where they have responsible government, this is Amerika, where every dollar you pay goes to murdering some civilian in the middle east.

If it is valid argument that the middle class pays a substantial amount in taxes towards the national budget then what happens as the the middle class dissapears and the budget continues to grow?

[sgreger1]

the philanthropists churches and the charities provided the social programs.

Yet the programs were so lacking that there was national outcry for the creation of things like social security.

Are we really best served by a system that is based on hoping rich people or churches give money away? What happens if for example you were gay or black in the 1930's. Guess who the church is sending to the back of the list?

[sgreger1]

Right but I'm talking average price of a standard pale ale or ipa at a bar, or say a pint of Heineken to even the playing field. You didn't have to pay $7 for 1 beer, but trust me, I do it too sometimes for the good shit.

Muddy, come to think of it it was when the rate was 2 to 1, and I suppose the place was somewhat swanky, and it was in central London. That was before I used snus and I remember the cost of cigarettes being damn-near the "priced-out" threshold we're discussing in another thread.

And sgreger, if your whiskey (at any price) can't be distinguished from Jose Cuervo you're doing it wrong lol.

I guess that really depends on where you go. Most bars/clubs around here would charge about ~$5 for a standard (non-exotic) beer like an IPA or Hieneken or something. In the south though I remember going places and having quarter beer night, now those were good times.

[sgreger1]

If it is valid argument that the middle class pays a substantial amount in taxes towards the national budget then what happens as the the middle class dissapears and the budget continues to grow?

This is why increasing revenue via increasing taxes on the rich isn't going to be the magic bullet. We need a combination of revenue increases and budget cuts. We can't just tax ourselves into infinity, and we can't keep spending ourselves into infinity either. We need to cut some (like, oh I don't know defense, medicare etc) and institute new taxes on financial transactions, capital gains etc.

[shikitohno]

Sorry if I misinterpreted some of your past comments, sgreger, but there've been a few threads here and there where you seemed to me more conservative than you apparently are. Again, my bad. And I was only singling you out because you're one the most prolific posters who came to mind. Oh well, it's been a while since we've had some of our more heated political threads, perhaps my memory's going off.

@justintempler: Perhaps oil revenue plays some role in funding it, but a good chunk of it is simply the very high taxes they have on everything there. Norway has extremely high taxes, at least relative to the US, and they enjoy a number of benefits as a result. I'd guess politicians there don't get to piss away money into pet projects all the time, which also probably helps. VAT there ranges from 8%-25% of the total value of products and services. There are also pretty high excise duties on things like alcohol and tobacco. Then they've got incomes taxes on top of it all. Their tax money just seems to be put to better use than ours in many cases, which sometimes just seems to vanish for no reason.

[Frosted]

I'd say a hell of a lot of your tax revenue in the US goes on the military, intelligence services and such.

[justintempler]

Yet the programs were so lacking that there was national outcry for the creation of things like social security.

Are we really best served by a system that is based on hoping rich people or churches give money away? What happens if for example you were gay or black in the 1930's. Guess who the church is sending to the back of the list?

I'll forgive you because you actually believe the crap that's been fed you. You should actually spend some time to learn about the history of SS, who it was meant to cover, and what the life expectancy of it's recipients of it's intended recipients were at the time.

[sgreger1]

I'll forgive you because you actually believe the crap that's been fed you. You should actually spend some time to learn about the history of SS, who it was meant to cover, and what the life expectancy of it's recipients of it's intended recipients were at the time.

I don't claim to be all knowing so perhaps you would care to educate me on what specifically you are refering to here.

Because the way I read it was that: "Prior to Social Security, over 75 percent of the nation's senior citizens lived in poverty."

I will point you to the following study: "Social Security and Poverty Among the Elderly,"

The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it.

The study also found that Social Security has a much larger effect in reducing elderly poverty than all other government programs combined. Of the 12.9 million elderly people lifted from poverty by the full array of government benefit programs, 11.4 million — nearly 90 percent — are lifted out by Social Security.

Additionally, social security allowed the means for the elderly to retire and leave the work force, leaving behind jobs that could be filled by the younger workers. Today older people are working longer due to financial hardship, so we have a problem where young people can not get jobs since the older generation is not retiring. This problem was DRASTICALLY worse prior to social security:

Before the creation of Social Security, some Americans had private or state pensions, but most supported themselves into old age by working. The 1930 census, for example, found 58 percent of men over 65 still in the workforce; in contrast, by 2002, the figure was 18 percent.

So by what metric are you claiming that SS has in some way damaged anything?



In regards to this comment:

and what the life expectancy of it's recipients of it's intended recipients were at the time.

I have seen this argument before but it doesn't seem to hold water, for the following reasons:

If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).

Average life expectancy has rose by only about 5 years since 1940, so not really seeing a huge problem here. Perhaps I am missing something?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

[precious007]

Additionally, social security allowed the means for the elderly to retire and leave the work force, leaving behind jobs that could be filled by the younger workers. Today older people are working longer due to financial hardship, so we have a problem where young people can not get jobs since the older generation is not retiring. This problem was DRASTICALLY worse prior to social security:

this is happening pretty much all over the world.

The elder are always preferred over the youth, simply because they have more experience in any given field.

[truthwolf1]

this is happening pretty much all over the world.

The elder are always preferred over the youth, simply because they have more experience in any given field.

That and hypothetically they also make better work slaves because of having a family to provide for and house/car payments.

Presidents of companies I believe secretly love seeing pictures of co-workers families and them driving new cars, buying their first home etc..

Then they know they have that worker by the balls!!!