Quote:

---

Denmark earns more of its income from taxing its population than any other developed country, new figures have revealed.

---

Quote:

---

People in the European country see taxes as an investment in their quality of life.

---

Quote:

---

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, which is often mentioned as one of the biggest objections against the Danish welfare model. The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Danish income taxes are based on a progressive tax system, so if you make more than 61,500 euros (about $67,000) per year, an additional tax rate of 7 percent is added over this threshold.

Nevertheless, a Gallup survey from 2014 showed that almost nine out of 10 Danish people happily pay their taxes to some or a high degree.

Investing in quality of life

The reason behind the high level of support for the welfare state in Denmark is the awareness of the fact that the welfare model turns our collective wealth into well-being. We are not paying taxes. We are investing in our society. We are purchasing quality of life.

The key to understanding the high levels of happiness in Denmark is the welfare model's ability to reduce risks, uncertainties and anxieties among its citizens and prevent extreme unhappiness.

The Danish welfare model provides opportunities for its citizens to pursue their happiness from advanced starting positions disregarding economic, social, gendered or cultural backgrounds. Let me give you some examples.

Education is free and even at university level, there is no tuition fee. Meanwhile, every Danish student receives around $900 per month from the state. This means I won't have to worry about how to finance my kid's education. It will be their talents and dreams that shape the path of their careers, not the size of my wallet.

---

Quote:

---

The Danish laws for parental leave are among the most generous in the world with a total of 52 weeks, out of which the parents can receive up to 32 weeks of monetary support from the state. Furthermore, most employees have five weeks of vacation allowing families and friend to spend quality time with each other.

There is free quality health care for everyone and the welfare model works as a risk-reducing mechanism. Danes simply have less to worry about in daily life than most other people and that forms a sound basis for high levels of happiness.

---

Quote:

---

The Danish flexicurity model

The Danish labor market is based on flexibility for employers, security for workers and an active labor market policy. These three elements in combination constitute the golden triangle of flexicurity, working out to the mutual benefit of all the parties involved. The golden triangle suits the needs of employers, workers and the unemployed, by allowing companies to adapt to changes and stay in business, and by providing a safety net for workers and the unemployed. Employers can easily make changes in staff, and the unemployed can look for new jobs without the same level of financial anxiety.

Also, an active labor market policy is meant to keep both the employed and unemployed active and skilled. For workers, there are many opportunities for the ongoing development of useful skills and continued education. For the unemployed, the active labor market policy provides services assisting with the job search, keeping those out of the workforce actively engaged in applying for a new job.

---

Quote:

---

The golden triangle of flexicurity

According to several scholars, the welfare model's ability to alleviate risks and insecurities in people's lives is one of the keys to understanding why Denmark does well in the happiness surveys. This is mainly because Denmark does well in terms of preventing extreme unhappiness. In a research paper from 2010 it was shown that the poorest Danes generally are quite happier than the poorest Americans – since the poorest people in Denmark enjoy a wide range of public social benefits that the poorest Americans do not – while the difference between the wealthiest people in each country is very little. That is also why Denmark is one of the countries where people feel most resilient to changes and least anxious in their daily lives.

Thus, Denmark is very equal in terms of happiness. As Richard A. Easterlin, Professor of Economics at the University of Southern California, explains, "There is greater equality in happiness in Denmark and Scandinavia. Mainly because the poorest groups are doing better than in other countries."

---

Quote:

---

Happiness – a new measure of progress

Happiness is becoming a core concern for the people who pass the laws shaping the circumstances of our lives.

In recent years, happiness, well-being and quality of life have made a powerful imprint on policy-making. The United Nations passed a resolution inviting countries to start measuring the happiness of their populations. Similarly, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development now includes life satisfaction as a parameter for the development of the member countries, and OECD Secretary General Ángel Gurría declares that "Improving the quality of our lives should be the ultimate target of public policies."

These ambitions reflect the growing awareness among people, politicians and scientists that economic progress is no longer a satisfactory indicator for the progress of a society.

Despite economic growth, I see massive economic anxiety. I see countries such as the United States and South Korea having achieved tremendous growth in the past decades, but failing to convert wealth into well-being for the people.

Denmark is by no means a perfect utopia, and the country faces challenges and issues like any other country. But I do believe Denmark can be a source of inspiration in how countries can increase quality of life.

---

Quote:

---

qman said:
Do you really think this blueprint would work throughout the world?  It works for Denmark for a variety of different reasons, but that doesn't apply to most other nations around the world.

---

I can only hope or move there myself. Just something I have been thinking about for some time now after I had a conversation with an actual citizen of Denmark on another online forum where the topic was taxes. Very random indeed but it opened my mind to other existences on Earth. I have been in Florida for 29 years to date, so I pretty much only know about where I live and have grown tired of this culture. I just don't want to be a Floridian and become old looking at the floor drunk off my ass thinking about the past and so on. Very depressing if you get my drift. Even my neighbors mess with my gardening, the one thing I love about living in Florida.

Btw, my Denmark internet friend and I had a short but very sincere conversation. Overall it gave me my reasoning behind my posting here

Quote:

---

qman said:
Do you really think this blueprint would work throughout the world?  It works for Denmark for a variety of different reasons, but that doesn't apply to most other nations around the world.

---

Quote:

---

JohnRainy said:

Quote:

---

qman said:
Do you really think this blueprint would work throughout the world?  It works for Denmark for a variety of different reasons, but that doesn't apply to most other nations around the world.

---

I don't see why it wouldn't work.  What's the difference between the needs of people in one country vs another? 

Culturally, sure huge differences in religions and a number of other things like that, but everyone wants a decent paying job if they decide to work, everyone wants to be able to afford go to the hospital if they need to, everyone wants to be able to go to post secondary debt free if they decide to pursue a higher education. 

Everyone would like to receive a pension when they are old, everyone would like to get some welfare cheques when they are down and out, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:
That's ridiculous.  Taxation isn't theft.

---

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right, though.

Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights.

The so-called "right to health care" infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers.

I know people are at the "Well who fucking cares people are dying" stage, but that doesn't negate this principle.

We all want healthcare bullshit fixed but "it's a right" isn't how it works, no matter the amount of emotional resistance to this fact; it is what it is (and is no less a cluster fuck for it).

---

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right, though.

Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights.

The so-called "right to health care" infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers.

I know people are at the "Well who fucking cares people are dying" stage, but that doesn't negate this principle.

We all want healthcare bullshit fixed but "it's a right" isn't how it works, no matter the amount of emotional resistance to this fact; it is what it is (and is no less a cluster fuck for it).

---

All of government is based off someone else's labor. That is such a silly argument. Libertarians have an illogical argument to the core.

Police = A right
Regulations = A right
Firefighters = A right
Public roads = A right
Healthcare = A right

---

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right, though.

Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights.

The so-called "right to health care" infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers.

I know people are at the "Well who fucking cares people are dying" stage, but that doesn't negate this principle.

We all want healthcare bullshit fixed but "it's a right" isn't how it works, no matter the amount of emotional resistance to this fact; it is what it is (and is no less a cluster fuck for it).

---

All of government is based off someone else's labor. That is such a silly argument. Libertarians have an illogical argument to the core.

Police = A right
Regulations = A right
Firefighters = A right
Public roads = A right
Healthcare = A right

---

Never said I was a libertarian. Nor did I argue government isn't based off of other people's labor. I can agree to those things and still assert an objective definition for what rights are. It can have the definition AND still be morally fucked up. I'm not arguing morality here.

Once again, everything you just listed there isn't a right, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Say what you will, your post here doesn't preclude nor negate my original claims.

---

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

All of government is based off someone else's labor. That is such a silly argument. Libertarians have an illogical argument to the core.

Police = A right
Regulations = A right
Firefighters = A right
Public roads = A right
Healthcare = A right

---

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

So if I kill you and the police come arrest me after that isnt a right then because those police required other peoples labor!!! Oh my god and what if you were homeless and didnt work??? You'd be sucking off the tit of others labor!

You are semantically arguing here simply to not face the reality. Arguing about what the word "right". You dont have a right to breath or exist. Rights dont exist outside of society. You could argue the same garbage about anything.

---

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right, though.

---

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right, though.

Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights.

The so-called "right to health care" infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers.

I know people are at the "Well who fucking cares people are dying" stage, but that doesn't negate this principle.

We all want healthcare bullshit fixed but "it's a right" isn't how it works, no matter the amount of emotional resistance to this fact; it is what it is (and is no less a cluster fuck for it).

---

Quote:

---

Brian Jones said:

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right, though.

Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights.

The so-called "right to health care" infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers.

I know people are at the "Well who fucking cares people are dying" stage, but that doesn't negate this principle.

We all want healthcare bullshit fixed but "it's a right" isn't how it works, no matter the amount of emotional resistance to this fact; it is what it is (and is no less a cluster fuck for it).

---

You started out good. "Anything requiring someone else's labor isn't a human right". So capitalists have no right to make a profit.

But you went way off base when you said "the right to health care infringes on" health care providers, unless by health care providers you only meant insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry, because most doctors and nurses support universal healthcare.

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

All of government is based off someone else's labor. That is such a silly argument. Libertarians have an illogical argument to the core.

Police = A right
Regulations = A right
Firefighters = A right
Public roads = A right
Healthcare = A right

---

None of those are rights, though.  They are government services, but not rights.  To say that you have a right to healthcare is to say that another person has the obligation to do something regardless of whether or not they want to do it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Enlil said:

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

So if I kill you and the police come arrest me after that isnt a right then because those police required other peoples labor!!! Oh my god and what if you were homeless and didnt work??? You'd be sucking off the tit of others labor!

You are semantically arguing here simply to not face the reality. Arguing about what the word "right". You dont have a right to breath or exist. Rights dont exist outside of society. You could argue the same garbage about anything.

---

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the terms you're using.  No one in the United States has the right to police protection.  That has been settled law for decades.  See DeShaney v. Winnebago.  Government services are creatures of statute and policy.  They are not human rights, constitutional rights, or even statutory rights.

---

---

Quote:

---

JohnRainy said:
There are legally defined rights and healthcare isn't in there, so it's not a technical a legal right.

---

Quote:

---

Article 25 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services."

---

Quote:

---

5.1    The Right to Health Care – Public Perception or Legal Right?

To begin, it is important to distinguish between a legal right to health care and the public perception of the existence of that right.  In Volume Four, the Committee noted the existence of public opinion polls that reveal that Canadians, encouraged by politicians and the media, believe they have a constitutional right to receive health care even though no such right is explicitly contained in the Charter.  Nor does any other Canadian law specifically confer that right, although government programs exist to provide publicly funded health services.

The preamble to the Canada Health Act (the Act) states that:

continued access to quality health care without financial or other barriers will be critical to maintaining and improving the health and well-being of Canadians.

As well, section 3 of the Act provides that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is:

to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.

These statements from the Canada Health Act, supportive as they are, do not grant a right to health care.

Similarly, international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, to which Canada is a signatory, speak of the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including medical care and the right to security in the event of sickness and disability; but they too do not provide a basis for a constitutional, or even legal, right to health care.

Clearly, there is a significant discrepancy between what the public believes and the absence of a legal right to health care.

Despite the absence of a legislated right to health care, there is a growing body of literature and court decisions on the effect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of health care.  Of particular interest are the implications of section 7 of the Charter for the provision of timely health care in Canada.

Quote:

---

JohnRainy said:
The UN doesn't have jurisdiction, but fine, the UN declared it a human right.  Good.  But I don't think there is anywhere you can go with that if you don't have health insurance.

---

Quote:

---

BotanyChild said:
Wow, I did not expect my post to become so active. Honestly, for myself personally, I just get tired of the US system because I see so much abuse and corruption. I am not a political scientist or the highest educated person, but just feel something is seriously out of balance with the United States current situation. Sometimes I just want to leave the country to run away from it all. Denmark just seemed to be a better place.

---

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

Quote:

---

BotanyChild said:
Wow, I did not expect my post to become so active. Honestly, for myself personally, I just get tired of the US system because I see so much abuse and corruption. I am not a political scientist or the highest educated person, but just feel something is seriously out of balance with the United States current situation. Sometimes I just want to leave the country to run away from it all. Denmark just seemed to be a better place.

---

Do it. Youll never look back I promise. Ever since I left to australia I kick myself for not leaving earlier.

Its actually hard too. All the countries dont want you and make it hard to immigrate. You need a degree in specific needed categories or need to be married to someone for more than a year.


So not only can I tell you.... you should WANT to leave..... but also you have to fight very hard to do so.

---

Quote:

---

eieio said:
I think it's sort of ridiculous to compare countries with different geography, culture, massively different population numbers and demographics and etc etc etc etc etc.

Thinking people are cogs and replaceable is sort of the problem with mass immigration to begin with. Thinking we can just cut n paste legislation from one country to another is a flawed and simplistic idea, imo.

The juvenile idea that  'we should all look up to this super white country that doesn't let hardly anyone immigrate there and doesn't share a massive border with what amounts to a 3rd world country' (etc etc etc) is just a flawed thought-experiment that can never be carried out and is destined to leave people miserable and unhappy with where they're at.

Though, I like every other Democrat I know thought Sweden was the ideal... when I was 18-25. It's a common flaw, apparently.

---

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

Quote:

---

eieio said:
I think it's sort of ridiculous to compare countries with different geography, culture, massively different population numbers and demographics and etc etc etc etc etc.

Thinking people are cogs and replaceable is sort of the problem with mass immigration to begin with. Thinking we can just cut n paste legislation from one country to another is a flawed and simplistic idea, imo.

The juvenile idea that  'we should all look up to this super white country that doesn't let hardly anyone immigrate there and doesn't share a massive border with what amounts to a 3rd world country' (etc etc etc) is just a flawed thought-experiment that can never be carried out and is destined to leave people miserable and unhappy with where they're at.

Though, I like every other Democrat I know thought Sweden was the ideal... when I was 18-25. It's a common flaw, apparently.

---

You act like theres this grand country somewhere that lets anyone in. I got new for ya: immigrating amywhere is damn near impossible unless you have a highly sought after degree like nursing.

Other than being highly skilled in a high demand field.... all people must stay where they were born. That is a crazy thought that is normalized by society. Tribalism is not helping us. Pretending random civi's in Cuba are any different from randoms in vietnam is just dumb. Only difference is the infrastructure and colloquialisms.


The correct countries are the ones that include free healthcare. For the current climate in 2020 healthcare is a requirement. Its too easily accessed to be made private. Its a human right now. We should put that shit into law.

---

Quote:

---

Brian Jones said:
It's not that hard. All my Indian friends from grad school are still here 30 years later. They all have PhDs but not in high demand fields. They're in sociology, comparative literature, mass communication, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

Quote:

---

Brian Jones said:
It's not that hard. All my Indian friends from grad school are still here 30 years later. They all have PhDs but not in high demand fields. They're in sociology, comparative literature, mass communication, etc.

---

Their phds? Lol. 2 issues. 1 would be they have higher education and could classify as a lecturer which is instant citzenship in tons of countries.

2 it was 3 decades ago. Things have tightened up quite a bit.

Not to mention marriage could have helped or being in school long enough to apply for permanent.

Regardless its not impossible. A nursing degree is very obtainable. Or diesel mechanic is another one on a bunch of lists. I just wish all people could travel as long as they work and dont suck up welfare. Its good for humanity to be closer.

I mean if you guys knew the actual state of the world right now i reckon youd agree. Theres not many countries you can go to and work for a year. And of the countries its very very hard to get permanent. So 1 to 3 years max unless you marry or have a required skill or have a million dollars. Theres quite a few "million dollar visas" where if you can prove you have a million or more you get automatic permanent visa. How bullshit is that? Heh.

I get the economic reasoning to all of it. Gain skilled workers in fields you lack people in and gain rich people. Its just bad for us as a species. Tribalism disgusts me. No idea why it doesnt disgust the bulk of the population.

---

Quote:

---

qman said:

Quote:

---

Oldnameforgotten said:

Quote:

---

Brian Jones said:
It's not that hard. All my Indian friends from grad school are still here 30 years later. They all have PhDs but not in high demand fields. They're in sociology, comparative literature, mass communication, etc.

---

Their phds? Lol. 2 issues. 1 would be they have higher education and could classify as a lecturer which is instant citzenship in tons of countries.

2 it was 3 decades ago. Things have tightened up quite a bit.

Not to mention marriage could have helped or being in school long enough to apply for permanent.

Regardless its not impossible. A nursing degree is very obtainable. Or diesel mechanic is another one on a bunch of lists. I just wish all people could travel as long as they work and dont suck up welfare. Its good for humanity to be closer.

I mean if you guys knew the actual state of the world right now i reckon youd agree. Theres not many countries you can go to and work for a year. And of the countries its very very hard to get permanent. So 1 to 3 years max unless you marry or have a required skill or have a million dollars. Theres quite a few "million dollar visas" where if you can prove you have a million or more you get automatic permanent visa. How bullshit is that? Heh.

I get the economic reasoning to all of it. Gain skilled workers in fields you lack people in and gain rich people. Its just bad for us as a species. Tribalism disgusts me. No idea why it doesnt disgust the bulk of the population.

---

You're really not making any sense here, all you're doing it making generalizations like "Its good for humanity". What exactly does this mean?  Nations have limitations for immigration to protect their economy, social services and security.

US citizens with 120k in student debt don't need to compete for employment with non-US citizens, that's ridiculous.

The reason you don't understand why people want limitations on immigration is because you ignore the negative aspects of it.

---

Quote:

---

Brian Jones said:
As far as I can tell, the only useful service being performed by these foreign born (or American) PhDs is keeping millions of undergrads in school to lower the unemployment rate.

---

Quote:

---

qman said:
Why don't you explain to every country in the world that their borders, national sovereignty and citizenship are meaningless and should be reversed?

---

Quote:

---

Kryptos said:

Quote:

---

Brian Jones said:
As far as I can tell, the only useful service being performed by these foreign born (or American) PhDs is keeping millions of undergrads in school to lower the unemployment rate.

---

Quote:

---

qman said:
Why don't you explain to every country in the world that their borders, national sovereignty and citizenship are meaningless and should be reversed?

---

Honestly, they are. They're a meaningless distinction of random chance and fate. They serve absolutely no concrete, objective, demonstrable, purpose for the vast majority of the population. For some people, the type easily distracted by colorful cloth, they're symbols worthy of worship and sacrifice. For many people, they're simply a minor inconvenience. For a very, very, very small group of people, maybe a few dozen at any point in time throughout history: borders, national sovereignty, and citizenship are the most lucrative investment ever.

---