Why are Americans so opposed to measures that would help most people?

> Universal Healthcare
> Shorter work week
> Fully publicly-funded education
> Progressive Taxation
> Stricter environmental regulation
> More usage/adoption of green energy

Other urls found in this thread:

data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2016&start=2016&view=bar)
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD).
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Americans aren't really opposed to those things for other Americans, you fucking shill. Americans are against these liberal policies while also having an open door with a free lunch sign. How fucking stupid are you? The American system right now is the same as if you put all your wealth into a bucket and put it in your front lawn. What's going to happen to that wealth?

That would hurt me as a small business owner you retarded prole

>stealing my money and redistributing it
No thanks, it's why we're the greatest country in earth.

Because they don't understand their wealth comes from the fact the USA is geographically godlike.

It's be a few more decade before the whole American exceptionalism thing wears off.

Stop forcing this porky meme please.

It's not funny and looks weird as fuck.

>Universal Healthcare
This is false. It's Universal Health INSURANCE. Not care. Your care is iffy, subject to long waiting periods, and possibly may be cancelled at any time if the extension of your life is not of benefit to the state.

>Shorter Work Week
More like a longer work week. The state will demand high production quotas from your section, thus requiring 'temporary' overtime.

>Fully publicly funded education
More like fully funded propaganda.

>Progressive taxation
Eventually you run out of other people's money.

>Stricter environmental regulation
Yes, with policies like what led to the destruction of the Aral Sea, socialism is certainly pro-environmentalism!

>More usage/adoption of green energy
Which is owned by the friends of politicians and usually goes bankrupt within a year due to being completely unprofitable and unproductive.

>> More usage/adoption of green energy
i cant wait till that meme dies, its not happening faggots.

Helping isn't the government's job. Do you know what the government is supposed to be doing?

No, you have no idea. This is begging, not politics. Sage and get the fuck off my board.

...

>everyone and everything getting less work and less money would help everyone
Commies actually think this?

>Commies actually think
whoops haha

Respond to this OP.

The creator was literally sent to gulag. I love the irony.

I'd be fine if we had a society where we got rid of the niggers, spics, and gooks; and where people would be rightfully punished for wrongdoings. All of the stuff you listed is only possible in a white society.

Long work weeks and long working periods actually decrease productivity, at least per-time productivity. The Netherlands has among the shortest work week in the world, so does Germany, and their economies both function extremely well and both countries are very prosperous.
Universal healthcare in America would also save most people a huge amount of money and likely decrease overall spending and result in most people having more money to spend.

Super left wing punk band album cover, not that you would know. Government is fundamentally socialist, for the people by the people, a change from royalty owns us. Right back in that royal boat with Republiturds.

((()))

>> Fully publicly-funded education

This is the only thing on your list that is an objective benefit to the country and population as a whole, and only if there are clear limits on it. As in, the more in demand a degree is, the better the funding. The less in demand, the lower the funding. And less funding for repeat degrees in non-connected fields.

All of these things hurt the majority of non-government employees more than they "help" when they're administered by government.
Do you want me to describe in vivid detail exactly why each of your meme-points HURT people?

Because you're robbing John in Vermont to help Nyqilious in Atlanta

The same reason we were/are so powerful

No shithead, no. Clearly you've never been to a place like Mexico. THEYRE CLIMAENIS GODLIKE. America has Alaska, North Dakota and a shit load of swamp. America is exceptional because Americans are fucking awesome. Nuff

Okay, what faggot commy board is infesting Sup Forums now? Seriously you donkeys fuck off!

>ctrl + f land

nothing, OP why focus on everything but the biggest problem we face? Land should be held in common. Citizens should be taxed relative to the unimproved value of the the land they own. The government should act as a trust collecting and distributing ground rents as a citizens dividend.

All taxes on consumption, wealth and, recreation should be replaced with a land value tax

>Commies
hahahahahaahah

Its funny that communism is universally ridiculed and debunked yet Georgist economic theory is thoroughly buried by the powers that be. I guess they dont want anyone to know you can have your cake and eat it too

tax land not man

> Y R U So Ebil??
> lists off socialist traps designed to drag a free people into slavery, slowly but surely
> how come you dont wanna be like sweden an sheeit?
> literally clueless
> OP image is the marxist pig-capitalist trope

go fuck yourself

George pill time Sup Forums
Why is Georgism better than pure capitalism, communism and socialism?

>Georgeism reconciles common land rights with private tenure, free markets and modern capitalism.

>Those who got the upper hand by securing land tenures would support public services, so wages and commerce and capital formation could go untaxed.

>To pay the taxes, landowners would have to use the land by hiring workers (or selling to owner-operators and owner-residents). This would raise demand for labor; labor, through consumption, would raise demand for final products.

>To pay the workers, landowners would have to produce and sell goods, hereby raising supply and precluding inflation. Needed capital would come to their aid by virtue of its being untaxed. Thus, George would cut the Gordian knot of modern dilemma-bound economics by raising demand, raising supply, raising incentives, improving equity, freeing up the market, supporting government, fostering capital formation, and paying public debts, all in one simple stroke.

>George's proposal enables us to lower taxes on labor without raising taxes on capital. Indeed, it lets us lower taxes on both labor and capital at once, and without reducing public revenues.

> Georgist tax policy reconciles equity and efficiency. Taxing land is progressive because the ownership of land is so highly concentrated among the most wealthy,'8 and because the tax may not be shifted. It is efficient because it is neutral among rival land-use options: the tax is fixed, regardless of land use. This is one favourable point on which many modern economists actually agree, although they keep struggling against it
> Georgist tax policy contains urban sprawl, and its heavy associated costs, without overriding market decisions or consumer preferences, simply by making the market work better. land values are the product of demand for location; they are marked by continuity in space. That shows quite simply that people demand compact settlement and centrality. A well-oiled land market will give it to them.

> Georgist tax policy creates jobs without inflation, and without deficits. "Fiscal stimulus," in the shallow modern usage, is a euphemism for running deficits, often with funny money. George's proposed land tax might be called, rather, "true fiscal stimulus". It stimulates demand for labor by promoting employment; it precludes inflation as the labor produces goods to match the new demand. It precludes deficits because it raises revenue. That is its peculiar reconciliatory genius: it stimulates private work and investment in the very process of raising revenue. It is the only tax of any serious revenue potential that does not bear down on and suppress production and exchange. As I have noted, George's fiscal policy takes two problems and composes them into one solution.

> George's land tax lets a polity attract people and capital en masse, without diluting its resource base. This is by virtue of synergy, the ultimate rationale for Chamber-of-Commerce boosterism. Urban economists like William Alonso have illustrated the power of such synergy by showing that bigger cities have more land value per head than smaller ones. (Land value is the resource base of a city.) Urbanists like Jane Jacobs and Holly Whyte have written on the intimate details of how this works on the streets. Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource) philosophizes on the power of creative thought generated when people associate freely and closely in large numbers. Henry George made the same points in 1879

>Georgist policies encourage the conservation of ecology and environment while also making jobs, by abating sprawl. It is a matter of focusing human activity on the good lands, thus meeting demands there and relieving the pressure to invade lands that are now wild and marginal for human needs. Sprawl in the urban environment is the kind most publicized, but there is analogous sprawl in agriculture, forestry, mining, recreation and other land uses and industries.

>Georgist policies strengthen public revenues while in the same process promoting economy in government. Anti-governmentalists often identify any tax policy with public extravagance. Georgist tax policy, on the contrary, saves public funds in many ways. By facilitating the creation of jobs it lowers welfare costs, unemployment compensation, doles, aid to families with dependent children and all that. It lowers jail and police costs, and all the enormous private expenditures, precautions, and deprivations now taken to guard against theft and other crime. Idle hands are not just wasted, they steal and destroy

> tax land not man
> incredibly appealing to anyone who owns nothing, basically you live tax-free and get all the gibsmedats paid for by "teh ebil landlordz!"
> forgets that taxes are an expense, and expenses are ALWAYS passed on to the "consumer"
> renters end up paying all taxes
YFW you didnt even consider the basic laws of economics

Because of decades long indoctrination. Everything has to be perfect, just like in Pleasantville. Don't forget to always smile, regardless of how you feel. Fucking zombies. The USA is a really fucked up social experiment.

Mom and pop's corner store would be out of buisiness in days with this line of thinking. Go back to Germany, Merkel-kike

Because they're fucking morons and think that it will bankrupt their country while it's actually the wars and the Jews.

When others take your money and give it to middlemen to "do what's best" for you, there's deadweight loss.

>Why don't people want the government to take care of them like a parent guys??????

Are you a woman by chance?

>derp

Quite simply: any tax is borne by whoever is less price sensitive, the quantity demanded by consumers or the quantity supplied by suppliers/producers.

So a tax on tobacco (demand is little changed by increases in the total price, but suppliers have a minimum price which they need to receive in order to stay in business) is borne by smokers.

And a tax on discretionary consumer spending generally (like VAT) is borne two-thirds by the supplier (being the whole chain from retailer back to manufacturer) and only one-third by the consumer (evidence and workings here).

Tenants are price-sensitive, they don't want to waste all their money on rent and will tend to choose the cheapest accommodation and will share if necessary. And the landlord? He cannot vary his output one jot, one home is one unit, either he rents it out at anything up to market rates (and we can safely assume that most of them do) or he demands more and receives nothing. If he is has fixed costs associated with that home (be it mortgage repayments or LVT) then he does not have the luxury of withdrawing the home from the market and leaving it empty, he has to rent it out for as much as he can (market rates).

Nothing you have listed would help most people

mr economics plz explain this graph

Where do you plan on getting the money for all that?

>inb4 we'll tax the rich!

Kikes use every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes.

>Kikes use every trick in the book to avoid

You cant avoid a land value tax

>Shorter work week

Many Americans already work a 4 day work week

> dopey cartoon doodle
> TLDR brainfart brawn from basic 0-level economics textbooks
> proof positive that studying economics is the fastest way to learn how to be absolute shit at managing money

firstly numbnuts, taxes are a cost of doing business, ALL taxes, "vat" included.
if my tax burden doubles my cost of producing a product, then i double my price.
this provides relief from the taxation costs and provides a tidy bonus profit for the trouble and effort of increasing my price (inventory management aint free, the tree of prosperity gotta be watered with the blood of accountants)

anyone who fails to add the costs of taxation (ESPECIALLY VATS!!!) is going to go out of business right quick.
of course this doesnt bothger you, they were evil capitalist pig-dog bourgeois criminals anyhow.
but this also means all those noble and self-sacrificing proletarian workers who relied on that boourgeois capitalist pig-dog for their paychecks are now forced to go, hat in hand, to the govt seeking gibsmedats.

if costs go up, end prices goo up EVEN MORE, thats the first law of natural economics.
the shit you were told is nonsense, bearing no relation to actual markets and transactions.

enjoy your future on the dole.

Sure you can. You can not give your money to marauding thugs (government).

we can't even afford NOT having these things

>we

Because they wouldn't actually help people.
>Universal healthcare
Massively expensive, less efficient than private healthcare, and it means that less niggers dies from gunshot wounds. I only see downsides. Plus you don't have a right to someone else's labor, commie. If you want a doctor, who got an expensive degree, to pay back that degree you have to pay him. Which leads nicely to...

>public education
If everyone gets a degree than degrees are worthless, they will feel obligated to attend and pursue worthless degrees. This is what happened to high schools in the US after they became publicly funded, it will happen to colleges too. The solution is to set budgets for state universities and try to kill this Boomer meme that you need to go to college to be successful. Publicly funding college for 350 million people is fucking expensive, and I don't want to have to pay for Shaniqua's extraterrestrial watermelon studies or whatever. Plus, do you really want the government to have full control of the education of the working class? I thought you were supposed to be fighting for their liberation or some shit.

>Shorter work week
The work week is complicated, it's not something you can just write a bill for without major consequences. Artificially shortening the work week decreases production across the board and devastates economies.

>Progressive taxation
We have that and it's shit.

>Stricter environmental regulation
Regulations strangle industry and harm businesses. All you will do is force businesses to leave the country, increasing unemployment, and hurting the working class.

>More adoption of green energy
I agree, but not right now. The technology is too expensive and we need to wait for private energy companies to get the technology cheap enough to the point that it's a viable alternative. If you really want to help with that, buy some solar panels and give them your money so they can put it into R&D.

> explain this graph
> graph is based on fallacies, folly and the assumption that anything can be "perfect"
> further assumes that supply is the determining factor for price, AND vice versa

imma set you straight gaylord.

the value of any commodity, gods or services is based on a balance of 3 competing forces

1: Desirability: people WANT this thing
2: Utility: this thing performs a useful function
3: Scarcity: more people want it than there is supply available

examples:
horse shit is highly useful, but it is not particularly desireable, and supply is practically infinite compared to demand, so horse shit is cheap. you can buy it by the ton with pocket change

gucci sunglasses are desirable (for some reason, mostly persians and arabs i guess), they serve no particular real useful purpose, and supply is restricted by deliberately constraining production, so the price is very high. they cost a shitload.

smartphones are highly desirable, everybody wants one, they are quite useful, and the supply is abundant so the prices are fairly low you can get one for less than ONE of those gucci sunglasses or 5 tons of horse manure

taxation simply adds on top of the already established market price.
if you sell at market price + tax you dont run a profit
if you sell at market price, and DONT add in tax costs, youll lose your shirt.

you have to sell at market prices + tax + fees + regulatory costs + profit. or you are not in business, you are in charity or government.

> Universal Healthcare
You are not entitled to another person's labor.

> Shorter work week
It's called part-time work. Feel free.

> Fully publicly-funded education
You get what you pay for.

> Progressive Taxation
Taxation is theft.

> Stricter environmental regulation
Often just a ploy to control the means of production.

> More usage/adoption of green energy
Let the market decide that.

yes you can
you simply pass on that expense to your renters, or the people who buy the shit you make at that farm or factory, or the people who pay for the services at your accounting office, etc etc etc

if you doont pass on the cost of taxes to those to whom you supply goods and services you will soon be bankrupt, homeless and begging on the side of an on-ramp

1 is demand. 2 is a function of demand - people determine usefulness subjectively according to their wants. 3 is an observation that there are limited [thing], and affects both supply and demand.

> You can not give your money to marauding thugs (government).
but then comrade stalin ships you and your entire extended family to gulag in siberia.

a communist urging resistance to the government... thats hilarious.

Because these things have always destroyed other countries who have attempted

Cuba, east germany, venezuela, north korea

No thanks

Or they don't.
I'm not a commie - I'm a hyper-individualist voluntarist conservative-valued Christian zealot.

>Land held in common
>Citizens taxed for value of land they own
How can you tax individuals for something owned by the commons?

Also, you vastly underestimate the amount of money the government currently brings in. Our federal tax revenue is ~$3 trillion. There are 3.797 million square miles of land. That means that a land tax would need to pull an average of $1 million per square mile, or ~$1500 per acre.

Never mind that the value of land in the west, where the majority is unused, is only ~$100-$500 per acre when lacking water.

It's just not enough money. You need to cut the majority of spending before such a system would be viable.

The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Denmark don't seem very destroyed.

>People determine utility subjectively based on their wants
And this is one of the big reasons why communism always fails. Utility is subjective based on the individual in their individual circumstance. You cannot determine utility and thus can't determine the market price for a good.

desirability and utility are entirely separate from "demand"
you have to take a shit every day.
shitting has utility
it is not desirable though.
neither the act, nor the product have any "demand" on an open market
and since everybody poops (Gomi, Stinchecum, Miller et al. 1977) it is basically free.
i didnt have to pay a dime to see your stinking festering degenerate shitpost, and everyone can see it is a pile of crap.

supply and demand are NOT the primary forces of market price
this kind of idiocy is why economics professors now teach that demand CREATES supply, even in the absence of other market forces
and yet, the intense global demand (especially in japan) for fully functional sex robots remains UNFILLED!
where is your god now mr keynes?

Yeah, Jello-posting always triggers statists. It must remind them that their mom was more hardcore than them. That's gotta burn.

No they're not. Demand is people wanting something. People want things often because those things have utility for them.

>it is not desirable though
No - this is where you're leaving economic reasoning. *ANYTHING* can be desirable.

I'd happily take all of these things without the identity politics the Demofags mix them with

Most of the things that OP mentioned are just a way of transferring money from men to women in society. Men pay the taxes, women take the tax-funded stuff.

Its a form of cuckery. You will be paying for a womans house, food and children without even having met her before. You could be a total virgin male and still, you have to pay half your paycheck to some slut who's never worked anything but her dicksucking skills.

Even worse, nowadays a lot of the money also goes to refugee men. So you are effectivily paying for the refugee, his date with an unemployed white woman and their child. Ultimate cuckery.

The worst of all is that taxfunding is managed by Jews. So they will use it to fund fake news networks, feminism campaigns, local homosexual pride parades, aid to Israel, etc.

Remember that Scandinavia can afford wellfare because it is a hardworking high IQ society. It is not a hardworking high IQ society because of welfare. Rather, it is great DESPITE having such a heavy tax burden.

Imagine America, but 95% pure whites and no inbred rednecks. That's a society that will be succesful almost no matter what it faces.

That's because they don't have to pay for their national defense, they just let the US military build bases in their countries and use the money they don't spend on military on welfare. But you're advocating this for the US, meaning that if we took on these massive welfare programs we'd either have to take it from the military budget or run ourselves into the ground with debt. Either way, your beloved Scandinavian paradise would be fucked.

The biggest and simplest reason is that a lot of Americans will gladly let their lives and their country go to shit if it means making niggers worse off.

Then there's other things, like westward expansion making the emergence of a welfare state less urgent than in Europe, and the absence (previously, no longer) of a hereditary class structure.

And then since the 80's there's been an enormous flow of right-wing propaganda into the culture, many examples of which can be found in this thread.

And that's why the dems are so into identity politics. Gotta divide before you conquer, otherwise you might not have an excuse for selling out to the corporations.

"Progressives" created the most regressive taxation system in the history of America

>universal healthcare
Our system costs 40% of the budget yet is overburdened and you still need insurance for stuff like dentists, physical therapists and pharmaceuticals. Wait times are high, and it's almost expected that a injury that is not currently life threatening will be delayed for years before you get help for it.

The problem with public services is that there is no competition, so the costs never go down. You Americans have tax-funded dialysis, one of the worst systems in the developed world with a 25% mortality rate while still being the most expensive.

>shorter work week
For most people, it's the opposite. Full-time jobs are few and far between, so people often have to juggle 2-3 jobs just to get enough hours. The 40hr work week is scientifically proven to be the most efficient, it's worked fine for a century, why change it?

>fully public education
Implying paying you and your peers student loans off until you die is better somehow.

>Progressive taxation
Raising taxes for the rich won't matter much for them; they're rich. If they do, then people will be incentive to find their way around it or just stay middle class forever. Rather, everyone should be taxed equally, as they each are one person and should pay one person's worth of taxes, not a rich or poor persons worth of taxes.

>Stricter environmental regulation
Agreed, it's cheaper to prevent nature being destroyed than it is to fix it later.

>More usage of green energy
As lng/oil prices increase, power generation will inevitably shift from oil to hydroelectric and nuclear. Massive solar panel/wind farms are a meme and much worse for the environment than the latter two.

>inb4 a fucking LEAF

Do you even know how big the military budget is? You guys like to talk about budgets like you know something and aren't just making shit excuses for your preexisting preferences, it's fucking gay.

Who determines what is fair?

Universal Healthcare only works if you have an America to invent all the medicine. Also, pay everyone's defense bill.

"Shorter work week" is a pinko way of saying "the government forbids you from making more money."

America has fully publicly funded education K-12. Literally everyone who can afford to, and many who can't, scrape every penny to get their children out of it.

News flash: cost of college is not a big problem to people who take a useful major. Taxpayers should not be paying for humanities studies.

Our taxation is pretty progressive. Probably could be more progressive. Good luck getting taxes hiked even with complete Democrat control, user. The progressive party is also the financier party.

Green shit sucks and there's literally no reason to give up good brown wealth for unicorn farts. Even less of a reason if you only count reasons anyone gives a shit about.

The US military budget? Fucking huge, man. More than double the size of the second biggest power. Meanwhile Sweden's budget is only around 5 billion dollars.

...

You can have social benefits galore or high and/or unlimited immigration. Pick one and only one.

Doing both is as retarded as dropping visas and bombs in the same countries. Good thing we're not that stu-

Muricans are so dumbed down and manipulated that they don't even know that we (middle, norther europe) are much more productive - thats why we dont need to work that long - we are healthier, more intelligent, live longer, very little crime rate, not many people in jail. ...also we have more power as a whole society while in muric a only the rich decide what is going on (ther are many studies that prove it) ...BUT muricans are too stupid to get that point. Many muricans that I met when they were in Europe, they were amazed by the culture, by the free and open minded, respectful, and peaceful people. ...also many of them said that they would like to stay here. and some of them are still here. Its a fact that europe, canada, australia is so much better in anyway then the USA. ...USA is only for very rich ppl and corrupt assholes.

> we are healthier, more intelligent, live longer, very little crime rate, not many people in jail.

Good thing Merkel is changing that.

nazbol is a retarded meme, but strasserism looks interesting.

Btw, here's the percentage of GDP spent on military spending (data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2016&start=2016&view=bar) and the GDP itself (data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD).

things I like: spiderman
things I don't like: marxist policies

They're both retarded meme ideologies with no understanding of economics.

> Universal Healthcare
Impossible with government interference.

> Shorter work week
You would be able to work less if you didn't have to pay so fucking much for healthcare and education (and taxes).

> Fully publicly-funded education
Yeah because government education has worked well so far. Just give them more money that will work.

> Progressive Taxation
Punish people who are successful, what an awesome strategy.

> Stricter environmental regulation
Because the natural consumer push for better, healthier stuff isn't already happening.

> More usage/adoption of green energy
Yes wind and solar which kills the environment (massively inefficient use of resources) instead of clean, cheap nuclear energy.

Next to FinBro, you're probably one of the most recognizable posters on this board.

My understanding of Georgism is that land is presumed common property until someone pays for the right to exclude it, thus effectively becoming it's owner.

It's 3.3% of GDP. Sweden's is 1%. They could add another 2.3% to their taxes and have proportionately the same military expenditure.
>comparing raw numbers of country of 320 million people with a country of 10 million with a straight face
come on you fucking will-to-serfdom cuckservative cunt, at least try.

With lower IQ races who can't maintain it, it goes bankrupt. America is too mixed for this to work. You can't have European socialism without Europeans. Voting nationalist capitalist (not globalist capitalist) is the best option for now if you want a lasting socialism. Even Mao and Stalin had to purge the lowest functioning members of society to bring anything close to what you want. Start believing in two-step socialism. National capitalism (as in WALL, not globalist, ie. TPP, NAFTA) until lower functioning races are purged, then socialism.

Proportion doesn't matter when Sweden's biggest military threat is the third largest military force on the planet.

>American Muscle
>Meh album

sorry, have a soft spot for those cars

I mostly like what you have to say, and especially what you're saying about universal healthcare. It undermines one of society's filters to extend that privilege. The unfiltered sympathetic society looks tempting at first glance, but it has awful long-term implications.

>this is what happened to high schools in the US after they became publicly funded
History lesson requested. What were high schools like before public funding?
>extraterrestrial watermelon studies
Sweet sci-fi tho. If that's what you think the future is going to be like, you should be happy to hear about niggers studying off-world agriculture. When I learn people can hack it in space, I raise my opinion of them.

Now the bits I like less.
>force business to leave
>force
Your definition of force isn't as questionable as a Muslim's definition of peace, but it's trying. Businesses aren't literally compelled to leave the country by changing legal regimes. A man more patriotic than myself might have taken offense at the suggestion - or are we simply to take it for granted that no successful man in America is a patriot?
As for the actual cause mentioned...
Personally, I think we should be loosening environmental regulations, but also encourage people whose properties lose value due to pollution to pursue legal remedies for their lost value or income. We can restore market discipline over pollution by forcing the reinternalization of externalities through increased utilization of market forces. Make pollution vandalism again. Some communities may specialize in tolerating it, but everywhere else will get cleaner, as will industrial processes generally.

Also
>Shorter work week
Intuitively, I expect the devastation you mention. Empirically, I don't know if it has ever happened. Can I solicit some reading material on this?

Yeah but if all the nice, "socialist" countries whose policies you claim only work because "we're paying for them" boosted their military expenditure by a few percent, when you combined them they'd easily match our own expenditure.

I mean, you're saying we can't have nice things and a military at the same time, but the numbers just don't show that. Do you not see that?

fuck off statist. go fund undesirables with your own money.

Lord Trump forbids it. We obey.

You're one of those "libertarian in public, natsoc in private" folks, aren't you?

>want all this and more
>new effective tax rate well over 45%
>mfw

>Norway
Own literally a trillion dollar of oil money to pay off their expenses

>Sweden
>Denmark
Provide most services through private corporations. Swedish government efficiency comes almost entirely from its voucher system. Not to mention people over there pay over 50% taxes on their paychecks, and higher VAT.
t. nordic who has relatives in Scandinavia

When the second post is indeed the best post

They do it and still aren't destroyed, France does similar, Belgium does fine, Iceland gets by fine, Austria, the list isn't even short.

>most people
you mean niggers spics and white trash?
we're fine the way we are, we just need to start killing the poor followed by the kikes and we'll be golden

It did get one country shorter rather recently though...

>Belgium does fine
>Amerishart education

>Iceland gets by fine
Iceland has a 40-hour workweek and overtime is common, just like in most countries. Our environmental regulation policies are a joke. We have two tax brackets. Nearly everyone who is anyone goes to private school (me included). Stop talking out of your ass, you stupid commie nigger.

No, because proportion doesn't matter in Sweden's case. Turning a 5 billion dollar budget into even 10 or 15 billion won't do shit when they're staring down the barrel of a 70 billion dollar budget to their eastern border. Scandinavia will be defenseless without US military aid, while if the US halved it's budget it could still survive. I'm not saying the US would collapse if we implemented the same socialist policies as Sweden on the same scale for our far larger population, it'd be on thin ice but it'd survive due to the petrodollar and our GDP. Sweden on the other hand would collapse immediately if it tried to implement the same military budget that America provides for it now.