| ▲ | euio757 4 hours ago |
| Easy to make a snarky comments at Democrats US who always love to say
“Follow the Nordic Model” “Follow Scandinavian countries” on almost every topic... Safe to say they wouldn't agree here. But serious question here: What happened in Sweden that lead to this parliament move? |
|
| ▲ | satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Europe in general is seeing a reversal in their philosophy towards migrants, especially from the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey (MENAPT is the acronym governments use). It's probably the lack of integration into the host cultures and ghettoization of many areas. Japan is doing something similar too to the article. |
|
| ▲ | ochrist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just guessing it has to do with this:
https://nri.today/swedens-crisis-immigration-bloodshed/ |
|
| ▲ | Procrastes 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Democrats US who always love to say “Follow the Nordic Model” past performance is not indicative of future results I'm not about to run out and suggest Finnish lunches or buy a tin of Surströmming for breakfast, but it might be nice to have a balanced budget. |
| |
| ▲ | ribs 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hold on hold on hold on, tell me about Finnish lunches, as from searching they sound pretty innocuous. (Surströmming I know of, no questions there) |
|
|
| ▲ | djoldman 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Follow the Nordic model has never been anything but a fantasy. All the Scandinavian countries put together have slightly more people than the NYC metro area and are extremely homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, religiosity, etc. as compared to the USA. In short, it's never been a good policy testbed for the much much larger and more diverse USA. |
|
| ▲ | sakex 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Too much immigration too quick, people got fed up from what I gather |
| |
|
| ▲ | bwhiting2356 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats rightward shift |
|
| ▲ | noncoml 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Safe to say they wouldn't agree here Maybe because they do not like to blindly follow the "leader", but instead prefer to judge for themselves? Democrats don't want "bad" immigration as much as you do. No-one wants criminals or people who are unwilling to follow the law. I am not an immigration expert, but blanket rules and blanket statements are seldom giving good results. When the right says ban immigrants they sounds as stupid as when the left says ban billionaires. |
| |
| ▲ | quaverquaver 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | marginal tax rates reached 94% in 1944 on income over 200k in the US. The high marginal tax regime gave rise to a period of relative equality. Nothing stupid about it - if a long right tail is a social ill (it is) then why have it? | | |
| ▲ | noncoml 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's different than chanting "Ban Billionaires" | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Who would still be a billionaire at that tax rate? | | |
| ▲ | jleyank 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Depends on what’s taxed at 94%. If it’s wages, they’ll just switch to passive 8ncome or stock/loans as they use now. If it’s all income, there’s going to be total change in the us compensation system. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the average person was told they would have to pay 94% tax on high level income and other people could skirt it to remain billionaires there would be riots and/or changes in how income is defined, so in the end I don't think it would matter. It would have to settle one way or another in short order, although it could get pretty bloody. | | |
| ▲ | jleyank 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For whatever reasons, there were weren’t riots in the 50’s. Perhaps the complex financial games weren’t present, or perhaps information flow was insufficient to reveal them. Or, maybe, income inequality was much smaller and there wasn’t ways to massively increase one’s holdings. There were riots in the 60’s but money wasn’t anywhere near the top of the cause list. | |
| ▲ | noncoml an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't know how you simplify things so much... Do you want 94% tax on stocks? Why stop at stocks? How about property? Your house's net worth? The social equality shouldn't be based on how much poorer we are in comparison to Musk, but can the poorest of us afford food, shelter, education and healthcare? Can they afford it by having a decent work/life balance? Our economic system creates billionaires as a side effect, but is there any other out there that is better and doesn't create billionaires? At the end of the day, is our average citizen today better off than when they were in 1944? If you want people to listen that are the questions you should ask and how you should market "socialism". Not "eat the rich" bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | flossly 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | jooize 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the efforts of all political parties to reject the nazi party, they also refused to admit anything the nazi party ever said could have any degree of reality in it. |
|
|
| ▲ | dataflow 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I imagine they don't want to end up where the US is now. Edit: is reality too upsetting for folks? Hopefully nobody was asleep when American candidates ran on immigration policy, their constituents voted based on that, and we ended up with the current politicians and the overall status quo? Or do people not see a causal chain here? |
| |
| ▲ | ForHackernews 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You mean the wealthiest country in the world with a thriving, educated, well-integrated Muslim population that earns well above the national average income? | | |
|
