Scandinavia SUCKS

[bhsup]

I am standing by it! Oh, also, yeah, why isn't the government taxing (beyond standard) and or banning extreme sports equipment and whatnot? People DIE doing that stuff! It's dangerous. The government should be discouraging it.

Course, I guess trying to ban long jump skiing in Scandinavia might be a non-starter.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I have made my point, which was that there are reasons worth being considered.
But since you stand by it - I will not humor your mere pretense of caring about such reasons.

 

[Angst]

I am standing by it! Oh, also, yeah, why isn't the government taxing (beyond standard) and or banning extreme sports equipment and whatnot? People DIE doing that stuff! It's dangerous. The government should be discouraging it.

Course, I guess trying to ban long jump skiing in Scandinavia might be a non-starter.

Extreme sports aren't any way near the social and health problem smoking is. Like, it's not even comparable. People die doing a lot of stuff. I mean, you could still argue that extreme sports showcase the EXTREME HORRIBLE HYPOCRISY of a Scandinavian state, but our governments aren't so small that obscure nooks and corners and nuances of an otherwise coherent fair legislation don't exist. An example I can think of is the stupid nut tax that exist in Denmark. Nuts are stupid expensive because of an outdated law that taxed nuts due to an obsolete idea of nuts being unhealthy. This is a sin tax on arguably healthy foodstuffs. Point is, our state isn't so small and minute and fairy taley that problems don't exist. And those extreme sports are kind of an obscure part of legislation, so few people do it, it's extreme after all. Drug use (categorically including smoking and drinking) is much more of a social issue and much more of a health concern. I think you understand me?

EDIT: I englis good

 

[jackelgull]

I am standing by it! Oh, also, yeah, why isn't the government taxing (beyond standard) and or banning extreme sports equipment and whatnot? People DIE doing that stuff! It's dangerous. The government should be discouraging it.

Course, I guess trying to ban long jump skiing in Scandinavia might be a non-starter.

The fact that you think they're comparable...
Look, extreme sports only harms the individual, and no one else in many cases. Alcohol and cigars harm other people too. I am willing to support the freedom to be different, but I don't want anybody to suffer from second hand smoke or die because of a drunk driver. I would support banning these things, but as Americans would not be on board with it, I'll have to accept that sin taxes are the best compromise.

 

[Yeekim]

If it is so bad that it deserves a sin tax slapped on it, just ban it outright. Either tax it like everything else or ban it. It's that simple.

Why should everything be taxed the same amount?
Why are you against alcohol and cigarettes being taxed more than, say, milk, bread, or diapers?

EDIT: I don't think there would be anything wrong in higher taxes for extreme sports equipment either - in principle.
In practice, it would probably be a nightmare to define what exactly qualifies as "extreme sports equipment" and revenue from such tax might not even cover costs of collecting it.

 

[Arwon]

There's also a fairly large difference between the risks of extreme sport (immediate, obvious, entered into fully cognizant, part of the point of the activity) and smoking (so long-term people discount them, diffuse, not readily apparent from the activity and often entered into not fully cognizant, a side effect of the activity) that mean risk assessment and incentives work very differently.

 

[Kyriakos]

"sin tax".

More like regular tax, as always. Furthermore it is likely that mostly the poorer classes smoke or smoke the most, and one has to suppose the gov would know that. I suppose it is sin to live while poor

Re second hand smoke illness, eh... wut? Wouldn't that have to mean that the sufferer was near the smoking person for quite some time, and/or in confined spaces? How is that even a thing when dealing with utter strangers smoking in some open space or not near you at all ever anyway.
Unless you urge to 'think about their children', right.

 

[Yeekim]

"sin tax".

More like regular tax, as always. Furthermore it is likely that mostly the poorer classes smoke or smoke the most, and one has to suppose the gov would know that. I suppose it is sin to live while poor

I was under impression that smoking is voluntary.

 

[aelf]

And then you say you're not talking "only of me", so you're still talking of me. Of course I'll get defensive, you're attributing stuff to me I never said.

There was nothing in my post attributing that quote to you.

Of course, you're still missing out on the fact that the manner of your posts is quite indicative of your attitudes. Yes, you're indeed right that Scandinavia is not the place for you, if the article is to be believed. They don't even like it when mothers boast about their kids.

No, there are some genuinely unselfish people out there. They're a tiny minority in every society, though. By and large we're very selfish. This is a demonstrable fact.

Okay, so there are either extremely selfish people or Mother Teresa. And if we're not Mother Teresa, apparently we're not allowed to advocate more compassion. Got it.

 

[Farm Boy]

The fact that you think they're comparable...
Look, extreme sports only harms the individual, and no one else in many cases. Alcohol and cigars harm other people too. I am willing to support the freedom to be different, but I don't want anybody to suffer from second hand smoke or die because of a drunk driver. I would support banning these things, but as Americans would not be on board with it, I'll have to accept that sin taxes are the best compromise.

It's not actually. A compromise that is. It's a rimshot that echoes lies. There's a lot of legislation out there that accurately addresses the dangers of smoking and drinking to bystanders. You can't drive after you drink a specific amount. You can't smoke in public buildings in Illinois. You can't smoke within 10 feet of the entrance to a public building in Illinois. If you want to make it illegal to smoke inside a structure with a child present, that would be more than IL has now, but it would still be addressing the problem of 2nd hand smoke on point. Now trying to price cigarettes out of the hands of smokers while collecting princely sums of cash from the endeavor? That's a very different sort of legislation with different goals.

 

[luiz]

Fwiw I think all these things are very important to consider when judging whether you'd like to live one place or another. This is not an objective list. I think the world is too complex for one to be able to be objective anyways. And that's kind of the deal, I do think there are good points in living in Scandinavia as an upper middle class citizen (which you seem to be), after all, that's kind of where a lot of my family is coming from.

Thanks for the disposable income stat.

Fair points

As I said earlier Scandinavia has great quality of life. As does the US.

To add some more information to this discussion, and see where I'm coming from, consider this study, which looks at disposable income of people based on the income percentile they occupy:

Chart 24 of this link:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/20/7547159/real-state-of-the-union-maps-and-charts

This means that for the median person, that is, someone at the 50th percentile of income distribution, the US and Canada are tied for the highest disposable income in the world (the US is marginally ahead of Canada). So for the whole richer half of the population (and not 10% or 1% as some people in this thread presumed), the US offers the highest disposable incomes on Earth. While it definitely doesn't look that hot when you look at the poorest 5% of 10% of the population, it still remains truth that only some ultra-developed countries fare better than the US.

- You can troll all you want as long as you say it's your "personal opinion" and you can scream thought police at any criticism

Very funny take on the thread you have there.

There was nothing in my post attributing that quote to you.

Just a quote by me, with my name. That's what I call attributing it to me.

Okay, so there are either extremely selfish people or Mother Teresa. And if we're not Mother Teresa, apparently we're not allowed to advocate more compassion. Got it.

You can advocate more compassion all you like, just don't accuse others of selfishness when you're extremely selfish yourself.

 

[Lillefix]

So for the whole richer half of the population (and not 10% or 1% as some people in this thread presumed), the US offers the highest disposable incomes on Earth. While it definitely doesn't look that hot when you look at the poorest 5% of 10% of the population, it still remains truth that only some ultra-developed countries fare better than the US.

That doesn't surprise me. My mom had a friend in the US who died a few years ago. She had a decent job as a sort of economist, but nothing special. And we knew she worked a lot. After she died the family found out she had over 10 million usd on the account. I have a decent job and if I stopped eating today I would get this kind of money after a couple of centuries. So there is something strange about the salaries in that country. But I have the impression that many Americans work so much that they have no use for their money. She certainly didn't.

 

[Akka]

This means that for the median person, that is, someone at the 50th percentile of income distribution, the US and Canada are tied for the highest disposable income in the world (the US is marginally ahead of Canada). So for the whole richer half of the population (and not 10% or 1% as some people in this thread presumed), the US offers the highest disposable incomes on Earth. While it definitely doesn't look that hot when you look at the poorest 5% of 10% of the population, it still remains truth that only some ultra-developed countries fare better than the US.

Well, as it was pointed, does this kind of statistic count just the money after taxes, or does it take into account the services that are provided/subsidized by the government too ?

Because obviously, if government A taxes you for X dollars more than government B, you'll have less visible income, but if it provides you for free with a service that costs you 2X less than what you would pay for it under government B, then you actually have more.

(numbers and proportions obviously completely made up, just for the sake of the example)

 

[Arwon]

That disposable income chart doesn't look like it takes into account the benefits of universal health insurance. Americans need to fund health insurance out of their own pockets which reduces their effective disposable income.

 

[JollyRoger]

Look, I don't care how much it benefits the government as that does not in any way make sin taxes legitimate. Just because it helps fund stuff doesn't mean it is right. Poll taxes funded stuff too...

Brownback or Condi!

Man, what a dream ticket that would be, eh?

You need to borrow an oops from Rick Perry:

Gov. Sam Brownback unveiled a deficit-reducing budget plan Friday that incorporated an increase of more than $100 million in state taxes on liquor, cigarettes and tobacco product sales.

The governor’s budget recommendation to the 2015 Legislature shows an intent to continue pressing downward on state income tax rates for one more year after Brownback promised Kansas would continue marching toward zero income taxes in his State of the State address Thursday night.

Brownback will seek to increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes from the current 79 cents to $2.29.

The tax on tobacco products would grow from 10 percent of an item's wholesale price to 25 percent of that price.

The liquor tax would climb from the current 8 percent to 12 percent.

He's even polluting South Iowa with sinning Kansan filth:

Sen. Jeff Melcher, R-Leawood, said his constituents already cross the state line into Missouri to buy tobacco. That state has the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation.

http://cjonline.com/news/2015-01-16/brownback-proposes-hikes-sin-taxes-sustains-4-percent-agency-cuts

 

[bhsup]

I told you in an earlier thread, Jolly, that Sammy has since gone full Kansas. Never go full Kansas.

 

[JollyRoger]

I just can't believe you ever supported someone from that God forsaken place. It's almost as if you moved from South Iowa to East Kansas.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

In a Discussion about whose heven is better, there is generally no winner

 

[aelf]

You can advocate more compassion all you like, just don't accuse others of selfishness when you're extremely selfish yourself.

Have you ever littered? Or jaywalked? Congratulations, you can never accuse others of committing crimes since you've committed crimes yourself.

 

[luiz]

That doesn't surprise me. My mom had a friend in the US who died a few years ago. She had a decent job as a sort of economist, but nothing special. And we knew she worked a lot. After she died the family found out she had over 10 million usd on the account. I have a decent job and if I stopped eating today I would get this kind of money after a couple of centuries. So there is something strange about the salaries in that country. But I have the impression that many Americans work so much that they have no use for their money. She certainly didn't.

Indeed. There is no better place to make money, but a lot of people here definitely don't know how to use that money.

Well, as it was pointed, does this kind of statistic count just the money after taxes, or does it take into account the services that are provided/subsidized by the government too ?

Because obviously, if government A taxes you for X dollars more than government B, you'll have less visible income, but if it provides you for free with a service that costs you 2X less than what you would pay for it under government B, then you actually have more.

(numbers and proportions obviously completely made up, just for the sake of the example)

I don't think it does. And you're right of course. If you want to look at the total "disposable income + public services" the average person receives, just look at the GDP per capita (adjusted for PPP). The problem is that it can be highly unequal, which is why I posted that chart on the distribution of disposable income.

Have you ever littered? Or jaywalked? Congratulations, you can never accuse others of committing crimes since you've committed crimes yourself.

People who litter or jaywalk shouldn't preach to others about not littering or jaywalking, now should they?

And for the record I never litter. I jaywalk all the time, and certainly don't criticize others for jaywalking.