Swedish Welfare State Dead in 20 Years

Adebisi

Emperor
Joined
Nov 23, 2001
Messages
1,296
Location
Canada
Yes, that is the prediction made by the Swedish department of finance. The Swedish welfare state, the mother of all welfare states, is going to be dead in 20 years time.

The Communist idea of low income disparity will have to be completly abandoned. The leading Social Democrats have already abandoned it long ago.

There is no money left to fuel the welfare system. Or really, there is lots of money, but gathering it is becoming more difficult. The Swedish tax burden is already 54% of the GDP. Such high taxes have no future. But the money for health care, schools and care-taking is still running out.

Growth is a much better solution, but it requires further tax cuts and will place the public sector in a worse situation. It will need more tax money for the higher wages, tax money which will - most likely - just barely be covered by the net budget surplus created by economic growth. In other words, Sweden will become richer, but stealing will become harder. Growth will thus not save the Swedish folkhem in its current form.
(Edit: corrected erroneus statement about tax money and wages in the public sector)

It is quite clear that the Swedes, with their high taxes, do not get value for their money. The health care system is in a deep crisis. The only viable solution is a neo-liberal one, based on private insurances and personal responsability. I think we as a people (us Nordic folk that is) are ready to take that step. Since it will not be possible to steal money and give it back in the form of welfare, let people keep their money and buy their services themselves from private companies.

As a side effect, this will also eliminate the need for the more and more unpopular laws controlling our personal lives.
 
Should we assume that like most European countries, Sweden is losing population, leading to problems with systems that depend on incomming populations at least matching retiring populations in number?
 
I disagree. They will keep the welfare but simply adapt by shedding some weight.

The state will probably privitise a few of the less important assets, and maintain similar tax rates. The Swedish economy was hit hard with the collapse of Ericsson with knock-on effects, so a period of penny pinching is to be expected.
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Should we assume that like most European countries, Sweden is losing population, leading to problems with systems that depend on incomming populations at least matching retiring populations in number?

Yes.
But not only that.
The past, big generations, should have paid their own pensions. There was money available. But instead they spent it, and "built the nation" as they say. But that is no excuse for thinking they could both eat the cookie and have it.

Now, pensions make up a significant part of the Swedish budget while less and less children are being born, and immigration is more and more turning out to be an economic disaster. Money is simply running out.

Like I said - neo-liberalism is the way of the future. The individual will simply need to take responsibilty for their own future.
 
they need to balance communism and capitalism to a system that is usable.
 
Yup, as you can see in the UK which started it's socialist policies in the first half of the 19th Century and hasn't stopped expanding them... :p

Actually, it has made a U-turn with some "hardware" networks like rail, fuel, telecoms, but not on the essentials services like medicare, worker rights, equal oportunities, social security, income support, etc.

Royal Mail is also state owned. It's also the cheapest in Europe, and the most efficient with best delivery times.

Something tells me the neo-cons turn a blind eye and pretend that isn't so ;)
 
Originally posted by stormbind

Something tells me the neo-cons turn a blind eye and pretend that isn't so ;)

1) The opposite of your socialist policies is not neo-conservatism. They are more like an ally.
2) Fast delivery times are irrelavent. The trains always ran on time in Nazi Germany. Those who choose to fight state-ownership fight it at a moral level. There is no justification for state-ownership of anything.
 
Originally posted by newfangle
The trains always ran on time in Nazi Germany.
Is that why they took the taxis to get to the front line at the start of the war? :confused:

Besides, it's more moral to offer affordable services to everyone to maintain a decent standard of living :)
 
Originally posted by newfangle


For idiots, yes.

oh and your screw over the poor pure capitalism is so great isn't it. Sure the rich may get a lot of benifits for a while until the poor overthrow the government and bring true class equality(everybody is dirt poor) quite simply the only system that has shown to work a fair amount of the time is capitalism mixed in with social programs.
 
newfangle, newfangle... You keep pretending like socialism is a good system just to show how strong your belief in freedom is. But you are wrong. There are so many pragmatic arguments in favor of economic liberty that you do not need to resort to ideological ones, especially ideological arguments that people will not embrace. Save that for you Rand-threads.

Stormbind

Neo-Conservative? I am neo-liberal.

Anyway - "shedding weight" here means abandoning the Swedish concept of equality. The state will not be able to provide all the services they (at least try to) provide today. Those who are more wealthy will have access to better care and better schools. This is of course a tad more liberal but I really have a hard time understanding why the whole welfare sytem couldn't just be abandoned then. A minor social security net is enough to prevent the worst forms of marginalisation in a capitalist society, if that is your concern.

Privatisation is not an end in itself unless you are a fundamentalist libertarian. I am aware that that government controlled institutions can work just as well as private ones, it's just that in 90% of all cases they dont, and I therefore have extremly low faith in them.

Edit - bad English
 
Originally posted by Shadylookin
they need to balance communism and capitalism to a system that is usable.

Not possible. Swedish old-style socialism is not compatible with capitalism, globalisation, indivdual rights, growth, full employment, immigration, multi-culturalism or European integration.

Like I said - a basic, light social security net is enough to prevent marginalisation. And that is hardly "socialism".
 
Originally posted by newfangle

The trains always ran on time in Nazi Germany.

Probably because they threatened to shoot them.

They wouldn't do that in England, would they? So how is the mail so efficient?
 
Crystal we will be faced with almost the exact same problems in Finland.
 
No, we will be faced with the same difficulties Sweden is going to experience. Problems caused by socialism as I described above.

Sure, we will be affected by problems caused by capitalism too, since we will eventually fully embrace it too...:rolleyes: But that wasn't really my point.
 
I already knew that. :p

Seriously, it doesn't take a genious to notice that swedish-style social-democracys have a short future.

But there is light in the end of the tunnel. People from all over western Europe have realised that they need reforms NOW, and hopefully they will actually vote for candidates able to perform them.
 
Well, it's inevitable for countries with this type of pension systems to encounter problems when the elderly are a much bigger group than before and fewer people can work and support them. I fear the necessary reforms will be painful, though they are badly needed. You can't just stop giving money to the elderly, since they've paid for this their whole lives. But you can't keep this expensive system either. If they had just opted for personal responsibility in the first place this situation wouldn't have come up.

I suspect the Nordic welfare states will try to cling on to their system for as long as possible, which is bad. Inefficient, state owned companies don't go belly-up as they should. Instead more and more money is poured over them, as if that would solve all their problems. I think privatisation with vouchers for the poorest would be a great start and that would deal with the inefficiency problems. But I'm not sure it will happen.
 
Top Bottom