Funny think Denis, the HDP home page has the UNDP logo in its top right corner and a link straight to the UNDP home page.
So it looks like a subsidiary of the United Nations Development Program.
It sounds like a subsidiary of the United Nations Development Program, but you say it is "independent."

Right!

So you are saying that the medical coverage paid for by the state and the education paid for by the state are the key components of the HDI reports.

I guess the fact that this thread begins with the statistics that this exact type of government spending has grown uncontrollably and is unsustainable flies right over your head.

Also the fact that the HDI reports give no credit to the medical care or education that an individual can purchase through private consumption with their own purchasing power is not covered at all in the HDI reports.

I guess an HDI report is geared towards simply reinforcing the Welfare State message while totally ignoring the factors of standard of living that a private individual doesn't owe to the state.

Pretty irrelevant stuff Denis. Thanks for trying though.
Your hysteria over defending the unsustainable failures of the Welfare State are exactly what I expected at the beginning of the thread and you have not disappointed.

What I was saying is that that statistic doesn't adjust for the fact that Americans have to spend money health care and other things in the private sector that Sweden provides through the public sector. In any case if you would like to give me an article instead of giving a list of sources I have to fish through.

You are claiming there is a catastrophic lack of purchasing power in Sweden. I have yet to see that. And it is obviously not true as I have been to Sweden and Swedish people aren't starving on the streets.

@Mafia --- Yeah....basic math is too hard to discuss....you had better quit this argument, jackass. Let's see....'Krellin said "cut spending below what we take in as revenue..." If A > B and the standard is A must be =< B, then....Oh, fuck....I can't win this argument. I'll call it stupid and quit because I'm a bitch..." Way to go, Mafia!!! Thanks for that brilliant discussion! Moron.

@Mafia....besides which...we all know you aren't staring at a blank wall....you are staring at your hand as it grasps at your crotch....but are finding things too small to grasp to please yourself. Much like the very basic concepts of economics are too difficult for you to grasp.

By the way, Jackass...in your ***very*** lame attept to try to put an equation up, you implied the government owns ASSETS....Haaaa ha ha ha hah!!!! Jackass. You mean like their manufacturing equipment? Or....Oh, hell...you are too stupid to grasp the idea that government shouldn't spend what it doesn't have when it can only take from people, and has no real "income" as you and I understand it (unless you are some piece of sht ogvernment worker that only devalue society....in which case you are too stupid to understand the idea of value-added work...)

Mafia....you should just stop breathing now and stop killing the earth. No doubt you are a jackass environmentalist, too, and believe that C02 is a pollutant, and thus YOU are a pollutant. So do the earth a favor and die...Ahhhhh ha h ah aha ha haa h! Jackass.

@tettletons chew
And I did not call purchasing power irrelevant I called the study irrelevant.

No Denis. As I stated clearly before the standard of living in Sweden is below the standard of living of the poorest American State or the poorest American ethnic group.

What you don't seem to understand is the taxation in Sweden to pay for the State run medical care, the State run education, and the State run pensions, come from taxation that drives up the cost of anything and everything Swedes consume.

Now I know you don't want to deal with this reality and you would love to compare the amount of government services provided in some intellectually indefensible "inequality index" thought up by the UN Human Development organization, but it just won't stand up to the traditional cost of living.

An American bearing a burden of lower taxation with more disposable income enjoys a higher standard of living than a Sweden bearing a burden of higher taxation with decidedly less disposable income even even after accounting for the inefficient state run health care, education, and pension Swedes get from their taxes.

The bottom line that the Swedish Institute of Trade shows in its study is Americans enjoy a higher standard of living because their economy has lower taxes and produces more income.
The Swedish economy on the other hand is not vigorous and produces a lower standard of living because the services paid for by higher taxation don't make up for the dramatically smaller amounts of disposable income available to Swedes.

Taking tax money out of the hands of productive individuals, filtering it though a corrupt, wasteful, and inefficient government bureaucracy is never more efficient than leaving the money in the hands of the productive private individuals in the first place so they can take care of their own needs without the waste associated with government bureaucrats and programs.

It's really simple.

@denis....Is THIS irrelevant: DON'T SPEND MORE MONEY THAN YOU FUCKING HAVE!!!

I THAT irrelevant, motherfucker? Or are you some bitch that lives with his hand stuck out looking for handouts?

Oh...I know....that's too simple a question. It has a yes ro no answer and therefore you can't give some bullshit liberal argument to answer it....so you won't.

bitch.

"Taking tax money out of the hands of productive individuals, filtering it though a corrupt, wasteful, and inefficient government bureaucracy is never more efficient than leaving the money in the hands of the productive private individuals in the first place so they can take care of their own needs without the waste associated with government bureaucrats and programs. "
The Swedish system is not corrupt and wasteful, it is efficient. Is that so hard to grasp? Government is not inherently corrupt and inefficient although it often is like here in the US. And I have yet to published study published by the Swedish Institute of Trade.
@krellin
We already have spent money we don't have thanks to George Bush. Clinton left office with a surplus. I just gave you guys a solution to a problem the right created with wars and cutting government revenue.

Typo* I have yet to see a study published by...

@denis....Obama seems to LOVE wars. In fact, he has started NEW ones sinces taking office. fucking hypocrite. Obama LOVES spending....racked up more Debt in 2 years than almost ALL the Presidents (bush included) before him combines. Your lame-ass "blame Bush" line is old, old old and BORING. Not to mention it's a fucking LIE, jackass.
\
And frankly, who gives a shit what someone in the past spent. The problem we have is TODAY'S problem...and we need to cut spending now.

Again....jackass....answer a question: At home, do you spend more than you make? Or are you a fucking loser that begs Mommy and Daddy for money every month when you can't pay your bills?

Do you live in reality?

denis--- so, in other words, you would be MORE than content to go back to Clinton spending levels? And Clinton tax levels? Because your Hero/Idol...er....Obama isn't willing to do that. He can ONLY dream of INCREASED spending.

By the way, bitch, how come your precious Democrat party has not offered a single WRITTEN BUDGET, as opposed to giving blathering bullshit speeches with no specifics that the CBO can address.

@denis : "...I have yet to see a study published" BOTH of you get your fucing asses out of your intellectual clouds. The solution in simple: STOP SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN YOU FUCKING TAKE IN. IT DOESN'T TAKE A STUDY TO GET THAT.


And then....you don't NEED a study to look at past revenues versus tax rates to know that LOWER tax rates....say 28% top rate....will bring in more revenues. It's HISTORICAL FACT that does not require a fucking study.

You fucking idiots that think you are so god-damned smart, that think you will find out something new to prove a point if only you had the right study....Grow the fuck up. YOu are NOT that smart. You are NOT unique. Not are you ideas.

Morons.

Ya Obama isn't perfect, but the deficit was created in the bush years and bush started Iraq and Afganistan aka unessecary spending traps. It was also during the bush years that big business tanked the economy so I don't see how it's hard to admit that? It's simply true. If Obama would do everything I want him to do I wouldn't be arguing with you. And frankly he probably won't do what I would hope he'd do and he probably isn't considering it. I'm not praising Obama or democrats all I'm saying is you are wrong.
And No I'm not a beggar on the streets.

@krellin
What you just said is that lower taxes ( ie revenue) produces more revenue? I am obviously more intellectually capable than you and just blurting out propaganda that fox news feeds you without any study's or facts to back your argument is drivel. Especially when it makes no logical sense.

"Thanks to George Bush"
You seem to type that when you ideas are failing you Denis.
You don't relate it effectively to the topic that the welfare state is insolvent or that Sweden has a lower standard of living than any state in the United States.

Some interesting stats on how Swedes are "gaming" the Welfare State.
Perfect evidence of why the Welfare State is insolvent in the West.
Even though medical data says Swedes are some of the healthiest people in the world (infectious disease doesn't like sub zero temperatures) Swedes are out sick from work more than any other people in Europe.
Why, the Welfare State pays 80% wages while you are out sick.
Incentive to game the system.
Health absenteeism has doubled in Sweden in the last decade.
10% of Sweden's working age population is retired on disability benefits.
They highest percentage of such retirements among any workforce in the West.

Here is a headline from a typical article "Plans to rein in sick leave spur a backlash in Sweden."
The biggest reason for taking time off: stress, anxiety, depression and a condition called "dejection" made up 33 to 40 percent of all sick-leave cases in 2006. Anna-Maria Lindsten, a 42-year-old health-services worker, collected 80 percent of her salary in sick pay for more than six years after being diagnosed in 2000. The government's attempt to limit paid time off to just a few weeks left her alarmed. "You can't just force people to go back to the workplace that made them sick," she says. "They need to give people help to build themselves back up, and that can take time."
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/10/09/a-stressful-situation.html

It's from Newsweek. A real right-wing rag.

In 2010 Sweden had to introduce new rules to rein in the epidemic of sick leave at 80% pay.

Here the article with the sick leave statistics.
It's really sad to see the way the Welfare State destroys individual's work ethic and breeds dependency.
http://www.nek.lu.se/publications/workpap/Papers/WP04_3.pdf

Denis, Thank you for your posting of standard Welfare State hysteria

"Fox News said this......"

"Thanks for George Bush......."

Thank you Denis.

@denis -- You are TRULY an idiot. When you lowe taxes, it promotes BUSINESS GROWTH which

PROMOTES THE ADDITION OF TAX PAYERS. More TAX PAYERS = MORE TAX REVENUE.

Again...if taxes are so great, then you advocate 100% tax rate, right?


Clearly you have ZERO comprehension. As i said before, LOOK UP THE LAFFER CURVE, jackass! IT EXPLAINS higher revenue from lower taxes.

If you are too fucking stupid to look up what people post and respond to it intelligently, then don't reply, you fucking retard.

denis -- Why don't you actually, JUST FOR ONCE, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND DO SOME RESEARCH.

Look up Federal Revenues as a percentage of GDP as compared to Tax Rates....and you may actually learn something.

Or, bury you fucking moronic head in the sand and keep spewing your left-wing propaganda.

I know...you are afraid to learn. It's a common malady amongst Liberals. You fear and avoid truth.

Here denis....here si the analogy. If you were hungry and I said you could go buy a Hamburger from McDonalds for 50 cents, you might buy one. For $1, you might buy one. For $1.50, you might buy one. If I said a hamburger was $5, you would tell me to fuck off.

Somewhere in there is a price of a hamburger that you are willing to pay, which will maximize McDonald's revenue. BEYOND that price point, McDonald;s will LOVE revenue.

Is that really such a difficult concept?

If you make the cost of doing business too expensive, eventually the rich will close their businesses....because THEY ARE FUCKING RICH and do not NEED their businesses to survive. And then YOU lose your job...and now both you ANd the business owner are paying less taxes.


Wow....such an easy concept. But when you have your liberal "i'm- a-dumbass" blinders on it's hard to grasp, isn't it?

I referred to George Bush and Fox news in response to krellin's post not yours Tettletons Chew, notice the @krellin.
Anyways I would like you to show me the actual study by the Swedish Institute of Trade, the link you gave me was to a list of documents at the Swedish Retail Institute.
I'll read the Newsweek article, but you are assuming that the number of sick people are outnumbered by the people playing the system and you are forgetting the other 60% percent of people taking sick days that don't use dejection as the reason.

The top 50 percent of America pays over 90% of all taxes. When you chop that revenue in half the amount of people more willing to pay taxes doesn't make up for lost revenue.

Excellent citation on taxation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HwTPk00QMHIC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=new+deal+or+raw+deal+In+1921,+President+Harding+asked+the+sixty-five-year-old+Mellon+to+be+secretary+of+the+treasury%3B+the+national+debt&source=bl&ots=5vBXRPd6aJ&sig=iSKWNhSu-Wt2RJLfbIi7S0tyw6Y&hl=en&ei=zZeGTKvRGoSasAOPvdzlCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Secretary of Treasury Mellon said it best, "....the government needs to fix rates which will bring in a maximum amount of revenue to the Treasury and at the same time bear not too heavily on the taxpayer or on business enterprise."

Mellon found that a rate of 25% was about the highest rate that individual would pay before their behavior became effected by tax rates and money flowed into tax shelters instead of productive activity and investment.

Mellon lowered tax rates from 73% to 24% on the top bracket and from 4% to 1/2% on the lowest bracket.
The boom of the 1920's resulted only to be destroyed by a speculative bubble in stocks.
Roosevelt imposed all manner of excise taxes during the Great Depression.
He constantly raised the income tax on the wealthiest Americans throughout the Great Depression.
What did FDR get, endless Great Depression up until the day he died.
The Great Depression didn't end until the end of the New Deal after WWII.

Denis, do you think that the richest Americans would keep generating income if tax rates were 90%?
Tax rates were 90% in the top bracket during the Eisenhower administration and Ike had three recessions.
That's why JFK was elected.
What did JFK do. He cut the tax rates in the tax package he sent to Congress before he died.
Duh!
You keep thinking that raising taxes increases revenue dollar for dollar instead of realizing that raising taxes drives money into unproductive tax shelters that lead to a stagnant economy.
When will you Welfare State fools understand the basic principles and historic examples of taxation?
That's why you see Welfare State supporters saying that unemployment benefits help the economy, aka Nancy Pelosi.
Taking money from working people, funneling it through a corrupt, wasteful bureaucracy and delivering what is left over to people who aren't working doesn't benefit the economy.
Job creation is the only thing that benefits individuals and the economy.
The problem is the Welfare State destroys job creation.

@denis....You are an idiot. Get your fucking liberal, I suspect **student** head out of your professor's ass, and go look at actual history. the BEST way to figure out what will happen to tax revenue is to look at HISTORICAL DATA of the United States....not some fuicking liberal Swiss institute

Are you too fucking afraid to look at REAL DATA? Afraid your pre-conceived liberal ideology will be challenged by facts?


fucking loser. Grow up and look at facts, not the fiction of your ideological professors.

I gave you the link earlier in the thread Denis.

http://www.hui.se/web/HUI_Working_Papers.aspx

Tell me Denis, are you not smart enough to translate Swedish into English on the web?