Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 9:47:57 GMT
definitely the reindeer piss
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 23, 2021 9:56:41 GMT
Higher taxes and higher benefits indeed, but, in keeping with much of the European mainland, benefit entitlement is mostly based on contributions made rather than perceived need. This is not socialism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 10:03:40 GMT
Higher taxes and higher benefits indeed, but, in keeping with much of the European mainland, benefit entitlement is mostly based on contributions made rather than perceived need. This is not socialism.
It finishes with 'And that’s why arguing for or against the Nordic Model misses the point completely. The system always works for the people who run the system. In Scandinavia, that’s the population rather than the elite. So maybe, in that respect, it gets closer to the aims of socialism than actual socialism ever has!'
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 23, 2021 10:30:26 GMT
definitely the reindeer piss Heard on the radio t'other day that a dose of psylocibin shrooms can ameliorate depression in the future. I think the reindeer shroom is amanita muscaria though. The red with white spots one. Maybe that's the reason, off their heads.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 23, 2021 10:36:59 GMT
Higher taxes and higher benefits indeed, but, in keeping with much of the European mainland, benefit entitlement is mostly based on contributions made rather than perceived need. This is not socialism.
It finishes with 'And that’s why arguing for or against the Nordic Model misses the point completely. The system always works for the people who run the system. In Scandinavia, that’s the population rather than the elite. So maybe, in that respect, it gets closer to the aims of socialism than actual socialism ever has!'
Cheers, an interesting read that. There was mention of a 'contract' between government and citizens. The report expanded on the role of government in relation to this, that is, it provides citizens with income security via generous benefits, pensions etc. However, it failed to expand on the expectations of citizens within the contract. These are, to live responsibly and contribute to the system that supports them. There is no place in such countries to sit back with a sense of entitlement, or make poor lifestyle choices, and expect the government to provide income security. People are free to do this of course, but their is no state system to support it. And so people, in the main, don't do it. Over in Britain those describing themselves as socialists, progressives etc. value a benefits system based on perceived need rather than contribution. We can see this in government policy where virtually all links between contributions made and benefits paid have ended. The most recent was the abolition of enhanced pension payments to those who contributed more via SERPS, in favour of a higher 'flat rate' pension for all. 'Means testing' is de rigueur. It seems to me that British socialists advocating adoption of Scandanavian principles in Britain cherry pick their system and extract their higher benefit levels as the way forward. I'd suggest that the thought of implementation of the full Scandanavian system, with its lack of so called safety nets, would be abhorrent to most British socialists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 11:08:54 GMT
Higher taxes and higher benefits indeed, but, in keeping with much of the European mainland, benefit entitlement is mostly based on contributions made rather than perceived need. This is not socialism. Not entirely true - many who haven't contributed anything at all get free money ('benefits') from the State. Finnish companies have been kicking Finns out of work, replacing them with cheap labour from eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Thailand and China, and I don't think those who are now unemployed are particularly happy. Many Finnish companies have also shifted their manufacturing to the Far East - Fiskars products (eg. scissors and kitchen knives) now made in China, Arabia porcelain (eg. Moomin mugs) now made in Thailand. There is a 'national health system' which is not very good / perhaps reasonable. There is unemployment benefit, housing benefit, social security, etc. Finland has changed a lot in the past 30 years with mass immigration - most of the bus drivers in the Helsinki region are now Ali Babas or Somalis/other Africans - in 1990 it was 100% Finnish. Finland was a rich country in the 1980s... then it joined the EU and things went downhill. The standard of education still seems OK. With Russia as a neighbour everyone is always on edge - I guess Finns don't dare upset the Bear. I have always thought Finland to be a bit of a boring country - the landscape/countryside/scenery in the UK is fabulous - here it's all much-of-a-muchness with forest and fields and lakes. But then you've got the empty roads and less stress. How does any of that explain how fins (not immigrants...) are happy...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 11:11:32 GMT
It finishes with 'And that’s why arguing for or against the Nordic Model misses the point completely. The system always works for the people who run the system. In Scandinavia, that’s the population rather than the elite. So maybe, in that respect, it gets closer to the aims of socialism than actual socialism ever has!'
Cheers, an interesting read that. There was mention of a 'contract' between government and citizens. The report expanded on the role of government in relation to this, that is, it provides citizens with income security via generous benefits, pensions etc. However, it failed to expand on the expectations of citizens within the contract. These are, to live responsibly and contribute to the system that supports them. There is no place in such countries to sit back with a sense of entitlement, or make poor lifestyle choices, and expect the government to provide income security. People are free to do this of course, but their is no state system to support it. And so people, in the main, don't do it. Over in Britain those describing themselves as socialists, progressives etc. value a benefits system based on perceived need rather than contribution. We can see this in government policy where virtually all links between contributions made and benefits paid have ended. The most recent was the abolition of enhanced pension payments to those who contributed more via SERPS, in favour of a higher 'flat rate' pension for all. 'Means testing' is de rigueur. It seems to me that British socialists advocating adoption of Scandanavian principles in Britain cherry pick their system and extract their higher benefit levels as the way forward. I'd suggest that the thought of implementation of the full Scandanavian system, with its lack of so called safety nets, would be abhorrent to most British socialists. I gave an explanation - you chose to cherry pick your response - recognise yourself somewhat/maybe...
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 23, 2021 12:30:37 GMT
Cheers, an interesting read that. There was mention of a 'contract' between government and citizens. The report expanded on the role of government in relation to this, that is, it provides citizens with income security via generous benefits, pensions etc. However, it failed to expand on the expectations of citizens within the contract. These are, to live responsibly and contribute to the system that supports them. There is no place in such countries to sit back with a sense of entitlement, or make poor lifestyle choices, and expect the government to provide income security. People are free to do this of course, but their is no state system to support it. And so people, in the main, don't do it. Over in Britain those describing themselves as socialists, progressives etc. value a benefits system based on perceived need rather than contribution. We can see this in government policy where virtually all links between contributions made and benefits paid have ended. The most recent was the abolition of enhanced pension payments to those who contributed more via SERPS, in favour of a higher 'flat rate' pension for all. 'Means testing' is de rigueur. It seems to me that British socialists advocating adoption of Scandanavian principles in Britain cherry pick their system and extract their higher benefit levels as the way forward. I'd suggest that the thought of implementation of the full Scandanavian system, with its lack of so called safety nets, would be abhorrent to most British socialists. I gave an explanation - you chose to cherry pick your response - recognise yourself somewhat/maybe... I did indeed cherry pick my response. It was a good report, I can see the attraction of the (overall) system the Scandanavians employ. My cherry picking was to highlight an omission in the report. And then, contrast and compare the (overall) system over there compared to over here. Critical analysis followed by a conclusion. That's what we do, is it not? An alternative approach, I guess: 'They are happier than us. They have more generous benefits than us. Therefore, if we increase benefits (to the exclusion of everything else) we too will be happier. So that's the solution, let's increase the level of benefits, job done.'
|
|