ully
ully
Yea, we are all the poorer for it and will join EU in crappy healthcare.
Olsen
Well-known
Generally, I don't meet people here in Norway that do complain about taxes. It is true! Although we pay close to twice as much as Americans.
Certainly not my American neighbours. He is an architect and she works in a lab at a hospital. He earns about (Net taxable income) 150,000 $ (less 55,500 $ in taxes) and she slightly less than half. (a sum of the tax returns of every tax payer here in Norway is public and now available on the Net) But I am not sure if she works full time. They are both from Dallas, Texas and is very enthusiastic about the Norwegian (European really) system. They are less enthusiastic about the climate, though.
Which I can understand. We have had a particularly cold winter this year with snow to our hips.
With a Net taxable income of 150,000 $ he could have a gross salary of 180,000 - 190,000 $ Possibly more, depending on deductables. Not bad to get away with 'only' 55,500 $ or 29 - 31% (of gross income) in tax on your salary here in Norway.
Sparrow
Veteran
Capital attracts a return, the greater the capital the greater the return, simple … left unchecked the rich get richer and the poor don’t
Olsen
Well-known
.....Why...?
Olsen
Well-known
I have been working for the Caterpillar dealership here in Norway for a better part of my life. I have met - several times, and talked on the phone a hundred times, with the current CEO 'Jim' Owens, when he was the top financial officer of Caterpillar Overseas in Geneva, Switzerland. I regarded the old Caterpillar CEO,'Blackie' as one of my friends.
Jim 'forgot' to tell the press that 'never has the dollar been lower and CAT USA competetiveness been better!' If you have to carry extra cost, it is now you shall take it.
And look at the competitors: Volvo in Sweden have to pay - indirectly, health care costs (plus education, pensions etc. etc) for their workers. Look to Japan; the same. Now that also Caterpillar USA has to pay what health care costs, the football field of competition has never been more level.
Caterpillar could also switch their production to some of their excellent European plants and they will face the same 'problem' there.
So, what are they complaining about? This statement is pure 'political'.
Shame on you, Jim!
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
Very off Topic
Very off Topic
I was just sitting here thinking about what became of 'ol'Blackie, the legendary CEO of Caterpillar. I Googled him and found this: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/us/william-blackie-90-ex-chairman-of-caterpillar.html?pagewanted=1
Which made me think of last time (must have been) I saw him; at the International Offshore Oil Exploration Exhibition in Stavanger in 72'. He and some other top executives came to Stavanger by business jet, which was very extravagant back then. But Blackie was un-typical of the American CEOs of today. He belonged to the Roosevelt-period.
At this exhibition Caterpillar had no stand (a mistake) and tried to get into the limelight by inviting key figures to a 'Caterpillar Cocktail Party' at a prominent hotel in the city. It was a Cat-guy from NY who came up with this idea. Blackie, originally Scottish, might have known a little about North Europeans and alcohol was sceptical, but approved...
What a party!
Norwegians know little of cocktail parties. They don't seem to understand that you are supposed to go home at about 18.00 - the latest. This party lasted until the small hours the next day! The only one I can remember that could pronounce consonants perfectly was - Blackie. While he was furious, the rst of us Cat reps had a hangover that lasted for two days.
Still I meet participants from this legendary party....
Very off Topic
I was just sitting here thinking about what became of 'ol'Blackie, the legendary CEO of Caterpillar. I Googled him and found this: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/11/us/william-blackie-90-ex-chairman-of-caterpillar.html?pagewanted=1
Which made me think of last time (must have been) I saw him; at the International Offshore Oil Exploration Exhibition in Stavanger in 72'. He and some other top executives came to Stavanger by business jet, which was very extravagant back then. But Blackie was un-typical of the American CEOs of today. He belonged to the Roosevelt-period.
At this exhibition Caterpillar had no stand (a mistake) and tried to get into the limelight by inviting key figures to a 'Caterpillar Cocktail Party' at a prominent hotel in the city. It was a Cat-guy from NY who came up with this idea. Blackie, originally Scottish, might have known a little about North Europeans and alcohol was sceptical, but approved...
What a party!
Norwegians know little of cocktail parties. They don't seem to understand that you are supposed to go home at about 18.00 - the latest. This party lasted until the small hours the next day! The only one I can remember that could pronounce consonants perfectly was - Blackie. While he was furious, the rst of us Cat reps had a hangover that lasted for two days.
Still I meet participants from this legendary party....
Olsen
Well-known
Only 10,000 $...?
The GDP/capita of Norway is twice as much as USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
If you compare PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) you have to take taxes into account: Even then the purchasing power of the average Norwegian is 10,000 $ - after taxes! But then he has already paid for his health care, education and pension - etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
But....
a)
these GDP/capita comparisons don't tell the whole story. The GDP of Norway is driven up by 1)oil and 2) financial services - as a result of the oil profit. Only a tiny fraction of the oil profit is spent in Norway. We spend only as much as we have the capacity to utilize. the rest is set aside for future generations.
b)
Comparing USA to Norway is unfair.
Norway has a population of 'slightly more than Orange County'. I am sure, you will find counties with even higher GDP/capita in USA. But to compare 'Western Europe' with USA is more justified. Look at the statistics and you will see that Western Europe and USA are very close regarding GDP/capita. Bob - bob...
c)
Stock exchange turnover pumps up the GDP of typical nations with large financial centres. This is an important factor to GDP growth the last 10 - 15 years. Particularly the GDP of UK and USA is blown up because of this. The turnover at the big stock exchanges of today is created by computers communicating with other computers.
How much of value is produced by this? Tell me. How many people are employed?
d)
A large industry here in Norway is the fisheries. This is a international industry with it's own 'living standard'. I don't believe for a minute that the Norwegian fisherman has any better living standard than their collegues in Seatle, Nova Scotia, Japan or Spain. This despite our huge GDP/capita. But people working in our fishery industry shall compete with the oil workers and stockbrokers when buying themselves a home. Is the large GDP/capita an advantage then?
e)
Typical for all the nations with higher GDP/capita than USA is a high degree of employment. Norway, with a population of 4,8 million have a workforce of 2,8 million people. This with very unfavourable demographics (ageing population). That is 58,3% of our population. If USA had a similar grade of employment the work force would be 180 million people. - With a far younger population it should be 200 million, and not 154,5 million (according to CIA)..?
But only 100 million Americans pay taxes....
Over here, all employees pay taxes. Even social security receivers have to pay (provided their income is larger than 12,000 $)
Last edited:
They have been paying health care costs. They now are just having to pay a lot more.
Bottom line is this: the majority of Americans don't want to be Europeans.
They believe in American Exceptionalism (and don't care whether anyone in Europe believes or not.)
They want a government with limited powers. They believe in the Constitution and want it strictly adhered to. They believe that document is what enabled America to build in a very short time to a power that no country had ever done in so short a time, based on the consent of it's citizens. A power that enabled maximum freedom and liberty among the common people. Americans like to be first. They like to compete. They like to win. They want the important decisions in life to be their individual domain. They want their government to provide for security, have a strong defense, a strong military to deter those who would do us harm, and to establish a stable economy and rule of law, without corruption, with no one being above the law, so they can lead their lives and realize the American Dream for themselves and their families.
Sure, there are exceptions among the population, we have plenty of socialists and communists, no question. But America is a conservative nation: nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent.) (Sources: Newsweek, Washington Post, ABC News -- all liberal.)
"Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it's obviously much more conservative," says Adrian Wooldridge, coauthor of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" and Washington bureau chief of the London-based Economist. "There's a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state."
Liberals have historically had to pretend to be middle of the road, in order to get elected. Obama is no different; he did everything possible to hide his radical associations, and he had a willing accomplice in the US liberal media. Off the teleprompter, the true socialist Obama would be revealed: "We've got to spread the wealth around."
"Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Carter to Clinton usually wind up moving farther right than they thought they ever would, or they pay for their continued liberalism at the polls." Obama on the other hand is doubling-down in spite of the polling data.
"FDR had a longish run (from 1933 to 1937), but he lost significant ground in the 1938 midterm elections and again in the largely forgotten wartime midterms of 1942. After he defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964, LBJ had only two years of great success (Ronald Reagan won the California governorship in 1966) before Vietnam, and the white backlash helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. Jimmy Carter lasted only a term, and Bill Clinton's Democrats were crushed in the 1994 elections."
The first time Republicans had control of Congress in 40 years.
Will we see history repeat itself in November's mid-terms?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656
They believe in American Exceptionalism (and don't care whether anyone in Europe believes or not.)
They want a government with limited powers. They believe in the Constitution and want it strictly adhered to. They believe that document is what enabled America to build in a very short time to a power that no country had ever done in so short a time, based on the consent of it's citizens. A power that enabled maximum freedom and liberty among the common people. Americans like to be first. They like to compete. They like to win. They want the important decisions in life to be their individual domain. They want their government to provide for security, have a strong defense, a strong military to deter those who would do us harm, and to establish a stable economy and rule of law, without corruption, with no one being above the law, so they can lead their lives and realize the American Dream for themselves and their families.
Sure, there are exceptions among the population, we have plenty of socialists and communists, no question. But America is a conservative nation: nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent.) (Sources: Newsweek, Washington Post, ABC News -- all liberal.)
"Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it's obviously much more conservative," says Adrian Wooldridge, coauthor of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" and Washington bureau chief of the London-based Economist. "There's a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state."
Liberals have historically had to pretend to be middle of the road, in order to get elected. Obama is no different; he did everything possible to hide his radical associations, and he had a willing accomplice in the US liberal media. Off the teleprompter, the true socialist Obama would be revealed: "We've got to spread the wealth around."
"Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Carter to Clinton usually wind up moving farther right than they thought they ever would, or they pay for their continued liberalism at the polls." Obama on the other hand is doubling-down in spite of the polling data.
"FDR had a longish run (from 1933 to 1937), but he lost significant ground in the 1938 midterm elections and again in the largely forgotten wartime midterms of 1942. After he defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964, LBJ had only two years of great success (Ronald Reagan won the California governorship in 1966) before Vietnam, and the white backlash helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. Jimmy Carter lasted only a term, and Bill Clinton's Democrats were crushed in the 1994 elections."
The first time Republicans had control of Congress in 40 years.
Will we see history repeat itself in November's mid-terms?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656
antiquark
Derek Ross
Most American's believe that Noah's ark and the global flood was a factual story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Call me conceited, if you want, but:
Unfortunately, this "survey" is 98,5% unscholarly and more incoherent than a nice classroom essay.
antiquark
Derek Ross
If the populace was really conservative, then they would repeal progressive laws. But usually (always? there are probably a few counterexamples) the progressive laws stick around. Social security, medicare, minimum wage, abolishing child labour, giving women the vote, Roe v Wade, etc... if the populace really wanted to repeal those things, they have the power to do so, USA is a democracy.
The fact is, people grow to like the progressive laws and programs, that's why nobody repeals them.
I keep seeing these sorts of comments, but with nothing to back it up.
I referenced liberal media, is that unscholarly enough for you? Or, what does that say about the liberal media? Hehe...
Come on guys, you can do better than this, step up your game!
One would think. But America oscillates back and forth regularly. Post-Watergate, we got Carter, but the country turned completely in the opposite direction with Reagan just four years later, by a huge landslide. Pundits were predicting the end of the Republican party after Nixon, but they were way off. Most elections are determined by only a few percentage points.
In 1991, America was flying high, the economy was great, the invasion of Kuwait was reversed in short order, Bush 41 had very high approval rating (89%, a record.) The economy then tanked, he broke his 'read my lips' pledge for no new taxes and he promptly lost the '92 election. Of course, Perot had something to do with that...taking quite a few votes away from Bush.
Most elections are won or lost because of economic factors. Reagan beat Carter easily, and then demolished Mondale four years later, winning every state except one.
Indeed, that's the entire point of why liberals push for them so hard. It's like being a drug pusher, just get them hooked, and you'll keep getting their votes and stay in power. That's why they'll be pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens...
By PHIL GRAMM
For every dollar's worth of health care that Americans received last year, they paid a dime and somebody else paid 90 cents. If you bought food the way you buy health care—where 90% of everything you put in your basket was paid for by your grocery insurance policy—you would eat differently and so would your dog. We have the best health-care system in the world, but as rich as America is we can't afford it.
Any real debate about health-care reform has to be centered on solving the problem of cost. Ultimately, there are only two ways of doing it. The first approach is to have government control costs through some form of rationing. The alternative is to empower families to make their own health-care decisions in a system where costs matter. The fundamental question is about who is going to do the controlling: the family or the government.
President Obama and his congressional allies systematically excluded every major proposal to empower consumers to control costs. From beginning to end, they insisted on a government-run system. That's why compromise was never possible.
The plan signed into law by the president on Tuesday is simply a hodgepodge of schemes to expand insurance coverage and government power with no coherent program to control cost. By contrast, the old Clinton health-care bill was a plan to control costs through health-care purchasing cooperatives, standards of medical practice, and penalties for providers who violated those standards. When Americans came to understand the loss of freedom resulting from the Clinton plan, they rejected it. The Democrats learned from that experience. This time around they simply left their cost control component to be added later.
Even though the Obama bill became far more unpopular than the Clinton bill ever was, the daunting size and rigid commitment of the Democratic majority to a government-run system was such that they could override public opinion. Now the Democrats are out to make Americans like their plan—or at least get them to acquiesce to it. But as Gandhi once explained, 40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.
Republicans have a job to do. They must make it clear to the American people that this is only the beginning of the debate. There will be two congressional elections and a presidential election before the government takeover is implemented in 2014.
I believe that Republicans should take the unequivocal position that if they are given a majority in Congress in November, they will stop the implementation of the government takeover. And if a Republican is elected president in 2012, they will do with Mr. Obama's health-care bill what the American voters will have done to the Democrats: throw it out. If the voters demand change in November, even the Democrats who remain in Congress will help give it to them.
If Republicans don't want America to follow Britain and Canada down the road to socialized medicine, they must change the system so that families have more power to control their own health-care costs. This will entail real changes like tax deductions for health insurance, not for prepaid medicine; refundable tax credits for families to buy their own insurance; freedom to negotiate with insurance companies; rewarding healthy lifestyles; tort reform; and reforming Medicare and Medicaid so every consumer has deductibles and copayments based on their income. This system will require Americans to make choices in health care—just as they do in every other area of their lives.
There is one more overwhelming reason freedom is so critical in health care. In the end, even the greatest health-care system in the world fails. At 92, my mother decided to stop going to the hospital, stop going to the doctor, stop taking her medicine, and to die in her own bed. It was a free choice, and she made it. For her family, it was a painful choice, but she died as she lived—proud and free. Government bureaucrats did not make that decision; she did. And that made all the difference.
Mr. Gramm, a Republican, was a senator from Texas from 1985 to 2002 and served as chairman of the Health subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance.
http://bit.ly/cvsQfV (Wall St. Journal)
For every dollar's worth of health care that Americans received last year, they paid a dime and somebody else paid 90 cents. If you bought food the way you buy health care—where 90% of everything you put in your basket was paid for by your grocery insurance policy—you would eat differently and so would your dog. We have the best health-care system in the world, but as rich as America is we can't afford it.
Any real debate about health-care reform has to be centered on solving the problem of cost. Ultimately, there are only two ways of doing it. The first approach is to have government control costs through some form of rationing. The alternative is to empower families to make their own health-care decisions in a system where costs matter. The fundamental question is about who is going to do the controlling: the family or the government.
President Obama and his congressional allies systematically excluded every major proposal to empower consumers to control costs. From beginning to end, they insisted on a government-run system. That's why compromise was never possible.
The plan signed into law by the president on Tuesday is simply a hodgepodge of schemes to expand insurance coverage and government power with no coherent program to control cost. By contrast, the old Clinton health-care bill was a plan to control costs through health-care purchasing cooperatives, standards of medical practice, and penalties for providers who violated those standards. When Americans came to understand the loss of freedom resulting from the Clinton plan, they rejected it. The Democrats learned from that experience. This time around they simply left their cost control component to be added later.
Even though the Obama bill became far more unpopular than the Clinton bill ever was, the daunting size and rigid commitment of the Democratic majority to a government-run system was such that they could override public opinion. Now the Democrats are out to make Americans like their plan—or at least get them to acquiesce to it. But as Gandhi once explained, 40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.
Republicans have a job to do. They must make it clear to the American people that this is only the beginning of the debate. There will be two congressional elections and a presidential election before the government takeover is implemented in 2014.
I believe that Republicans should take the unequivocal position that if they are given a majority in Congress in November, they will stop the implementation of the government takeover. And if a Republican is elected president in 2012, they will do with Mr. Obama's health-care bill what the American voters will have done to the Democrats: throw it out. If the voters demand change in November, even the Democrats who remain in Congress will help give it to them.
If Republicans don't want America to follow Britain and Canada down the road to socialized medicine, they must change the system so that families have more power to control their own health-care costs. This will entail real changes like tax deductions for health insurance, not for prepaid medicine; refundable tax credits for families to buy their own insurance; freedom to negotiate with insurance companies; rewarding healthy lifestyles; tort reform; and reforming Medicare and Medicaid so every consumer has deductibles and copayments based on their income. This system will require Americans to make choices in health care—just as they do in every other area of their lives.
There is one more overwhelming reason freedom is so critical in health care. In the end, even the greatest health-care system in the world fails. At 92, my mother decided to stop going to the hospital, stop going to the doctor, stop taking her medicine, and to die in her own bed. It was a free choice, and she made it. For her family, it was a painful choice, but she died as she lived—proud and free. Government bureaucrats did not make that decision; she did. And that made all the difference.
Mr. Gramm, a Republican, was a senator from Texas from 1985 to 2002 and served as chairman of the Health subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance.
http://bit.ly/cvsQfV (Wall St. Journal)
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
I keep seeing these sorts of comments, but with nothing to back it up. (...) Come on guys, you can do better than this, step up your game!
My dear old chap,
of course we guys could!
But it's unamusing.
this "hehe" means humdrum?
re "liberal media":
a friend of mine says,
"The independence of the economically oriented press is a contradiction in terms."
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
copy+paste is BORING.
In Europe/Canada/Australia/Asia/Russia... you cannot convince that way.
antiquark
Derek Ross
That article was soooo full of flaws. There was only one thing I agreed with:
I believe that Republicans should take the unequivocal position that if they are given a majority in Congress in November, they will stop the implementation of the government takeover.
I like that idea! Dear Republicans: promise to repeal the bill, loud and clear... how could you possibly lose?
I'm not trying to convince, that'll never happen. As open minded as you guys claim to be, you sure are closed minded.
Thatcher privatized and brought back Britain.
Christie is bringing back Joisey.
Who will take on the task for Amerika?
Christie is bringing back Joisey.
Who will take on the task for Amerika?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.