Denmark, as it seems, is one of the highest taxed places to live on the planet earth. This is due to the purple color of our politics. A mix of blue and red, but not blue nor red.
Standard tax for the normal population (lowest tax) is 37% of your income.
I am a student, and that is the tax I pay.
However, with this enormous amount of taxmoney, one would think we would get free public transport, or food, or some benefits.
What we get is we get to pay for the less fortunate people, retarded people, old people, immigrants, pensionist etc etc. we get to pay for them to do nothing. If you are living on public care, you can get 2-3 K a month for doing nothing.
This sounds like shit to my ears, and what the government is feeding us is that we get free education, and free healthcare. But put together, people who do nothing, ends up costing more than people who take a free education and get a job to pay taxes with, ends up giving.
So it is basically digging your own grave.
Besides, the country is dull as fuck, It's come to my attention that one of denmarks cities (Helsingør/Elsinore) is on the list of Must Go To in 2014.. Just don't..
Now I'm done complaining, what are your takes on this shitty way of running a country?
There was a really great
Australian podcast on the subject, but the archive for it seems to have
gone dark. If I find a way to share it here anonymously I will, but
until then let me impart what I think the most important point they made
was.
It was this; the fact that all money exists as a debt-with-interest drives unsustainable constant growth.
To
illustrate this, consider the where money comes from; it is all
'borrowed' into existence. I'm not gonna labour or argue this point, as
people spin it different ways, but that is the essence of it. So, all
the money that exists is owed by someone, somewhere, to a bank PLUS
interest payments. But the total debt is ALWAYs more than the money in
circulation due to the interest payments made.
Think about if,
instead of borrowing x-amount with interest payments, the bank said 'ok,
we'll lend you $10K, but since you'll need to pay 10% in interest we'll
take $1k now and only give you $9k', so there is now $9k of currency
representing $10k or debt, so you somehow need to use that $9k to
generate at least $1k extra currency to pay the bank, plus some more to
live on etc. But this is true for EVERYONE, so there are always going to
be 'winners' and 'losers'. A 'winner' is someone who manages to end up
with more currency, but because the total currency is always less than
the total debt there are 'losers'; the people who end up with less
currency since overall some of the currency is used by the 'winners'.
This is what people mean when they say the economy is a zero-sum-game.
The 'solution' we have to this right now is to just encourage new people
to borrow, so life becomes a conveyor, with young people borrowing to
start their business, build it up, then leverage currency off the
younger people borrowing to ensure they turn a profit, but at the cost
of an ever-inflating debt, necessary to cover all the interest payments.
That's why obscene levels of wealth is immoral - someone somewhere has
to lose out BIG TIME to ensure the wealthy have a positive-sum.
Under
these circumstances a steady-state economy is impossible, and we REALLY
need to find a steady-state soon. We are reaching the capacity of the
planet to sustain us long-term at our current consumption levels, but
right not out financial economy requires constant growth - a sticky
bind.
But we don't HAVE to do it this way, there are other
economic models. I would support nearly any of them that a) is a
positive-sum game, b) regulated consumption at sustainable levels, and
c) ensured currency could not accumulate (this is because the 'wealth'
or goods/services the currency represents does not accumulate, but
actually deteriorates over time)...
There was a really great
Australian podcast on the subject, but the archive for it seems to have
gone dark. If I find a way to share it here anonymously I will, but
until then let me impart what I think the most important point they made
was.
It was this; the fact that all money exists as a debt-with-interest drives unsustainable constant growth.
To illustrate this, consider the where money comes from; it is all 'borrowed' into existence. I'm not gonna labour or argue this point, as people spin it different ways, but that is the essence of it. So, all the money that exists is owed by someone, somewhere, to a bank PLUS interest payments. But the total debt is ALWAYs more than the money in circulation due to the interest payments made.
Think about if, instead of borrowing x-amount with interest payments, the bank said 'ok, we'll lend you $10K, but since you'll need to pay 10% in interest we'll take $1k now and only give you $9k', so there is now $9k of currency representing $10k or debt, so you somehow need to use that $9k to generate at least $1k extra currency to pay the bank, plus some more to live on etc. But this is true for EVERYONE, so there are always going to be 'winners' and 'losers'. A 'winner' is someone who manages to end up with more currency, but because the total currency is always less than the total debt there are 'losers'; the people who end up with less currency since overall some of the currency is used by the 'winners'. This is what people mean when they say the economy is a zero-sum-game. The 'solution' we have to this right now is to just encourage new people to borrow, so life becomes a conveyor, with young people borrowing to start their business, build it up, then leverage currency off the younger people borrowing to ensure they turn a profit, but at the cost of an ever-inflating debt, necessary to cover all the interest payments. That's why obscene levels of wealth is immoral - someone somewhere has to lose out BIG TIME to ensure the wealthy have a positive-sum.
Under these circumstances a steady-state economy is impossible, and we REALLY need to find a steady-state soon. We are reaching the capacity of the planet to sustain us long-term at our current consumption levels, but right not out financial economy requires constant growth - a sticky bind.
But we don't HAVE to do it this way, there are other economic models. I would support nearly any of them that a) is a positive-sum game, b) regulated consumption at sustainable levels, and c) ensured currency could not accumulate (this is because the 'wealth' or goods/services the currency represents does not accumulate, but actually deteriorates over time)...
It was this; the fact that all money exists as a debt-with-interest drives unsustainable constant growth.
To illustrate this, consider the where money comes from; it is all 'borrowed' into existence. I'm not gonna labour or argue this point, as people spin it different ways, but that is the essence of it. So, all the money that exists is owed by someone, somewhere, to a bank PLUS interest payments. But the total debt is ALWAYs more than the money in circulation due to the interest payments made.
Think about if, instead of borrowing x-amount with interest payments, the bank said 'ok, we'll lend you $10K, but since you'll need to pay 10% in interest we'll take $1k now and only give you $9k', so there is now $9k of currency representing $10k or debt, so you somehow need to use that $9k to generate at least $1k extra currency to pay the bank, plus some more to live on etc. But this is true for EVERYONE, so there are always going to be 'winners' and 'losers'. A 'winner' is someone who manages to end up with more currency, but because the total currency is always less than the total debt there are 'losers'; the people who end up with less currency since overall some of the currency is used by the 'winners'. This is what people mean when they say the economy is a zero-sum-game. The 'solution' we have to this right now is to just encourage new people to borrow, so life becomes a conveyor, with young people borrowing to start their business, build it up, then leverage currency off the younger people borrowing to ensure they turn a profit, but at the cost of an ever-inflating debt, necessary to cover all the interest payments. That's why obscene levels of wealth is immoral - someone somewhere has to lose out BIG TIME to ensure the wealthy have a positive-sum.
Under these circumstances a steady-state economy is impossible, and we REALLY need to find a steady-state soon. We are reaching the capacity of the planet to sustain us long-term at our current consumption levels, but right not out financial economy requires constant growth - a sticky bind.
But we don't HAVE to do it this way, there are other economic models. I would support nearly any of them that a) is a positive-sum game, b) regulated consumption at sustainable levels, and c) ensured currency could not accumulate (this is because the 'wealth' or goods/services the currency represents does not accumulate, but actually deteriorates over time)...