• There is NO official Otland's Discord server and NO official Otland's server list. The Otland's Staff does not manage any Discord server or server list. Moderators or administrator of any Discord server or server lists have NO connection to the Otland's Staff. Do not get scammed!

About Anti-Trump people turning violent

What is the tax rate in Sweden?
In order to raise a lot of income tax revenue, income tax rates in Scandinavian countries are rather high except for in Norway. Denmark's top marginal effective income tax rate is 60.4 percent. Sweden's is 56.4 percent. Norway's top marginal tax rate is 39 percent.Jun 10, 2015

Everywhere I look I can't find your 20-30% figure. If my data is wrong please give me sources.

Also, lets imagine this:
Imagine you need to spend an equal amount to other countries every year, or you will not be able to defend yourself AT ALL against anyone who wanted to attack you.
Now Imagine, You have one country that says "Hey, I will defend you, so you don't have to spend as much money on Defense."
Yay! Now you can spend all your money on Education, Healthcare, and Welfare.

So you raise your Taxes to HUGE amounts, something like 60%, and pay for everyone's stuff in your country, just hand out free stuff to everyone.
BUT, even with your high taxes, your country begins going into debt because of all the free stuff you are giving away. (Almost at 215 billion dollars)

Then people look at your country and think, "That is awesome, why can't we be like that?"
Well #1, even THEY cannot be like that, because they are going further into debt every year, which means it isn't sustainable.
And #2, Another country is paying for their defense budget.

The USA does need huge reforms in how we are spending our budget. But it isn't as simple as taking from the Defense Budget and placing it in Education.
in Sweden, 10k SEK salory i survivable
15k is decent
20k is you now getting free hands to build your life
25k even better
30k somewhat rich unless you have loans to pay off or something
40k getting jealous here...
50k oh come on...

10k SEK ~= 20% tax
15k ~ 25%
20k - 35k ~30%
35k-45k ~35%
45k-60k ~40%
60+k ~50%
The first 16k SEK of the year, is tax free, if you paid too much taxes they are returned every summer.

These numbers aren't 100% accurate, but they're somewhat accurate.
I've been paying mostly 30% taxes the last 10 years on an income between 20-30k SEK.
10K SEK is around 1,100 Euro

Sweden also gets taxes from other ways, gas for example, 15~ SEK/liter which is about 80-90% taxes.
Booze is maybe around 70% taxes.
Ciggaretes and similar is also around 70% taxes.
Food in general you're buying is 25% taxes.

So maybe those 60% are correct, or not.. I can't be sure..
However, even thou the taxes you can easy build a life with salories in Sweden, you don't have to work 20 hours day just to keep an apartment.

And I wouldn't use Norway ever in any statistics, their economy is fucked up.. they earn A LOT more compared to Sweden, but in return their lives cost even more than the salary difference.
Lets say, you maybe make 2x more money working in Norway (maybe more), but in return living cost is 3x worse than Sweden.

For example, Big Mc in Sweden, around 5 Euro +/-.. in Norway, same damn dinner is about 15 Euro +/-

oh well, before I write too much, our world is pretty fucked up when shooting and bombing people comes before education and living <.<
 
Switzerland looks pretty awesome though, and as far as I know its te only country in EU without terror incidents:
 
Switzerland looks pretty awesome though, and as far as I know its te only country in EU without terror incidents.
Well. My beloved Poland also doesn't have problems with Muslims. The power of not having big social care programs <3 Also I'm pretty sure that good guy Orban also doesn't have those kinds of problems.
Also Swiss might be bad example in long term. According to this guy:
...They have serious problem with not having any actual counter-terrorist strategies. I cannot give specific time-stamps, because I watched it long time ago, but I'm pretty sure He mentions it few times.
 
in Sweden, 10k SEK salory i survivable
15k is decent
20k is you now getting free hands to build your life
25k even better
30k somewhat rich unless you have loans to pay off or something
40k getting jealous here...
50k oh come on...

10k SEK ~= 20% tax
15k ~ 25%
20k - 35k ~30%
35k-45k ~35%
45k-60k ~40%
60+k ~50%
The first 16k SEK of the year, is tax free, if you paid too much taxes they are returned every summer.

These numbers aren't 100% accurate, but they're somewhat accurate.
I've been paying mostly 30% taxes the last 10 years on an income between 20-30k SEK.
10K SEK is around 1,100 Euro

Sweden also gets taxes from other ways, gas for example, 15~ SEK/liter which is about 80-90% taxes.
Booze is maybe around 70% taxes.
Ciggaretes and similar is also around 70% taxes.
Food in general you're buying is 25% taxes.

So maybe those 60% are correct, or not.. I can't be sure..
However, even thou the taxes you can easy build a life with salories in Sweden, you don't have to work 20 hours day just to keep an apartment.

And I wouldn't use Norway ever in any statistics, their economy is fucked up.. they earn A LOT more compared to Sweden, but in return their lives cost even more than the salary difference.
Lets say, you maybe make 2x more money working in Norway (maybe more), but in return living cost is 3x worse than Sweden.

For example, Big Mc in Sweden, around 5 Euro +/-.. in Norway, same damn dinner is about 15 Euro +/-

oh well, before I write too much, our world is pretty fucked up when shooting and bombing people comes before education and living <.<


Here is my "perfect" world.
Everyone chips in as much as they want, and gives their share to society. And the more they give to society, the more they are rewarded. A percentage of the rewards are taken by the government to help protect the society.
--This is basically capitalism with no regulation.

Here is what I see as a form of "Hell".
People are forced to work, you have no say on how much money you make. Even if you produce more, you get paid the same. (Basically indentured servitude or slavery)

Here is what I consider the "in between".
Everyone chips in as much as they want, and gives their share to society. Then Society also steals a percentage of the reward you get for contributing, and re-distributes it to other people who aren't working as hard, or contributing as much as you are.

The way your system works is. If I work 16 hours a day, and bust my ass off, and make 50k a year, they take almost half of it.
But, if I am lazy and work 4 hours a day, and make 10k a year. You give me free money.

This is by far NOT one of the most fair systems ever created. But people pretend it is "Fair" because the lazy guy working 4 hours a day might starve if you didn't give him free money, healthcare, education, etc. Is it a terrible system? No, but is it fair? No.
 
Here is my "perfect" world.
Everyone chips in as much as they want, and gives their share to society. And the more they give to society, the more they are rewarded. A percentage of the rewards are taken by the government to help protect the society.
--This is basically capitalism with no regulation.
What's the reward for chipping in anything for a society under capitalism?

Here is what I see as a form of "Hell".
People are forced to work, you have no say on how much money you make. Even if you produce more, you get paid the same. (Basically indentured servitude or slavery)
If you're interested, I see both capitalism and what you're describing here as economic hell models, and imo. they're both antiquated.

The way your system works is. If I work 16 hours a day, and bust my ass off, and make 50k a year, they take almost half of it.
But, if I am lazy and work 4 hours a day, and make 10k a year. You give me free money.
You're actually making some serious underlying assumptions here that we haven't addressed yet about the value of money and the relationship, whether ideal or actual, between work and money as they exist in their present forms.
Under capitalism, would a super-woman- or super-man-like nurse or even doctor that works... say 20 hours every single day, 7 days a week, no vacations, working as hard as any person is able to work, ever make anywhere near as much money compared to the CEO of a morally bankrupt unregulated company that makes money by conning other people and producing no goods whatsoever (e.g. a stocks company involved in borderline or actual fraud)?
Of course not. There's no good data as far as I'm aware either that strongly links monetary income with effort and hours of work. In fact I'd be interested to see any data making a positive link between the two whatsoever, but considering your assumption here of a linear relationship between income and work effort, one would expect a positive correlation with absurd proportions like in the hundreds of times ( = 10000% for those whom may be present unable to convert between integers and percentages) at the very least in the US, considering the massive wealth gap you have there.

This is by far NOT one of the most fair systems ever created. But people pretend it is "Fair" because the lazy guy working 4 hours a day might starve if you didn't give him free money, healthcare, education, etc. Is it a terrible system? No, but is it fair? No.
It's enough that it's fairer. No sane person would claim it's perfect.
 
Last edited:
When you can get paid not to work, why bother? Add a few hours off the record each month and you're done.
In a social society more people choose not to contribute. They're simply giving away money. You'd be crazy to.
It's impossible to pay for all this. In a country like Chile you can't even find decent workers anymore.
Progress is slowing down and next generations have to pay for the debts of yesterdays.

My perfect society would be an honest one. With an honest living, the world would keep getting richer, and there'd be enough money left for those who really need it.
 
Last edited:
When you can get paid not to work, why bother?
It's a fact that people in poverty turns to crimes. And when you can get paid for doing crimes, why bother making an honest living?
So the only real dilemma here is whether you help the poor out by giving them some minimum income, giving them a chance to recover from destitute and put their lives straight, or you wait for them to turn to crime and for ghettos to start appearing and growing.

Add a few hours off the record each month and you're done.
That's called fraud and is done by some people in every society regardless of how it's run.
Although Psychopaths are found 400% more often in CEO positions[more sources] and Psychopathy is highly associated with fraud.
So it's not necessarily the bottom of a society you have to worry about committing fraud, at least by comparison.

In a social society more people choose not to contribute.
Unverified blanket statement.

It's impossible to pay for all this.
Another unverified blanket statement. You haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to support the idea that a capitalistic society works any better in this regard anyhow. Even if they force everyone to work, more people are poor due to the large wealth gap a capitalistic society produces, poverty is associated with crime by necessity, high levels of competition is naturally linked with cheating by necessity, etc.
People naturally work better when they're good at and enjoy their job, a capitalist society doesn't give a shit as long as you're doing something/anything, crime being one of the options.

My perfect society would be an honest one. With an honest living, the world would keep getting richer, and there'd be enough money left for those who really need it.
True, with an honest living the world would keep getting richer. Now the question is which economical system provides more opportunities for honest living? The one that forces most people to work hard in a job they don't like or are fit to do for very little money while a few people makes tons of money conning and bossing people around, or the one that actually try to give everyone an equal and fair chance to find a job they like and are good at by providing the poor with a minimum income and taxing the very richest?
 
Last edited:
Now the question is which economical system provides more opportunities for honest living? The one that forces most people to work hard in a job they don't like or are fit to do for very little money while a few people makes tons of money conning and bossing people around, or the one that actually try to give everyone an equal and fair chance to find a job they like and are good at by providing the poor with a minimum income and taxing the very richest?
Then I'll go for the American dream. Start at the bottom. Work hard every step of the way. Eventually I'll get where God wants me to be.
 
Then I'll go for the American dream. Start at the bottom. Work hard every step of the way. Eventually I'll get where God wants me to be.
:D Or you could spend all your money on lottery tickets and God will take care of the rest :D
 
Here is capitalism explained:
Person 1 has service or give a product he wants to sell, and he decides on how much he wants to work for.
Person 2 can buy the product or service at a mutually agreeable price, or not. (Person 2 has that choice, he could look for a competitor, or just not buy the service/product)

Here is socialism: (There are many kinds of socialism but this is the main kind people propose we use)
Person 1 has service or give a product he wants to sell.
The community decides how much he is allowed to sell his product or service for.
Person 2 can either buy the product on the community decided price or not buy the product or service.
If Person 1 and Person 2 agree to a different price, other than the one decided by the community, that is actually illegal.


The reason I like capitalism, is because when I go to work at a job, I want to be paid for what I am worth, NOT what someone else thinks I am worth. And if I do not think they are paying me enough, I can go look for another job that will pay me more.
In a 100% Socialist society, you are paid at the rate that the COMMUNITY decides is fair. Because production is "owned" by the community. They decide the rules.

The reason Capitalistic societies are lightyears ahead of socialist societies, is because if you are forced to work only one way, there is no innovation or progress.


The reason CEOs make a ton of money, is because they deserve to make that much money. If you had their work-load, you'd probably kill yourself.
Everyone imagines CEOs as these old men that sit at desks with their feet up smoking a cigar.

A more reasonable perspective would be an incredibly intelligent guy working 80 hours a week, and managing a huge amount of people in a way that makes a job more profitable.
And if you become a CEO, and your company goes from making 1 billion dollars a year, to making 10 billion dollars a year, and it is seen as your policies that made this happen. Then having a 100 million dollar bonus is well-deserved.
 
Last edited:
The reason I like capitalism, is because when I go to work at a job, I want to be paid for what I am worth, NOT what someone else thinks I am worth.
In that case criminals of all kinds including murderers/hitmen are worth A LOT. They get very powerful results by using any means necessary by ignoring ethics and social rules completely.
And if I do not think they are paying me enough, I can go look for another job that will pay me more.
Sure. This is a valid criticism of (historic implementations of) communism. Not of socialism though. You can switch jobs under socialism as much, if not more/easier, than under capitalism.
In a 100% Socialist society, you are paid at the rate that the COMMUNITY decides is fair. Because production is "owned" by the community. They decide the rules.
I don't know what you're talking about. Is "100% socialist society" code for communism? It would be clearer in that case if you just called it communism. Anyhow, addressed above.

The reason Capitalistic societies are lightyears ahead of socialist societies
Well, they're not. If you're talking about America specifically, you may want to check this short video out
is because if you are forced to work only one way, there is no innovation or progress.
Again, valid criticism of historic implementations of communism, not of socialism though.

The reason CEOs make a ton of money, is because they deserve to make that much money. If you had their work-load, you'd probably kill yourself.
Really.....?
So Chinese workers outsourced by the US to work for a salary of less than a dollar an hour; who commit suicide because of the stress and hopelessness of their work situation; they deserve that low wage because they're not working hard enough?
Are you sure you want to go down this line of insanity?
It ends up somewhere in Arashel-land.

A more reasonable perspective would be an incredibly intelligent guy working 80 hours a week, and managing a huge amount of people in a way that makes a job more profitable.
Some of them are. Many of them actually just commit fraud and make money that way, though.
Either way, we haven't fully addressed what the actual value of money is yet, and you keep talking about money as if it's an end in itself, so I think it's time to address it.
Money itself doesn't produce anything (except for debt and green toilet paper).
It's the fact that people desire money that gives it artificial value.
A person that finds a goldmine and mines it out hasn't produced anything for society, at least relative to most other jobs (e.g. a toilet cleaner or garbage man), but people want the gold, so they'll still buy it.
But in fact all that person has accomplished is to remove some mostly useless resources from the Earth and sold it at high prices because it's shiny.
Not saying it's not some sort of accomplishment or that it's an easy thing to pull off, but it IS NOT productive in any real/serious sense; no serious contribution has been made by this.

And if you become a CEO, and your company goes from making 1 billion dollars a year, to making 10 billion dollars a year, and it is seen as your policies that made this happen. Then having a 100 million dollar bonus is well-deserved.
And if you become a mafia Don and your family goes from making 1 billion dollars a year to making 10 billion dollars a year and it is seen as your policies that made this happen (e.g. you've discovered an effective way to extort, rob and scam more people than any other family), then having a 100 million dollar bonus is well-deserved.

I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
@Flatlander
Don't discuss with them, ask them one simple question: Example of at least one poor country that became rich because of major socialist reforms and without significant foreign aid. And "poor country" means undeveloped country that either went straight from late-feudal into socialist economy or country that was recently destroyed in major conflict in its region or post-colonial country that recently got its independence from its overlord.
You CANNOT discuss with them in any other way. They will always appeal to morality, emotions, some abstract arguments or some illogical arguments of presenting socialist People's Republic of China as some kind of example of capitalist's wet dream.
Don't waste your time on hypothetical arguments. Ask the for specific arguments based on economy and history of our planet.
 
@Arashel
There's no reason to keep trying to convince someone with the evidence all around them.
Some day they'll see it for themselves. Presumably when their own situations change.
Experience is the best teacher. Please, don't quote me on that requiring evidence.
 
@Get_Rooked_469
Believe me or not, but regardless of my harsh attitude, I'm not one of those hating guys, who would love to see other people suffering under true socialism which they previously fought for... To be honest it kinda make me sad to see all of those retarded young people who are ignorant about history of half of the world under the soviet socialist regime or just influence.
 
in Sweden, 10k SEK salory i survivable
15k is decent
20k is you now getting free hands to build your life
25k even better
30k somewhat rich unless you have loans to pay off or something
40k getting jealous here...
50k oh come on...

10k SEK ~= 20% tax
15k ~ 25%
20k - 35k ~30%
35k-45k ~35%
45k-60k ~40%
60+k ~50%

I think he is talking about the top marginal tax, as in the absolute highest tax you can pay. The tax for the average income is slightly under 50% in Sweden. That includes "arbetsgivaravgift" (employer fee, the employer is taxed 30% of what your total salary is). Some people also include "moms" (VAT) when they estimate the tax burden and that would make the numbers higher.
 
@Flatlander
Don't discuss with them, ask them one simple question: Example of at least one poor country that became rich because of major socialist reforms and without significant foreign aid. And "poor country" means undeveloped country that either went straight from late-feudal into socialist economy or country that was recently destroyed in major conflict in its region or post-colonial country that recently got its independence from its overlord.
You CANNOT discuss with them in any other way. They will always appeal to morality, emotions, some abstract arguments or some illogical arguments of presenting socialist People's Republic of China as some kind of example of capitalist's wet dream.
Don't waste your time on hypothetical arguments. Ask the for specific arguments based on economy and history of our planet.

The issue is, people that prefer socialism do not care that Capitalism works better.

The problem with people that suggest Capitalism as the "best way to run a society" is we argue with "This has been proven to be the best way to make a wealthy and prosperous society".
The people that suggest Socialism as the "best way to run a society" argue with "This is the morally correct way to run a society".

So as soon as we show all our data on how Capitalism works. They will simply say "Yea, but some people are rich, and others are poor, so it is an evil system."
 
Same in the UK; Tories vs Labour is a massive example. People have grown up in society to 'hate' the rich and favour socialism. Which is fucking bizarre if you ask me.. And those who support socialism seem to think anyone who thinks otherwise is brainwashed but don;t ever stop to think "or am I brainwashed?". Facts are, we are ALL brainwashed to an extent.. That's how influence works.

Socialism works but doesn't create a strong economy, at least not like capitalism does and it flattens everyone to the same level.. May as well call it communism (which in theory works, but in reality it does not).

The biggest contributors to charity's and social enterprises are the "rich elite".. So I find it fucking bizarre that people grow up to hate the rich. The world has become full of 'entitlement' and people now demand to have the same as someone else because it is unfair if they can't. Well that's life. LIFE IS UNFAIR. The whole concept of survival of the fittest is unfair and it still applies today.

I get it, low skilled labourers may work their bollocks off but they will never become a millionaire assembling machines, mining coal or fixing cars. It is ambition that makes people millionaires NOT hard work alone. That's the difference. The person who works his bollocks off but has ambition to own his own company, and vision is the one who becomes a millionaire.
 
The issue is, people that prefer socialism do not care that Capitalism works better.
The problem with people that suggest Capitalism as the "best way to run a society" is we argue with "This has been proven to be the best way to make a wealthy and prosperous society".
The people that suggest Socialism as the "best way to run a society" argue with "This is the morally correct way to run a society".
So as soon as we show all our data on how Capitalism works. They will simply say "Yea, but some people are rich, and others are poor, so it is an evil system."
You shouldn't even discuss with them. Like I said: You should ask one simple question. If they cannot give you the answer, then the answer is "We don't know nothing about the stuff we're trying to discuss with You". And this is the moment when they either acknowledge their lack of proofs or they go full mental on moral-bullshit arguments. As soon as they try the second option, your job is to cut off the whole "discussion".
Discussion is about arguments and arguments are about actual data. Emotions or morality is not part of discussion. Those are parts of propaganda machinery.

Socialism works but doesn't create a strong economy, at least not like capitalism does and it flattens everyone to the same level.. May as well call it communism (which in theory works, but in reality it does not).
Small correction: "in theory". You're mistaking theory with hypothesis. Evolution is theory. Car engine is theory. Structure of atom is theory. Lewis acid-base is theory. Nature of light is theory. Etc. Theory must work in reality, because theory is explanation of what and how something is occurring/happening/working and it is based on experiments and data that confirmed it.
This phrase "in theory works, but in reality it does not" is sad product of lack of education and language degeneration. The theory of car engine doesn't apply to broken one. You cannot use this theory to describe the faulty engine. If you really want to use THEORY To describe the fault engine, then You should use some kind of "theory of broken engine" that precisely describes it.[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top