Stop mixing strong social programs with socialism. That is not socialism. Medicare is not socialism and neither would be M4A. Social Security is not socialism and neither are any other safety net programs.
Many people call Nordic countries socialist and that’s not accurate.
Sweden is not a socialist country in the classic sense; it is a capitalist, market‑based economy with a large welfare state.
How Sweden is capitalist
Sweden has private ownership of most businesses, relies on market prices and competition, and does not centrally plan its economy. Its growth in the late 19th and much of the 20th century came from liberalized markets and free trade, not state ownership of the means of production.
Why people think it’s “socialist”
Sweden has high taxes and generous public services (healthcare, education, pensions, unemployment benefits), which makes it look “socialist” to many outside observers.
However, these programs are funded by a market economy rather than by the state owning firms or setting all prices and production.
So stop calling any programs in the US socialism. We would be far better off with less individual stress if we had better fully funded social programs.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“In summary: Sweden’s progressive tax system combines proportional local taxes with a high central surcharge on top incomes, producing some of the highest marginal tax rates in the OECD. This structure is designed to finance extensive public services and maintain a strong social safety net.”
“For many high-income earners, the top marginal tax rate on employment income is in the low-to-mid 50% range.”
Tax the rich (and semi-rich). It’s only logical.
The phrase is often attributed to Sutton after a robbery in the 1930s, when a bank teller asked him why he robbed banks. Sutton reportedly replied, “Because that’s where the money is”
LikeLike
The name calling makes no difference. Why focus on that?
It is the lying and vote buying that you should focus on.
Lying – telling Americans that they “earned” their benefit via their contributions, as if this was some sort of a pension or a contract.
Vote buying – Ongoing since 1939.
Again, nothing wrong with Social Security or Medicare funding. The challenge of course is that Congress keeps using these programs to buy votes, without asking those who would benefit to shoulder the cost of those improved benefits.
That was true of every generation up to the Baby Boomers. While a lot of people think the Baby Boomers are the problem, the vast majority of Boomers are the ones who shouldered the impact of the Social Security Amendments Act of 1983 for the majority of their working lives.
I am still waiting for a scorecard that shows, by generation, which generations funded their benefits and which ones benefited from Congressional vote buying. I suspect that, given the vote buying abuses that started in 1939, these generations failed to fund their benefits:
Missionary Generation: Born between 1860 and 1882, turned 65 from 1925 – 1947, including Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security beneficiary.
Lost Generation: Born between 1883 and 1900, turned 65 between 1948 – 1965, including my maternal grandmother’s husband (died at age 64), my maternal grandmother (died at age 80), my paternal grandfather (died at age 79) and paternal grandmother (died at age 39)
Greatest Generation: Born between 1901 – 1924, turned 65 between 1966 and 1989, including my father who died at age 53 and my mother who died at age 76.
Silent Generation: Born 1925 – 1945, turned 65 between 1990 and 2010.
My guesstimate is that Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964), as a group, will break even – funding most of their benefits (would have fully funded their benefits but for the investment selection chosen by Congress for assets in excess of those needed in the short term). That includes my four siblings, where the four of us (including me) who are older than 66 worked more than 40 years (I am in my 55th year of full time employment), and worked past our Social Security Full Retirement Age.
And, I believe the subsequent generations X, Millenial, Alpha and Beta will pay more than they will receive, so long as we allow Congress the power to buy votes by improving benefits for current retirees, and sending the bill to generations too young to vote and generations yet unborn – as they did, certainly up to the Carter changes.
If Congress took action to increase funding, even if not sufficient to make the programs sustainable, I guarantee you that they will buy votes and improve some group’s benefits!
More lies. More vote buying!
LikeLike