That is certainly not true. In the US, republicans control the presidency and congress. It means that somewhere around 50% of american people believe that the rich should be taxed much less. I believe a similar fraction of European countries believe that too.
The rich (whether they're on the left or on the right) have a massive impact on the media. Think Rupert Murdoch, think Oprah.
There are 27 billionaires in Sweden. For a population of 10 million people. Per capita, that's about twice as much as the US.
Stop feeling victimized for being on the right. The rich pay taxes, so that society seems fairer to those millions of people who make everything that the rich consume. Tough luck, but guess what, you can still become super rich, so what's the issue?
You can talk to anyone who's worth more than 100 million: being twice as rich won't change a damn thing to their way of life. At this stage, it's only a matter of power and counting points.
In Sweden, you will pay 58% from your every Swedish krona for monthly salary above 55000 SEK (6873 USD). So social-democrats believe you are already rich having monthly income just above 6873 USD. At that level of income you have absolutely no vote over majority and you have zero lobby power and you obviously don't control any media. Having that level of income is already not normal and according to social-democrats you have to be "equalized".
So when I hear "rich should pay their fair share", I know they are going after me! I've never seen social-democrat policies which touch only billionaires as they constantly claim!
The pretty similar situation all across Europe with exception of German cantons of Switzerland.
Yet ripping off upper middle class so effectively, western European socialists still constantly complain about "inequality". Which means, they are not satisfied to taking only 58% from me, they want more, much more. In fact, I believe they will be not satisfied until everybody is completely "equalized to death".
I honestly do NOT believe that I owe anything to poor people. And I'm saying that as a person who born in Uzbekistan and lived in extreme poverty (my income in 2003 was ... 10 USD per month).
"I honestly do NOT believe that I owe anything to poor people."
Every human is capable of making a contribution to society, those like you who are more capable than most (and have been given the opportunity to immigrate, in your case) have a joint responsibility to pay things forward and ensure that others are given the opportunity and support needed to be all they can be. That's how a healthy society works.
Exaggerating to make a point: Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't be a billionaire for long if every Facebook user starved to death or couldn't afford internet access. Being the only one in your village who can afford a fancy car makes you feel good. Being the only one in your village who can afford to eat makes you feel awful. The problem is that billionaires increasingly don't live in the same villages, or indeed the same planet, as those they depend on for their wealth.
> I honestly do NOT believe that I owe anything to poor people. And I'm saying that as a person who born in Uzbekistan and lived in extreme poverty (my income in 2003 was ... 10 USD per month).
May I ask you why you moved to Sweden? or Amsterdam? Where they also have the "Doe Normaal" mindset which you say you take issue with.
You say that you don't believe that you owe anything, but immediately afterwards say that you were poor not even 15 years ago.
Are you absolutely certain that you are 100% responsible for your success, or is it possible that the luxuries of both these "socialist" countries awarded you the opportunities not found in your (original) homeland?
I don't doubt that the tax brackets could be improved, inefficiencies in government could be ironed out, etc, but it's a bit much to criticize two systems that awarded you such success, don't you think?
> May I ask you why you moved to Sweden? or Amsterdam?
I moved here because choose least worst option, not because I appreciate socialism and high taxes. In Uzbekistan, taxation is also very high but in different dimension - the government squeeze you via high inflation (by printing money) and unofficial taxation (corruption).
I'm logically consistent since Uzbekistan is on 148th place in rating of economy freedom (read it as how economically liberal the government), Russia (my second country) is on 114th place, Sweden (my third country) is on 19th place, the Netherlands is on 15th place.
So as you can see I move to more liberal country each time in terms of economy freedom and taxation (in Russia real taxes are high by the same reason as in Uzbekistan).
Liberal economic policies are core reason why western Europe stays afloat despite (!) socialist policies and high taxation.
People in Uzbekistan and Russia are less capitalist than in western Europe.
Yes, I'm absolutely sure that my little success is despite socialist polities and more generally the Government (Uzbekistan, Russia, Sweden, the Netherlands).
Look, I've never received any help from government. I don't have any formal education (neither school nor university). I'm self-taught. I have zero inheritance. Everything I've earn was from private enterprise.
Look, if they had you pay 40% you'd only make 18k more per year on every 100k over the limit. Yes, that's a significant number, but it's not life-changing either.
Will that change your motivation? Are you demotivated because you earn 18k less than what you could earn in a more liberal country? I don't think so!
You're not pissed about the actual numbers, you're pissed because of the principles...
> In the US, republicans control the presidency and congress. It means that somewhere around 50% of american people believe that the rich should be taxed much less.
It does not. Democrats have always policed their taxation language towards "high income" and never "rich". The difference between the two is that the second group does not have to work to generate such income. The money flowing from inheritance, trust fund, municipal bonds, oil wells or massive land holdings is good enough.
How many wealth taxes have Democrats proposed while controlling various branches and enjoying a supermajority back in the days?
No there are 27 billionaires with Swedish citizenship. I'd estimate that less than half of them live full time in Sweden.
Also over 50% of them are from 1 of 4 families. and only 2 of them made their money by founding an actual company (as opposed to a hedge fund or trading company).
The rich (whether they're on the left or on the right) have a massive impact on the media. Think Rupert Murdoch, think Oprah.
There are 27 billionaires in Sweden. For a population of 10 million people. Per capita, that's about twice as much as the US.
Stop feeling victimized for being on the right. The rich pay taxes, so that society seems fairer to those millions of people who make everything that the rich consume. Tough luck, but guess what, you can still become super rich, so what's the issue?
You can talk to anyone who's worth more than 100 million: being twice as rich won't change a damn thing to their way of life. At this stage, it's only a matter of power and counting points.