The happiest taxes on earth

I'm with Amy.

I'm with you Thomas. We need to not just look at the history, but understand what issues and things people care about in different countries. I love traveling to Scotland to see all the historic castle, to drink the whisky, and enjoy the countryside. But, I also want to read the Scotsman and find out about what the Scots are thinking about today, not just about what happened when Robert The Bruce was alive. And guess what that means learning a little bit about the politics. And learning about the pros and cons. And then maybe applying what I learn here in America. Pam

Interesting article, but the conclusions are not surprising. I'm with Terry on this one. While this is somewhat of a "political" topic, it's not unreasonable on a travel forum. When people travel, it's natural to compare things abroad with the way they are at home. Often this prompts the question "why can't we do things more like that"?

It's not unreasonable for a society to re-examine it's values from time-to-time. Adopting programs (such as health care) that benefit all members of society rather than just those that can afford them is certainly one thing that will reduce worry and create "happiness".

I grumble about my tax bill as much as any of my peers but not too loudly, as I realize that I'm receiving something of value for the taxes that I pay.

Cheers!

A fascinating aspect of travel for me is actually having meaningful conversions with locals. Europeans are extremely well read and have an amazingly deep understanding of current events. During last year's presidential election, so many people we encountered in France and Greece were very eager to discuss politics with us. It would have been embarrassing to be ignorant of what is happening in the world, especially in the countries we were visiting. Preparing for a journey by understanding culture, history and the political climate is far more important than just wearing the right outfit. I try to read every thing I can get my hands on before a trip so I am intellectually prepared to see and apprecicate the differences. Travel is so much more than shopping or finding the perfect restaurant. It can build bridges and change our hearts and minds. To not allow oneself to reflect upon the social and political similarites and differences we find is to miss out on one of the hugest benefits of travel.

Interesting article. I read a similar article about the Netherlands recently from The New York Times. I think most Americans who are so dead set against "socialism" and higher taxes have not studied the results of these policies in countries who tax heavily, but take excellent care of their citizens. When America rates so low on happiness scales compared to other affluent countries, I think we need to reconsider our values. America is a fabulous country IF you're lucky enough to be well educated, healthy and financially secure. Sadly, if you're missing one of these attributes, you're kind of on your own. Having a social safety net that protects and uplifts the lives of all of our people has never been valued as much as rewarding certain lucky people who are talented entrepreneurs or sports heros. We are pretty much on our own to swim or sink here. Questioning the ethics of this value system is seen by many as unAmerican. If we were to study (with an open mind) the results of policies in other countries, I think we could find many ways to improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

This is a travel website. I can't stand when politics starts getting discussed on here. I think this post should be removed.

Check out Rick's new book.
http://travelstore.ricksteves.com/catalog/index.cfm?fuseaction=product&theParentId=11&id=385

Many people also enjoy learning about cultural and political differences. That's one of the reasons for travel.

I don't need to come to this website to learn about politics in Europe. I go elsewhere to learn or read about that. I don't want to hear it on here. I don't need anyone's help on here to enable me to have an intelligent conversation with locals when I go to Europe. Just because we like to travel to Europe doesn't mean that we think socialism is good. And those of you that think socialism is the way to go are the ones who probably think this thread is good or important. Just a spot where you can spout your liberal rhetoric.

Just please clue me in to which countries in Europe are Socialist countries. I was under the impression that most of them are Democracies, with a few not very powerful monarchies thrown in just for fun.

Lots of people on this forum obviously do like talking about politics and it is something that can enrich our travel experiences. You do not have to agree with something to learn about it or get something out of it. But if it is never talked about, how do you learn about it? My only problem is when people start getting nasty about it, calling each other names, writing nasty, mean personal messages. There really is no call for that. Is it not possible to hold some civilized discussions about the differences between countries, without getting angry about it?

But the rest of us do want to hear about the politics. We view travel in a broader way. Sure, it's vacation and a change of pace from work, but it's also about learning, expanding horizons and learning about what makes people tick. Politics affect everyone's life and if you disagree with that and if you don't want that approach, either don't read these posts, which is easy enough to do or go to a different forum. I ignore questions about Italy where I have no experience and I've no travel plans in the near future. And I'm a bit bored by all the train questions. I enjoy hearing others perspectives on the politics.

Let the rest of us discuss politics which is a part of our travel interests.

Pam

I must agree with Terry and Jo. Karin

A description of Rick's latest book,"Travel as a Political Act"(copied,ironically,from THIS website!):
"It's eye-opening: Travel as a Political Act starts with the premise that we can't begin to understand the world without experiencing it.Travel connects people to people,it helps us fit more productively into a shrinking world,and it inspires creative new solutions to persistent problems.
It's personal:Through his own experiences,Rick explains how anyone can travel more thoughtfully — anywhere.And he shares a series of his field reports from Europe, Central America, and the Middle East to show how trael has shaped his politics and broadened his perspective.
It's good for you:Americans who approach travel thoughtfully — as a political act — can have the time of their lives and come home with a better understanding of the interconnectedness of today's world and just how our nation fits in."

I have learned so much on this site from people like Pat and Ken from Canada and Jo from Germany.Whether I agree or disagree with Rick Steves or anyone from this site,I constantly learn from those people who give intelligent,thought-out,well articulated opinions and perspectives.Anyone who has extensively read Rick Steves' books and articles knows how political he is,and this is actually HIS website.I love hearing opposing viewpoints on subjects that make me think,"I never thought about it that way."But hostility rarely serves any positive purpose.I would never ask about the best fashions for Paris,but I would also NEVER tell a person they didn't have the right to ask.If I wasn't interested in that subject,I would move on to the next.Or I would be polite and give them a helpful,courteous answer if I had one.It is surprising how threatened and offended people can be by the discussion of thought provoking issues that we all face as members of this world community.But enough of the negative, most of you out there are FABULOUS and I am so grateful for all you've taught me.

Bravo, Terry! and thanks for the thoughtful discussion. This is a topic that always comes up when we travel and I've enjoyed hearing all of your positive views.

Terry, thanks for the articulate and thoughtful comments in your last Post! This may be a "travel" Forum, but this also seems to have become somewhat of a "community".

Amy, I can appreciate that you might not want to read Posts that don't strictly concern European travel, or those that may be somewhat "political" in nature. The logical response would be to simply ignore those that don't interest you and move on. It's not reasonable to expect those of us that want to discuss something of interest to follow your guidelines.

Given the subject of Rick's current book, it would seem the politics and travel do sometimes intertwine.

Cheers!

It would appear that some of the "happiest places" are also some of the least "diverse." It is much easier to achieve a consensus when there is relatively little cultural and racial diversity.

I would prefer not to discuss politics here, but I think what works really well in homogenous societies works less so in a society like ours. I am at the point where I would rather have Germany's medical system than ours, but I believe that what they are planning on implementing will be the worst possible combination possible. Our politicians are so corrupt and in bed with special interests (unions and corporations).

Gosh. I'm so astonished that someone would visit a travel site and be deeply offended at discussion of how other countries are different. Ahem, why do you think Rick's show airs on PBS? Because it's their mission to find low-cost hotels for you?

Does discussion necessarily mean condeming one system and glorifying another? I would really, really encourage people not to fall into such black and white thinking. Hopefully, travel will diminish some of that.

Isn't it reasonable to assume every system has its disadvantages and its advantages? That every country and system of economics and governance has its great successes and its structural flaws? Is discussion of those flaws and advantages really so offensive and awful and threatening?

I don't think people who notice these things need to be labeled as "spouting a liberal agenda" or being a "right wing nut." That's black and white thinking again, and it's not realistic.

Nontheless, some people take democracy for granted and think that talking about politics is bad or should be artificially isolated. I suggest if everyone felt that way, someday your democracy will go away. But, nontheless, if you think there is nothing more to travel than rushing from the train station to the museum, there are plenty of threads discussing train schedules.

FYI--one of the reasons Rick's shows are on PBS is that he offers them for free. At first he funded them himself, now he has sponsors for funding.

It was a brilliant move because it initially, and still does, bring lots of business to his books, tours, products and railpass business.

Oh, well, that blows my theory. That argument was already weakened by "Are You Being Served?" which seems to qualify for PBS broadcast under the premise that any second-rate comedy featuring British accents is edifying culture.

My comments was so impatient and grumpy compared to Jo and Pamela's and Terry's astute posts. Thanks for carrying the freight on this.

I'm trying, I'm really trying, but I have less and less patience hearing that discussing ideas and learning from others means someone is pushing a whole-hearted endorsement of socialism and is defacto offensive to others. Sorry for the grumping. I just don't understand where the heck this comes from and why thoughtful discussion must be cut down with this.

No one said anything about being threatened or offended. I will speak for myself here. What I find annoying is when people say things that imply conservatives should learn more about other countries and cultures. Why do some people assume that if conservatives have a different opinion, its because they don't know enough about foreign countries? Guess what? I read a lot about other countries and their politics, and I travel with an open mind. But I would rather not see this country move towards socialism.

Now, (like Jeff's post), that's a great comment.

And, my apologies if I mischaracterized you.

If you are talking to me, Linda, no apology is needed. I agreed with most of what you said. :)

FYI folks.....the U.S. already has a form of socialized medicine. It's called medicare.

And I doubt we'll ever see a politician, no matter how far to the right they are, say they want to abolish that. If they did, they'd never get re-elected.

Also, be aware, there are no "pure" socialist countries anywhere.

I would never imply that(just)"conservatives" need to learn about other cultures.I don't like labels, and think EVERYONE benefits from learning as much as possible about the world around us.The labeling of people is often quite amusing to me.One of my dear friends,a Spanish physician and mother of our former Madrid exhange student,thinks I am an ULTRA CONSERVATIVE!People's standards of judgement are very capricious.Maybe because I've been happily married to my high school sweetheart for 30 years,have been a stay-at-home mom for 20 years,and a Bible-school-teaching-former-elementary teacher who has never smoked pot or cigarettes,that makes me ultra conservative.And yet here on this site I have been characterized as a "spouting liberal"...aughghghgh!Just because we question the way we live our lives,raise our children,run our schools and take care of our fellow citizens,always looking for ways to better ourselves,does not mean we are conservative,liberal or anything.When I had young children,I always observed the parenting styles of people who raised wonderful,happy, mannerly,successful children and tried to learn from their example.(Conversely,I did the same with people with angry,destructive,spoiled brats,and learned from them as well).Being a flexible thinker who can accept change shouldn't have a negative connotation.Many so-called liberal ideas that would benefit our society as a whole would not personally benefit me.My life is fine without universal healthcare.Most people who have great jobs and high incomes don't need universal healthcare,childcare, etc.But just because it wouldn't help my family doesn't mean I can ignore the uninsured people who can't get decent heathcare,people who lose their homes when their cancer treatment takes their last cent or the staggering number of homeless families living here,in America(!!!)in tent cities.We have to look around us and always try to find a better way to help people,all of them,"liberals" and "conservatives".

Frank II, Yes, I know those things; I did not mean to suggest otherwise.

Terry, I find much to agree with in your last post. There is nothing negative about being a flexible thinker if it means being open to new ideas. It can be negative if it means you have no principles and blow with the wind or follow the latest trend. But that doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Happy traveling!

Thanks, I really do appreciate all the POSITIVE comments. This site is an incredible place for great, meaningful, travel related discussions. There is so much more to exploring the world than just the technical details of how to get from place to place or where to stay. Thanks, everyone, (and I really do mean everyone) for all your input.

If you don't like the subject of a thread, don't read it and don't impose your censorship on those who DO want to read it. Of course, I must point out the irony of someone who thinks this is JUST a travel website and not at ALL political when the owner does talks on travel as a political act! Here's your sign!

Have to agree, Nancy. Sort of like going onto a prayer website and being indignant and outraged that people are talking about God. Sort of reduces one's credibility a bit. In order to present a forceful, meaningful arguement, it helps not to say something that makes it obvious you don't understand why you're being ironic and amusing.

I wasn't planning on weighing in but saw this story so, for your enjoyment:

Happiness Is ... Being Old, Male and Republican

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090518/sc_livescience/happinessisbeingoldmaleandrepublican

From my understanding, pure Socialism, in its ideal state, would essentially be Communism. But for the sake of discussion, most people seem to delineate between the two by referring to Socialism as a type of government where some industries are owned and/or managed by the state. An example would be the BBC (which unlike PBS is the main television and news-service of the country). Some would argue that in large part, especially in the news department, this actually increases quality. Of course, it also makes it easier to "take over" as a government and/or have its message controlled by a powerful few (see Venezuela where Chavez has had a harder time killing off all TV networks one by one).

This also refers to socialized medicine, transportation, and communication industries. Most countries in Europe do have these, whereas in the States, until recently, there have been private companies bearing the load (except rail). Of course our issue then becomes monopolies controlling the market which isn't much different than state run industries.

So in short, Jo is right, the political make-up of most Western and Central European countries vary from Democracies to Republics. However, they have many more socialist components that the US.

It is interesting to note that some of the heavy planks in the Nazi platform were things like Universal Healthcare, government education of all citizens, and Social Security (it was the National SOCIALIST Workers Party after all). Rather similar to FDR's reforms. The big difference of course being the racism and lunacy of its leaders.

Just remember that unlike most, if not all, European countries, the US was founded on the principles of rugged individualism and has held tightly to those values for most of her existence. This explains a lot of the biggest cultural differences between the two (in my opinion).

Personally, I don't believe there is ONE right answer, just throwing my two-cents into the debate.

Oh yeah...as for whether it would work here or not, I think it is important to remember how big and diverse we are. Most European countries are the size of ONE state in the US (if that big). Things that work on small scales don't generally translate well to large scale management. However, the current make up of the EU is probably more in line with the Federal system the Founding Fathers envisioned: common currency, common defense, a few common laws, but not much else (see the 10th Ammendment).

If we decentralized a bit, I would imagine there are some states in the US that could manage themselves better than DC can (and by some I mean 50 or so).

:)

Cary...not sure that scale has much to do with it....Canada is larger than the U-S and certainly culturally diverse, yet it has many social programs. Perhaps it's more a function of what you mention later....more unitary governments than you find in the U.S., with its emphasis on states' rights.

Norm,

Point taken. But when I was speaking of large, I was meaning population. And though Canada is more diverse than Europe, it isn't the same kind of diversity as in the US. Slavery and the newer immigration from Mexico are both situations where a disadvantaged group is pitted against a very advantaged group on a much larger scale. From my understanding, Canada hasn't had that type of immigration, though I must admit I haven't studied it widely. Of course, I'm talking about socialized medicine and Social Security type issues here. With CBC/BBC type services, it wouldn't really be "harder" no matter the scale (just more expensive).

Sorry Cary....I must have misunderstood "Most European countries are the size of ONE state in the US (if that big). Things that work on small scales don't generally translate well to large scale management." Germany's population is 82 million, about a quarter the size of the U.S, and bigger than any state's. France's population is 62 million people, the UK's is 61 million, Spain's is 57 million....you get my drift. And there are those who would describe the "disadvantaged versus disadvantaged" you mention as a result of the greater emphasis on the capitalist system in the U.S. As for disadvantaged populations, you might want to consider the massive influx of East Indians into Britain in the 40's and 50's, North Africans and East Asians into France into the 60's, and Turkish migrant workers into Germany in the 70's and 80's.

It's more important to see how the countries spend their money. One of the reasons most of the countries mentioned can have government paid for health is to consider how much they spend on the military.

The U.S. is the largest spender. It spends nearly double the entire EU, Ten times as much as France, 11 times as much as the UK, 13 times as much as Germany and 40 times as much as Canada. The U.S. supplies 2/3 the budget of NATO. On a per capita basis, the U.S. spends twice as much as France and the UK, four times as much as Germany and Canada, and nearly three times as much as the entire EU.

If the U.S. decided that it was gong to lower its military presence in Europe and say to the Europeans, you have to defend yourselves first, and if you get into trouble we'll help, it would free up lots of American money to be spent internally, and force those other countries to increase their military spending. More spent on the military, less spent on the people.

This is not going to happen, so the European countries get more to spend on the people, while the U.S. taxpayer helps to protect Europe.

I think one thing folks tend to misunderstand is that while a country can have major functions nationalized (health care, post office, energy supply etc.), they can also be democracies. In the US we tend to mistakenly equate socialism with communism and since communism is associated with dictatorships, the assumption is that a socialist state must also be a dictatorship. Another thing to consider is that a democracy is really a tyranny of the majority. Not necessarily a bad thing because if everything depended on consensus, NOTHING would ever get done. As a final point, we (in the US) live under the misapprehension that our government is controlled by the will of the people. The truth is that it is controlled by the biggest purses.

Frank II,
You're correct about U.S. military spending, but not about the motive. We're not protecting Europe. We're having wars of choice, e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and maintaining 175 bases around the world in places far removed from Europe.

Frank II...I think it's a little more complicated than U.S. protecting Europe with its defence spending. Israel, for example, spends 80% more than the U.S. on defence, as a share of their GDP, yet has an extensive list of social programs. And one must remember that defence spending in the United States creates literally millions of jobs in the country.....hard-working people who pay taxes. Never mind that the U.S. defence budget has been inflated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems to me more of a social comment....we choose to pay higher taxes to pay for these social programs...Americans, generally speaking, would rather keep their taxes lower.

I think, too, that many Americans look at taxes like those of the all inclusive Netherlands' 52% rate, and are initially shocked. But when you start adding up our state, local and real estate taxes, plus an additional 6.2% for social security, we are getting much closer to the 52%, with far fewer benefits.

Hi All,
I just wanted to add that I love discussions like this. I have learned more about politics, culture, national identity, etc. from this site and talking to people from different countries than reading dry, outdated and biased textbooks or lectures in school. As long as people don't start getting nasty or waving banners I think it's a very fruitful discussion and it's very interesting to see others' perspectives.

Besides, as others have mentioned several times, Rick Steves tends to be somewhat political himself cough marijuana cough LOL

D-