Proposed Benefit And Pension Rates 2015 To 2016. Maternity Allowance Claim: Fill & Download for Free

Why are they not Socialist? Because they’re simply not.“Socialism” is a very particular ideology, characterized by a very particular set of beliefs and practices, and none of the Scandinavian countries adequately reflect said beliefs and practices.That is the most direct and to the point answer, I can think of.Now, for the longer explanation.Socialism in ShortSocialism is a social, political, and economic ideology that advocates in favor of the abolishing of private property and the private ownership of the “means of production” (Land, Labor, and Capital).Private property according to Socialism must not be confused with “personal property”, because the latter is “good” while the former is considered “exploitative” and therefore inherently bad. Personal property such as a toothbrush, a pen, or clothing according to this criterion is fine because it allows individuals to use them exclusively to benefit themselves, and because direct ownership over such property is retained, and thus there is no exploitation.Socialism calls for the immediate end to Private property on the other hand because it argues that direct ownership is not retained, and the benefits thereof are not exclusive to the workers.On the contrary, the Bourgeoisie (Capitalists) who own the means of production exclusively exercise control over their use which will inevitably lead to “Wage Exploitation”, since the Capitalists, operating with the end goal of profit maximization in mind, will inevitably strip Workers of their “Surplus Labour”, leading to a status-quo where the goods that Workers can ultimately purchase with their wages are greatly unequal to the value embodied in the goods which they produce - with the Capitalists appropriating the difference (what we call “profits”) for themselves, which will, in turn, be spent on either personal consumption, or re-invested back into the economy to further accelerate growth, and thus reinforce the system of wage exploitation (ie. Capitalism).A Soviet propaganda poster (1957) criticizing Bourgeois exploitation (Translation: “Approximately 20 million Americans do not have enough money to buy more than 1 liter of milk per month and 6 kg of meat per year. They have plenty of goods for the rich only, while we are going to give goods to all the people.”):Why Scandinavia Doesn’t Fit the Socialist CriterionGiven this is the definition of Socialism then, it can be reasoned that any nation today which fulfills the characteristics of such a system (ie. no Private ownership or property) may be said to be Socialist, while on the contrary, any nation which does not, may not be called “Socialist” in any meaningful way.The five Northern European nations - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden - according to this logic, thus simply cannot be called Socialist, because all of their respective economies have a no small amount of private enterprises. The mere fact that there is any Private ownership of businesses or the means of production full-stop, is in itself a reliable repudiation of the myth of a “Socialist Scandinavia”.Even Norway, where the State owns a substantial amount of businesses so far as to hold a 37% share of the Oslo stock market, employ 30% of the Labour Force in the Public sector, and hold significant shares in crucial industries such as Petroleum (which accounts for 25% of Norway’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)), Minerals, and Seafood, would still not be considered a Socialist state.The Kingdom of Sweden on the other hand is not only also not Socialist but is today in 2021 actually even more Capitalist than it once was during the 1970s, at the height of State interference into the economy. At the beginning of the 1980s, besieged by declining competitiveness, capital flight, and suffering from vast international trade imbalances, two solutions to Sweden’s woes were proposed: an actual transition to real Socialism through en masse nationalization, or adoption of Chicago-school “Neo-Liberal” policies.The Social Democratic Party which came to power in 1982 chose the latter, and the rest was history. Sweden today is thus a product of a series of reforms implemented during the 1980s and 1990s, including deregulation of the Banking and Rail industries, abolishing of inheritance and wealth taxes, liberalization of the currency, and privatization of formerly public services, which therefore again, makes it even less “Socialist” than it was before, and more Capitalist today if anything.It might be hard to believe, but even The Heritage Foundation, a premier US-based Conservative think tank has even praised Sweden as recently as 2012 for its commitment to privatization, claiming that the nation “has risen up the ranking faster than any developed economy since 1996”, while noting that the liberalization efforts were as a result of joint cooperation between both the Left and Right-wing administrations.The Index of Economic Freedom (Overall Score), which measures property rights, tax burden, monetary freedom, and investment freedom among other metrics, as prepared annually by The Heritage Foundation comparing the respective total scores of the Kingdom of Sweden and the United States of America from 1995 to 2020 - note the long term rising trend of Sweden relative to the US, which despite claiming to be the “Land of Opportunity” and firmly pro-capitalist, has declined such that the two nations were nearly equal in economic freedom in 2017 (Index of Economic Freedom: Sweden and US compared):For reference, in 2020, the United States was ranked #17 in the world out of 180 nations, Sweden was only 5 places behind at #22, Denmark and Iceland were meanwhile ahead of the US by 9 and 4 places at #8 and #13 respectively. Finland was at place #20, while the lowest of the Scandinavian nations, Norway was still #28 (as such, once a shining beacon for Market Capitalism, the US has fallen from a recent high of #7 in 2008 - Country Ranking by Economic Freedom):Now, you might be asking yourself: “If the “Nordic Model” is not Socialist, then why does everyone keep calling it Socialist?” And to that, I would say: Well who is “everyone” first of all? Certainly not the former Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, that’s for sure.Around 5 years ago, 2016 US Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders during the first Democratic debate expressed not only admiration for the Nordic model but insisted that the United States would do well to adopt such “Democratic Socialist” policies. When asked to that extent what Democratic Socialism meant to him, he explained:“I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn what they have accomplished for their working people.”This was not a new stance, however, as Sanders had previously expressed such views hitherto, such as back in 2013 when he wrote the following:“In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what 'freedom' means… (the Danes have) gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity.Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.”In response to the 2015 Democratic Debate, Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen despite expressing a reluctance to “interfere” with the US electoral process, decided to set the record straight in regards to Scandinavian nations and their “Socialism”:"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”Now to Sanders’ credit, he not only understood the actual true definition of Socialism (no Private ownership or property) but actively clarified that his understanding of Democratic Socialism was strictly not to be confused with the Socialism practiced by actual former Marxist-Leninist nations such as - most famously - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–91).And yet despite this, the title of “Socialist” is incredibly still being used to this day to describe the nations of the Nordic model.Bernie Sanders (second from the left) at the 2015 First Democratic Debate, where he cited three Nordic nations - Denmark, Sweden, and Norway - as exemplars of Democratic Socialism:Social Democracy and Democratic SocialismIn reality, the truth is of course, that none of the 5 Scandinavian nations are Democratic Socialist, but rather Social Democratic.Just semantics you say? Well yes, but actually no.I will admit that there is a lot of overlap between the two terms, but you would be hard-pressed to find a legitimate and publicized political scientist or another expert of that ilk, who would not support a distinction between the two terms, however small.According to American sociologist Lane Kenworth therefore, Social Democracy can be defined as an economic system where private ownership and the allocation of resources based on Supply and Demand exist alongside and cooperate with government policies aimed at increasing economic security and opportunity within the greater framework of a Market Capitalist society, as opposed to an ideology which wants to get rid of markets and Private property altogether.The key point of interest in the preceding paragraph lies in the second last and last lines: Social Democracy specifically does not aim or even want to abolish Private property and ownership as is the case with Socialism and is therefore distinct from the Far-Left ideology usually thought to be associated with the Nordic model.Democratic Socialism on the other hand is much harder to properly define, as there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and associations amongst its adherents. Some democratic socialists will indeed use the term “social democrat” interchangeably with democratic socialist like nobody’s business, while actual Socialists may be quick to use it as an umbrella term to describe literally anyone who wants to reform Capitalism to make it “better”, without actually overthrowing the entire system altogether.A more standardized and formal definition of Democratic Socialism does exist, however, and it is generally characterized by its steadfast opposition to “Authoritarian Socialism”. This is the case such that it will even go so far as to reject self-professed Socialist states such as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China in addition to Marxist-Leninism as a whole, as well as their two most prominent “splinter” ideologies: Stalinism (1927–53) and Maoism (1949–76).Democratic Socialism rejects the authoritarianism of these aforementioned nations (and more) while supporting a more gradual and reformist path to Socialism, rather than a revolutionary one led by a violent overthrowing of the Capitalist class. Because it accepts the current Neo-Liberal world as the status-quo, such reforms will initially aim - similar to Social Democracy - at working within the confines of a Market system. The difference however between the two in this regard is that Democratic Socialism sees this cooperation as merely temporary, Social Democracy views it as a permanent solution.“What is Democratic Socialism?” according to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA):It should be noted for the unconvinced, that the Democratic Socialists of America (whose infographic I’ve just linked above) themselves even go so far as to make a distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy, with a special emphasis on Sweden in another one of their infographics (which can be found here on Facebook) as follows:“Claim #2. Socialists are really just social democratsFalse! While democratic socialists respect the achievements of social democracy in Europe and elsewhere, we also recognize its limits. An increasingly global capitalism has forced social democracy into a decades-long decline. Socialists fight for the social democratic welfare state and seek to move beyond it to truly socialist democracy.Claim #3. Sweden is a Socialist countryFalse! While Scandinavian countries have made huge advances for working people, they have not transcended capitalism. Some of the largest multinational corporations in the world are based in Sweden, and, unfortunately, the Swedish capitalist class has been quite successful in rolling back social democratic gains in recent decades.”The Nordic nations can thus be described as Social Democratic, and not Democratic Socialist because none of the five Scandinavian nations desire to “seize the means of production” nor put an end to Private property. On the contrary, they merely prefer a “balanced” economic system where the best of pro-market and the best of pro-people policies converge and complement one another in an effort to bring about equitable prosperity for all social classes.The Scandinavian nations are not interested in abolishing Capitalism thus (on the contrary as you may remember, they are some of the most economically free countries in the world), but rather in “fixing” it according to their preferences as a society. And this I would argue is the great appeal of the Nordic model as perceived from the perspective of the average person, which incidentally ties us back to a question I raised earlier but didn’t answer: Why has the term “Socialist” stuck as a way to refer to the Nordic model despite all the evidence to the contrary?Well, while I have previously criticized the shallowness and inaccuracy of characterizing the Nordics as “Socialist”, for the average joe, the matter of semantics is really beside the point, which is that they don’t really care what the system is called, all they know is that they just want the benefits - whether perceived or real - of the Nordic model.For these individuals, a premium is placed on equality, fairness, and a real belief in a society that cares for its people, as opposed to one like the United States which supposedly does not by comparison - a pill which is especially easy to swallow on people-centric issues such as Healthcare which is of course notoriously expensive in America, and thus plays right into the belief of the moral superiority of the Nordic model in the eyes of the average person, who then more and more become open to what they believe is “Socialism”, and thus begin to identify as Socialists albeit incorrectly as we know.That the Nordic system is “pro-people” in accordance with their Social Democratic beliefs is not an aspect I will challenge of course, for as our good friend Danish Prime Minister Lars notes, the model is full of alluring advantages which by now are world renown:“We have universal health coverage - you don’t pay to see your doctor or go to the hospital. We have a high degree of social security. You are entitled to benefits if you lose your job if you get sick if you are disabled. We have one year of maternity leave, we have one subsidized early childhood education and care and we ensure care for our elderly if they cannot manage on their own.We also have a strong and free educational system. Students in institutions for higher education and university do not pay for their education, on the contrary, they receive educational grants for studying.”The cost of university in European nations (note that for the three Nordic EU nations, the cost of higher education is completely “free” - ie. covered fully by taxpayer funding):What I will challenge, however, is the widespread either ignorance or unwillingness to properly acknowledge a few indispensable facts about the Nordic model, which if correctly understood would sway more than a few minds away from associating the term Socialist with Scandinavia, or for that matter even identifying as a Socialist full-stop (albeit again, incorrectly). For the truth remains, the five Nordic countries are Social Democracies, and this means that at their core, they remain deeply Capitalist nations, we just need to know where to look.The Other Side of the Nordic Model ExploredFiscally responsible governance is for instance a good place to start.Capitalism (at least Laissez-Faire Capitalism) has traditionally advocated for “Small Government”, which from an economic perspective infers a more limited role for governments insofar as the provision of public services are concerned, with implications for taxation, budgeting, and national debt.A small, fiscally responsible government, should have the following traits:Low taxationLow government spendingLow budget deficits (at least a balanced budget, ideally a surplus)Low national debt (ideally none, but in reality difficult to sustain)If we were to characterize the United States - a mixed economy with a clear bias towards Market Capitalism - by this criterion, we would have a fairly balanced score. Not great, but not particularly bad either.The US top individual income tax rate for instance is only 37%, which is relatively low for a developed nation. Its top corporate tax rate is 21% which is also fairly decent, as is its government spending as a percentage of GDP (38%). However, for the past several years, the US Government has not been balancing its budgets, which has left it with an average budget deficit of 4%. Its national debt, on the other hand, is even worse, at an abysmal 108.5% of GDP in 2020.In stark contrast to the United States, the five Nordic nations may do terribly on government spending (Denmark - 51.7% of GDP, Norway - 49.8% of GDP), but almost none of them have budget deficits with the exception of Finland (deficit of 1.1% average), but even then, the amount is much smaller compared to its American counterpart. Iceland on the other hand has an average surplus of 4.7%, and Norway 5.5%. And while all the Nordics do have national debt, at least they all hover around a relatively manageable 35% mark (with the exception again of Finland at 60.5%), which for any nation is a sign of great fiscal health.Federal/Central Government spending as a percentage of GDP by country (2017):Of course, the only reason that the Nordics as a whole have limited debt and for most of them, budget surpluses as well is because quite infamously, they also tax a lot. But said taxation is not so cut and dry as you might be tempted to think. Yes, the tax burden is a lot, but for who? Nordic corporate taxation is for instance roughly the same as America’s with two nations - Finland and Iceland - at the 20% mark, while the highest, Denmark hovers at the 23.5% mark. And then of course we remember, that the US corporate tax rate was only lowered to 21% as recently as 2017 by President Trump, whereas under President Obama previously it had been 35%.Even for income taxes, however, there are caveats here and there. For one, while US taxation is substantially less punishing on individuals, it is also “progressive” in nature. As a result of this where income taxes are concerned, the top 1% in America pay 38.5% of all income taxes, whereas the bottom 90% together pay “only” 29.9%. Nordic nations have the polar opposite issue where taxation is concerned, taxation is more, but it is not progressive but rather flat (not completely), which means that unlike the US where the rich pay the bulk of taxes, the majority of taxpayers in Nordic nations pay the top marginal tax rate regardless of how much they earn per year (up to a certain point)!In Denmark thus to cite one example, the top marginal tax rate of 56% applies to anyone who earns more than 1.2 times the average income (which is 60% of the taxpaying population). Were such a change to be implemented in the United States for reference, anyone earning over $42,000 USD would be taxed at 37% by the logic of the Danish model.Top personal income tax thresholds (note that the three Nordic nations here have relatively flat rates of taxes in contrast to the US, where you would have to earn 9.3 times the average income in order to be taxed at the 37% mark as per an average progressive taxation system):Next up on our list is the matter of education.Not higher education however, which as we know is already fully funded by taxpayer money, but primary and secondary. I am of course referring to what US Americans would call “school choice”, where the decision to enroll a student in a particular type of school is left up to families to decide, rather than automatically being forced into the local district’s public school by default.The go-to exemplar for Nordic school choice is Sweden, which has since 1992 adopted a nationwide universal voucher program, which was designed to allocate more control over education to towns and schools, and by extension families and students. Under the program, families were then able to choose which school to attend. Taxpayer funds by design would “follow” the student irrespective of the type of school - government, independent, or religious - that they chose to attend.Thus while independent and religious schools are run for profit, they do not charge tuition but are funded by the government similar to Charter schools in the United States, which are funded publicly but administered independently. While Charters only account for 6% of students in the US however, these private “free schools” as they are called in Sweden, account for 18% of students.Moving on from that, we also have the lack of a minimum wage to consider.Unlike with school choice, the lack of minimum wage holds true for all 5 Northern European nations. The absence of minimum wage laws is an idea that has long been endorsed by advocates of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, especially by those hailing from the Austrian School.It should be noted however that the Nordic nations all have powerful unions in most industries as well as high rates of union membership amongst the five nations from a low of 49% in Norway to 89% in Iceland (the US for reference is 11%), which proponents of Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy both have noted as an explanation for why wages remain relatively high. This might not be exactly true however, because while Nordic unions are immensely powerful and are allowed to negotiate contracts including wages, working hours, and working conditions, the respective Scandinavian governments don’t really do much to ensure that a particular outcome results from said negotiations.EU member states by minimum wage (2018 - note that while they are not in the EU, both Iceland and Norway also have no minimum wage, and while not a Nordic nation, the same hold true for Switzerland also):In addition to the above, Scandinavian nations are also characterized by a lack of regulations, at least in certain areas.While the Nordic nations tend to regulate Labour, the same is not usually true for companies, international trade, and product markets. Denmark for instance imposes minimal tariffs on foreign goods, and unlike the United States which owns most of its airports, Denmark’s largest airport - Copenhagen - is owned by a private Australian company.The World Bank which maintains an “Ease of Doing Business” ranking, which determines how conducive a nation’s regulatory environment is to the starting and operation of a local firm - which is measured across 10 metrics including starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, and resolving insolvency - consistently ranks all five Nordic nations amongst the highest in the world.The United States for reference as of 2020 was at 6th place, Denmark was ahead at 4th place, 9th and 10th places went to Norway and Sweden respectively, while Finland and Iceland were 20th and 26th, all nations of which were classified as “Very High” by the annual ranking.The world’s best and worst places to do business (2018):And last but not least, we are presented with the partial privatization of the pension system. Sweden once more is the Nordic nation we will focus on here.As you may recall from earlier on in this answer, I mentioned that there was a time when Sweden was not actually doing so well during the 1970s. Capital flight was in full swing, economic growth was deteriorating, the top marginal tax rate was approaching 100%, and yet despite this fact, the Kingdom of Sweden still did not have enough money to sustainably prop up its vast welfare system, and this included the pension system. It eventually got so bad, that people could no longer get the pension they required to support them in their old age.At some point during the 1990s, policymakers saw that the pension system was no longer sustainable as it existed, and thus decided to partially privatize it. The result is the current pension system of today, where approximately 20% of all pensions are now private. The Swedish social security system might still be based on mandatory contributions as it was back then, but now Swedes are free to choose from a wide range of hundreds of possible investment options for their individual accounts. Alternatively, they also have the choice of staying with a default fund mostly invested in stocks.To an extent, Denmark is also following suit by placing tighter restrictions on access to social security with the goal of offsetting the ever-present issue of an Aging Population in mind, thus making it more sustainable in the long term rather than just making it highly generous but ultimately unsustainable as many neighboring countries such as Italy, Austria, Spain, France, and Germany do to name a few.The best pension systems in the world ranked by sustainability (2020 - note that Denmark and Sweden are amongst the best in the world in terms of sustainability at place #1 and #4 respectively - Ranked: Countries with the Best and Worst Pension Plans):ConclusionAs such, it cannot be said in light of all the aforementioned evidence that any of the five Nordic nations are “Socialist”.They fail the basic test for one whereby Socialism is defined as an ideology advocating in favor of the end of Capitalism and everything it stands for - economic freedom, Private property, and Private ownership of the means of production.Far from Socialist, the Nordic model is based on Social Democracy which is essentially “compassionate Capitalism”, which places a higher premium on non-material measures of prosperity such as happiness, free time, and other such indicators, thereby opting for policies aimed at benefitting the people such as free and universal healthcare and education.Outside of Scandinavia, there are some who mistakenly believe the region to be a stronghold for “Democratic Socialism”, but even this is not so, as mentioned repeatedly by Scandinavians themselves. When the Danish PM himself is not debunking ideas of a Socialist Denmark, it is an editor in chief of a well known Danish newspaper like Bo Lidegaard who takes this duty on himself:“There is this idea that we are a heavily regulated society with a closed economy. The opposite is true. If by socialist you mean regulated, restrictive, the individual is not free to do what she or he wants, that is not what we have here. We have a society where the individual is perhaps freer than any other society because the government is securing the social contract so comprehensively.”A belief which was only further echoed by Danish economist Lars Christensen who asserted directly in response to former Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders’ attempt to portray Scandinavia as a beacon of Democratic Socialism, the following:“When I hear Bernie Sanders talk about himself as a democratic socialist, it's a little bit 1970s. The major political parties on the center-left and the center-right would oppose many of the proposals of Bernie Sanders on the regulatory side as being too leftist.”And then when you notice some of the more Capitalistic aspects of the Nordic model, such as the fact that none of the Scandinavian nations have a minimum wage, Sweden has school choice, Denmark is attempting to restrict access to its pension system, the fact that the regulatory environment for setting up a business in any of the Nordic nations is amongst the highest in the world or that in certain areas such as corporate taxation, Finland and Iceland have even lower rates than even the business-friendly United States, well then this misconception that the Nordic nations are “Socialist” in any true way falls apart completely.As well as it should.TL;DRIf they’re Socialist, I’m Socialist.