Apparently, some people believe President Barack Obama wants to turn the United States into a socialist country — with fears that this would be a terrible step in the wrong direction. Fair to say, most people with these fears have never lived in a socialist country. I have, in Britain, for 12 years. I thought I’d share a bit about how terribly different and strange that economic system is from the one we enjoy in the United States.
It’s not that different.
In Britain, you have rich people, poor people and a lot of people in between. The key difference, economically speaking, is that the poor people have a safety net both in terms of income support and universal health care. This does not come by taxing the rich people to death. Neither does this produce a huge class of people who do nothing but live off the state.
I’ll expand on both of these points in a moment. But first, let me further clarify that both “sides” in the “Barack wants to make us socialist” debate haven’t actually lived in a socialist country. I say both sides, but it really seems to be one side shouting loudly that this is going to happen and another side arguing it is not, rather than being “pro-socialist.” No one wants to be pro-socialist, since that word sounds almost as bad as some people have made “liberal” be.
Not only have most people arguing not experienced socialism, but the term itself fails to be defined. When I hear it in commentary, usually from those who feel we’re headed in that direction, it seems to be a shorthand description for an Animal Farm-esque country with high taxes where everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of how hard they work or their own personal initiative and talents.
It’s been a long time since I had to study different economic models, and it is far from my area of expertise. What exactly is a socialist country? If we hit Wikipedia, it says:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation
Well, who wants to trust what Wikipedia says. OK, how about Encarta:
Socialism, economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. The term socialism also refers to the doctrine behind this system and the political movement inspired by it.
So the key points of socialism:
- The state owns industry
- People earn equally
By that definition, Britain isn’t socialist. Most of Europe isn’t. But I say I have lived in a socialist country, because let’s consider some of the popular ways people assume socialism to be defined. From a search on “socialist country,” I came across these gems:
- It estimated that Americans pay approx. 43 % of our income to local, state and the federal government in one form of tax or the other. Does this mean that if this number goes up to , say 51 % , we are technically, for the most part a socialist country ? Is it more likely that government will GROW instead of shrink ? Ron Paul fans ? (Askville)
- I’m talking, like, Sweden. Where you pay a grip load of taxes, but don’t usually end up being neck-deep in debt from healthcare, student loans, or stuff like that. Would you move there? Discuss. (Yelp)
- I love America. I hope it remains a democracy, not a Socialist society. … If you look at spreading the wealth, that’s honestly right out of Karl Marx’s mouth (Joe The Plumber)
- Maybe I need to restructure this question a little bit here because I agree with you, I think we’re still a center right country, but the American people did elect Barack Obama who did say he was going to spread the wealth with Vice President Joe Biden who said it’s our patriotic duty to pay more taxes. Why should we be surprised that they followed through what their promises are? Back door national health care. (Sean Hannity)
The key points of socialism as I’ve read it in the past months according to popular accounts, usually by those who have a view to “stopping it,” are:
- Higher taxes on the rich, which in turn provide some services for those with less wealth
- National health care
Let’s take higher taxes first. If taxing rich people more is what makes a country socialist, well, Britain sure does that. However, it doesn’t do it to the degree people still think is the case. Years and years and years ago, there was a time when some people with extremely high wealth could find up to 90% of their income taxed. As I’ve talked to many people over the years, there’s still a perception that Britain and much of Europe still has taxation rates of 50% or more.
That’s not the case, in Britain. In fact, as a top rate earner, I paid about the same in taxes in Britain than I did in the United States.
In Britain, I paid a national income tax of 41%. Not all of my income was taxed at that rate, just the amount above around $60,000. That income tax also included my National Insurance contribution, which is like Social Security for the UK.
In the United States, the rate is about 28% when you get above $60,000 on up to 35%, if you earn over $350,000. Cheaper, right? Ah, but I’ve also got a Social Security contribution to make. Plus, I live in the state of California, which has a 9.3% top rate on state income tax. Combined, it’s not that far away from Britain. It certainly isn’t the vast difference that many assume is the case in “socialist” Britain or Europe.
Moreover, if taxing people who earn more a higher rate is what makes a socialist country, then I guess we’ve been living the socialist life here in the United States for ages. For as long as I can remember, there’s been a tiered system of income tax rates. How did this suddenly become a tipping point under Obama?
Now let’s move to universal health care. I love America dearly. I’m proud of my country, patriotic and happy to be back living at home once again. But our lack of health care is a national embarrassment. It’s shameful. We appear as a backward, savage country when you talk about our health care system compared to far more civilized countries on this front in Europe or in Canada.
In Britain, the National Health Service covered the birth of both of my children, completely. I paid for parking on trips to the hospital. That was it. Not only that, but for months afterward, a “health visitor” came to our house to do follow-up health care check-ups. I also had my kids to the emergency room on three or four different occasions, again without any cost to me. My wife had an unexpected life-threatening illness that was treated again at no cost.
Everyone is covered. People don’t sell their homes in order to get treatment just to stay alive. People don’t worry that they might get struck down out of the blue and lose everything. Children don’t have to hope that their families are lucky enough to be under the poverty live in order to be covered, or lucky enough that their families can afford coverage. People don’t live in fear there will be some pre-existing condition that’s used to block coverage. They don’t worry that losing their jobs means losing their health care coverage.
When you try to explain the US “system” of health care to those in Britain, you really understand just how appalling our country covers our own citizens. People simply can’t comprehend the idea that people are allowed to die or get needed medical treatment simply because they are poor.
The NHS is not perfect. The hospitals can be busy. Emergency room waiting times can be long. It is a bureaucratic nightmare that constantly screams that they just need more money. At times, I desperately wanted there to be some competitor to the NHS just so some of those who had almost an entitlement attitude to their jobs got a kick in the ass. But it was far better than having nothing, and those who weren’t happy with what was provided had the option to go for private care.
Nor is the UK some type of utopia. I can’t speak to the coverage provided to those who lose their jobs in terms of income protection. I can say there is a strong culture of people being “on benefit,” to the degree that you’d see things like movie tickets still sold in places at a lower rate to those who could show an unemployment card. But I don’t think it’s the case that you have a vast wasteland of unemployed slackers living off the work of others.
I don’t think it’s constructive at all, during the real challenge that the US faces right now economically, to simplify things as “socialist or not,” especially when that term is ill-defined. Having universal health care doesn’t mean being a socialist country; lacking it doesn’t mean you’re a capitalistic country. The reality is that the United States is far from practicing some pure form of capitalism. We have a tradition, especially since the Great Depression, of having the state provide basic benefits that protect our citizens overall.
Laws protect workers from unsafe employment practices. Laws protect citizens from unsafe food packaging. Laws and structures ensure that our money doesn’t go “poof” when deposited into a bank. Laws protect us from companies gaining unfair monopolies. Laws provide us with a guaranteed retirement income (even if what’s that worth seems so worthless these days).
If you’ve never read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, or John Steinbeck’s The Grapes Of Wrath, I strongly encourage you do so, especially if you worry that caring better for our citizens is somehow turning American into some socialist state. They are gripping novels of a time America moved away from. What we really need are more books like this now to capture the popular spirit of just how dysfunctional our current society is in caring for all of its people. It can be done — where necessary and useful — without taxing the rich to death and without abandoning the poor, and doing so makes us all stronger.
Postscript: Jeffrey McManus notes that the UK also charges a 15% VAT (sales tax) charge on products and services that consumers purchase. I did mean to mention this. That’s absolutely true — in fact, it used to be 17.5%. But it’s not levied on everything (food, for instance) similar to how in California, sales tax isn’t applied to everything. Taxes can also be much higher than in the US for things like cigarettes or gasoline (when I left last year, we were paying $14 per gallon for gas, 75% of which was due to government taxes).
In California, we also pay sales tax — around 8%, depending on your county. That still puts the UK higher on the sales tax rate. But the main point I’m making I think is still true — the UK doesn’t have this 50%+ income tax rate that some people seem to assume is a hallmark of the country or a requirement of a “socialist” state.
I also can’t stress enough that I’m not saying the UK is perfect, or that taxes in the US should go up or that everything the UK provides as a government service is something the US should do. I actually tend to want the government to provide as little as possible (since what it does provide tends to become bureaucratic, in my view) and charge as little tax as possible. There are also no end of things that either the UK government or the European Union decides it needs to regulate things that I find infuriating.
Case in point — buy a drink in any bar in the EU. You’ll see a line on the glass to ensure that you are getting the “full” amount you paid for, say a full shot glass. The drink has to be poured up to the line. It’s stupid — no one regulates the prices charged. So if one bar “shorted” you a little by not pouring a completely full shot, it doesn’t matter since they might be charging you far less than some other overpriced bar that fills right to the top.
Still, I think we need a fair and renewed assessment of what basic services we should be covering for our citizens free from charged political concepts and lockstep viewpoints. Do we, as a country, think all people here should be provided with basic health care? That’s not a “socialist” viewpoint to me, any more than asking if we think all children should be entitled to a basic education. At some point, the US grew up in its thinking to decide education for all was a service that should be provided, because it benefited the country as a whole. Does something benefit the country? We need to ask ourselves that, not does X, Y, Z add up into some ill-conceived political concept.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve been living for all my life in a country much more “socialistic” than UK – Denmark.
Here we do actually pay more than 60% on the last earned money – allthough it will actually go down a bit next year. Most people, however, end up paying approx 33-40% of their net income in tax when you include all deductions
From a political point of view it is interesting through that for the past 9 years we had a right wing government lead by one of Bush’s best friends outsidethe US – our primeminister Anders Fogh. Even the right wing politicians here do not wnt to dramatically change our “socialistic” system. 99% here agree that it is, after all, better than the alternatives.
You forgot to mentioned one important thing that is also included in our taxation – and free for all no matter what job they have – or if they have any: Education! Anyone with the skills can go to university level here without paying. The best schools are free. In fact – you get financial support to do so.
Some years ago I was considering moving to the US with my family. The one thing that scared me the most was not having the “socialistic” health care system we have here. It makes me feel safe.
My first extended trip outside the US was an immersion program in France for 1 month. In Nice I noticed a lot of Swedish kids in my class and one of the girls told me that it was because Sweden gives students a 12-week stipend to study another language abroad and learn about other cultures. It took me 6 months to save up for my trip (classes, accommodation and spending money plus rent on my empty apartment). As much as I adore Trader Joe’s, cupcakes and other strokes of US genius, life on the “socialist” side is no nightmare by any stretch of the imagination.
The US government already runs a huge health care system:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401394.html
I just can’t believe anyone would seriously argue that they deserve to manage even more of our health care.
Universal healthcare is an important goal. But if you’re serious about it, you get there with market solutions that foster competition and drive down costs. Not the same old big government empty promises.
I’m not saying the US government should manage universal health care. I’m saying that I think it should be a goal for our country to ensure somehow a basic level of health care is provided to everyone. There’s a difference between the two.
I absolutely agree.
We desperately need some sort of universal health care. (My understanding is that it really needs to be universal, so that early-stage problems can be taken care of, rather than forcing uninsured people to wait until it’s critical and go to an emergency room, which is hugely expensive and needs to be covered by everyone else’s premiums.)
Too much of the medical industry is making unreasonable profits, and their lobbyists use stupid scare tactics to make people afraid of change. For example, they keep saying that people shouldn’t lose their freedom of choice of coverage. Really? How much choice do people currently really have? Most people are lucky if their employer covers a reasonable part of their insurance. The only other “choice” is to pay it all yourself at really unaffordable rates. That’s no choice at all!
Or they claim that changing would prevent new research and new treatments. There may be some truth in that, if there is reduced profit available for research. But I can’t believe it’s an all-or-nothing situation. Do we want to have a system where costs are sky-high so that the few who can afford it can get the absolute best care but everyone else is screwed, or do we want universal but still really good care?
Finally, I’ve heard the comment that while the health care systems in other countries (Canada, Britain, etc) compare poorly with the US system in some areas, those who have experienced both types always choose the other (non-US) system.
Couldn’t agree more. As a Brit living in the US, the ridiculous Republican posturing about ‘European Socialism’ drives me batty. The UK is not an especially Socialist country; nor, in truth, has it ever been. The current ‘Socialist’ Government only got elected by explicitly dropping key Socialist tenets (especially one relating to public ownership of insdustry) from its charter.
As you say, the NHS is an inefficient, frustrating, occasionally soul-destroying behemoth, which embodies much which is bad about public services. But it means that people don’t have to declare bankruptcy when they discover they have cancer, or because they have a sick child; and it contributes to the decidedly un-Socialist principle of labour market flexibility, since people don’t sit in jobs they hate or are bad at just because they can’t give up their healthcare benefits.
Most people who are worried about the United States becoming a socialist state have never lived outside of the USA, so they cannot really base their analysis on experience, but only on fear and/or rhetoric. This is not the basis for intelligent discussion regarding this issue. Having lived in Germany and Austria, as well as the United States, I can attest to the pros/cons of each country’s way of managing their resources. But, it does not matter how you manage your resources, if you are going to squander a budget surplus on an expensive, immoral war that is not even accounted for in a national budget. Those who complain about socialism have blinders on related to their part in creating the worst deficit in US history. Wake up and smell your karma. It’s the budget deficit that is going to be the real issue. China owns the USA right now due to their loans floating the US government. Ask the Tibetans how their experience of the Chinese is as a government and project that out 10 years, if we don’t figure out how to reduce our budget deficit in the US…
Interesting Article. For clarity I would like to point out that the United States of America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. This distintion is important when we are talking about subjects that include the rights of the individual and the minority.
Here, the story of The American Form of Government is told better than I can tell it.
Danny, thanks again for your insight and perspective, it is appreciated.
Very interesting, as a staunch Catholic, I believe in the absolute necessity for social justice, ie, healthcare & financial aid to persons unable to care for themselves etc. As an conservative American I believe in the basic tenants of capitalism. So on one hand I understand and would accept a more “socialist” or UK style financial system. However I have a couple of problems with what I see happening in much of Europe, that translate into an absolute FEAR.
1. Too much government control. Case in point, I recently read an article about a German family that was ripped apart by the “State” because they were homeschooling their family. The family now lives in the US and is seeking political asylum.
2. Government dictating morals. As a “Social Conservative” and strict Catholic, there are certain adult behaviors, actions and “lifestyles” that are in direct opposition to my beliefs and what I teach my children. While I do believe that everything a person does is between them and God, so its not my place to stop them (in most cases). I believe that the Government cannot and should not EVER force citizens to act, or accept something contrary to their religious beliefs.
3. Our government (the US Federal) cannot manage its own finances, to put them in control of any industry or manufacturing company will only become another drain on the tax payers.
The United States of America is no longer United States it is simply America. States and citizens no longer have the same rights that our Founding Fathers intended, even worse – it has become EXACTLY what they fought against. Just like you so eloquently stated that Americans who never lived in a “Socialist” county don’t understand what that actually means. Unless you are born & bred in the US you can never truly know what it our country is and what those freedoms we believe are God given, mean to us. Our government is currently trying to take away those freedoms through laws and economic warfare. I for one would never give my freedoms for security.
There are few sayings that many if not most American men believe to their core:
Death before dishonor.
Freedom is not free.
One Nation Under God.
These are not simple sayings these are a part of America. They are part of every American man that ever served in our military. Things like this made us who we believe we are not what we are becoming.
1 thing you have incorrect about the United States. This country is not a Democracy, Never has been and never will be. This country is a Republic.
Please visit http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
for the difference and to find proof that I am telling the truth.
What a dangerous topic to leave open for comments!
Living in Denmark (as Mikkel), I’m also exposed to “socialism”. We DO pay a lot of taxes but as many Americans we do not nescessarily see this as an expense but more as an insurance. Our kids gets a free education and an inexpensive day care. And we retreat from the job market at the age of 67 we receive transfer payment.
The equality is not the goal itself but an agent to better education, better health care and a better life for those who can not take care of themselves. In the end I do believe that equality to some extend contributes to increased economical growth because far more people are able to contribute to the business community. For instance, our unemployment rate is currently at 2.8% compared to America’s 4.6%.
So what I see as Barack Obama’s most important tasks are to stabilize the economy, provide free health care and education to all Americans and in that way help poor families getting out of a vicious circle.
But what you don’t understand is that America’s economy props up socialist nations. The dollar is the strongest currency and every other currency depends on it. A more socialist America means a weaker Europe and the rest of the world.
It’s also true in healthcare. The advances in medicine and treatment enjoyed by Europeans originate in America’s healthcare industry. And America has the best healthcare in terms of specialties in the world. It’s a fact.
Europe even relies on America for defense-spending. The reason they can offer all these entitlements and programs is because they know America’s military (the older brother) will protect them.
So wake up because all that is about to end under Obama and the onus will be on you.
Rob, I don’t think the US dollar is considered the strongest currency any longer, especially when you look at how low it is against the Euro. And that’s a decline that’s been going on for years, not since Obama came into office.
Yeah, I agree — I think Europe gets to do much less spending on the military because the US covers it in many ways. But that’s not something Obama created, either.
When the ideas of the Founding Fathers (limited government, individualism… with liberty and justice for all) and the ideas of Obama (ominous government, egalitarianism, with collective rights and healthcare for all) are juxtaposed we see sharp differences which might shed light on why the term “Animal Farm-esque” is used by conservatives to describe current political trends.
As sighted in earlier comments, the Unites States is a Republic, not a democracy. The Republican form of government insures that the individual’s God given rights are not taken by any majority. What a beautiful concept!
Healthcare is not a constitutionally protected basic human right in the United States–or did I miss that when I read the bill of rights?. For all intents and purposes, however we do enjoy that right in the USA– nobody is refused treatment, and the taxpayers foot the bill if someone can’t pay– how is that different than universal health care? Okay, I concede one difference: the current “system” still contains incentive for charities to get involved (voluntary redistribution of wealth). America is said to be the most generous nation in the world; why then are we at the point of being compelled to “generosity”?
One more point, then I’ll shut up… We can’t afford universal health care– our grandkids can’t either.
Thanks for listening.
M, the Army or any other branch of military protection of the physical safety of US citizens is not a constitutionally protected basic human right. Neither is public education or anything like highways and other infrastructure established and run by the government to provide basic essential services for the citizenry. This was all established by congressional action, requiring no constitutional amendments. What makes sense about giving ourselves the right of protection from Russian subs, not knowing what 1+1 equals, and pot holes on exit ramps… but not a staph infection?
Since you bring up the Bill of Rights, take a look at #9: Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t perfect and added a clause to exactly nullify your argument that if it’s not in the “Top 10″ then it shouldn’t be done, knowing full well that there would be rights they didn’t conceive of at the time. You could say, you got shot down nearly a couple hundred years before you were born by the Constitutional Congress. Those guys are good!
The US can easily afford universal healthcare and I believe it to be a right that supersedes education. We spend a lot on our defence and there was a time when I actually believed that it was worth all the money until 911 happened. Now I say that we should pull out of every European nation unless they want to pay for our military to stay…. this will afford us universal healthcare. My guess is that European leaders would soil themselves if they thought they would have to tap into their healthcare budget to pay for their own protection and therefore cut into and already insolvent healthcare system.
Interesting page. Congratulations. As european, it is very amazing for me that so many americans seem to oppose a public health system. If a goverment tried to set up an american-like system in Europe, there would be a revolution. I have heard a lot of stupid things against it: the goverment will ration the health care, it will be expensive… I am from Spain, and there, health care isn’t perfect. There are a lot of flaws, but one thing is sure. You won’t die because you can’t pay a treatment. I think, and most people in Europe do, that health care is a right that must be provided by the goverment, like right to vote, education, infraestructures, safety… It is even more amazing the american position knowing the huge amount of military expenses you have. You could give universal health care to the whole world with that money.
Georgio, most europeans don’t want the american army in their soil, if there were a referendum, the US army would be kicked off Europe. That’s why you are paying european countries a lot of money to keep military bases here. Who do you think you are protecting us agains?Russia?China?
My problem with socialism is not that it will charge higher taxes or that is will cause a group of people to just live off of welfare. My problem is that socialist programs stagnate progress. People say that these programs are progressive, and in terms of human rights, they are. But, as a country becomes more socialist, it loses power. Look at Britain, once a great nation, now not so much. Basically all of Europe, formerly the most powerful region in the world, has turned into a complacent group of people happily living off of government benefits. Of course, I guess that is fine if you have enough money to support these benefits. But clearly, people don’t. Look at Greece. Bankrupt. The youth are unwilling to work. They just want their benefits. Greece can no longer progress and is definitely not powerful. I don’t want the US to lose its power; I, and much of the US electorate, like our standing in the world. These programs will make us complacent and cause us to lose our standing. You may thing that is a bad reason to be against these programs, but to many, it’s an important one.
Art, I lived in Britain for 12 years. It was a great place to live. I’m not sure how you’d measure greatness. If it’s having a global empire, nope, they don’t have that any longer. But I don’t think that’s what would make a country great. To me, it’s that your citizens can succeed with their dreams and aren’t living below the poverty line. I think Britain measures up pretty well against the US. Plenty do work in the UK and feel they should. Plenty in the US also do NOT work.
The UK is NOT a Socialist country. Ask any Socialist. What the UK was (because it is much less one now than in the past) is a Welfare State (yes, it’s still capitalist and it is still a nation and it is still ruled by the wealthy). In any event, no matter that Socialism is a transitional state between a Capitalist economy and a Communist economy, the UK is not nor ever will be Socialist. Socialism, like Communism, Capitalism and other economic isms is just a faith no different from Christianity or Islam. It will always fail because it is always irrelevant because it is not based upon reality. In the future it is likely that some form of non-religious science-based economic structure that achieves a balance of population control and preservation of the environment along with sustainable resource consumption and food production will result. Those who fail to make such a transition will likely collapse in violent conflict (see Africa or Asia for current events).
Don’t argue if you make irrational claims. If a man is shot and bleeding there not going to be turned away just because he doesn’t have healthcare, and Javi are you kidding me? know a little about what our system is, read a little bit about it, don’t just make claims off what you hear. Our war is unjust, immoral, i don’t know where you get off making claims like that. we give everyone the right to think and believe what they want, of course you have the right to say what you want, but did you lose over 3000 people in a single attack that was brought on because we allow a system of government that causes you to work for your own money. We don’t pay you money to keep our bases on your land to protect you, we do it to protect ourselves and our foreign companies from attack. I know the next response to what i just said is. “Don’t do anything that will get you attacked.” I don’t even know how to respond to this response. We don’t go picking fights with whoever we see first.
I don’t know when I ate in Germany I noticed on the receipt 19% at the bottom. I asked if this was the tip? Someone told me no that’s the tax.
All I know… is that when I make a pie….. and the Government comes along and takes 19% of my pie I get upset. After all who bought the ingredients for the pie and made it? That’s called stealing
John: While it is true the ER will not turn people down, the issue is not with gun shots, but severe symptoms of common maladies that glut the ER. The large amounts of uninsured in this country don’t practice preventative medicine, because they can’t afford to, and they end up in the ER with pneumonia or severe infections. If everyone had the ability to practice the common preventative maintenance most people take for granted, we’d be paying less overall without the massive costs of treated the uninsured at the ER for things that are not trauma or injury related. Tax payers end up paying for the more expensive resulting treatment of the uninsured anyhow, when we could be paying less to treat them preventatively.
incometaxguy: Did you make the road you drove there on by yourself, or build the ports to ship in the ingredients you bought yourself, or train and pay the fire department that kept the bakery from burning down, or the police who kept the area safe, or…. the list goes on and on. Nobody is self sufficient and an island to themselves in any country, that defies the entire definition of a country and society. If you wish to hold that belief, I’d suggest in order to avoid being a hypocrite that you purchase your own island nation, move there, and build and maintain your own infrastructure.
Don’t be naive. He’s not a Socialist, he’s a Communist. All he needs is an enabling act. The Posse Commitatus Act has already been negated and he has the right to detain indefinitely or kill any U.S. citizen without a trial.