The author acts as if all people get more out of welfare programs than they put in. In fact, she goes so far as to say that people pay taxes for "selfish" reasons.<p>Nothing could be further from the truth. If this were true, then taxes would need not be compulsory, as it would be in an individual's best interest to pay them. Let's be honest. These programs benefit /some/ people and take from others. It is essentially the majority voting to appropriate resources from the minority.<p>And how can the author claim that these services are "high quality"? Does she know how much it would have cost in the free market? What if a the same "high quality" medical check-up would cost $5 in the free market and $50 in Finland? It should have been at least 10X better than the one in the free market in order to be deemed "high quality". I'm not saying it's not better, I am just saying that she can't claim such things without knowing the data.<p>Further, I would much rather have lower taxes than a year of paid leave. If the average person works 40 years and is taxed at a mere 25%, then they might as well have had 10 years of unpaid leave, and no taxes. I realize that there are other reasons to pay taxes, but my point is that, out of 40 years, a paid year off is equivalent to only a 2.5% decrease in taxes for that individual. And if someone actually did get more out of taxes than they put in, even ignoring the incentives and efficiency of government, it is still because they are taking that money from somebody else.<p>I could go on about the rest of this article, but I think I'll stop here...
Mostly irrelevant to the article, but fun nevertheless:<p>More people live in the San Jose/San Franciso/Oakland metro area than live in Norway, Denmark, or Finland.
> The reason Nordics stick with the system is because they can see that they come out ahead—not just as a group, but as individuals.<p>Everyone cannot "come out ahead." Surely, there must be some people who are paying more into the system than they are getting out. The rest are voting away the dollars of the others. Moreover, economics is about "what is seen, and what is not seen." What might this money be doing otherwise? That can't be answered. But it stands to reason that the owners of the money would be attempting to put it to profitable use.
I've always wanted to hear a Swedish perspective on the Wallenberg family. Who apparently "In the 1990s indirectly controlled a third of Swedish GNP."<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family</a>