Well written The Gaspode. As a Swede in exile(more braindrain) , I meant to write a post about how the ‘swedish system’ worked fine for a long time, but is slowly falling apart. Now that I see your post I realise that there is little or no need to amend it.
I have been looking for a cite to back up the often repeated claim that quota between the salaries of a CEO and a common worker is the lowest for Sweden, but it looks like it might just be propaganda.
We have those problems here in the U.S., but without the advantages. 
Very interesting Gaspode. I’ve been hearing different and conflicting stories of Sweden. On one hand you have articles describing Sweden as the wonderful-sounding paradise where you don’t have to worry about missing payments, losing jobs, retirement, etc.–that is a big boon to me (or anybody else).
On the other hand you have Usenet posts like this: http://www.objectivists.org.au/May09-1999/sweden.htm (Scroll down to the “Sweden: The Ideals are Evil” part–I apologize in advance that it is hard to read, it’s from Usenet after all)
Relating to the OP, though, I have no authority to speak on as a stupid ignorant American, but I think that the reason that the system worked so long was that everybody paid into it, but everybody got something out of it as well.
If only the poor benefit, this builds resentment. You see this a lot between individual states in the US, the poor go where there are the most benefits, the middle class go where the taxes are lowest. I might go all year without seeing one homeless person in SC but they’re all over the place in San Francisco and DC.
Also it seems that the Swedes are, or were, a lot less greedy than the US: you work to make the system work, and the system helps you in times of need–you don’t leech off the system. In the US where we are a lot more materialistic and greedy lot the Swedish model would buckle under in an year. Maybe this mentality is changing in Sweden as others in this thread seem to imply.
Thank you Popup.
Back to the OP.
I get the impression, from the way you ask the questions, that your impression of the “welfare state, with no under class” is very idealistic. In fact, and I may read the wrong things into your OP, it never was like that. Phrases like “provide housing” or “participating in society” imply that there is an underclass which is being taken care of, but that’s not exactly how it works. The government doesn’t ‘provide’ housing, you’re on your own and have to pay rent or buy your home. There are shelters and half-way houses, but no permanent housing, where the poor can live. There are publically owned companies that have apartments for rent, but you’ll have to pay as much or more for these apartments, as one owned by a private company. Also, you have to met certain criteria to be allowed to rent (job, income, credit check). There is, however, a nation wide rent controll, and it works about as well as it does in New York, i.e. not at all.
Another factor is that those with high income can always get away from paying taxes. Being well paid, they can afford accountants, lawyers and what have you, so they don’t have to pay any, or at the most very little, taxes. In fact, the prograssive tax scale doesn’t work and doesn’t give the state more income, in a way, it’s playing to the galleries, keeping the poeple with low paying jobs in check: “Well, the CEO of Ericsson might make $10 mil per year, buty look at the taxes a person like that has to pay.” In fact, whenever there is a new tax, it never hurts me, who have an income slightly above average. It does hurt the people in low paying jobs, since there are so many more of them.
From what I’ve written, I hope it’s clear that there is no proletariat, a jobless or low income working class, being provided for by the government. The health care system lets people get cheap medical attention (roughly $30 to se a doctor, wheather private or public) regardless of the income. The prize is the same if you’re unemployed or making $100k a year. Same with schools, universities ASF. So while the population as a whole is being provided for (albeit less and less), there is no underclass which is singled out and noticed as being poor, due to the welfare they receive. Therefore, they participate in society to the same extent as everyone else.
Some comments about what other people have answered (but I’m to lazy to make quotes):
- It’s not impossible to lose your job. In fact, it’s quite easy and employers have found ways around the strict labor laws, to be able to fire people.
- Racism is strong, but is almost never directed towards black people, unless they’re from Somalia. It’s directed towards people from the Middle East.
- There is some brain drain, but not as much as might be expected. I think it’s mostly used as an argument from the private sector to get rid of taxes. In fact, I think that many, if not all, the people who move from this country to work somewhere else, would’ve done that, regardless of the taxation system. In fact, it’s a truism that the only ways to get rich in Sweden is winning a lottery or starting a company. While individual income tax is progressive, taxation on companies are a flat 30%, as it is with profits from stock dividends or capital gains. With the endless possibilities to deduct costs from income, many people who own companies end up paying no taxes, while living very comfortably.
In the end, (and IIRC the exact amount correctly, but it’s in the ballpark) taxation amounts to a whopping 55% of the total GNP. A lot of that money, as I wrote in my previous post, is lost in the transfer from those being taxed to those receiving benefits. Of course, all the people shuffling money around have jobs and pays taxes, but the biggest problem right now is that there are not enough companies and individuals where taxes can originate and the welfare state is going broke. There has been talk in the goverment lately about a minimum level of health care, which everyone can get, but beyond that, one has to have private insurance. Well, that sounds fine, doesn’t it? Nope. Because taxes will stay at the same level.
[conspiracy theory mode ON]
Of course, if poverty and unemployment were to be irradicated, what would all those people who shuffle money around do? They need the needy to justify their own existence.[/OFF]
Anyone with further questions is welcome, I’ve tried to address it all to the best of my knowledge.
tG. Former journalist and nowadays part time political activists.
Regarding that cite. The guy might be Swedish, but his facts are screwier than a DNA helix on a rollercoaster. Had he been posting here, I would have ripped him to pieces. Please, fellow Dopers, disregard everything he says.
As for the greed - nope, we’re as greedy as Americans. In fact, itäs often worse, since a lot of people use the system in a way iot’s not meant to be used. It’s not unheard of that people receive unemployment benefits, while working “the black market”, i.e. working without a contract or doing business out of the basement.
No, I’d say that the system worked as long as we could afford it, which was as long as our export indury was doing good business, drawing capital from other countries into Sweden. But as labor costs have risen, we’re not exporting nearly enough to be able to afford the standard of living that we have.
Thanks for all the responses. I especially appreciate the several Swedes who have replied. But Gaspode, cut me some slack here. In my OP, I’m reporting directly what I heard or read. I don’t remember if it was in print, or broadcast, but the commentator or pundit said exactly those words. He did not suggest it.
I do remember though, it was not said by a Swede. I doubt if anyone would be willing to make such a sweeping statement about their own country.
Just to further clarify Gaspodes excellent post:
The welfare system (called "folkhemmet in Swedish, or “Peoples home”) worked in the 50’s and 60’s because the Swedish infrastructure was not damaged during WW2. Most of the rest of Europe was in ruins receiving large amounts of aid from the US. These countries used marshall aid money to buy their necessities and much of those were manufactured in Sweden. So for 20 years you had a situation where anything that was made had a market and money kept pouring in. Once Europes infrastructure was rebuilt Swedish manufacturing was no longer very competitive and exports dropped steadily. Without the inpour of money the welfare state started to implode, a process that is still going on. People pay more and more of their income into a system returning less and less.
Swedes went a little bit overboard on the welfare scheme. Sweden is slowly turning back towards a more capitalist system but that will still be way left of anything that the US is likely to adopt.
Statistics are slippery facts, but it was recently reported in news here, that on average, a person has to live to 87 to get a full return on all the taxes paid during a lifetime.
Thanks for the compliment zwede.
And Spectre, I do cut you some slack, which is why I wrote that that I didn’t want to be obtuse. I could sense either a misunderstanding, or, as it turned out, a gross over-simplification. Not on your part, though.