Can you please explain a little more? I always thought Germany (and Scandinavia) to be a strong economy where although you pay a lot of taxes, the returns are extremely well in terms of childcare, hospitalization, etc.
But I suspect this is mostly limited to those and very few other cases (e.g. top tier doctors).
You can earn a lot more in the US when you're young (or at least, mid-career), but you'd better hope and pray that you never get sick, or laid off in late-middle age.
I've never lived in Germany, so I don't know the problems with their system, but the US system is (currently) a "get yours while the getting is good" approach to life.
(Unless you're suggesting that salaries are so disproportionately high in the USA that you can move here, pay all of your German taxes, and still be better off. In which case, I have to ask: what the hell is wrong with economics, and why is it leading to this obvious inefficiency?
I suspect the real answer is: "you can't actually do that.")
Seems far more likely that someone would leave Germany, earn a higher salary in the US for a while, and return as soon as a serious health threat made the disadvantages of the US system clear.
Presumably Germany has some sort of system to tax imported wealth to handle these scenarios.
(Immigration bureaucracy, distance from family, working and living in your second language, navigating an unfamiliar system, immigration bureaucracy, and the risk of being arbitrarily deported)
Therefore the "free rider" effect definitely exists, but I don't think it is a huge problem, because the numbers of people migrating out and in again are not that high.
Germany in particular gets a lot more economic immigrants than emigrants so it probably adds up as positive or neutral.
[0] Assume that I make 150k a year and only live on 50k a year I can put the rest into index funds. In ~10 years my money will be producing enough money so that I can quit and live on 50k a year forever. See http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim... for the math/justification.
2. Taxes are much higher then, let's say US or Switzerland.
3. Real Estate prices are totally out of whack.
So if you make 60k (a very good salary for an engineer even in a big city) and want to raise a family of four you are basically on the same level as a non-working immigrant family of four. But yes, you have access to schools, universities and health care.
The trend that people are leaving or looking for exit options is definitely significant accelerating.
'We have always done it that way and we will keep doing it that way'. There is very little chance for change and opportunity. Also, very little venture capital.
I don't live in Germany but I can now afford to buy a house. The reason I can afford this is: BECAUSE I don't live in Germany. Yet, buying a house or an apartment in Germany is totally off the table. Why?
1. I disagree with the unlimited immigration into the welfare state that will make the welfare state collapse and totally changes our non-violent open society into a more violent and tribal one.
2. Real Estate or "Immobilien" or "inmuebles" how it is called in other languages. A much better word than real estate. It means "Non Mobile". And currently real estate taxes in Germany are basically zero compared with let's say New Jersey. This will change. The government will sooner of later have to tax the shit out of the real estate owners. And again, it is NON MOBILE, while you can leave, your house can't. In my opinion it would be madness to buy a house there.
I hear that in Denmark as well, but I feel it's often accompanied by a very strong unspoken assumption around what, out of 'anything', one should want to do. Denmark is a pretty sweet deal if you have a decent income, property mortgaged to the rafters (the only real tax break is for interest payments) and a couple of kids in institution/school age (and healthy private pension savings). If that lifestyle does not appeal to you, you are going to be paying through the nose for frankly very little.
This also informs the "ambition" bit. Having high ambitions is firmly in the "should not want" camp, so not a lot of people seem to have them, and the ones that do certainly keep them private if they want to considered polite company. Every year around graduation time, the newspapers have a raft of op eds on how "straight A students" are actually miserable and missing out on youth, while the mediocre students are celebrated for knowing how to live and have fun.
Which is probably a net positive, maybe even for the rich.
American life is bland! I'm not sure we actually know a way to arrange society that allows for most people to have exciting lives instead of bland or miserable ones.
As a german, of course I don't enjoy paying high taxes, but that changes quickly once you actually get sick. Your health and education should be taken care of regardless of whether you're a janitor or an engineer - or their child, which can't change that status yet.
You're delusional if you think your 40% base tax is being mainly spent on education and the health system.
What is the bigger problem is that gross dev salaries are maybe half of what they are in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
EDIT: Keep in mind that this is just the budget of the national government. Each state has its own budget that barely goes to military spending at all, instead focusing on entitlements, especially healthcare costs.
Those $600+ billion have to come somewhere, don't they? And that doesn't even account for the unaccountable [0].
It doesn't look that bad in % of GDP because of the US's massive GDP, but in pure numbers, the US spends more money on it's military than the next 8 countries on the list combined.
[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1...
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/the-us-spends-more-on...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-oba...
""" “Free riders aggravate me,” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
Part of his mission as president, Obama explained, is to spur other countries to take action for themselves, rather than wait for the U.S. to lead. The defense of the liberal international order against jihadist terror, Russian adventurism, and Chinese bullying depends in part, he believes, on the willingness of other nations to share the burden with the U.S. """
What are countries supposed to "chip in" for? The deterrence of a future alien invasion like in Independence Day?
Why should the world chip in for US Ambitions that result in massive destruction, like destabilizing the Middle East, while dealing with most of the brunt of the blowback of such US foreign policy decisions, in the form of refugee waves?
Nobody asked you to be "the world police" no matter how much you keep telling yourself that, "the people there asked for US interventions", is a tale many US Americans keep telling themselves to keep the "We are the good guys" narrative intact, but it has little to nothing to do with reality.
Because reality knows no "good guys" or "bad guys", in reality such terms are purely subjective. As much as I like the US as a country and it's people, there's a huge difference in perception in how US Americans see their country vs how the rest of the world perceives their country's actions.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
does that get paid to the US directly or do we all fund our own militaries that work...under US control? or based on our own ideas?
i'm just trying to figure out how this is supposed to work.
No place is perfect and how "bad" a place ends up, always depending on how much an individual adapts to the given circumstances of said place. This holds true regardless of where you are, a democracy, a dictatorship or anything in-between.
Btw: If you want to talk about Crimea then we first need to start talking about Kiev [0]. Of course, that won't happen because then the whole "Russia as aggressor" narrative wouldn't fit as neatly.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
That "better" is worth defending against the encroachment of the "worse".
No. Especially health care is solved much better in most of Europe then in the US, where it is approaching 20% of GDP.
1. Higher wages but this is a tricky thing. Germany exports too much, both, goods AND capital https://thewisemansfear.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dland_ku...
2. Lower taxes, especially income taxes.
3. Much lower spending on "social" which is approaching a staggering and unsustainable 1 Trillion Euro in Germany. http://www.preussische-allgemeine.de/nachrichten/artikel/soz...
As the first steps I would do:
1. Invest money into infrastructure which is crumbling
2. Invest in military. If you invest 1.2% of GDP in your military, as Germany does, you don't have a military, you have a museum. Actually, an argument that Trump got right in regards to Germany. (Hey, let the Americans pay)
3. European border defense. Germany has taken millions of illegal immigrants (illegals since none of them would have the right to be an immigrant based on Dublin III regulations). Most of them can't even read. They immigrate into the welfare state. I don't judge this, I would to the same in their position. Immigration should be strictly handled like in Canada or Australia.
We were not talking about "propping up the economy", we were talking about sustaining it.
"You get more for your buck by giving the money to the people who will immediately spend it."
This is true. But by "importing all of India we don't make Calcutta rich, we make Germany a Calcutta" as somebody said.
"Germany doesn't need to increase the military."
Indeed it does not. Germany is in violation of her NATO contractual obligations. As long as she can "outsource" her defense and make the US defend her, maybe. In fact, Germany has no military anymore, Germany has a military museum.
"It's not running an empire like US."
She is unable to defend herself. Even Switzerland would be a formidable opponent in the current state. How many working tanks are left? 200 Tanks? How many helicopter pilots? http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-fehlen-Hubschrauber-Pi... There is nothing anymore. And if you are German you will likely be able to understand the Latin saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
"And doesn't need to find that kind of employment for the uneducated lower class."
What other options do you see for the millions of uneducated, low IQ (please refer to Wikipedia) immigrants do you have in mind? Most of them (75%) are supposed to be illiterate. Just social welfare and mosques?
"And Germany is what it is because of migrants."
Because of immigrants with a cultural similar background. Not because of a massive invasion of uneducated people from violent and tribal societies with a very different religion (I am agnostic). Why did the population of Christians in Turkey fall from 23% to below 1% in the last 100 years? Some things don't match and mix well.
"Do believe. And Japan is fucked because it's not accepting any."
Japan is a highly educated, highly industrialized, non violent, non tribal, quite egalitarian society with a tolerant religion. Yes, they are over-aging. But all industrialized countries are over-aging. So far it seems to me that the Japanese are doing the best for a soft landing. By the way, they are extremely restrictive to Muslim immigration. http://allfourestates.com/why-japan-has-no-islamic-terrorism...
You may also want to read this: http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/monsters-ii/
Perhaps because 100 years ago it was still the Ottoman Empire, which was a far larger state incorporating many Christian-majority regions?
In general I would say that most of social safety net benefits should be applied to citizens, and then be scaled down for the other groups of people living there.
If you restrict services to permanent residents than restrict the taxes we pay as well (btw I'm 100% certain I pay more in taxes than I consume in benefits, and Germany didn't even have to pay for my education or early life).
This is one easy way that the government could cut health related costs.
[citation needed] Unless you meant "can't read German when they arrive"? What group/period are you even taking about?
They also quote, 70% of refugees that started a "trainee" quit.
That's an exaggeration. A non-working family (not sure what immigrant has to do with it) does not have access to the same quality of life than a working family with salaries of 60k. Sure, health and education-wise they both enjoy the same benefits, but for sure not in housing as you mention in your third point.
But gotta feed them "refugees", eh?
Now, where I do see the problem is that most of the housing is owned by people renting it out (check out Germany in this list [1]). My whole building is owned by the same guy who I guess lives quite a relaxed life out of my rent, while producing nothing. If you want to fight the increase in living costs, I'd start there.
I have no problem with feeding and sheltering refugees.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...
Because it's tax smart. If you own real estate, all repair, maintenance costs etc. can be deducted from your taxable rental income. On the other hand, if you live in a property you own, all maintenance costs are paid from your after-tax personal income.
Laws do no change market realities.
How many immigrants do you want to accept? 1 Million? 10 Million? 100 Million? 1000 Million?
Based on the population and fertility rates of the middle east and especially Africa, 1000 Million (1 Billion) would be a number that is not impossible. But, don't you see a problem there?
60k is 2800 € net per month. A refugee on welfare would get approximately 400 per adult plus 300 per kid plus rent paid (and free insurance). For a family of four this is 1400 Euro. Let's assume 1000 for rent in a city. This is 2400 so basically the same that you have.
Fact is, even as a full working engineer your available money is not significant different. A policeman with two kids and his wife not working has less money as such a family living on welfare. In fact, he would qualify for subsidiary income.
And we are not talking yet about refugess with 4 wifes and 23 kids.... http://www.rhein-zeitung.de/region/lokales/westerwald_artike...
Police earnings are a bit complicated but basically everyone with kids gets more than welfare after initial training. Some young police officers from Berlin (rightfully) recently complained that they are below that but this is the exception.
Does it apply to refugees only, or to everyone?