| > Personally though I am tried of Europeans being arrogant enough to claim their way is the correct, proper and only way, and that Americans are all being taken advantage of, abused, etc because we do not get 150 days off a year and do not allow our government to control our health........ Ah. The American arrogance shines through. "Government controlling health" and "these lazy Europeans with their 150 days of vacation". > allow me to give my privileged position as an example. I created my own Safety net. So, double arrogance. > It is untrue that America lacks any safety nets for people. One of the most often cited negative about America by Europeans is actually one of those safety nets. Bankruptcy This is not a safety net. It's the last resort. And yes, Europe has laws around bankruptcy, too. > Then there are TON of government programs for Poor people. I don't want to become poor before safety nets kick in. I don't want to be beholden to my employer for my medical insurance. I don't want to have only 10-14 days on average to spend time with my family or with my kids. Etc. Oh, sorry, that's my European arrogance talking. > In reality is the working lower middle class that have it the worst, people above the 25th percentile of income, and below the 75th percentile of income. According to various models, it's anywhere from 30% to 45% of people, with actual numbers probably being worse: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/download... |
Factual statements are not arrogance.
>>This is not a safety net. It's the last resort.
My point is it should not be considered the "last resort", in fact I think people wait far far far too long to file for bankruptcy.
>>Europe has laws around bankruptcy
While true, The US is normally cited as creator of personal bankruptcy law, and it used as the benchmark. Changes in the laws in the EU has expanded personal bankruptcy but in many parts of the EU the bankruptcy laws are not as favorable to personal debtors than in the US.
>>I don't want to become poor before safety nets kick in.
Then it is no longer a safety net... It is just a universal income scheme or outright socialism.
>>I don't want to be beholden to my employer for my medical insurance.
Nor do I, which is why I support deregulation of the industry, returning to free market principles, and allowing tax exemptions for personally acquired plans instead of only when it is part of an employer plan (and a range of other reforms) instead of just believing the government should provide....
>I don't want to have only 10-14 days on average to spend time with my family or with my kids. Etc.
Great, negotiate that with your employer. People that do not have those same priorities should also be free to negotiate what they want which may include less time off. That is what a free society allows for. What you want however is to mandate your preference, believing that is what is best for "everyone"
>According to various models, it's anywhere from 30% to 45% of people, with actual numbers probably being worse
One of the reasons for that is the "safety net" system which largely punishes people for their success. If the poor attempt to climb out of poverty that system takes away benefits faster then the income is replacing those benefits, literally paying people to stay poor.
A better system then this network of misaligned "safety net" programs where the government is providing services or payments to fix specific perceived problems (housing, food, etc) would be a more generalized graduated negative income tax system that phases out as the person makes increasing income. This would have to replace all "safety net" programs, and make people individually responsible which is a negative concept in the modern world.