Yeah, it's great :) Me, with high income, can help those with lower income and even those that cannot work, and I don't have to do anything more than filling out some papers once a year. I wouldn't want it any other way.
That's a matter of perspective, isn't it? :)
> No, it's not "can help"
I could employ similar tax-avoidance schemes as other rich people regularly do, but chose not to. I could live outside the country for 51% of the year and also avoid taxes that way, but also chose not to.
Ultimately, you do have a choice on how to approach things, and how you see them. You see them as "The nanny-state is taking what's rightfully yours" then yeah, that's the perspective you have, but it's not a ground-truth and it isn't the only perspective.
How long would a state required to be socialist before you consider it to not be in a perpetual state of "this will fail tomorrow"?
Since you consider Spain socialist, that means you probably consider Sweden socialist as well then, since it's more "socialist" on basically every metric I can think of? If so, Sweden been socialist close to 100 years (about 3 times longer than Spain), is Sweden also about to go down the drain then because of the welfare policies?
> Look at Spanish economy: high public debt, high unemployment, low productivity growth
Good example. For the last 10 years, debt is slightly worse, unemployment is dramatically better and the productivity remains unchanged. Yet, we have public health care. So seems socialism might not actually be so bad after all.
Also, if you wonder why so few big unicorn companies appear in Europe, look no further than their tax policies.
What seems to indicate I didn't like where I currently live? Not sure why I'd want to live in something similar to the USSR, that sounds all-around bad. Did I misunderstand something or are you misunderstanding what I've been writing?
It could also be that you have a very single-minded understanding of socialism, since you seem to think that Cuba and USSR are the two only countries who've had socialist policies ever.
> The United Nations estimated in 2023 the total economic damage to the Cuban economy to be in the "trillions of dollars" since inception [1958].
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
Putting that into perspective, a trillion dollars would be about $100,000 for every man woman and child in Cuba today.
And yes, Cuban economy would have imploded even without sanctions, just like Venezuela's did.
> yes, Cuban economy would have imploded even without sanctions, just like Venezuela's did.
That would carry more weight - or any weight at all - if you addressed the argument. $100,000 per person is significant.
And using Venezuela to make your point is very silly, considering they were hit with massive sanctions as well.