[Nasir]

50% lower inequality index is a far far stretch from "5% difference between the richest and poorest classes anyway". That is a retarded paraphrase, if it could be even considered as one. If you want to make something up just to back it up with some random fact later, try to pick numbers closer to the one you'll quote.

You sound like a jerk with the data because you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, yet you're still making statements.

You sound like a raging pretentious cock, because I obviously stated I wasn't sure multiple times. It wasn't a random fact, it was a number I wasn't 100% about that I had read in a book written in 2001 that might be dated. I'll double check what was written when I get home, just for you. Plus, the exact number wasn't important. The point stands that the income difference between the richest and poorest classes is MASSIVELY lower, and that fact I'm correct about.

Plus, the gini index info that I posted wasn't random... it's clearly on the same subject I was referring to. It's a very clearly defined measure.

So tell me... What is the exact income gap for Sweden, since you obviously know? And how doesn't that apply to the fact that a lower income in Sweden would still be balanced by the significantly lower income disparity even if my number was wrong?

Otherwise, would you kindly blow it out your ass and stay out of my thread if you're going to run this far off topic. The question wasn't about whether or not Sweden is a good place to be at all. I know the income rates and what my quality of life would be there and am well aware of what the tax rates are and that my take-home cash would be lower. That's awesome. Don't care. That's off topic and my income would still be significantly higher than average.

I never claimed to be an authority on Swedish economics. However, I am an authority on moving around and life. My point, from the start, is that quality of life to income balances out, just about anywhere you go. ...Especially in a welfare state like Sweden.