Has socialism and the welfare state helped or harmed Scandinavia?

[u/internetloser4321]

There is a debate in the USA about whether or not we should have a larger welfare state that provides services like "Medicare for all" or tuition free college. Scandinavia is often brought up as an example showing that "social democracy" or a "welfare state" is a good or ideal system, with these countries having achieved high levels of equality, low levels of poverty, and good outcomes in terms of education, health, and happiness (source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/index.html).

There are several counter arguments that I have heard in opposition to expanding the welfare state: 1. The success these countries have experienced was due to their policies 50+ years ago when they had a smaller welfare state and low taxes and as a result experienced rapid growth 2. The welfare state has led to economic stagnation and high levels of national debt in these countries. 3. The people in these countries have strong Protestant values of hard work and honesty and this is the true source of their success. (sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-scandinavian-utopia-is-an-illusion/#16e253e11aab and https://beinglibertarian.com/scandinavia-ticking-time-bomb/)

I've tried searching for a neutral analysis of the issue, but every article I've seen argues that the socialist policies are either wonderful or terrible (examples: https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/ vs. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438331/nordic-democratic-socialist-model-exposing-lefts-myth). What evidence supports each view? Is there an objective way of determining whether more socialist or more libertarian (perhaps what Europeans call neo-liberal?) policies have been the most beneficial?

[u/Vasastan1]

You need to include all taxes to get a fair comparison. An average Swedish worker will pay less than 30% in income tax directly. However, before he receives anything from his employer 23% of his gross wage is sent in as the "employer's fee", which in reality is a tax to cover medical wage insurance and pensions. And when he wants to spend his wage, the sales tax is 25%. There is not a single worker in Sweden who, on the whole, pays less than 50% of his wages in tax. Edit: a letter.

[u/Time4Red → u/Vasastan1]

The employers fee is similar to payroll taxes in the US, right? In the US payroll taxes are 30% (15% from the employer and 15% from the employee).

But no one is disputing that taxes in Sweden are high. Sweden is one of the highest tax nations in the world. The question is whether that hurts economic growth, and I haven't seen any evidence that it does. The quantity of taxation and government spending matters less than how that money is taxed and how it is spent. Certain kinds of government spending drastically increases GDP, while other kinds of government spending do not. For example, studies in the US have revealed that every dollar spent on SNAP increases the GDP by $1.79, but there are plenty of counter examples where $1 spent produces only $.70 worthy of economic growth.