This is what you said originally: "Swedish standard of living, openness of society, democracy and education system" And notice what you said right before "I am more concerned of inequality, oppression and poverty; in practical sense."

I replied to that, focusing on material standards of living. I'm not saying that's only what you said, but it is what I took from it as your main point. Do you really think that's me twisting your meaning out of shape? Consider that the kind of informed choice you are focusing on requires material resources to support both the education system and the transparency of information (or actual physical mobility) of an open society. The only thing you listed that is mostly independent of resources is democracy, but democracy by itself is no guarantor of moral behavior; in fact many people would argue it does the opposite and merely reinforces the lowest moral denominator.

So the alternative to my interpretation - that "you basically said if improving materials conditions did not eliminate barbarism you'd despair at the human condition." Is that you basically said if improving cultural/moral conditions did not eliminate barbarism you'd despair at the human condition.

This strikes me as tautological, and so I'd still say don't despair and keep doing the good work of raising awareness - while respecting those you want to change. It won't be easy, as you know, because it's not a matter of black and white rationality... there are a lot of deeper things involved.

Anyway, TStael, if you think I misunderstood your point, kindly just tell me what I missed directly. I think it's normal in a dialogue that the person you are speaking with chooses what to focus on, and if you want, you can then go back or carry on. I tell you very often I find it hard to understand you, so I'm not in any way assuming I'm right about what you meant. Feel free to correct me. So please dial back the passive aggressiveness, and don't despair: just because it's difficult to convince others doesn't make it an unworthy activity. I'd suggest rhetorics help, but you seem to despise them. :(

Finally Hungary is on the first place in something . :(

link

Depend where the minimum wage is; in terms of the cost of living - and the overall social security. And the overall tax system.

If a single person, or a couple - HU and all that - had the pleasure of being employed - I say it so, because there are a lot of persons whom are unemployed at the moment - could they pay rent and food, reasonably? What if they were run over, by a car, and had their leg shattered - would they have to privately pay for all surgeries, or did their tax money maybe get them health insurance?

And say this single person, or a couple - still HU in this case - had a child. Any medical cum maternity / paternity support, cum allowances for a child?

And what is the tax system? I know Estonia had a rather low flat tax system back when, then - meaning, there was no tax progression; the filthy rich paid as much as the desperately destitute... Is it still... so??

You can post your bar chart - but how comprehensive, comparable, up to date, and critical is your source, I wonder? I mean, Finland was not there. We even tax the unemployed... Thou not pensioner tax refugees to Portugal!

From my perspective - Hungary has been rather negatively viewed in European News. Press freedom? Death penalty "flirtation"? On refugee point, Finland is not very tolerant - but my debate is about hard-balling in the universal sanctity and dignity of human life - if one wishes to partake on what is good about Europe - be this male, female, or child.

If the Hungarian "minimum wage" tax is at least as much applicable up to the most privileged and high earners - or, even better, progressive - what is there to :( about it? At least... compared? ;-)