I recently got back from a six week trip to Sweden (tough life, I know). Each time I go I learn a new lesson of sorts about how society could function—that is, be organized in a way that is different from how we do things in the United States.

The main lesson of my first visit, a few years ago, was an enduring one: that men could push a baby stroller as well as any woman.

This trip, the lesson didn’t become clear until I got back to Los Angeles. I’m looking for a new apartment, but the catch is I have a grad student budget. I was wondering if there were any rent controlled apartments in LA, so I hit up google and came across the “housing development” page from the City of Santa Monica. Turns out, Santa Monica “is dedicated to preserving existing affordable housing in Santa Monica and creating new housing opportunities for residents with low and moderate incomes.”

Awesome! A fellow grad student once told me that we probably qualify for food stamps, so I’m pretty sure I have low or moderate income. Perhaps I should sign up for the waitlist?

I thought about it for a few minutes and suddenly got an uneasy feeling. Wasn’t this a form of welfare? Isn’t welfare for poor people? I’m not really poor. I have a master’s degree and my parents could easily loan me money if I asked them to. What if I took a spot from someone who really needs assistance? It just didn’t feel right.

And then I thought about my friends in Sweden. Although Stockholm is an incredibly expensive city for tourists (that would be me, ouch), it’s very affordable for residents. One of the main reasons is that the personal budget item that takes up at least 30% of my income—rent—is extremely low in Stockholm. Basically, the government owns apartments throughout the city and through this investment can make apartments available to residents for a very low cost. The low costs of the government-owned apartments keeps the rest of the market in check. Of course, there is a long wait to get an apartment in the most desirable areas of the city, but everyone has an equal shot at that 2-bedroom with high-ceilings and gorgeous hardwood floors in Ostermalmstorg.

The most shocking thing is that everyone signs up for a place in this program. Everyone, even wealthy Swedes who can afford to but their own apartments. The logic is that everyone pays their taxes, so everyone deserves to have access to the benefits that their taxes afford. Rich, middle-class, poor, it makes no difference—these are universal benefits.

Take another example. Higher education is free in Sweden. In addition, all students receive a stipend from the government for living expenses. Again, everyone takes this benefit. I know a guy whose father was the CEO of Sweden’s biggest bank. His parents could easily pay for college tuition and cover their son’s living expenses. But he went to business school for free and took the student stipend like everyone else.

In some ways, this system doesn’t seem to make sense. Why would the son of a CEO need housing assistance or a student stipend? Wouldn’t that tax money be better spent elsewhere? I would argue that, no, this is exactly how tax money should be spent because it fosters the feeling among all Swedes that taxes are universally beneficial. Taxes are not charity. Taxes are for the benefit of all.

In the United States, as the debt crisis fiasco demonstrated once again, we are completely unwilling to have an adult conversation about taxes. The rich don’t want to be taxed more because they view it as a form of forced philanthropy, their largess probably going to support lazy immigrants on welfare. The middle-class is untouchable because it’s the voting base for both parties. The poor are so poor, they’re a nonstarter.

We need serious tax reform in this country. I think the best way to make taxes palatable for everyone is to adopt the Swedish mentality that taxes should provide universal benefits.

But back to me: would you sign up for the Santa Monica “Section 8/Housing Choice” program or not?