Tax cuts are old and outdated -Swedish finance minister.

[Aggrophobic]

Yes you did. Yes it does. If someone pays X% more in taxes they work X% more for other people.

No and no.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is the problem.

The average, which is average for a reason ; Pays less.

You literally get punished for climbing higher. To the extent of being able to make 4-5 times the pay, for the same position, in another country. When the relative costs, is approx 2-3 times higher. Leaving you with more money, regardless.

I actually counted on this, the relativity of worth of living in New York - One of the most expensive places in the world, to live. And the numbers crunched out, that with a pay of 15k Dollars a month, you will still have more relative purchasing power, than that of making 35k swedish a month, for the same job.

So, the discussion becomes really just, if you condense it - "Why should you, invest half of your pay (read: 50% taxes on the higher echilons) for services that are poorly rendered (7 months waiting time for Healthcare you already payed for, lol)?

Because of imagined morals? Because of that you will, feel better with a conciousness of making less, but having imagined moral highground?

Seems to be working quite well for the scandinavians though.
I'll take any scandinavian country over the US any day, all week. Standard of living, safety, all that.

[mittacc]

"We stand upon the shoulders of giants"

The level of entrepreneurship of today would not be possible without the infrastructure that exists in modern countries. E.g. Free health-care translates into healthier workforce, which is good for business; free education translates into a more educated workforce, which is good for business - and the list could go on.

The rich pay more because they generally have benefited more and will benefit more. But there are also other factors at play in the case of Sweden, namely a strong commitment to solidarity.

They would still pay more if they paid the same share...

- - - Updated - - -

No and no.

How can you argue against this? Can't you do basic math and logic?

[Deleted]

Eventually they will take it too far and there won't be anything left to take away from successful people.

[Themius]

Eventually they will take it too far and there won't be anything left to take away from successful people.

A fear everyone but the successful have.

[Daerio]

If the technology is invented that grants unlimited energy and society reaches the point where the government actually becomes self-sufficient despite itself, will it still decide it needs to confiscate over 50% of each individual citizen's wealth just to maintain the social structure?

[Dezerte]

If the technology is invented that grants unlimited energy and society reaches the point where the government actually becomes self-sufficient despite itself, will it still decide it needs to confiscate over 50% of each individual citizen's wealth just to maintain the social structure?

That depends on whether this unlimited energy will be socially owned (i.e. taxes will fund and maintain the resource) or privately owned (i.e. we need to directly pay for it). If said unlimited energy is maintenance-free and does not cost anything then there is no reason to tax for it either.

[Release]

Give me the socialist system that Sweden has where the country does genuinely care for its citizens than the corpocracy disguised as the fallacy of the American dream any day of the week.

[zealo]

Unfortunately, the possibility of this is what people voted for when the more right wing government we had for 8 years prior were switched out in the 2014 election, despite just how well Sweden managed to deal with the 2008 recession. The left viewing just raising taxes as the solution to their problems is fairly well known, despite how horribly mismanaged a lot of county economies are.

[alexw]

What you're saying is that the government uses the money that you earn better on your behalf than you do. That's a premise that's quite telling what you think about yourself and your fellow citizens.

On principle, I'm an advocate of a reasonably pure capitalism with health insurance and a basic social net. However, in a world where banks and car companies and energy suppliers are somehow too big to fail and need and receive absurd bailouts, we might as well tax them till they bleed in those times when they actually are turning a profit.

It frequently does. That the 1% have been able to convince so many people otherwise is the greatest con job ever pulled.

Do you know where new schools need to be built? Do you know what areas of basic research look the most promising so should be given priority funding? Do you know what the future of warfare is going to look like, so know what we should be spending on militarily? Do you know what the most preferable city designs are in terms of residents health, city efficiency, sustainability, and productivity, so know how guide city planning?

I could go on and on but the gov in many many many many cases does know how to spend money better than you do. You just won't let it.

[Spectral]

Spending to provide demand actually works.

Does it concern you at all that no one seems to be able to agree on what a typical fiscal multiplier is?

Stimulus spending to create demand is a fine idea if there's something tolerably useful to spend it on, but the idea of just throwing money at random projects has not been borne out to be definitively sound policy; multipliers appear close enough one that we should focus pretty heavily on whether the money's going to actually useful things rather than just declaring that we should spend more in recessions.

- - - Updated - - -

It frequently does. That the 1% have been able to convince so many people otherwise is the greatest con job ever pulled.

Do you know where new schools need to be built? Do you know what areas of basic research look the most promising so should be given priority funding? Do you know what the future of warfare is going to look like, so know what we should be spending on militarily? Do you know what the most preferable city designs are in terms of residents health, city efficiency, sustainability, and productivity, so know how guide city planning?

I could go on and on but the gov in many many many many cases does know how to spend money better than you do. You just won't let it.

To that point, it's not just about "knows better", it's about the fundamental problem of coordination - even if some private, middle-class citizen knew exactly what the best way to arrange national infrastructure, electrical grid, and scientific research allocation is, they don't actually have the ability to do that. If only there were some way to pool resources and allow domain experts to allocate funds in each of these areas... hmm... like a federal government or something!

[Deleted]

Seems to be working quite well for the scandinavians though.
I'll take any scandinavian country over the US any day, all week. Standard of living, safety, all that.

Your standard of living is lower due to less purchasing power - You are less safe, considering you don't get to carry a baton, knife, gun, or any of the kind without permissions - whilst criminals carry guns - Combined with that the police is understaffed, underpayed - Your access to healthcare more limited than that of the US, due to the fact of that no matter how much money you throw on something, won't garner you faster access (unless going through private, which renders it the same as the US, basically).

Again, i don't see why you'd trade the Swedish living standard for the US one.

The only one i could see argued for, is the Internet being better. But is up against 1k mbit worth losing a potentional 200%-300% modifier of your monthly pay?

Note, this is speaking of someone who is very succesful, average people still gain from living in Sweden.

- - - Updated - - -

That's because you are obliged to pay for the social infrastructure that allows you to safely amass that amount of wealth to begin with. And if you refuse you, you are welcome to move to a nation that you don't have to pay as much taxes because they don't have said infrastructure to protect you and your interests, like Somalia.

What does the social infrastructure have anything to do with the safety of amassing said pay, in said context?

Do you imagine that New York is roadless, without trains, without police?

The only relevance is the taxing rules - I could work remotely, but if i still tax according to the Swedish standard, i get kicked in the stomache due to not being middleclass.

[Aggrophobic]

Your standard of living is lower due to less purchasing power - You are less safe, considering you don't get to carry a baton, knife, gun, or any of the kind without permissions - whilst criminals carry guns - Combined with that the police is understaffed, underpayed - Your access to healthcare more limited than that of the US, due to the fact of that no matter how much money you throw on something, won't garner you faster access (unless going through private, which renders it the same as the US, basically).

Again, i don't see why you'd trade the Swedish living standard for the US one.

The only one i could see argued for, is the Internet being better. But is up against 1k mbit worth losing a potentional 200%-300% modifier of your monthly pay?

Note, this is speaking of someone who is very succesful, average people still gain from living in Sweden.

Someones a bit delusional...

[Stormdash]

Truism -- anything you tax, you'll get less of it. i.e. the more the non-beneficial cost of a behavior, the less of that behavior will manifest. It's the intentional theory behind draconian cigarette taxes, for instance, but it's also true for everything else that on which a tax can be levied. Costs to invest, people will do less investing. Costs more in tax to hire additional staff, employers will go without as best as they are able. Costs more to move into higher tax brackets, entrepreneurship decreases as does the incentive to aggressively seek promotion from a current job (both of which stifle economic growth).

[Deleted]

Someones a bit delusional...

Are you plain admitting that you don't have any argument, and too stupid to read, to boot?

The monthly pay of a high paying job in US gets up against 15k monthly: This is about 142.500 swedish kr a Month.

The same job, in Sweden, is about 35k.

A avg appartment in sweden is about 4k swedish, you could probably land the equivilant for about 1k dollars a month, or maybe more.

The relative %:ages follows: 11.4%ish of 35k pay, 6.67%ish of 15k monthly.

The prices of food on relative scale in New York compared to Sweden, is 2-3 times the swedish price on things.

Some examples: 500 gr of a Chicken, 7$, which means 14$ per/kilo, in Sweden it's 5$ etc.

Which means that as long as the remainder of your pay, is 2-3 times higher, than that of sweden, the rest is a net-gain.

The remainder after rent, is 133k Swedish, compared to where you have 31k in Sweden. The max range which we set, where everything turns into netgain, occurs after (31*3 = 93) - So you would effectively have a netgain of ((133 - 93) /3) in Swedish k's, which is about
an effective 13k Swedish kronor more a month, for the same job, in terms of converting it to Swedish kronor.

Which means that you'd netgain 37%, in effective pay, for the same job, with living in one of the worlds most expensive areas, by working in the US.

[Release]

Your standard of living is lower due to less purchasing power - You are less safe, considering you don't get to carry a baton, knife, gun, or any of the kind without permissions - whilst criminals carry guns - Combined with that the police is understaffed, underpayed - Your access to healthcare more limited than that of the US, due to the fact of that no matter how much money you throw on something, won't garner you faster access (unless going through private, which renders it the same as the US, basically).

Again, i don't see why you'd trade the Swedish living standard for the US one.

The only one i could see argued for, is the Internet being better. But is up against 1k mbit worth losing a potentional 200%-300% modifier of your monthly pay?

Note, this is speaking of someone who is very succesful, average people still gain from living in Sweden.

- - - Updated - - -



What does the social infrastructure have anything to do with the safety of amassing said pay, in said context?

Do you imagine that New York is roadless, without trains, without police?

The only relevance is the taxing rules - I could work remotely, but if i still tax according to the Swedish standard, i get kicked in the stomache due to not being middleclass.

As i've said before on these threads. When a countries overall inequality is lower everyone (including the successful) benefits. The nation is healthier, there is less crime,people are happier and more productive.

Also you cannot compare private healthcare in countries with nationalized healthcare and say they are basically the same. Right now I know if I become ill I can go and get good treatment on the NHS. If I can afford it I have the Option of choosing private but it is an option and I am grateful the net would always be there.

[Deleted]

As i've said before on these threads. When a countries overall inequality is lower everyone (including the successful) benefits. The nation is healthier, there is less crime,people are happier and more productive.

Also you cannot compare private healthcare in countries with nationalized healthcare and say they are basically the same. Right now I know if I become ill I can go and get good treatment on the NHS. If I can afford it I have the Option of choosing private but it is an option and I am grateful the net would always be there.

And the country average, in terms of happiness and what not, does not apply to the statistical anomalies (i.e, the very succesful) - Because the proportions are skewed. The richer you are, the more privleged you are, in the US - This is wellknown fact.

And i would not live in the US, for the sake of the population, i'd move there for my own sake - i don't consider my own person to be owned by the country i live in.

I pay my taxes, i pay my bills, i follow the laws - beyond that, i have no obligation to consider it any further, in any respect.

And i can ; because private healthcare means direct healthcare, a remiss in Sweden takes about 7 months on Avg (this is something you already payed for, indirectly, in taxes) - Levling the field would mean to assume paying for healthcare regardless of being in Sweden or the US.

The only factor becoming that the US pays more for healthcare, but like stated, with 37% increased net gain, i am certain that's not a problem (Assuming one is actually in need of healthcare.)

[Release]

And the country average, in terms of happiness and what not, does not apply to the statistical anomalies (i.e, the very succesful) - Because the proportions are skewed. The richer you are, the more privleged you are, in the US - This is wellknown fact.

And i would not live in the US, for the sake of the population, i'd move there for my own sake - i don't consider my own person to be owned by the country i live in.

I pay my taxes, i pay my bills, i follow the laws - beyond that, i have no obligation to consider it any further, in any respect.

And i can ; because private healthcare means direct healthcare, a remiss in Sweden takes about 7 months on Avg (this is something you already payed for, indirectly, in taxes) - Levling the field would mean to assume paying for healthcare regardless of being in Sweden or the US.

The only factor becoming that the US pays more for healthcare, but like stated, with 37% increased net gain, i am certain that's not a problem (Assuming one is actually in need of healthcare.)

I don't understand what you mean. Is your fundamental point you don't feel you have a responsibility to anyone else once you have paid your taxes and follow the laws?

The problem with American healthcare is that is run on a profit basis with minimal competition so it will never serve the people.

[Spectral]

...a profit basis with minimal competition...

What an odd claim.

[Deleted]

I don't understand what you mean. Is your fundamental point you don't feel you have a responsibility to anyone else once you have paid your taxes and follow the laws?

The problem with American healthcare is that is run on a profit basis with minimal competition so it will never serve the people.

My fundamental point, is that i ask for the point, of sticking to Sweden, if you are really succesful. As per the Topics subject:

You pay more taxes, to get a netloss in terms of effective paying situation, if you stick to Sweden, due to taxes.

And i am certain that one can forego the issue of poor service, by abiding to the higher prices - That's what the US is built on, after all, no? Get more money, throw more money on stuff, get more.

[alexw]

To that point, it's not just about "knows better", it's about the fundamental problem of coordination - even if some private, middle-class citizen knew exactly what the best way to arrange national infrastructure, electrical grid, and scientific research allocation is, they don't actually have the ability to do that. If only there were some way to pool resources and allow domain experts to allocate funds in each of these areas... hmm... like a federal government or something!

That's cultural marxism that is. Next you'll be wanting full blown communism. /s