I was reading some more for the hell of it, and it is quite striking really how we are about to elect this moron Obama and his 'change you can believe in crap' Since I was talking about Sweden, I got more interested in how Europeans are viewing tax issues and redistribution. This article in particular has some interesting bits: http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,3343,en_33873108_33873822_40499607_1_1_1_1,00.html Do Taxes and Growth matter? Our recent work on âtax and growthâ suggests that corporate taxes are most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes. Finally, recurrent taxes on immovable property seem to be the least harmful for growth. This is why we would have not recommended abolishing the Swedish housing tax (as you did last year). yet Obama and that bitch Pelosi want to go after corporations at a time when we need economic growth... how about cap gains? Several governments have also reviewed taxes on capital. Some countries, including Sweden, have abolished or reduced capital gain taxes; the number of countries with net wealth taxes has fallen significantly (to less than eight); estate and inheritance taxes have either been eliminated or thresholds raised, property tax burden on business lightened. so what does that empty suit Obama want? higher cap gains... The American left is so bent on republican hate that they don't give a rats ass about the greater good accomplished by healthy growth. We are truly stupid as a people
davediode, you gotta be kidding me when you assert that swedes health care is free, man that is just clueless. There are nine inputs into the Economists' model, none of which are subjective. They then use multivariate regression to calculate the input's impact on life satisfaction. Is multivariate regression subjective? Not to me, it isn't. Which inputs you choose to use and how you weight them is subjective- period. I can't believe you actually asset that life satisfaction can be calculated, I'm sorry but that's just dumb. Please calculate for me my life satisfaction....Money magazine says Plymouth, MN is the best place in the US to live. I didn't know anybody takes that crap seriously. Ahhh... so Sweden isn't actually socialist and doesn't have a massive welfare state, they're actually non-socialist because they've learned the errors of their ways I said look at the trend, look at what they had to do to get out of national bankruptcy. Conservative economic reforms. Nobody, repeat nobody in their right mind, would look to expand social welfare when you need to get an economy moving. That's stupid.
You thrash about on Google like a bull in a china shop. The reality of capital gains in Sweden is that "the combined federal and local tax rates on capital gains can be as high as 63%." "Sweden also levies a 1.5% wealth tax on families who have assets greater than about $110,000." http://books.google.ca/books?id=2qA...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA29,M1 Please explain their successful economy, quality of life measures, and high per capita income.
For the user, it's free. For the taxpayer, it's included in their (high, socialist) tax rates. For the government, they spend less as a percent of GDP than the US does, they cover everybody and they have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality (ie. fewer dead babies) even among the very poor. I can't calculate a particular person's "life satisfaction" (there is no such thing) but on large samples you can compare quality of life between countries. Do you understand the difference? You're right that inputs can be rigged, but with nine reasonable inputs (you can look them up online) it's quite comprehensive. And yet, Sweden is expanding health care for the mentally ill... What will be the economic damage if Sweden goes from a maximum 63% capital gains rate to 64% capital gains rate? Your theory is that Sweden shouldn't work at all -- that it should have failed when clearly it not only hasn't, but it's balanced it's budget and has been a success for years.
I can't calculate a particular person's "life satisfaction" (there is no such thing) but on large samples you can compare quality of life between countries. Do you understand the difference? You're right that inputs can be rigged, but with nine reasonable inputs (you can look them up online) it's quite comprehensive. I understand, but you dont. Is this the one you are talking about? http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.PDF ya- dumb. The chosen nine inputs and weights are 'reasonable' just because you say so eh? Do you understand that in stats you can't make a meaningless microvariable mean something by macroaveraging? (That's why economics is called the dismal science). Surely you understand though that a 3% score difference between the US and Sweden is quite meaningless in this context. You thrash about on Google like a bull in a china shop. The reality of capital gains in Sweden is that "the combined federal and local tax rates on capital gains can be as high as 63%." "Sweden also levies a 1.5% wealth tax on families who have assets greater than about $110,000." http://books.google.ca/books?id=2qA...result#PPA29,M1 Please explain their successful economy, quality of life measures, and high per capita income. I did explain it. First the words 'as high as' are weasel words, only the true effective rate matters and that's much lower. They don't tax property as high so the wealth tax is probably similiar. I like to google, I learn a lot. Try it sometime. Here's one for you on how a sweden understands that lower taxes matter: "Mention low taxes, and Sweden might not be the first country that comes to mind. But, in reality, the Swedish corporate tax rate is below the rates in most European countries. At 28 percent in nominal terms, and 25 percent effective rate, Sweden has competitive tax rates when compared to other OECD nations" http://www.isa.se/upload/english/Publications/TaxesinSweden.pdf The reason Sweden is successful by some measures today is that they have learned their lesson, but apparently you and the demos have not. Let's review the lesson: Excessive socialism took them to the brink of national bankruptcy, I call that ruin. They pulled their asses out by deeply cutting the welfare state and installing conservative economic principles. In that brochere they highlight their low corporate tax rates (lower than US so they say). When I say the american left wants to be like sweden, they are rather stupidly are lurching towards socialism of the kind that almost buried Sweden. For instance all the democrats and obama do is bellow about evil corporations and that they don't pay their fair share. Swedes understand that those corporations are what pays the bill. You ask what would be the economic damage of higher rates? There is ample evidence that high corporate and cap gains rates are detrimental, just ask the Swedes and the OECD. They more than make up for it in other taxes though. There are many other factors, including a highly educated and homogeneous country (diversity=bad economics), they are small and are exporters of high tech, they don't have any military burdens, people leave them alone as noone wants to attack them, historically productive culture, etc- hardly a valid comparison for the US. Swedes don't all feel that their high personal tax rates are buying that great of a life, it's a myth that they are completely happy with thier health care or that their health care is the gold standard. Taxpayers are users by the way, not sure where you come up with that logic. There system also lacks innovation, they have a high degree of rationing with all the consequences. It's also a myth that we don't have socialized medicine. Our strange version of socialized medicine is why it is so damned expensive, but that's a whole new topic and I'm not going there. What's scary is that Obama wants more of the same.
Alright then, your argument is that Sweden, with a 63% tax rate, and the US are tied. Can you explain how socialism (which according to the thread title doesn't work) has managed even a tie with the US? !!! Look, there is no argument that Sweden has a far higher tax rate in general than the US. So how can it be a success if the Republicans are right and even increasing the MARGINAL tax rate from 36% to 39% will destroy the country? So... you're seriously going to try and argue that Sweden has lower taxes than the US? So Sweden got rid of its welfare state? 'Cause in reality it didn't. And in reality their tax rates are far higher than the US. Let me know if you're seriously arguing that they have eliminated their welfare state and now have lower taxes than the US and I'll be happy to cite you into oblivion. Health -- Sweden ranks 1st, U.S. 11th on 'Mother's Index' http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.ranking02/index.html WHO Issues New Healthy Life Expectancy Rankings "...the rest of the top 10 nations are Australia, 73.2 years; France, 73.1; Sweden, 73.0; Spain, 72.8; Italy, 72.7; Greece, 72.5; Switzerland, 72.5; Monaco, 72.4; and Andorra, 72.3. "The United States rated 24th under this system..." And from your source: Sweden has âworldâs best healthcareâ http://www.isa.se/templates/News____23492.aspx Like what consequences? Worse outcomes? Actually if you read his policy paper, he wants to have some sort of single payer or universal health care.
I do not see the problem with just chucking the whole system and going with a FLAT TAX. Granted the "Poor" that wont get out and work, and the lower working class should be under a threshold (say 20K) before the taxes kicks in. Say "Joe the Plumber" only made 35k. He will have to pay 10% of the $15000 over the threshold ($1500 tax). That leave him with $33.5K of expendable income. On the other hand: "Sigmond the CEO" made 2 million. Same thing, 10% on balance > 20K. He would be taxed on $1,998,000 ($199,800 in Tax) That still leave him with $1,800,200 expendable income. This is a lot, but it is what he earned compare to Joe's income, but the tax is fair. Eliminate all the deductions and just pay your share. (Like when you buy you cars, or LCD Flat Screen TVs) It can't be any simpler than that. You make the money, you pay the tax. It will be spread evenly so everyone will pay 10% NO prefential treatment. There is NO reason for a graduated tax system. NO MORE bellyaching about over the percentage your neighbor pay compared to you.
Sounds good one the face of it, but I think the problem is far more complex than just saying "oh flat tax works perfectly". I dont disagree with the premise, just that it would be more complicated that you describe and may or may not work.
Alright then, your argument is that Sweden, with a 63% tax rate, and the US are tied. Can you explain how socialism (which according to the thread title doesn't work) has managed even a tie with the US? Or conversely can you explain how the big bad US tied with mighty Sweden? But that wasn't really my point, which once again was that that whole ratings thing is a sham. Ever heard of Plymouth, MN? I have, grew up about 60 miles from the place and have been there. It's fine if you have roots there, but really, who the hell envies Plymouth, MN or adopts a strategy of emulating it? It's just as stupid to say "I wanna be like Sweden" because its 'ratings' are high. Every locale and group of people live in a different situation. !!! Look, there is no argument that Sweden has a far higher tax rate in general than the US. So how can it be a success if the Republicans are right and even increasing the MARGINAL tax rate from 36% to 39% will destroy the country? I'm tired of constantly re-explaining this, I didn't say an increase of 3% destoys a country... that's not what alone destroyed Sweden's economy. Socialism is more than a 3% tax increase and it will bankrupt us as well. Sweden has so many advantages over us in terms of their population, yet they still had trouble. The havoc we will face may very well tear this nation apart. The cost will make the Iraq war seem like an affordable evryday item. So... you're seriously going to try and argue that Sweden has lower taxes than the US? which tax? the Swedes like to brag about their low corporate rates and cap gains, but no I never said they had lower tax intake overall. The trends are opposite is what I said, they are stressing their attempts at lowering taxation while democrats stress raising them. The did keep the welfare state idea alive, but again what is the trend? They had to slash it to keep it alive, they had to introduce work incentives, they have to ration health care, they had to cut pensions...while here democrats are looking to give out cash to anyone who will vote for them. Demos see the welfare state as a ticket to power and don't see its warts and practicalities. Health -- Sweden ranks 1st, U.S. 11th on 'Mother's Index' http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH...ng02/index.html WHO Issues New Healthy Life Expectancy Rankings "...the rest of the top 10 nations are Australia, 73.2 years; France, 73.1; Sweden, 73.0; Spain, 72.8; Italy, 72.7; Greece, 72.5; Switzerland, 72.5; Monaco, 72.4; and Andorra, 72.3. "The United States rated 24th under this system..." And from your source: Sweden has âworldâs best healthcareâ http://www.isa.se/templates/News____23492.aspx life expectancy without proper normalization is meaningless, 'best healthcare' is meaningless, do I really have to explain again? I'd rather be at Mayo Clinic than Sweden if I had cancer, but I may rather be in Sweden for something else, not sure what but there's probably something.