Well, now I' ve inhaled some Gunnar Myrdahl coffe, so priority is part of.. what? I've studied at the same school!!!
The answer is of course a vocabulary of not being American.
America is always wrong, Jeltsin is sometimes a friend, I wish to sell you a record because I don't understand business patterns and behaviour. I'm not James Bond. I am James Bond. Doesn't it smell unsocialist in here?
Skype (before the Americans bought it), Cardigans, Electrolux, Wasa-knäckebröd (rye bread), ABBA, the Nobel-prize (and of course dynamite woohooo), ball-bearing, safety-matches, adjustable spanner, the words "mother" and "father" and "sky", snus (like the world didn't have enough cancer inducing substances), Tetra-pak, athletes like Björn Borg and Ingemar Stenmark and many more things not to mention that in 2013 we celebrate 200 years of peace. Not bad of a small country up north.
Now I don't agree with his political ideals (except those I just mentioned... thank god our police and fire department are still state owned) nor with the opposition wanting to lower taxes to oblivion and make the rich richer but we better do SOMETHING before we end up like Greece. In the meantime I'm proud of Sweden and when I go abroad I can many times point at our accomplishments. JAS-39 (like the world didn't have enough weapons), IKEA, Roxette, Volvo, SAAB (before the Americans trashed it).
We still have amongst the highest taxes in the world (they can't be lowered much because people still want the security net we've become used to for the past 70 years) and we're getting less for it.Because of funds wasted away we can no longer afford to deal with those things that I believe should be state owned and regulated, such as medical care, infra-structure, some transportation, everything that makes a country rich through development but is being sold out to infuse our wellfare with cash
He spends almost a third of this clip blaming the opposition for the "retreat of government ambitions" leading to worse benefits when the socialist party in Sweden has been in power (except for two occations, one lasting six years and another going three years) between 1936 and 2006... 58 of the past 67 (69 when this was filmed) years of our modern history. They introduced a system pro WWII with huge social benefits that we as a people can no longer afford but are used to receiving.
What a load of crap. Leif make it sound like the Swedish economy benefitted from the enormous success of the ideas of his political party and then continues claiming that the opposing ideals are bad for the social wellfare. The facts are that Sweden got away rather unscathed from WWII with unbombed factories and cities and plentiful of educated workers from the rest of Europe needing jobs. There was money to spare and the "surplus" he talks about went into social welfare, money that is now gone.
If you make more then 32000 a month you must pay 5% and another 5% more if you make more then 50000 a month so the richer you are the higer the taxes gets. This is how we in Sweden can balance the poor and the rich so they get closr to each other :) and the taxes on consumption, this is a good socialist model with a hint of the right wings ideas to :D
This is completely wrong! The first tax is 25% (and starts above ca 36000sek/month), but the second is 5%. And the money doesn't bring anything significant to the wealth fare system. The three taxes which basically is making the whole budget are the ones that are the same for everyone. Why we even have the extra taxes on higher salaries is to calm the hunger of jealousy, the force behind socialism which have which also have created the most evil regimes in history.
We need Social Democracy desperately in the United States, unfortunately the Right-Wing has such a vast amount of influence in this country through the media that it dwarfs and demonizes the Liberal side in comparison, giving rise to the infamous "Tea Party" which is ultimately a shill for big business
Sweden allows rapist to have less jail sentence than a tax invader. Sweden allowed race biology, Sweden allowed many things....
I would rather have "smack your bottom" than the highest rape in europe. And it's "as in brittish" For starters, correct spelling is British. You leave out the differences because you have no idea what you're on about.
@CLAPHAMCHAMPION Sweden allowed race bilogy? that happened 70 years ago! And brittain isn't an innocent country at ALL when it comes to racial equality.
I'm English, and have lived and worked in Sweden. Please don't think this country is a utopia as its not. It's overrated, the Higher Education is better in RedBrick UK universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.
This socalled "intigration" and every other piece of shit his just said well its all aload of bollox. Yet they don't mind migrating to the states where millions are unemployed. Funny why does no person say this?
@CLAPHAMCHAMPION You say you're english, as in brittish? GB still allows parents to beat their children as punishment if the for example spill their milk.
And comparing integration between UK and Sweden, I dont even know where to start so I'm just going to leave that out, and it's not because I dont know the differences.
@CLAPHAMCHAMPION Of course sweden isn't a utopia, and there are many people from the states migrating to sweden, plus that not everyone can study at oxford or english universities.
@Imhornydadcomeinside You are right! I am from the United States and I would like the United States to be more like Sweden. Sweden is an excellent place to live and hopefully one day I hope to live there as well! Don't listen to him since rarely do you ever hear from Americans, "Lets be like England" lol.
I wish USA was more like Swden, less Religious bigger government for the people and no wars. But that will never happen here in our corrupt Government.
We ourself choose to pay high taxes - with that I mean we vote in parties which promotes higher taxes for greater welfare - cause we know what we get in return, things you could only dream of.
If you wanted to pay for those services because you wanted the benefits, why do you need the government in the first place?
The ONLY possible reason is that all the people you say want it actually don't want it, and wouldn't pay unless they were forced. But because they are forced to pay, they naturally want their benefits out of it!
But don't tell me it's by choice - unless Sweden has no penalty for not paying taxes?
People willingly pay for what they want. They don't need to be forced.
If Swedes wanted to have lower taxes and thereby damaging the welfare we would vote for a party that gives us that! In this country we pick ourselves how we want the country to be ruled, and don't be fooled by our natural left views, the leftist in Sweden promote integrity and freedom more than our liberal parties. We're not forced, we know that even tho I could afford healthcare now maybe I wont in the future, it's a safety net, not that you would know anything about that American.
You keep saying there's no force. I'm sorry, but that is not true. It's not true anywhere. Gov't exists by force. They can only come to be by force. There's nothing voluntary about it.
I'm not attacking Sweden or Swedes. I'm talking about the nature of gov't, and man's right to life, liberty, and property.
Gov't destroys the social safety nets in order to create a need for its services, and then it forces you to pay. They crowd out the market for solutions through legislation. It's no secret.
In the US, the gov't put the mutual aid societies, the fraternal organizations, out of the business of hiring doctors and insuring their members by getting the best deals. They call it "regulation" of trade. They never had any right to do this because human beings have the right to make voluntary exchanges in a free market. That is the foundation of civil society.
More laws created more barriers. The whole operation has been designed to take power and impose central control of our lives.
Please, that's a load of bullshit, in Sweden anyway. We're not forced to anything, the government works for us not the other way around, that is how it works here and most of Europe. It seems American views of democracy isn't that at all. I feel sorry for you if that's the world you live in, cause It's certainly not mine.
Ok I guess that I am 'forced' in a sense to pay taxes, they pull 33 % of my salary, sure! That doesn't mean I don't wanna pay them! Government isn't at all working for their own interest, they work for the people. No country can exist without it. My question then is obviously, where are you going with this?
I was just trying to make a point about liberty and civil society vs how gov't rules by force and takes over economies, creates market distortions, becomes corrupt, etc.
Yes, we can exist without it. The US existed for 136 years before the banks took over the money and they instituted the income tax. These two things were from the communist plank, not part of US heritage.
Gov't is just an organization that rules by force. I'm for a free society.
So who's going to fix your roads, protect your beliefs, set polices, enforce laws? Sweden is the least corrupt country in the world yet we've had a tradition of a strong and centralized government since the 16th century (Long before the US ever existed), we also had the very first National Bank as well. We do need all these things, and we need them to be controlled. The government is needed for a modern society to work, it's been this way thousands of years.
Slavery, dictatorships, wars, etc., have all existed for thousands of years. The state also is a remnant of such barbarism.
The services you mention are provided by people. The state is nothing but a form of organization - of people. There are only people. There is no magic institution of people with magical powers.
They produce nothing. They only take what others produce. They claim a monopoly of force.
Drop your imaginative view of the world. First of all that's not the ill doings of the state it's the ill doings of humans, and that's nature, to get efficiency you need a centralized state of power, without that being present the human race wouldn't have gotten this far at all. Private cooperations can't rule by their own hand, you need rules, people will always have different opinions for whats fair and whats not, to enforce some kind of decency you need a government. It's reality
Check history. Slavery, dictators, wars, mass killings, monopolies, cartels - all produced by the state. All codified in law. Trillions stolen from US taxpayers, by the state. Trillions stolen worldwide by the state sponsored banking cartel.
How is centralized power efficient? That's absurd! Central planning always fails, and it's oppressive.
No one is against rules, only the initiation of force. Defense of persons and property is legitimate natural law.
The countries with most government control have also been the most brutal ones in human history. Knowing this, the founding fathers made the constitution to protect the people from the government, and to make it harder for the government to become something terrible. Not knowing this, have made it possible for nazis, communism and fascism get to power over whole countries/continents. The countries with less control have been the only ones defending democracy, freddom of speech and HR.
And in Sweden, the taxes aint 33%. You have employer tax 32%, self tax 33% and VAT 25%. Other taxes are house-taxes, dubble-profit tax ca 50%, income tax 20% (on salaries greater than ca 34000kr/month) and extra 5% on that on salaries greater than maybe 50000kr/month, TV-tax 2000kr/year, car-tax and so on. When I calculated my own tax in three diffirent ways, I landed on at least 70% tax. I will only keep a third. The remaining two thirds will be confiscated by the swedish state.
In Sweden you know why you pay the taxes, and that's because you get free healthcare, free schools.
In countrys with less govermental control have a moore alienated public that don't see why they should pay to help others. In Sweden we pay taxes that helps us and also help others in need. And that last comment about your hard-earned money is confiscaded by the swedish state is just an ignorant remark that just states the obvious, that you don't know what your talking about.
Are you challenging me when you are using the words "paid for" and "free" in the same sentence and absolutly no clue about the amount the taxes you pay in your own country? The only reason we have an welfare is because of the production output. Nothing else! Why should the state take my money and pay it? Why can't I pay it myself? Of course there is something ugly behind it. Your way of thinking is not uncommon however. watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8
Ok lets put it this way: You've seen how not having universal free healthcare haft worked out in the US. Rising costs and ridiculous rules that ensures that when you need healthcare, you wont get it so you end up paying extremely much for something you will get for free in Sweden. Thats why you pay taxes, so you will get the help you need when you need it. And if you don't call that free healthcare just because you pay taxes, that's fine by me.
Yet again, it's NOT free since we PAY for it. But it is universal. (Something can only be free if the person is working without payment.) And if you are experience something as "free", then it means someone else is paying for you. The US-system is something you and me know nothing about and therefore can't discuss it. The US has problem with the state-intervention (as the home-rent institution which are driving the country to bancruptcy)
That's exactly why I said it is fine by me if you don't want to call it free, I prefer to call it free, because you can get open heart surgery without contacting your insurance company. You get what you need if you need it without paying ridiculous amounts of money. The US system is not working, and many experts agree with me. That's also why they now in the US is trying to introduce their new public healthcare plan, because they know that the current system doesn't work.
@ClarkEriksson Comparing the Sweedish system with the US is apples and oranges. Sweeden is NOT overpopulated with imigrants like in the US. The nasty cold climat doesn't appeal to most immigrants looking for "free" healthcare. Plus, Sweeden has stronger immigration laws.
There's no such thing as free healthcare. It's payed with high taxes (triple the amount of the US) by their citizens.
Americans want free healthcare but don't want higher taxes. It can't happen
Actually, low taxes and frivolous spending is driving the US to bankruptcy. There isn't a home-rent institution that's behind this; other factors are to blame. I'm not sure if you're referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but if so, keep in mind that these institutions have been in existence since 1938 and 1970 respectively. If such institutions were the driving force behind US debt accumulation, bankruptcy would have been triggered long ago.
@TheAtheistAllegiance On average,the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.Poverty rates are much lower there,and national income per working-age population is on average higher.Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups,slightly higher in the Nordic countries.The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group with larger surpluses as a share of GDP source:(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
@TheAtheistAllegiance Scandinavian countries have shown that there is an alternative way to cope with globalization. These countries are highly integrated into the global economy; but they are highly successful economies that still provide strong social protections and make high levels of investments in people. They have been successful in part because of these policies, not in spite of them.
@TheAtheistAllegiance Right.The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways.Most important,they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education.All of them,especially Sweden and Finland,have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness.Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D,the highest ratio in the world today.source(International Affairs August 14,2009)
@zsylvana , hey man, thanks for the vid. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about Sweden with out sounding like a dumb shit American. LOL. You are right about the US getting no where with the poor and health care. We waste an enormous amount of money here. Spending money on R & D is the way to go. That's the only way to advance. It's not a waste of money to try to advance your tech and education. American colleges are fucking garbage. Don't be fooled.
@TheAtheistAllegiance The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.source(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
@ClarkEriksson that is a good point, but in the US the government forces you to pay higher taxes to help someone you don't even know. In Sweden on the other hand they don't increase the tax on the rich or big corporation because that hurts the economy. Instead sweden has taxes on consumption meaning even the poor pay. Sweden didn't become a wealthy nation from socialism they did it the same way any country would and that's from having a capitalist free market.
Where are you getting your information? The US pays 17% of GDP per capita for healthcare, while Sweden pays around 9%. Not to mention, Sweden is by no means a free market. There may be free trade among its borders, but the government owns vast amounts of industry, levies high taxes on its wealthiest citizens to pay for its vast public services, and the economic environment is subject to plenty of regulations.
@TheAtheistAllegiance ummm ever hear of the "Free Market Renaissance"??? obviously sweden is not a free market, but that is how they gained all of their wealth as would any innovative country.
Yeah, a Renaissance in which Sweden has marginally shifted its policies to the right -- hardly a victory for Capitalism. In the end, the nation is still the epitome of a Welfare State, so there's no possible way that unfettered markets can take credit for the country's success.
No, he is right. Sweden has one of the most privatized economies in the world. And the wealth is an product of the industries which were founded many decades ago. The whole idea is from US, that you barely tax the companies, but the labours. And their consumption through VAT. The extra taxes on the rich barely brings any money to the state budget and has nothing to do with the wealthfare. The value of products from the industry is the heart to the wealthfare system.
The percentage of privatized industry is not the only indicating factor. Sweden has a heavily regulated labor market, an extensive welfare system, and government expenditures reach approximately 50% of GDP, which is the second highest in the world. This is hardly reminiscent of unfettered Capitalism.
Also, the top marginal income tax rate is 60% -- nearly twice that of the US, so don't underestimate the revenues brought in by income taxation in Sweden.
the thing is that a lot people do pay that 60% rate (anyone who makes more then £32k or about $50k per year), its actually quite a lot of people. and yet Sweden out ranks the US in many ways.
Check "Human development", see which ones who got ahead, no wait, you don't have to look it up I can give you the answer right away: The people which had a centralized state and government (Read: ex. Rome). And again, the government doesn't take money and keep it for themselves, it's used to enforce laws, fix your roads, protect you independence etc. Humans are in need of leadership, it's simply how we were designed so no your vision wouldn't work, don't you think it has been tried before?
Your example of "human development" is Rome? A murderous expansionist empire? Ok.
Yes, humans need leadership - the voluntary kind, the hard-won kind, the shoulder-to-shoulder kind, NOT tyrants using violence and theft and lies to rule others! Think about what you're saying.
Yes, liberty has been tried before and it has been wildly successful. The fact that it must be CONTINUALLY kept down by FORCE by a MINORITY ought to be instructive to you.
Would you stop, that's how humans are, don't blame the government itself. If it would have been in your world it would still exist except it would be companies doing it instead of governments, jeez (Read: Human Behaviour). Rome was ahead all others in science, welfare, culture etc, all because of the centralized and regulated ruling which occurred. Now tell me about this dreamy nation where liberty runs freely. Jeez, wake up, it's how humans work and so does the earth.
@MillionthUsername Isnt your 2nd paragraph,exactly the thought that leads to a social organizing,govt? Standing shoulder to shoulder together.The question is why do you refuse to volunteer your contribution to the betterment and security of your countrymen? Why must the vital resources needed to survive be for sale to the highest bidder?
Social organizing and criminal gang organizing are not the same thing. One is voluntary while the other is imposed by force.
Where do you get the idea that I "refuse to volunteer" my contribution to the betterment and security of my countrymen?
Are you asking me why I am against corruption, counterfeiting, dropping bombs on people, putting people in cages for making a living and keeping the fruits of the labor?
Tyrants are people use enslave others by force. They steal their produce and force them to conform to their edicts. They usually also imprison and/or kill people who resist the plunder.
What people usually mean when they say something is socialist is that its regulated to the extent that the major needs of people are dictated by the government.
What people miss is that gov't controls the money. This allows them greater control than people realize. Due to the fraud of money printing (inflation), they can carry on grossly expensive and purposeless wars, introduce new social programs with ZERO funding from taxes.
This fiat money taxes people invisibly and it is continual. This is why most people never get ahead and why so many are in debt. Nearly all property is indebted. The "money" itself is debt.
What you all seems to miss is that no one is forced to anything, we elect our parties and that makes the government the people, with other words, the people are in control of the money.
Why do you never seem to realize that?
Solidarity, is the key word. It's everyone with everyone for everyone, not every man for himself, that is egotistic.
Of course people are forced. That's the nature of politics - to impose your will on others. Those who resist the taking of their property are punished severely. Most comply only out of fear of persecution.
In a free society, people would not be treated this way.
If there were solidarity, you wouldn't be taking people's property from them at the point of a gun. You wouldn't think you needed to, right?
I don't know of anything more egotistic than theft. So I think you have it backwards.
No one is forced, yet again you seem to misunderstand democracy, we elect the government, we ourself chooses who should be in power, the government doesn't control the people it's the other way around. So you're either a troll or simply haven't experienced a true democracy (Sweden by the way tops that list as the number 1 democracy in the world.. oh and that's with heavy left leaning politics, even our right wing party promotes welfare and socialistic ideas as such)
I understand democracy just fine. Benjamin Franklin said democracy was "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."
"No one is forced." Are you kidding?
"we ourself chooses who should be in power"
I never chose for anyone to have power over me, and neither did you. If you did, it would be a personal matter and not something you could force on others.
Give me a break with the democracy garbage. It's just some people ruling over others. Those who resist are punished. Simple.
Keynesian economics is NOT economics. It's a system of control. Keynes wrote, in the introduction to the German edition of his General Theory, that his system was best applied to totalitarian states. It is a type of central planning and offers politicians a pseudo-intellectual defense of it.
Keynes' theories were discredited in the 70s when "stagflation" revealed his fallacies about monetary "stimulus" and economic growth.
Inflation only causes harm. That's why it's a crime to counterfeit!
Sweden's high taxes as supposed to "redistribute the wealth but one family controls the Wallenbergs 40% of the stock market. With their political connections they have been corporate barons. The high taxes never redistribute hurt the richest the wealth they just prevent others from being as rich as them. To me that is really unjust. High skilled people from all over the world that want to be billionaires don't go to Sweden they go to the US.
As I am sure as you know you can distort stats. In 1989 before the wall fell the CIA said that East Germany was richer than West Germany. But that certainly wasn't the case... European Wages are stagnate. h t t p : / /bit. ly / IM6Po
It's harder to get rich in Sweden sure (Not at all impossible - Ingvar Kampard IKEA).. But then again we don't have slums nor poor people as already stated, the system we have contributes to our citizens well being, you can't say the same about the American system. Before you start screaming about capitalism you may want to compare the European standards with the American ones, if you can be objective I think you'll have to be quiet from then on.
Sweden is not Socialist paradise you portray it to be. Its in the world largest free trade zone in the European Union. It has low corporate taxes it is privatizing industries at the same time when the US is nationalizing industries... But the taxes that are the most regressive for the poor such as sales tax payroll tax income tax Sweden has the highest in the world. The taxes that are the least regressive. Corporate taxes etc they have the lowest.
Erm.. Do you live here? I feel so grateful that I never have to be worried about anything, not education, not healthcare and not even money. Would you hate it to live in a society like that? Sure I have to pay for it in taxes, but I can afford to pay taxes continually, what I can't afford is to pay 1 million if I get cancer? Nor 400.000 dollars for 4 years of college. I can get university education for free. This is called "Swedish Socialism" and it does work, it's not Communism.
There is no such thing as free... You pay for it just like everyone else. Like I said before there are many with comfortable lives and life time but many with lifetime unemployment. Sweden is the 25 most neo-liberal country in the world they are not as "socialist" as you think they are. h t t p : / / bit. ly/ xcn8
IKEA fortunes would be impossible with out free trade. I think that you are portraying America as having no welfare state or social safety net which is a joke. Europe has a lot more homeless than people imagine. h t t p : // bit. ly/ 3wFmJ0
But Government lifetime employment for some means lifetime unemployment for others.Which is exactly the cast for most of Europe. Those white Swedish workers that have jobs for life are happy and those immigrant muslims that don't have jobs are angry & riot
Answer this question if Sweden has the best standard of living why don't you have millions or billions of people wanting to living in Sweden??? Millions of people who are rich and poor are coming to the US. Now the US has large populations from every nation on earth ...
Erm they are, Sweden took more middle eastern immigrants last year than you've done for 10 years. People do mostly immigrate to Sweden cause we have the social security net no other country has. Just cause people from Mexico migrate to the US doesn't make your country into a paradise, it's just less shitty across the border.
Well we have more Eastern Europeans Chicago has more Poles than every polish city beside Warsaw. We have more Pakistani's Africans. The US has over a million legal immigrants a year. Not to mention Asian African South American...
You possess the third biggest landmass of all countries in the world and you got a population that exceed ours by 341 Million. Don't be a smartass, idiot. You've never even experienced socialism in anyway so you should just shut the fuck up, I have got the best of both worlds, socialism and capitalism, the so called "Swedish Socialism" is the perfect blend between the two. So please, don't try to lecture me, I fucking live in it, it's like if you tried to lecture an Iraqi about war. jeez.
Your so typical of most liberals when confronted with the facts you ignore them and throw a fit.. Just because I have never lived there doesn't mean I don't have a right to speak on the subject. I doubt that you have even lived in the US for an extended period of time and if you did so what? So does that mean that you don't have the right to say that your system is superior? Lecture you? You were the one that was asking me questions and now your getting pissed.
I'm not a liberal.. I'm a socialist. On topic, that's correct, you can still debate the subject, but don't think your knowledge exceeds that of a first hand source. How I know about capitalism? The American way? Well Sweden is copying it if so in a smaller manner, so I live in that too, if so just a bit, which means I have first hand experience with both systems. The thing about this is that the new Amercianized politics that intrudes Sweden has just made things worse for the greater public.
Socialism is state ownership and control. Sweden does not have national planning boards. There are 4 countries that are "socialist" and they all are incredibly repressive. Even in the heyday of socialism the state controlled less than 20% of the UK economy. Sweden's economy collapsed in 1990 and they sold off state industries privatized cut taxes and joined the worlds large free trade zone. You rely on a market economy albeit one that is regulated more than the US but a market economy nonetheles
But in the absence of ownership, they control through regulation. In my view, nearly every country is socialist. They believe that "the people" can "regulate" really just about anything and everything about human life. All they have to do is introduce a bill and they can issue more stacks of rules whenever they wish.
This is certainly the essence of socialism. Let's not get bogged down by obsolete definitions. It's a system of control, NOT freedom.
All economies have rules regulations are you implying all countries are socialist? Absence of state ownership is market regulation. But all economies have rules and regulations. You can make rules but that doesn't mean the rules will give you the outcome you wanted. Government regulations more often than not have the unintended consequences. There is never enough information for any one body to make accurate predictions. 6 billion people will make better decisions than thousands of Gov officials
All countries seem to have socialist programs: central banking, social security, medicare, subsidies, bailouts, etc. Gov't runs peoples' lives without any boundaries. The US has no boundaries either. The constitution is long dead, having been stripped of any restraining power people once might have imputed to it.
Economies provide their own regulation since exchange is voluntary. But all gov'ts operate as as central planners whatever they call themselves.
Europe invented capitalism and had the highest standard of living in the 19th century. It abandoned it after the post war period and its standard of living relative to the US declined. Then in the 1980's they privatized and introduced market liberalism. Their standard of living rose because of market liberalization.
Sweden is the 25th out of 174 most liberal country in the World. France ranks 64 and Italy 76 have stagnate wages declining standards of living. Denmark 8 and Switzerland 9 do not.
I stated that I was a socialist, nothing else. Who do you think got us out of the bank crisis in the beginning of the 90s? The Social Democrats. Sweden was one of the richest countries in the world in the 60, which also happens to be the decade Sweden was to become most socialized.
Anyway, you're getting off topic. Just to get to the point, I know the benefits of capitalism, I enjoy them everyday, but that wasn't the core in this conversation -->
The core in this is your unjustified hatred towards any uns of socialism, It's simply stupid, if it is as horrible as you say how come I got a nice life? In this household we got 3 Flatscreen TVs, my computer worth 1500 dollars, 3 laptops which were all bought last year, we drive a Mercedes ML 320... Does that sound like I got it bad? Not only do I have this but I also have free education, healthcare, dental, If i get sick the government pays me my salary till I get better. Horrible isn't it?
Sweden is not a socialist country... They are a market driven capitalist country. They have more market regulations than the US but they are a market driven country. But even in your defense of socialism you mentioned that you have a german car I bet you computer was made in Asia long with your flat screen. You have those things because of free trad and capitalism not because of a gov run industries aka socialism.
But lets talk about what happened in the post war era. The Marshall plan eliminated tariffs between Europe and the US and different EU countries. During the post war period they had young populations so the generous welfare benefits for the old hadn't quite kicked in. The problem with socialism is that it runs out of other peoples money. During the 1990's The Social Democrats solved the problem not by Keynesian spend your way out of a problem but by cutting spending and Budgetary restraint...
Just because a party calls themselves socialist doesn't mean they actually push for nationalization of industries (socialism) Sweden is becoming richer because of market liberalization not because of government protections.
Who cares about people getting rich? - TSD is mostly about public service, and a security net, which are socialistic ideas - , That's the beautiful thing about socialism, it's about solidarity, why should you have everything while other citizens starve? It's about caring for your countries citizens, which we do here. I know were not a socialistic country, we thrive on some of it's ideas though. But you see where I'm going with this? I'm not poor, neither are anyone else. The US is egotistic.
You see things in black and white. So helping others makes you a socialist? Give me a break. Conservatives give more to charities both secular and religious does that make them Socialists? The US has 25% of the Worlds GDP but 40% of the worlds foreign aid. That doesn't even factor in the 300 billion dollars given to charities every year. While IKEA Billionaire's spends billions of dollars on of all things Interior Design Bill Gates The Rockefeller's Carnegies spend their lives helping the poor.
You know who cares about being rich? The poor... Its easy for you to dismiss anyone trying to better himself now that you are in the richest 5% in the world. Let me ask you a question how much of your own money have you ever given to the poor? Either domestically or internationally? Most Europeans talk a good game about helping the poor but they never personally do it.Just because the US favors private aid over public doesn't mean that the US is egotistic.
I keep hearing this from Europeans, and I wonder where it comes from. Is it part of the socialist party rhetoric over there?
I have a serious problem understanding why some people think that a word like solidarity can apply to a system of control where people are forced to participate in some bureaucratic program.
The use of coercion would seem to be the very opposite of solidarity and civility and "caring".
I don't think that controlling others is civilized at all.
If high taxes are good for the economy why has every single industrialized country in the world cut taxes dramatically in the past 30 years? But high taxes do produce stability but the wrong kind of stability they prevent new companies competing with old companies in the US few of the top 100 countries are even around today But the majority of the top 100 European countries are around today propped up by regulations high taxes that prevent them to fail and others to succeed.
THEY DON'T CREATE MORE TAX REVENUE! as the article states "If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims (that tax cuts pay for themselves) are false". I have a degree in this, you obviuosly don't. You don't understand that there are two forces pulling in two different directions visavi tax revenue here. You only take the incentive to work more in to account, not the actual tax cut.
Yes most critics of the tax cuts don't measure tax cuts by dynamic scoring but static scoring. So they their stats come out all wrong. Senator Packwood asked the Joint committee on taxation to calculate how much income comes from 100% taxation they replied well it will increase revenue. There are those that that actually do calculate taxes that way.
h t t p : / / tiny . cc / eX47D
There is statistical proof that they do. increase revenue.
I realize this was a couple of months back but, Do you honestly believe that US Standard of Living is and has been higher than that in Europe, Sweden? You have the child mortality rate of Slovenia, 30 somewhat percent of your inhabitants is below the official line of being poor (the number was 0 in Sweden in the 90s). Is it something Europe and Scandinavia in particular has shown is that government (the people) control and high taxes produces stability, growth and a high standard of living.
Well Europe why are more immigranting France and Sweden and to the to the United States? The poor are rioting and the middle class is leaving. The French are 5x as likely to migrate to another country than Americans.The muslim underclass is being radicalized don't even claim that they are European. And you think that there are 0 poor people in Sweden that is a farce... Wake up buddy...
In the 90's we had a law which stated that no man should be homeless nor don't have the money to survive, that was to be provided to them. Today you can only be poor or homeless if you choose to be so (though it has become harder to get the support with this new right wing government than with the left wing one we had before - hence looking back at the 90s), though everyone who actively search for a job have got the right for money and a place to live.
Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
I am going to leave this discussion with an article for you to read. I know it wont change your mind, nothing will, but anyways google "time tax cuts don't boost revenues" and read it, its the first hit.
I read the article before. His time frame is so small that the past 10 years it doesn't have much evidence statically. When you factor in the past 30 years or 40 years which the article that I sent you has you get a different picture. But that being said there are hundreds of factors to the growth of an economy and therefore growth in tax revenue. But all things being equal tax rates do effect behavior which you have conceded and they do create more tax revenue. h t t p : / / tiny. cc / D2TnI
Data that shows that the rich paid more under of their income under the bush tax cuts.
If Sweden is such an egalitarian society why does one family, the Wallenbergs, own 40% of the stock market? No American family has ever had that kind of control of American business.
* Apoteket - pharmaceuticals. To be partially sold when breaking up the state monopoly and opening the market to free competition. [5] * Nordea - bank. 19.5% owned by Swedish government.[28] * OMX - stock exchange. Shares sold to Borse Dubai for 2.1 billion SEK.[29] * Telia Sonera - telecom. 37.3% owned by the Swedish government.[30] Hitherto SEK 18 billion worth of shares has been sold reducing state ownership from 45.3% to 37.3%.[31]
The Swedish government has announced that it will privatise a number of wholly and partly state owned companies. "The income from these sales will be used to pay off the government debt and reduce the burden of debt for future generations. The Government's ambition is to sell companies to a value of SEK 200 billion during 2007-2010
For example, during the mixed economic policies from 60s to 80s, Latin America grew 80 %, but from 1980s to 2005, it grew a meagre 10 %, only 1 % from 2000 to 2005! This is an unprecidented growth failure, brought about by neoliberal economic policies which were stringently followed in the region during this time.
And you haven't refuted anything I said about the US. States with more regulations and taxes are still more prosperous than those below avarage states like Texas.
Your confusing average income vs. cost of living. California does have a higher average income around 60k but the cost of living there is just insane. If your making Any home in LA SD SF will cost you about 400,00. Red states have lower incomes around 40k but home in Alabama Arizona Texas will cost 100-200k Where would you rather live? In California even with the higher income there is no way a person could afford a home but in Red States is easily achievable.
Your logic is truly bizzare at times. The fact that Texas don't have to pay 10% of their incomes reduces their cost of living. But even then the cost of living in Texas is far below the cost of living in California other high tax states. The average home price in Austin Texas is around 120,000 a year. 1/5 of what is it in California.
It was only when Europe was so rich and powerful (Nordic countries weren't, and indicidentally they never had any colonies, and also lower protectionism) that they could liberalize their trade: no one would could compete with them, so they had nothing to fear. ALL rich countries grew rich due to mixed policies, never through neoliberal policies. Likewise, today, Denmark and Finland can practice and preach free trade, because few can compete with them enough to comprimise their economies.
"few can compete with them" So your say that Denmark and Finland have a comparative advantage which allows them to compete in the world economy?
Yes all states have a comparative advantage China can't compete with Nokia phones (which became a global power because of telecom dereg.) but they can compete when building furniture for IKEA.
The states that are the most protectionist South America with the protectionist theory and Africa. have the least ammount of growth.
I'm saying that Finland has the technology, accumilated capital, education and so forth, which a developing countries lack. A lot of that is Nokia wouldn't even have existed without Finnish protectionism, because nokia's technology sector would have been dismantled in an open market because for decades it didn't produce any profit: only later it grew into a giant due to various reasons (some related to 90s depression).
Anyway, specializing in comparative advantage is specialization in poverty.
The reason Nokia did not have any profits is because it was selling only to those in Finland. When Nokia was allowed to sell phones internationally their profits exploded.
When deregulation occurred the companies that weren't profitable were eliminated and the ones that were profitable such as Nokia. Nokia was able to sell more and hire more people then would be possible then just selling phones to those in Finland alone.
"Specialization in poverty" Why doesn't each city in Finland build its own cars its own clothes its own food?
To encourage this why does each city put up high taxes for goods made outside of the city in order to protect the workers inside the city.
Ideas like that are absurd. Countries that rely competely on their own goods such as Cuba and North Korea are very poor. Countries that rely on global trading Europe Hong Kong (which has zero tariffs) are very rich.
We have spend trillions of dollars in aid to Africa and little in Asia. In terms of technology the third world countries block themselves off from new technology with high tariffs.
America has always attracted the best talent and not just created their own. Sergey Brin the creator of Google was born in Russia. Andrew Carnegie the steel giant was born in scotland. Einstein was born in Europe. They come because of low taxes because they want to make a fortune.
Hah. Yeah. If great people only wanted go to countries with low taxes, they could go to a third world country where income tax regimes cannot be enforced. And no, the third world isn't protectionist. From the 60s to 80s, when the third world used to grow several times faster than today, mixed economic policies were followed.
New York City has lost more than 75,000 jobs since last August, and many industrial areas upstate are as rundown as Detroit. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently said New York had the worst economic outlook of all 50 states, including Michigan. And that analysis was done before these $4 billion in new taxes. How does Mr. Silver define "catastrophe"?
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / irB6u New York's Mixed economy.
Mr. Silver says of the coming tax hikes: "We've done it before. There hasn't been a catastrophe." Oh, really? According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures -- the biggest exodus of any state.
In 2003 during the last recession Michigan had lower taxes and a 3% unemployment rate. Since then they had a democratic governor which raised taxes and regulation and a 10% rate.
The winners in this contest for the most valuable resource on the globe human capital are generally the states with the lowest tax spending and regulatory burdens The biggest losers are almost all congregated in the Northeast and Midwest Liberals contend that tax rates regulations forced union laws and runaway government spending dont matter when it comes to creating jobs high incomes and a higher quality of life. People tell us otherwise by voting with their feet
I would totally agree when there is high taxes rates people push for and received tax loopholes. European countries are discovering that lower tax rates create higher tax revenues. Just like the laffer curve described.
Nonsense. European political system is different: the corporations do not wield the same influence as they in the US. The European corporate tax rate is lower nominally, but larger in actuality, which is why it generates more revenue than the almost nonexisted, unenforced US corporate tax rate. The laffer nonsense has nothing to say about this.
You have gotta be kidding yourself. There are several companies that were central to the US that aren't around anymore such as Woolworth Pan Am.Few of the US 100 largest companies 100 years ago even exist today. The same is not true in Europe they have had nearly all of the same 100 largest companies have been around 100 years if not longer. Intense corporate regulations high taxes prevent new companies from competing with old ones. European Corporations are essentially defacto oligopolies.
Irrelevant point. American business culture has been on the decline, very strongly. Europe isn't any less productive. A welfare state doesn't hamper growth. This economic crisis has proven it.
Oh, you were referring to corporate influence in politics.
Corporations usually don't want constraints on their activities, regulations or high taxes. So such policies are not preferred by any "oligarchs".
And, as some folks at the IMF has pointed out, oligarchy is a growing American problem. Just because the company logos change every now on then, doesn't mean that the culture and people change.
wrong again. Much like Reagan's USA (or Bush's for that matter), countries that lower taxes finds themselves with a budget deficit. The Laffer curve might look good on paper but I've yet to see it an example of lowered taxes leading to higher revenues in reality.
According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."[
So your quoting James tobin? He was responsible for convincing the Johnson and Kennedy administration to follow Keynesian ideas. He believed that Unemployment and Inflation were inversely related. But that idea like Keynes was discredited in the 1970's.
James Tobin felt that "inflation could have a positive influence on growth" which is discredited central bankers all over the world are fighting inflation and not stoking it.
Sweden didn't reduce the tax rate with the belief that it would increase revenue. Doing so would even with such a high tax like sweden lead to a deficit. The cuts were financed in large parts by cuts in the public sector. Theres not a right wing government on earth that doesn't want to reduce the public sector.
If they didn't do it to increase taxes or jobs... Why did they do it? Are you saying that they lowered taxes on the hope that it will create fewer jobs and less revenue?
Right wing government want to reduce the size of government and there are a few left wing governments as well. Because Sweden is ruled by a left wing party the Social Democrats but it is going on with their privatization efforts.
They cut taxes and fianced it by cutting the public sector. If your assertion (and Laffer's for that matter) was right the downsizing of the well-fare state should not have been necessity. It was though because the taxes revenues would have gone down otherwise much as it did for Reagan (and for Bush). Your assertion that Sweden is ruled by the Social Democrats shows me yet again that you are poorly informed, Sweden has a right wing government.
They are not privatizing the welfare state. They are privatizing publicly own companies in Sweden. I am not all over the place. Considering that I am not the one that didn't know that they were privatizing companies in his own country I am not the one that is uninformed either. If tax revenue goes up when the rate goes up why don't you put the tax rate at 100% ?
But since you also claimed that the Social democrats rule Sweden when they don't I'm still feeling safe in saying that you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. As for the tax comment you might have found one of the few merits of the laffer curve, but since no country have a 100 % tax rate (or anyway near it) it is all rather pointless. Just show me one example of where lowered taxes has lead to an increase in tax revenue and I'll believe you.
I can show numerous occations when the opposite were true, but something tells me that wont change your mind. The dead weight costs are always much smaller than they need to offset the actual loss of revenue.
Well I showed you the Congressional Budget Office study.
Swiss low-tax policy irks EU
It is true that foreign businesses are beating a path to Switzerland's door, primarily to Zurich.
h t t p : / / tiny . c c / XDWAm
Ireland was the sick man of Europe for centuries until it cut taxes and attracted foreign investment. Are the poor worse off then the were in the 1980's?
First off here's a Irish joke for you "What's the difference between Iceland and Ireland? One letter and six months." (Assumes of course that you know that Iceland has gone bankrupt). The Celtic tiger years were in large parts a bubble but thats really beside the point.
I'm not arguing that taxcuts doesn't stimulates the economy, they often do. However a taxcut does not raise tax revenue (except in extreme cases that you'd be hard pressed to find in reality). They dont pay for themselves
You keep on making that claim that tax cuts did not raise revenue. But I have given you numerous studies that say other wise. You just making claims but you have no evidence to support the contrary.
Ireland is experiencing some tough times but they are still better off than when than the 1980's.
You don't grasp the theory behind the Laffer-curve. That a country can fair better under lowered taxes doesn't mean that tax revenue has gone up, why is that so hard to understand? If you make cuts in spending at the same time that is. Which is what all the countries you talk about have done. The taxcut in itself does not create more revenue which is what Laffer believed would happen.
When are you going to start showing me this irrefutable proof that you are constantly talking about? Or are you going to be making claims which are unsubstituted. That seems to be your MO thus far.
I think you have the bigger burden of proof here but what the hell, I looked it up in my old textbook: "...history failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture that lower taxes would raise tax revenue. When Reagan for example cut taxes ... the result was less tax revenue, not more" That is to say that the increase in labor supplied did not offset the actual loss in tax revenue.
Paggan! <3
stjarnjerry 2 months ago
- ZZZZZ.
We are members of the European Union.
ZZZ
Rapid explosion?
Well, now I' ve inhaled some Gunnar Myrdahl coffe, so priority is part of.. what? I've studied at the same school!!!
The answer is of course a vocabulary of not being American.
America is always wrong, Jeltsin is sometimes a friend, I wish to sell you a record because I don't understand business patterns and behaviour. I'm not James Bond. I am James Bond. Doesn't it smell unsocialist in here?
scholion 3 months ago
Skype (before the Americans bought it), Cardigans, Electrolux, Wasa-knäckebröd (rye bread), ABBA, the Nobel-prize (and of course dynamite woohooo), ball-bearing, safety-matches, adjustable spanner, the words "mother" and "father" and "sky", snus (like the world didn't have enough cancer inducing substances), Tetra-pak, athletes like Björn Borg and Ingemar Stenmark and many more things not to mention that in 2013 we celebrate 200 years of peace. Not bad of a small country up north.
athinsz 8 months ago
Now I don't agree with his political ideals (except those I just mentioned... thank god our police and fire department are still state owned) nor with the opposition wanting to lower taxes to oblivion and make the rich richer but we better do SOMETHING before we end up like Greece. In the meantime I'm proud of Sweden and when I go abroad I can many times point at our accomplishments. JAS-39 (like the world didn't have enough weapons), IKEA, Roxette, Volvo, SAAB (before the Americans trashed it).
athinsz 8 months ago
We still have amongst the highest taxes in the world (they can't be lowered much because people still want the security net we've become used to for the past 70 years) and we're getting less for it.Because of funds wasted away we can no longer afford to deal with those things that I believe should be state owned and regulated, such as medical care, infra-structure, some transportation, everything that makes a country rich through development but is being sold out to infuse our wellfare with cash
athinsz 8 months ago
He spends almost a third of this clip blaming the opposition for the "retreat of government ambitions" leading to worse benefits when the socialist party in Sweden has been in power (except for two occations, one lasting six years and another going three years) between 1936 and 2006... 58 of the past 67 (69 when this was filmed) years of our modern history. They introduced a system pro WWII with huge social benefits that we as a people can no longer afford but are used to receiving.
athinsz 8 months ago
What a load of crap. Leif make it sound like the Swedish economy benefitted from the enormous success of the ideas of his political party and then continues claiming that the opposing ideals are bad for the social wellfare. The facts are that Sweden got away rather unscathed from WWII with unbombed factories and cities and plentiful of educated workers from the rest of Europe needing jobs. There was money to spare and the "surplus" he talks about went into social welfare, money that is now gone.
athinsz 8 months ago
Comment removed
furball79 1 year ago
Comment removed
furball79 1 year ago
If you make more then 32000 a month you must pay 5% and another 5% more if you make more then 50000 a month so the richer you are the higer the taxes gets. This is how we in Sweden can balance the poor and the rich so they get closr to each other :) and the taxes on consumption, this is a good socialist model with a hint of the right wings ideas to :D
Slagetommi 1 year ago
@Slagetommi
This is completely wrong! The first tax is 25% (and starts above ca 36000sek/month), but the second is 5%. And the money doesn't bring anything significant to the wealth fare system. The three taxes which basically is making the whole budget are the ones that are the same for everyone. Why we even have the extra taxes on higher salaries is to calm the hunger of jealousy, the force behind socialism which have which also have created the most evil regimes in history.
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
We need Social Democracy desperately in the United States, unfortunately the Right-Wing has such a vast amount of influence in this country through the media that it dwarfs and demonizes the Liberal side in comparison, giving rise to the infamous "Tea Party" which is ultimately a shill for big business
JoKo203 1 year ago
"Big think"? Ha ha ha ha.. stupidity, ignorant think - that's more precisly and true.
metal87power 1 year ago
@tulapi
Sweden allows rapist to have less jail sentence than a tax invader. Sweden allowed race biology, Sweden allowed many things....
I would rather have "smack your bottom" than the highest rape in europe. And it's "as in brittish" For starters, correct spelling is British. You leave out the differences because you have no idea what you're on about.
CLAPHAMCHAMPION 1 year ago
@CLAPHAMCHAMPION Sweden allowed race bilogy? that happened 70 years ago! And brittain isn't an innocent country at ALL when it comes to racial equality.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
Actually only 9% in sweden are unemployed, and the vast majority of those are students...
Teadon86 1 year ago
Comment removed
Teadon86 1 year ago
I'm English, and have lived and worked in Sweden. Please don't think this country is a utopia as its not. It's overrated, the Higher Education is better in RedBrick UK universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.
This socalled "intigration" and every other piece of shit his just said well its all aload of bollox. Yet they don't mind migrating to the states where millions are unemployed. Funny why does no person say this?
CLAPHAMCHAMPION 1 year ago
@CLAPHAMCHAMPION You say you're english, as in brittish? GB still allows parents to beat their children as punishment if the for example spill their milk.
And comparing integration between UK and Sweden, I dont even know where to start so I'm just going to leave that out, and it's not because I dont know the differences.
tulapi123 1 year ago
@CLAPHAMCHAMPION Of course sweden isn't a utopia, and there are many people from the states migrating to sweden, plus that not everyone can study at oxford or english universities.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gustx8 1 year ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside You are right! I am from the United States and I would like the United States to be more like Sweden. Sweden is an excellent place to live and hopefully one day I hope to live there as well! Don't listen to him since rarely do you ever hear from Americans, "Lets be like England" lol.
Gustx8 1 year ago
I wish USA was more like Swden, less Religious bigger government for the people and no wars. But that will never happen here in our corrupt Government.
edgarreyes14 1 year ago
We ourself choose to pay high taxes - with that I mean we vote in parties which promotes higher taxes for greater welfare - cause we know what we get in return, things you could only dream of.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
If you wanted to pay for those services because you wanted the benefits, why do you need the government in the first place?
The ONLY possible reason is that all the people you say want it actually don't want it, and wouldn't pay unless they were forced. But because they are forced to pay, they naturally want their benefits out of it!
But don't tell me it's by choice - unless Sweden has no penalty for not paying taxes?
People willingly pay for what they want. They don't need to be forced.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
If Swedes wanted to have lower taxes and thereby damaging the welfare we would vote for a party that gives us that! In this country we pick ourselves how we want the country to be ruled, and don't be fooled by our natural left views, the leftist in Sweden promote integrity and freedom more than our liberal parties. We're not forced, we know that even tho I could afford healthcare now maybe I wont in the future, it's a safety net, not that you would know anything about that American.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
You keep saying there's no force. I'm sorry, but that is not true. It's not true anywhere. Gov't exists by force. They can only come to be by force. There's nothing voluntary about it.
I'm not attacking Sweden or Swedes. I'm talking about the nature of gov't, and man's right to life, liberty, and property.
Gov't destroys the social safety nets in order to create a need for its services, and then it forces you to pay. They crowd out the market for solutions through legislation. It's no secret.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
In the US, the gov't put the mutual aid societies, the fraternal organizations, out of the business of hiring doctors and insuring their members by getting the best deals. They call it "regulation" of trade. They never had any right to do this because human beings have the right to make voluntary exchanges in a free market. That is the foundation of civil society.
More laws created more barriers. The whole operation has been designed to take power and impose central control of our lives.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Please, that's a load of bullshit, in Sweden anyway. We're not forced to anything, the government works for us not the other way around, that is how it works here and most of Europe. It seems American views of democracy isn't that at all. I feel sorry for you if that's the world you live in, cause It's certainly not mine.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
What is bullshit? Freedom? Free association? Voluntary interaction? Then I feel sorry for you!
Stop lying about not being forced. What do you think you're accomplishing with that nonsense?
Force exists. Gov't IS force. Don't deny it. You MUST pay taxes, or your property will be taken or you will be put in jail.
That is NOT voluntary. It is FORCE. Can you at least acknowledge that simple truth?
What gives anyone that right? To put people into cages if they refuse to give to thievery?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Ok I guess that I am 'forced' in a sense to pay taxes, they pull 33 % of my salary, sure! That doesn't mean I don't wanna pay them! Government isn't at all working for their own interest, they work for the people. No country can exist without it. My question then is obviously, where are you going with this?
k1lkenny 2 years ago 2
Well, thanks for being honest! : )
I was just trying to make a point about liberty and civil society vs how gov't rules by force and takes over economies, creates market distortions, becomes corrupt, etc.
Yes, we can exist without it. The US existed for 136 years before the banks took over the money and they instituted the income tax. These two things were from the communist plank, not part of US heritage.
Gov't is just an organization that rules by force. I'm for a free society.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
So who's going to fix your roads, protect your beliefs, set polices, enforce laws? Sweden is the least corrupt country in the world yet we've had a tradition of a strong and centralized government since the 16th century (Long before the US ever existed), we also had the very first National Bank as well. We do need all these things, and we need them to be controlled. The government is needed for a modern society to work, it's been this way thousands of years.
k1lkenny 2 years ago 2
"it's been this way thousands of years."
Slavery, dictatorships, wars, etc., have all existed for thousands of years. The state also is a remnant of such barbarism.
The services you mention are provided by people. The state is nothing but a form of organization - of people. There are only people. There is no magic institution of people with magical powers.
They produce nothing. They only take what others produce. They claim a monopoly of force.
It just makes no sense.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Drop your imaginative view of the world. First of all that's not the ill doings of the state it's the ill doings of humans, and that's nature, to get efficiency you need a centralized state of power, without that being present the human race wouldn't have gotten this far at all. Private cooperations can't rule by their own hand, you need rules, people will always have different opinions for whats fair and whats not, to enforce some kind of decency you need a government. It's reality
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Check history. Slavery, dictators, wars, mass killings, monopolies, cartels - all produced by the state. All codified in law. Trillions stolen from US taxpayers, by the state. Trillions stolen worldwide by the state sponsored banking cartel.
How is centralized power efficient? That's absurd! Central planning always fails, and it's oppressive.
No one is against rules, only the initiation of force. Defense of persons and property is legitimate natural law.
Gov't enforces "decency"? LOL.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@k1lkenny
The countries with most government control have also been the most brutal ones in human history. Knowing this, the founding fathers made the constitution to protect the people from the government, and to make it harder for the government to become something terrible. Not knowing this, have made it possible for nazis, communism and fascism get to power over whole countries/continents. The countries with less control have been the only ones defending democracy, freddom of speech and HR.
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
@k1lkenny
And in Sweden, the taxes aint 33%. You have employer tax 32%, self tax 33% and VAT 25%. Other taxes are house-taxes, dubble-profit tax ca 50%, income tax 20% (on salaries greater than ca 34000kr/month) and extra 5% on that on salaries greater than maybe 50000kr/month, TV-tax 2000kr/year, car-tax and so on. When I calculated my own tax in three diffirent ways, I landed on at least 70% tax. I will only keep a third. The remaining two thirds will be confiscated by the swedish state.
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
@andrefantastisk
In Sweden you know why you pay the taxes, and that's because you get free healthcare, free schools.
In countrys with less govermental control have a moore alienated public that don't see why they should pay to help others. In Sweden we pay taxes that helps us and also help others in need. And that last comment about your hard-earned money is confiscaded by the swedish state is just an ignorant remark that just states the obvious, that you don't know what your talking about.
ClarkEriksson 1 year ago
@ClarkEriksson
Are you challenging me when you are using the words "paid for" and "free" in the same sentence and absolutly no clue about the amount the taxes you pay in your own country? The only reason we have an welfare is because of the production output. Nothing else! Why should the state take my money and pay it? Why can't I pay it myself? Of course there is something ugly behind it. Your way of thinking is not uncommon however. watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
@andrefantastisk
Ok lets put it this way: You've seen how not having universal free healthcare haft worked out in the US. Rising costs and ridiculous rules that ensures that when you need healthcare, you wont get it so you end up paying extremely much for something you will get for free in Sweden. Thats why you pay taxes, so you will get the help you need when you need it. And if you don't call that free healthcare just because you pay taxes, that's fine by me.
ClarkEriksson 1 year ago
@ClarkEriksson
Yet again, it's NOT free since we PAY for it. But it is universal. (Something can only be free if the person is working without payment.) And if you are experience something as "free", then it means someone else is paying for you. The US-system is something you and me know nothing about and therefore can't discuss it. The US has problem with the state-intervention (as the home-rent institution which are driving the country to bancruptcy)
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
@andrefantastisk
That's exactly why I said it is fine by me if you don't want to call it free, I prefer to call it free, because you can get open heart surgery without contacting your insurance company. You get what you need if you need it without paying ridiculous amounts of money. The US system is not working, and many experts agree with me. That's also why they now in the US is trying to introduce their new public healthcare plan, because they know that the current system doesn't work.
ClarkEriksson 1 year ago
@ClarkEriksson Comparing the Sweedish system with the US is apples and oranges. Sweeden is NOT overpopulated with imigrants like in the US. The nasty cold climat doesn't appeal to most immigrants looking for "free" healthcare. Plus, Sweeden has stronger immigration laws.
There's no such thing as free healthcare. It's payed with high taxes (triple the amount of the US) by their citizens.
Americans want free healthcare but don't want higher taxes. It can't happen
MIXMASTAPWN 1 year ago
@andrefantastisk
Actually, low taxes and frivolous spending is driving the US to bankruptcy. There isn't a home-rent institution that's behind this; other factors are to blame. I'm not sure if you're referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but if so, keep in mind that these institutions have been in existence since 1938 and 1970 respectively. If such institutions were the driving force behind US debt accumulation, bankruptcy would have been triggered long ago.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance On average,the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.Poverty rates are much lower there,and national income per working-age population is on average higher.Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups,slightly higher in the Nordic countries.The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group with larger surpluses as a share of GDP source:(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAtheistAllegiance Scandinavian countries have shown that there is an alternative way to cope with globalization. These countries are highly integrated into the global economy; but they are highly successful economies that still provide strong social protections and make high levels of investments in people. They have been successful in part because of these policies, not in spite of them.
source:(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance Right.The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways.Most important,they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education.All of them,especially Sweden and Finland,have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness.Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D,the highest ratio in the world today.source(International Affairs August 14,2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@zsylvana , hey man, thanks for the vid. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about Sweden with out sounding like a dumb shit American. LOL. You are right about the US getting no where with the poor and health care. We waste an enormous amount of money here. Spending money on R & D is the way to go. That's the only way to advance. It's not a waste of money to try to advance your tech and education. American colleges are fucking garbage. Don't be fooled.
ohio1998 1 year ago 2
@TheAtheistAllegiance The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.source(International Affairs August 14, 2009)
zsylvana 1 year ago
@ClarkEriksson
And also see watch?v=HbTEzhaXZ3w
If you really wan't to understand how economy works so try search for "How An Economy Grows And Why It Crashes"
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
@ClarkEriksson that is a good point, but in the US the government forces you to pay higher taxes to help someone you don't even know. In Sweden on the other hand they don't increase the tax on the rich or big corporation because that hurts the economy. Instead sweden has taxes on consumption meaning even the poor pay. Sweden didn't become a wealthy nation from socialism they did it the same way any country would and that's from having a capitalist free market.
MIXMASTAPWN 1 year ago
@MIXMASTAPWN
Where are you getting your information? The US pays 17% of GDP per capita for healthcare, while Sweden pays around 9%. Not to mention, Sweden is by no means a free market. There may be free trade among its borders, but the government owns vast amounts of industry, levies high taxes on its wealthiest citizens to pay for its vast public services, and the economic environment is subject to plenty of regulations.
You honestly could not be more wrong...
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance ummm ever hear of the "Free Market Renaissance"??? obviously sweden is not a free market, but that is how they gained all of their wealth as would any innovative country.
MIXMASTAPWN 1 year ago
@MIXMASTAPWN
Yeah, a Renaissance in which Sweden has marginally shifted its policies to the right -- hardly a victory for Capitalism. In the end, the nation is still the epitome of a Welfare State, so there's no possible way that unfettered markets can take credit for the country's success.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
No, he is right. Sweden has one of the most privatized economies in the world. And the wealth is an product of the industries which were founded many decades ago. The whole idea is from US, that you barely tax the companies, but the labours. And their consumption through VAT. The extra taxes on the rich barely brings any money to the state budget and has nothing to do with the wealthfare. The value of products from the industry is the heart to the wealthfare system.
andrefantastisk 1 year ago
@andrefantastisk
The percentage of privatized industry is not the only indicating factor. Sweden has a heavily regulated labor market, an extensive welfare system, and government expenditures reach approximately 50% of GDP, which is the second highest in the world. This is hardly reminiscent of unfettered Capitalism.
Also, the top marginal income tax rate is 60% -- nearly twice that of the US, so don't underestimate the revenues brought in by income taxation in Sweden.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
@TheAtheistAllegiance
the thing is that a lot people do pay that 60% rate (anyone who makes more then £32k or about $50k per year), its actually quite a lot of people. and yet Sweden out ranks the US in many ways.
Crazylalalalala 8 months ago
Check "Human development", see which ones who got ahead, no wait, you don't have to look it up I can give you the answer right away: The people which had a centralized state and government (Read: ex. Rome). And again, the government doesn't take money and keep it for themselves, it's used to enforce laws, fix your roads, protect you independence etc. Humans are in need of leadership, it's simply how we were designed so no your vision wouldn't work, don't you think it has been tried before?
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Your example of "human development" is Rome? A murderous expansionist empire? Ok.
Yes, humans need leadership - the voluntary kind, the hard-won kind, the shoulder-to-shoulder kind, NOT tyrants using violence and theft and lies to rule others! Think about what you're saying.
Yes, liberty has been tried before and it has been wildly successful. The fact that it must be CONTINUALLY kept down by FORCE by a MINORITY ought to be instructive to you.
The desire to control and rule others is sick.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Would you stop, that's how humans are, don't blame the government itself. If it would have been in your world it would still exist except it would be companies doing it instead of governments, jeez (Read: Human Behaviour). Rome was ahead all others in science, welfare, culture etc, all because of the centralized and regulated ruling which occurred. Now tell me about this dreamy nation where liberty runs freely. Jeez, wake up, it's how humans work and so does the earth.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
@MillionthUsername Isnt your 2nd paragraph,exactly the thought that leads to a social organizing,govt? Standing shoulder to shoulder together.The question is why do you refuse to volunteer your contribution to the betterment and security of your countrymen? Why must the vital resources needed to survive be for sale to the highest bidder?
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago
Social organizing and criminal gang organizing are not the same thing. One is voluntary while the other is imposed by force.
Where do you get the idea that I "refuse to volunteer" my contribution to the betterment and security of my countrymen?
Are you asking me why I am against corruption, counterfeiting, dropping bombs on people, putting people in cages for making a living and keeping the fruits of the labor?
Because I am moral.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@MillionthUsername Who are these tyrants you talk about? What is it that you expect? You seem confused to me
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago
Tyrants are people use enslave others by force. They steal their produce and force them to conform to their edicts. They usually also imprison and/or kill people who resist the plunder.
You seem confused to me.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@MillionthUsername I know what a tyrant is. The question was, who do you believe is the tyrant thats got his boot on your neck?
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago
Let's see. There's Obomba, the US Congress, the IRS...
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@MillionthUsername
Are you kidding me? lol! How so?
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago
How so? Are you kidding me? LOL!
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@MillionthUsername You claim your being wronged by these people. How so?A simple question
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago 2
They love me too much, and it hurts.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
What people usually mean when they say something is socialist is that its regulated to the extent that the major needs of people are dictated by the government.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
What people miss is that gov't controls the money. This allows them greater control than people realize. Due to the fraud of money printing (inflation), they can carry on grossly expensive and purposeless wars, introduce new social programs with ZERO funding from taxes.
This fiat money taxes people invisibly and it is continual. This is why most people never get ahead and why so many are in debt. Nearly all property is indebted. The "money" itself is debt.
Total control.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
What you all seems to miss is that no one is forced to anything, we elect our parties and that makes the government the people, with other words, the people are in control of the money.
Why do you never seem to realize that?
Solidarity, is the key word. It's everyone with everyone for everyone, not every man for himself, that is egotistic.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Of course people are forced. That's the nature of politics - to impose your will on others. Those who resist the taking of their property are punished severely. Most comply only out of fear of persecution.
In a free society, people would not be treated this way.
If there were solidarity, you wouldn't be taking people's property from them at the point of a gun. You wouldn't think you needed to, right?
I don't know of anything more egotistic than theft. So I think you have it backwards.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
No one is forced, yet again you seem to misunderstand democracy, we elect the government, we ourself chooses who should be in power, the government doesn't control the people it's the other way around. So you're either a troll or simply haven't experienced a true democracy (Sweden by the way tops that list as the number 1 democracy in the world.. oh and that's with heavy left leaning politics, even our right wing party promotes welfare and socialistic ideas as such)
k1lkenny 2 years ago
I understand democracy just fine. Benjamin Franklin said democracy was "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."
"No one is forced." Are you kidding?
"we ourself chooses who should be in power"
I never chose for anyone to have power over me, and neither did you. If you did, it would be a personal matter and not something you could force on others.
Give me a break with the democracy garbage. It's just some people ruling over others. Those who resist are punished. Simple.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
@k1lkenny Does your country accept refugees from the USAsylum?
foxnewsdupe 2 years ago
Keynesian economics is NOT economics. It's a system of control. Keynes wrote, in the introduction to the German edition of his General Theory, that his system was best applied to totalitarian states. It is a type of central planning and offers politicians a pseudo-intellectual defense of it.
Keynes' theories were discredited in the 70s when "stagflation" revealed his fallacies about monetary "stimulus" and economic growth.
Inflation only causes harm. That's why it's a crime to counterfeit!
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Sweden's high taxes as supposed to "redistribute the wealth but one family controls the Wallenbergs 40% of the stock market. With their political connections they have been corporate barons. The high taxes never redistribute hurt the richest the wealth they just prevent others from being as rich as them. To me that is really unjust. High skilled people from all over the world that want to be billionaires don't go to Sweden they go to the US.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
As I am sure as you know you can distort stats. In 1989 before the wall fell the CIA said that East Germany was richer than West Germany. But that certainly wasn't the case... European Wages are stagnate. h t t p : / /bit. ly / IM6Po
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
It's harder to get rich in Sweden sure (Not at all impossible - Ingvar Kampard IKEA).. But then again we don't have slums nor poor people as already stated, the system we have contributes to our citizens well being, you can't say the same about the American system. Before you start screaming about capitalism you may want to compare the European standards with the American ones, if you can be objective I think you'll have to be quiet from then on.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Sweden is not Socialist paradise you portray it to be. Its in the world largest free trade zone in the European Union. It has low corporate taxes it is privatizing industries at the same time when the US is nationalizing industries... But the taxes that are the most regressive for the poor such as sales tax payroll tax income tax Sweden has the highest in the world. The taxes that are the least regressive. Corporate taxes etc they have the lowest.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Erm.. Do you live here? I feel so grateful that I never have to be worried about anything, not education, not healthcare and not even money. Would you hate it to live in a society like that? Sure I have to pay for it in taxes, but I can afford to pay taxes continually, what I can't afford is to pay 1 million if I get cancer? Nor 400.000 dollars for 4 years of college. I can get university education for free. This is called "Swedish Socialism" and it does work, it's not Communism.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
There is no such thing as free... You pay for it just like everyone else. Like I said before there are many with comfortable lives and life time but many with lifetime unemployment. Sweden is the 25 most neo-liberal country in the world they are not as "socialist" as you think they are. h t t p : / / bit. ly/ xcn8
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
IKEA fortunes would be impossible with out free trade. I think that you are portraying America as having no welfare state or social safety net which is a joke. Europe has a lot more homeless than people imagine. h t t p : // bit. ly/ 3wFmJ0
But Government lifetime employment for some means lifetime unemployment for others.Which is exactly the cast for most of Europe. Those white Swedish workers that have jobs for life are happy and those immigrant muslims that don't have jobs are angry & riot
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Answer this question if Sweden has the best standard of living why don't you have millions or billions of people wanting to living in Sweden??? Millions of people who are rich and poor are coming to the US. Now the US has large populations from every nation on earth ...
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Erm they are, Sweden took more middle eastern immigrants last year than you've done for 10 years. People do mostly immigrate to Sweden cause we have the social security net no other country has. Just cause people from Mexico migrate to the US doesn't make your country into a paradise, it's just less shitty across the border.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Well we have more Eastern Europeans Chicago has more Poles than every polish city beside Warsaw. We have more Pakistani's Africans. The US has over a million legal immigrants a year. Not to mention Asian African South American...
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You possess the third biggest landmass of all countries in the world and you got a population that exceed ours by 341 Million. Don't be a smartass, idiot. You've never even experienced socialism in anyway so you should just shut the fuck up, I have got the best of both worlds, socialism and capitalism, the so called "Swedish Socialism" is the perfect blend between the two. So please, don't try to lecture me, I fucking live in it, it's like if you tried to lecture an Iraqi about war. jeez.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Your so typical of most liberals when confronted with the facts you ignore them and throw a fit.. Just because I have never lived there doesn't mean I don't have a right to speak on the subject. I doubt that you have even lived in the US for an extended period of time and if you did so what? So does that mean that you don't have the right to say that your system is superior? Lecture you? You were the one that was asking me questions and now your getting pissed.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I'm not a liberal.. I'm a socialist. On topic, that's correct, you can still debate the subject, but don't think your knowledge exceeds that of a first hand source. How I know about capitalism? The American way? Well Sweden is copying it if so in a smaller manner, so I live in that too, if so just a bit, which means I have first hand experience with both systems. The thing about this is that the new Amercianized politics that intrudes Sweden has just made things worse for the greater public.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Socialism is state ownership and control. Sweden does not have national planning boards. There are 4 countries that are "socialist" and they all are incredibly repressive. Even in the heyday of socialism the state controlled less than 20% of the UK economy. Sweden's economy collapsed in 1990 and they sold off state industries privatized cut taxes and joined the worlds large free trade zone. You rely on a market economy albeit one that is regulated more than the US but a market economy nonetheles
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
"Socialism is state ownership and control"
But in the absence of ownership, they control through regulation. In my view, nearly every country is socialist. They believe that "the people" can "regulate" really just about anything and everything about human life. All they have to do is introduce a bill and they can issue more stacks of rules whenever they wish.
This is certainly the essence of socialism. Let's not get bogged down by obsolete definitions. It's a system of control, NOT freedom.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
All economies have rules regulations are you implying all countries are socialist? Absence of state ownership is market regulation. But all economies have rules and regulations. You can make rules but that doesn't mean the rules will give you the outcome you wanted. Government regulations more often than not have the unintended consequences. There is never enough information for any one body to make accurate predictions. 6 billion people will make better decisions than thousands of Gov officials
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
All countries seem to have socialist programs: central banking, social security, medicare, subsidies, bailouts, etc. Gov't runs peoples' lives without any boundaries. The US has no boundaries either. The constitution is long dead, having been stripped of any restraining power people once might have imputed to it.
Economies provide their own regulation since exchange is voluntary. But all gov'ts operate as as central planners whatever they call themselves.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Europe invented capitalism and had the highest standard of living in the 19th century. It abandoned it after the post war period and its standard of living relative to the US declined. Then in the 1980's they privatized and introduced market liberalism. Their standard of living rose because of market liberalization.
Sweden is the 25th out of 174 most liberal country in the World. France ranks 64 and Italy 76 have stagnate wages declining standards of living. Denmark 8 and Switzerland 9 do not.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I stated that I was a socialist, nothing else. Who do you think got us out of the bank crisis in the beginning of the 90s? The Social Democrats. Sweden was one of the richest countries in the world in the 60, which also happens to be the decade Sweden was to become most socialized.
Anyway, you're getting off topic. Just to get to the point, I know the benefits of capitalism, I enjoy them everyday, but that wasn't the core in this conversation -->
k1lkenny 2 years ago
The core in this is your unjustified hatred towards any uns of socialism, It's simply stupid, if it is as horrible as you say how come I got a nice life? In this household we got 3 Flatscreen TVs, my computer worth 1500 dollars, 3 laptops which were all bought last year, we drive a Mercedes ML 320... Does that sound like I got it bad? Not only do I have this but I also have free education, healthcare, dental, If i get sick the government pays me my salary till I get better. Horrible isn't it?
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Sweden is not a socialist country... They are a market driven capitalist country. They have more market regulations than the US but they are a market driven country. But even in your defense of socialism you mentioned that you have a german car I bet you computer was made in Asia long with your flat screen. You have those things because of free trad and capitalism not because of a gov run industries aka socialism.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
But lets talk about what happened in the post war era. The Marshall plan eliminated tariffs between Europe and the US and different EU countries. During the post war period they had young populations so the generous welfare benefits for the old hadn't quite kicked in. The problem with socialism is that it runs out of other peoples money. During the 1990's The Social Democrats solved the problem not by Keynesian spend your way out of a problem but by cutting spending and Budgetary restraint...
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Just because a party calls themselves socialist doesn't mean they actually push for nationalization of industries (socialism) Sweden is becoming richer because of market liberalization not because of government protections.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Who cares about people getting rich? - TSD is mostly about public service, and a security net, which are socialistic ideas - , That's the beautiful thing about socialism, it's about solidarity, why should you have everything while other citizens starve? It's about caring for your countries citizens, which we do here. I know were not a socialistic country, we thrive on some of it's ideas though. But you see where I'm going with this? I'm not poor, neither are anyone else. The US is egotistic.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
You see things in black and white. So helping others makes you a socialist? Give me a break. Conservatives give more to charities both secular and religious does that make them Socialists? The US has 25% of the Worlds GDP but 40% of the worlds foreign aid. That doesn't even factor in the 300 billion dollars given to charities every year. While IKEA Billionaire's spends billions of dollars on of all things Interior Design Bill Gates The Rockefeller's Carnegies spend their lives helping the poor.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You know who cares about being rich? The poor... Its easy for you to dismiss anyone trying to better himself now that you are in the richest 5% in the world. Let me ask you a question how much of your own money have you ever given to the poor? Either domestically or internationally? Most Europeans talk a good game about helping the poor but they never personally do it.Just because the US favors private aid over public doesn't mean that the US is egotistic.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
"it's about solidarity"
I keep hearing this from Europeans, and I wonder where it comes from. Is it part of the socialist party rhetoric over there?
I have a serious problem understanding why some people think that a word like solidarity can apply to a system of control where people are forced to participate in some bureaucratic program.
The use of coercion would seem to be the very opposite of solidarity and civility and "caring".
I don't think that controlling others is civilized at all.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
If high taxes are good for the economy why has every single industrialized country in the world cut taxes dramatically in the past 30 years? But high taxes do produce stability but the wrong kind of stability they prevent new companies competing with old companies in the US few of the top 100 countries are even around today But the majority of the top 100 European countries are around today propped up by regulations high taxes that prevent them to fail and others to succeed.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Leif Pagrotsky ia a bilderberger
Smulan45 2 years ago
The Swedish Gnome! :-)
(He´s around 5 ft)
nikandraathelvete 2 years ago
THEY DON'T CREATE MORE TAX REVENUE! as the article states "If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims (that tax cuts pay for themselves) are false". I have a degree in this, you obviuosly don't. You don't understand that there are two forces pulling in two different directions visavi tax revenue here. You only take the incentive to work more in to account, not the actual tax cut.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
Yes most critics of the tax cuts don't measure tax cuts by dynamic scoring but static scoring. So they their stats come out all wrong. Senator Packwood asked the Joint committee on taxation to calculate how much income comes from 100% taxation they replied well it will increase revenue. There are those that that actually do calculate taxes that way.
h t t p : / / tiny . cc / eX47D
There is statistical proof that they do. increase revenue.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I realize this was a couple of months back but, Do you honestly believe that US Standard of Living is and has been higher than that in Europe, Sweden? You have the child mortality rate of Slovenia, 30 somewhat percent of your inhabitants is below the official line of being poor (the number was 0 in Sweden in the 90s). Is it something Europe and Scandinavia in particular has shown is that government (the people) control and high taxes produces stability, growth and a high standard of living.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
Well Europe why are more immigranting France and Sweden and to the to the United States? The poor are rioting and the middle class is leaving. The French are 5x as likely to migrate to another country than Americans.The muslim underclass is being radicalized don't even claim that they are European. And you think that there are 0 poor people in Sweden that is a farce... Wake up buddy...
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
In the 90's we had a law which stated that no man should be homeless nor don't have the money to survive, that was to be provided to them. Today you can only be poor or homeless if you choose to be so (though it has become harder to get the support with this new right wing government than with the left wing one we had before - hence looking back at the 90s), though everyone who actively search for a job have got the right for money and a place to live.
k1lkenny 2 years ago
As a statistical fact your wrong.
Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I am going to leave this discussion with an article for you to read. I know it wont change your mind, nothing will, but anyways google "time tax cuts don't boost revenues" and read it, its the first hit.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
I read the article before. His time frame is so small that the past 10 years it doesn't have much evidence statically. When you factor in the past 30 years or 40 years which the article that I sent you has you get a different picture. But that being said there are hundreds of factors to the growth of an economy and therefore growth in tax revenue. But all things being equal tax rates do effect behavior which you have conceded and they do create more tax revenue. h t t p : / / tiny. cc / D2TnI
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / C5zAh
Data that shows that the rich paid more under of their income under the bush tax cuts.
If Sweden is such an egalitarian society why does one family, the Wallenbergs, own 40% of the stock market? No American family has ever had that kind of control of American business.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
* SBAB - finance. * Vin & Sprit. Sold to Pernod Ricard for 5.626 billion Euro.[32] * Vasakronan. Sold to AP-fastigheter for 4,3 billion Euro.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Comment removed
hiredhelp 2 years ago
* Apoteket - pharmaceuticals. To be partially sold when breaking up the state monopoly and opening the market to free competition. [5] * Nordea - bank. 19.5% owned by Swedish government.[28] * OMX - stock exchange. Shares sold to Borse Dubai for 2.1 billion SEK.[29] * Telia Sonera - telecom. 37.3% owned by the Swedish government.[30] Hitherto SEK 18 billion worth of shares has been sold reducing state ownership from 45.3% to 37.3%.[31]
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
The Swedish government has announced that it will privatise a number of wholly and partly state owned companies. "The income from these sales will be used to pay off the government debt and reduce the burden of debt for future generations. The Government's ambition is to sell companies to a value of SEK 200 billion during 2007-2010
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
For example, during the mixed economic policies from 60s to 80s, Latin America grew 80 %, but from 1980s to 2005, it grew a meagre 10 %, only 1 % from 2000 to 2005! This is an unprecidented growth failure, brought about by neoliberal economic policies which were stringently followed in the region during this time.
Bellator656 2 years ago
And you haven't refuted anything I said about the US. States with more regulations and taxes are still more prosperous than those below avarage states like Texas.
Bellator656 2 years ago
Your confusing average income vs. cost of living. California does have a higher average income around 60k but the cost of living there is just insane. If your making Any home in LA SD SF will cost you about 400,00. Red states have lower incomes around 40k but home in Alabama Arizona Texas will cost 100-200k Where would you rather live? In California even with the higher income there is no way a person could afford a home but in Red States is easily achievable.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Texas has a pretty high cost of living too, thanks to the lack of income tax.
Bellator656 2 years ago
Your logic is truly bizzare at times. The fact that Texas don't have to pay 10% of their incomes reduces their cost of living. But even then the cost of living in Texas is far below the cost of living in California other high tax states. The average home price in Austin Texas is around 120,000 a year. 1/5 of what is it in California.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
It was only when Europe was so rich and powerful (Nordic countries weren't, and indicidentally they never had any colonies, and also lower protectionism) that they could liberalize their trade: no one would could compete with them, so they had nothing to fear. ALL rich countries grew rich due to mixed policies, never through neoliberal policies. Likewise, today, Denmark and Finland can practice and preach free trade, because few can compete with them enough to comprimise their economies.
Bellator656 2 years ago
"few can compete with them" So your say that Denmark and Finland have a comparative advantage which allows them to compete in the world economy?
Yes all states have a comparative advantage China can't compete with Nokia phones (which became a global power because of telecom dereg.) but they can compete when building furniture for IKEA.
The states that are the most protectionist South America with the protectionist theory and Africa. have the least ammount of growth.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I'm saying that Finland has the technology, accumilated capital, education and so forth, which a developing countries lack. A lot of that is Nokia wouldn't even have existed without Finnish protectionism, because nokia's technology sector would have been dismantled in an open market because for decades it didn't produce any profit: only later it grew into a giant due to various reasons (some related to 90s depression).
Anyway, specializing in comparative advantage is specialization in poverty.
Bellator656 2 years ago
The reason Nokia did not have any profits is because it was selling only to those in Finland. When Nokia was allowed to sell phones internationally their profits exploded.
When deregulation occurred the companies that weren't profitable were eliminated and the ones that were profitable such as Nokia. Nokia was able to sell more and hire more people then would be possible then just selling phones to those in Finland alone.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
"Specialization in poverty" Why doesn't each city in Finland build its own cars its own clothes its own food?
To encourage this why does each city put up high taxes for goods made outside of the city in order to protect the workers inside the city.
Ideas like that are absurd. Countries that rely competely on their own goods such as Cuba and North Korea are very poor. Countries that rely on global trading Europe Hong Kong (which has zero tariffs) are very rich.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
We have spend trillions of dollars in aid to Africa and little in Asia. In terms of technology the third world countries block themselves off from new technology with high tariffs.
America has always attracted the best talent and not just created their own. Sergey Brin the creator of Google was born in Russia. Andrew Carnegie the steel giant was born in scotland. Einstein was born in Europe. They come because of low taxes because they want to make a fortune.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Hah. Yeah. If great people only wanted go to countries with low taxes, they could go to a third world country where income tax regimes cannot be enforced. And no, the third world isn't protectionist. From the 60s to 80s, when the third world used to grow several times faster than today, mixed economic policies were followed.
Bellator656 2 years ago
Mixed economy continued...
New York City has lost more than 75,000 jobs since last August, and many industrial areas upstate are as rundown as Detroit. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently said New York had the worst economic outlook of all 50 states, including Michigan. And that analysis was done before these $4 billion in new taxes. How does Mr. Silver define "catastrophe"?
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / irB6u New York's Mixed economy.
Mr. Silver says of the coming tax hikes: "We've done it before. There hasn't been a catastrophe." Oh, really? According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures -- the biggest exodus of any state.
In 2003 during the last recession Michigan had lower taxes and a 3% unemployment rate. Since then they had a democratic governor which raised taxes and regulation and a 10% rate.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / WKkEk
The winners in this contest for the most valuable resource on the globe human capital are generally the states with the lowest tax spending and regulatory burdens The biggest losers are almost all congregated in the Northeast and Midwest Liberals contend that tax rates regulations forced union laws and runaway government spending dont matter when it comes to creating jobs high incomes and a higher quality of life. People tell us otherwise by voting with their feet
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Also, the US corporate tax rate is very low in reality since so few of the companies actually pay corporate taxes.
Bellator656 2 years ago
I would totally agree when there is high taxes rates people push for and received tax loopholes. European countries are discovering that lower tax rates create higher tax revenues. Just like the laffer curve described.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Nonsense. European political system is different: the corporations do not wield the same influence as they in the US. The European corporate tax rate is lower nominally, but larger in actuality, which is why it generates more revenue than the almost nonexisted, unenforced US corporate tax rate. The laffer nonsense has nothing to say about this.
Bellator656 2 years ago
You have gotta be kidding yourself. There are several companies that were central to the US that aren't around anymore such as Woolworth Pan Am.Few of the US 100 largest companies 100 years ago even exist today. The same is not true in Europe they have had nearly all of the same 100 largest companies have been around 100 years if not longer. Intense corporate regulations high taxes prevent new companies from competing with old ones. European Corporations are essentially defacto oligopolies.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Irrelevant point. American business culture has been on the decline, very strongly. Europe isn't any less productive. A welfare state doesn't hamper growth. This economic crisis has proven it.
Bellator656 2 years ago
Oh, you were referring to corporate influence in politics.
Corporations usually don't want constraints on their activities, regulations or high taxes. So such policies are not preferred by any "oligarchs".
And, as some folks at the IMF has pointed out, oligarchy is a growing American problem. Just because the company logos change every now on then, doesn't mean that the culture and people change.
Bellator656 2 years ago
wrong again. Much like Reagan's USA (or Bush's for that matter), countries that lower taxes finds themselves with a budget deficit. The Laffer curve might look good on paper but I've yet to see it an example of lowered taxes leading to higher revenues in reality.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
h t t p : / / tiny. c c / 2D28O if lower taxes don't create higher revenues why did Sweden lower theirs?
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
According to Nobel prize laureate James Tobin, "[t]he 'Laffer Curve' idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule with which sober economists had greeted it in 1981."[
hiredhelp 2 years ago
So your quoting James tobin? He was responsible for convincing the Johnson and Kennedy administration to follow Keynesian ideas. He believed that Unemployment and Inflation were inversely related. But that idea like Keynes was discredited in the 1970's.
James Tobin felt that "inflation could have a positive influence on growth" which is discredited central bankers all over the world are fighting inflation and not stoking it.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Sweden didn't reduce the tax rate with the belief that it would increase revenue. Doing so would even with such a high tax like sweden lead to a deficit. The cuts were financed in large parts by cuts in the public sector. Theres not a right wing government on earth that doesn't want to reduce the public sector.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
If they didn't do it to increase taxes or jobs... Why did they do it? Are you saying that they lowered taxes on the hope that it will create fewer jobs and less revenue?
Right wing government want to reduce the size of government and there are a few left wing governments as well. Because Sweden is ruled by a left wing party the Social Democrats but it is going on with their privatization efforts.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
They cut taxes and fianced it by cutting the public sector. If your assertion (and Laffer's for that matter) was right the downsizing of the well-fare state should not have been necessity. It was though because the taxes revenues would have gone down otherwise much as it did for Reagan (and for Bush). Your assertion that Sweden is ruled by the Social Democrats shows me yet again that you are poorly informed, Sweden has a right wing government.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
They are not privatizing the welfare state. They are privatizing publicly own companies in Sweden. I am not all over the place. Considering that I am not the one that didn't know that they were privatizing companies in his own country I am not the one that is uninformed either. If tax revenue goes up when the rate goes up why don't you put the tax rate at 100% ?
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Oops I misread your post, sorry about that. It was all a translation thingy.
I do however assert that many of the privitzed companies were part of the welfare state, something might be lost in translation here too.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
But since you also claimed that the Social democrats rule Sweden when they don't I'm still feeling safe in saying that you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. As for the tax comment you might have found one of the few merits of the laffer curve, but since no country have a 100 % tax rate (or anyway near it) it is all rather pointless. Just show me one example of where lowered taxes has lead to an increase in tax revenue and I'll believe you.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
I can show numerous occations when the opposite were true, but something tells me that wont change your mind. The dead weight costs are always much smaller than they need to offset the actual loss of revenue.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
Well I showed you the Congressional Budget Office study.
Swiss low-tax policy irks EU
It is true that foreign businesses are beating a path to Switzerland's door, primarily to Zurich.
h t t p : / / tiny . c c / XDWAm
Ireland was the sick man of Europe for centuries until it cut taxes and attracted foreign investment. Are the poor worse off then the were in the 1980's?
h t t p : / / tiny . c c / gwTAC
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
First off here's a Irish joke for you "What's the difference between Iceland and Ireland? One letter and six months." (Assumes of course that you know that Iceland has gone bankrupt). The Celtic tiger years were in large parts a bubble but thats really beside the point.
I'm not arguing that taxcuts doesn't stimulates the economy, they often do. However a taxcut does not raise tax revenue (except in extreme cases that you'd be hard pressed to find in reality). They dont pay for themselves
hiredhelp 2 years ago
You keep on making that claim that tax cuts did not raise revenue. But I have given you numerous studies that say other wise. You just making claims but you have no evidence to support the contrary.
Ireland is experiencing some tough times but they are still better off than when than the 1980's.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
You don't grasp the theory behind the Laffer-curve. That a country can fair better under lowered taxes doesn't mean that tax revenue has gone up, why is that so hard to understand? If you make cuts in spending at the same time that is. Which is what all the countries you talk about have done. The taxcut in itself does not create more revenue which is what Laffer believed would happen.
hiredhelp 2 years ago
When are you going to start showing me this irrefutable proof that you are constantly talking about? Or are you going to be making claims which are unsubstituted. That seems to be your MO thus far.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
I think you have the bigger burden of proof here but what the hell, I looked it up in my old textbook: "...history failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture that lower taxes would raise tax revenue. When Reagan for example cut taxes ... the result was less tax revenue, not more" That is to say that the increase in labor supplied did not offset the actual loss in tax revenue.
hiredhelp 2 years ago