Sweden: Counter-Example to Conservative Propaganda

[Bergslagstroll]

How many people do they have on welfare and food stamps?

Probably less than USA for example USA have an employment rate of 69.5 percent compared to Sweden that have an employment rate of 76.4 percent.

https://data.oecd.org/emp/employment-rate.htm

Also thanks to collective agreements Swedish workers have gotten real wages increases during the last couple of decades compared to Americans workers that gotten stagnated or even declining wages. While in Sweden the wages are also higher for low wage workers thanks to strong unions and collective agreements. So, we have less working poor.

Swedish workers also have more financial security through unemployment insurances and health insurance so workers can get up to 80 percent of their salaries if they get unemployment, sick or injured. There Swedish workers have paid into those insurances through their salaries and then it comes to unemployment insurance also by a monthly fee.

 

[cpwill]

Asserting that 4% growth in Sweden was caused by right wing economic theory is like saying the Patriots won the Superbowl because of their running game.

Especially when you consider the top economic advisor in Sweden said it's high taxes, wealth redistribution, strong unions, and government paid childcare.

So, then someone comes in and says, A HA! Sweden cut taxes once in the last 20 years! Free market! Supply side!!

Well, context is important. Let's say they were actually soaking the rich, then they may have wanted to walk that back a little.

Context is important.

For example, let's imagine the tale of two countries:


Country A has stable laws and low cost of government. It can produce 10,000 apples a year.

Country B has rule of man, and high cost of government. It can produce 10 apples a year.

Over the course of 2018, Country A maintains stable law and low cost of government, and manages to increase production to 10,200 apples a year: a 200 apple increase for 2% growth.
Country B does make progress - they fire some of their more corrupt administrators, and manage to increase production to 15 apples a year: an increase of 5 apples, for 50% growth.

People from Country A who have a bias in favor of government intrusion into the decision making of others (though generally not necessarily themselves) now swoop in and cheer: "Country B is experiencing growth that is 25 times greater than that of Country A!!! We need to make our government more corrupt, and increase the cost of government so that we, too, can match that incredible growth rate!"

Others realize that, in fact, what has occurred is that Country B is benefiting (statistically) from having had a lower starting point (so that any comparable gain was weighed more heavily against what previously was there) and economically because they moved in the direction of country A.

Which is, of course, precisely what Sweden has been doing for lo these 20 years.

Taxes have already been discussed. Another example is:

Welfare State Programs

In the 1990s, significant changes were made to various programs to maintain income and provide services. These include, but are not limited to, more stringent qualifications, reductions in benefit levels, regulatory changes, and higher user fees....

It is ironic that in the conservative United States, recent efforts by the Bush administration to introduce private accounts into the Social Security system have thus far been defeated, but in Social Democratic Sweden, this plan was adopted....

The story is similar in Canada, China, etc. so on, and so forth. As nations institute good rule of law, property rights, free markets (all the makings of capitalism), and reduce the drag of government, they get wealthier. When they start from a lower starting point, their rate of growth is stronger than the rate of growth of those who were already pretty well off in those areas.

Sadly, those others are drowned out by the chants of All-The-Free-Stuff-Government-Can-Give-You-Once-Costs-Of-Government-Are-High-And-We-Put-More-Power-Into-The-Hands-Of-Self-Interested-Government-Bureaucrats.

 

[ludin]

This post is the deflection. You want your US to Sweden comparison to be valid, so you get pissy when you're informed that it's not. Maybe the real reason you're pissy is that most of the leaders of the Democratic Party don't in fact support the protectionism that unions require. They won't survive in a global marketplace. They require anti-competition. Your closest real friend in this regard is probably Steve Bannon.

Just look at what happened to US unions in free trade and globalization. They where decimated as companies found more economical avenues. Look at all the companies that move their HQ's out of the US to save on taxes.

Germany used to have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. They lowered to 25% and businesses and their economy boomed. What do we do in the US? Scream and cry that they don't pay enough and then demand that they hire people at the same time while making it more expensive to operate.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Context is important.

For example, let's imagine the tale of two countries:


Country A has stable laws and low cost of government. It can produce 10,000 apples a year.

Country B has rule of man, and high cost of government. It can produce 10 apples a year.

Over the course of 2018, Country A maintains stable law and low cost of government, and manages to increase production to 10,200 apples a year: a 200 apple increase for 2% growth.
Country B does make progress - they fire some of their more corrupt administrators, and manage to increase production to 15 apples a year: an increase of 5 apples, for 50% growth.

People from Country A who have a bias in favor of government intrusion into the decision making of others (though generally not necessarily themselves) now swoop in and cheer: "Country B is experiencing growth that is 25 times greater than that of Country A!!! We need to make our government more corrupt, and increase the cost of government so that we, too, can match that incredible growth rate!"

Others realize that, in fact, what has occurred is that Country B is benefiting (statistically) from having had a lower starting point (so that any comparable gain was weighed more heavily against what previously was there) and economically because they moved in the direction of country A.

Which is, of course, precisely what Sweden has been doing for lo these 20 years.

Taxes have already been discussed. Another example is:



The story is similar in Canada, China, etc. so on, and so forth. As nations institute good rule of law, property rights, free markets (all the makings of capitalism), and reduce the drag of government, they get wealthier. When they start from a lower starting point, their rate of growth is stronger than the rate of growth of those who were already pretty well off in those areas.

Sadly, those others are drowned out by the chants of All-The-Free-Stuff-Government-Can-Give-You-Once-Costs-Of-Government-Are-High-And-We-Put-More-Power-Into-The-Hands-Of-Self-Interested-Government-Bureaucrats.

Context is important, like for example who get the money from the economic growth? Like for example USA have had stagnated and even declining real wages even if you have had economic growth.


Also, Sweden continue to have a strong economy after raising taxes and expanding the welfare state under the present Social democratic government.


https://www.thelocal.se/20170728/swedens-economic-growth-is-crazy-strong-analysts


If you look at Sweden historical over the decades you can’t see any significant increase in economic growth since the beginning of the 80’s, from the point Sweden started to adopt neo liberal policies.


https://translate.google.se/transla...omi/bnp---bruttonationalprodukten/&edit-text=

While if you look at your own link, it shows that neeoliberal policies have led to problem in Sweden. For example, we had a huge economic crisis in the beginning of the 90’s. There a big reason for that crisis was deregulation of the banking sector, especially then it came to housing loans.


Then it comes to pensions in Sweden most of it government funded that on salaries in Sweden you pay a fee that goes into the pension system. A smaller part of that money is privatized that people can chose their own private investment fund. That part of the Swedish pension system has been criticized. That the private investment funds can both have high management costs and have hard time beating index. So, it can often be better to not choose a private fund and instead thereby get the government investment fund. On top of that you have pension savings as part of the collective agreements and private savings.


Also, Sweden can also show that you can give a lot of “free stuff” and still have a strong economy. While at the same time for example free universities means that it’s academic talent and hard work that determent who get into university programs and courses not the size of the parent’s wallets. While universal health care both mean a great security for low income earners and the middle class and also that people can become healthy and work instead of living on welfare.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Just look at what happened to US unions in free trade and globalization. They where decimated as companies found more economical avenues. Look at all the companies that move their HQ's out of the US to save on taxes.

Germany used to have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. They lowered to 25% and businesses and their economy boomed. What do we do in the US? Scream and cry that they don't pay enough and then demand that they hire people at the same time while making it more expensive to operate.

Sweden show that you can both have strong unions and a strong economy.

While it's a problem that countries compete by lowering the taxes on business. Because country A lower their taxes, country B respond to that and country C respond to B tax cuts. So country A can be forced to lower their business taxes yet again. This is a big reason for the growing inequality and less money to fund goverment services in many countries around the world.

Connected to that is the increase of tax havens, tax avoidance and other schemes by wealthy and corporation to aviod paying taxes.

The Hidden Cost of Offshore Tax Havens | Frontier Group

https://www.oxfam.org/en/even-it/inequality-and-poverty-hidden-costs-tax-dodging

 

[ludin]

Sweden show that you can both have strong unions and a strong economy.

While it's a problem that countries compete by lowering the taxes on business. Because country A lower their taxes, country B respond to that and country C respond to B tax cuts. So country A can be forced to lower their business taxes yet again. This is a big reason for the growing inequality and less money to fund goverment services in many countries around the world.

Connected to that is the increase of tax havens, tax avoidance and other schemes by wealthy and corporation to aviod paying taxes.

The Hidden Cost of Offshore Tax Havens | Frontier Group

https://www.oxfam.org/en/even-it/inequality-and-poverty-hidden-costs-tax-dodging

this proves to me that you really don't understand how these things work.
you should stop reading bad material and actually learn the law.

What they describe is tax evasion. tax evasion is an illegal practice. while there might be some shady corporations that do it the majority do not and
operate as they should.

If you are not going to be honest then i have no reason to really respond.

They are not tax avoidance nor are they scheme's. Do you not pay taxes on money earned outside of the US.
The US does not have jurisdiction over money earned overseas unless you are an ex-pat.

if you invest overseas and keep your money off US shore then there is nothing the US government can do.

Once you bring it into the US then there isn't an issue.

your scenario is not realistic. corporate taxes are required to keep companies somewhat honest in their business dealings. there is a bottom threshold in which lower taxes has diminishing returns just like high taxes.
swedens economy has to do with resources and less to do with unions. at any time those companies can move to move friendly business area's and all those unions are useless.

however if you are looking to earn money from taxes encouraging companies to hire and expand is the best way to do it.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

this proves to me that you really don't understand how these things work.
you should stop reading bad material and actually learn the law.

What they describe is tax evasion. tax evasion is an illegal practice. while there might be some shady corporations that do it the majority do not and
operate as they should.

If you are not going to be honest then i have no reason to really respond.

They are not tax avoidance nor are they scheme's. Do you not pay taxes on money earned outside of the US.
The US does not have jurisdiction over money earned overseas unless you are an ex-pat.

if you invest overseas and keep your money off US shore then there is nothing the US government can do.

Once you bring it into the US then there isn't an issue.

your scenario is not realistic. corporate taxes are required to keep companies somewhat honest in their business dealings. there is a bottom threshold in which lower taxes has diminishing returns just like high taxes.
swedens economy has to do with resources and less to do with unions. at any time those companies can move to move friendly business area's and all those unions are useless.

however if you are looking to earn money from taxes encouraging companies to hire and expand is the best way to do it.

As may links said it not only illegal practices but many time companies exploit weaknesses and loopholes in the tax codes. For example, shifting the profits between subsidiaries through internal transactions.

That a multinational corporation can have a local company A in country A that does a big profit. So, the multinational corporation let local company A borrow money from their local company B in country B to a very high interest rate to fund their operations, thereby almost eradicate the entire profit in country A. Thereby the local company A must pay a lot less taxes in country A. While at the same time country B is a tax haven so the multi corporation’s local company B almost don’t have to pay any taxes on the huge profits from the loans.

While at the same time multinational corporations have become more powerful over the last couple of decades so they can see to that politicians keep those loopholes and even create new ones.

You are right that lower taxes can have a diminishing return for companies. Still a multinational corporation can just move to country B if it happens in country A. Also, it can take time for the diminishing returns to happen that at the same time owner of companies today can be more focus on short time speculation and profit.

That if country A makes cut to primary education to fund lower taxes for companies, it can when take decades before companies in country A get a problem with hiring skilled workers. While during those decades companies in country A can enjoy the lover tax level.

Also, Sweden have even since the 70’s accepted that corporation will more and closed down because of globalization and technology development. So, Sweden use taxes so we can have a skilled and healthy workforce, infrastructure and other government services to make the Swedish economy innovative and competitive. While at the same time there are financial assistance and also help to get new jobs for the workers that lose their jobs because of globalization and technology development.

That Sweden have the top 3 for last couple of years on the Global Innovation Index.

Sweden and Finland are ranked amongst the 15 most innovative countries in the world - Business Insider Nordic

Sweden also for example is the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Swedish unions also work globally to stregthen unions in other countries and for democracy and a sustainable development.

About us | Union to Union

 

[ludin]

As may links said it not only illegal practices but many time companies exploit weaknesses and loopholes in the tax codes. For example, shifting the profits between subsidiaries through internal transactions.

That is not illegal. Look up the law. Any money that comes into the US they must pay taxes on.
Money earned outside the US is not touchable.

That a multinational corporation can have a local company A in country A that does a big profit. So, the multinational corporation let local company A borrow money from their local company B in country B to a very high interest rate to fund their operations, thereby almost eradicate the entire profit in country A. Thereby the local company A must pay a lot less taxes in country A. While at the same time country B is a tax haven so the multi corporation’s local company B almost don’t have to pay any taxes on the huge profits from the loans.

Which is not illegal nor is it a tax loophole. The problem with your scenario is that company B has to have the money to lend.
Company B can't lend money it doesn't have. It isn't a bank. You just described a legal financial transactions that apply o any business that takes a loan.

While at the same time multinational corporations have become more powerful over the last couple of decades so they can see to that politicians keep those loopholes and even create new ones.

You are right that lower taxes can have a diminishing return for companies. Still a multinational corporation can just move to country B if it happens in country A. Also, it can take time for the diminishing returns to happen that at the same time owner of companies today can be more focus on short time speculation and profit.

Yeah if the owners are stupid or don't want to be in business long and want to make it viable to sell to another company.
Most businesses operate on 10 year plan.

That if country A makes cut to primary education to fund lower taxes for companies, it can when take decades before companies in country A get a problem with hiring skilled workers. While during those decades companies in country A can enjoy the lover tax level.

Then that is their business to do so if they want to.

Also, Sweden have even since the 70’s accepted that corporation will more and closed down because of globalization and technology development. So, Sweden use taxes so we can have a skilled and healthy workforce, infrastructure and other government services to make the Swedish economy innovative and competitive. While at the same time there are financial assistance and also help to get new jobs for the workers that lose their jobs because of globalization and technology development.

You also have some of the biggest taxes in the world. You have a good deal of resources.
It has lowered its corporate tax rate from 52% down to 26%. Which has a huge impact on
Businesss there and a good reason that businesses are still there and their economy has grown.

Raise it back to 52% and see what companies there do.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Ad Hominem is not a valid counter argument.

Pointing out what his major field of study is...is "ad hom".

Good grief, whut a dumb thing to say.

 

[MTAtech]

Uh....so, like....Sweden is where all the rich and successful people of the world store their money.


So...all this article proves...is that there are more people, storing more money, in Sweden.

Yeah, I visited Austria two years ago but surprisingly didn't see any kangaroos.

 

[MTAtech]

Some argue that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax-rates but that is just part of the story.

 

[Critter7r]

Yeah, I visited Austria two years ago but surprisingly didn't see any kangaroos.

Krikey!!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That is not illegal. Look up the law. Any money that comes into the US they must pay taxes on.
Money earned outside the US is not touchable.



Which is not illegal nor is it a tax loophole. The problem with your scenario is that company B has to have the money to lend.
Company B can't lend money it doesn't have. It isn't a bank. You just described a legal financial transactions that apply o any business that takes a loan.





Yeah if the owners are stupid or don't want to be in business long and want to make it viable to sell to another company.
Most businesses operate on 10 year plan.



Then that is their business to do so if they want to.



You also have some of the biggest taxes in the world. You have a good deal of resources.
It has lowered its corporate tax rate from 52% down to 26%. Which has a huge impact on
Businesss there and a good reason that businesses are still there and their economy has grown.

Raise it back to 52% and see what companies there do.

Yes, there are also loopholes and weakness in tax code and not just illegal behavoir. For example, that countries can declare most of their profit in tax havens thanks to internal transaction between its subsidiaries.

Like for example in my previous example they’re the only reason that company B can loan out money with so high interest rate to company A is that both companies is owned by the same multinational corporation. There that multinational corporation wants to transfer the declaration of profit to country B with a much lower tax rate from country A that have a much higher tax rate.

That the only reason that the multinational corporation have started company B in country B is to reduce their taxes in country A and in other countries their they have operations, becaus country B is a tax haven.

There local company B got the money it borrows from either internal or external sources for a much lower cost than it borrows to company A, something company A could also have done if the goal wasn’t to avoid taxes in country A.

Also, Swedish company did fine even then Sweden had a much higher tax rate and they there competitive international. So, a big reason for the low tax rate for business today can be the race to the bottom their countries compete by lowering their business taxes.

 

[ludin]

Yes, there are also loopholes and weakness in tax code and not just illegal behavoir. For example, that countries can declare most of their profit in tax havens thanks to internal transaction between its subsidiaries.

you still don't get it. Money earned is money earned. It doesn't matter where the money goes to if it was earned in the US they have to pay taxes on it. You don't understand how it works which is why you are wrong.

I have a product and gen I have a company in say Bermuda. I setup part of my company in Bermuda and the sale of the product happens there the product ships from the US. the money goes to Bermuda it never touches US soil.
Now if I want to bring that money to the US I would have to pay taxes on it. You really need to learn how things work.

It isn't a loophole nor is it tax evasion. Then again I can't do anything with the money inside the US.

Like for example in my previous example they’re the only reason that company B can loan out money with so high interest rate to company A is that both companies is owned by the same multinational corporation. There that multinational corporation wants to transfer the declaration of profit to country B with a much lower tax rate from country A that have a much higher tax rate.

You don't know how it works and you have it backwards. They wouldn't loan out at a high interest rate because it wouldn't serve a purpose and make further loans look risky. Also the company that issues the loan has to be able to pay it back. The only company that gets the tax break is the company issuing the loan.

That the only reason that the multinational corporation have started company B in country B is to reduce their taxes in country A and in other countries their they have operations, becaus country B is a tax haven.

As long as the money doesn't touch country a it is legal.

There local company B got the money it borrows from either internal or external sources for a much lower cost than it borrows to company A, something company A could also have done if the goal wasn’t to avoid taxes in country A.

Loans are tax deductible. You serious don't know what you are talking about.

Also, Swedish company did fine even then Sweden had a much higher tax rate and they there competitive international. So, a big reason for the low tax rate for business today can be the race to the bottom their countries compete by lowering their business taxes.

yeah they threatened to move. Even your largest bank now is threatening to move.
So raise the taxes back to 52%.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

you still don't get it. Money earned is money earned. It doesn't matter where the money goes to if it was earned in the US they have to pay taxes on it. You don't understand how it works which is why you are wrong.

I have a product and gen I have a company in say Bermuda. I setup part of my company in Bermuda and the sale of the product happens there the product ships from the US. the money goes to Bermuda it never touches US soil.
Now if I want to bring that money to the US I would have to pay taxes on it. You really need to learn how things work.

It isn't a loophole nor is it tax evasion. Then again I can't do anything with the money inside the US.

You don't know how it works and you have it backwards. They wouldn't loan out at a high interest rate because it wouldn't serve a purpose and make further loans look risky. Also the company that issues the loan has to be able to pay it back. The only company that gets the tax break is the company issuing the loan.

As long as the money doesn't touch country a it is legal.

Loans are tax deductible. You serious don't know what you are talking about.

yeah they threatened to move. Even your largest bank now is threatening to move.
So raise the taxes back to 52%.

My point is that is not always the case that companies must pay taxes their it’s earned. That a multinational company have a local company in USA that makes a profit of one 100 million dollars from their operations in USA before financials costs and revenues, while that American local company borrow money to finance their operations from a company in Bermuda to a very high interest rate so the profit after financial revenues and costs will only be 10 million dollars and it on those 10 million dollars the American company must pay taxes on.

There the local Bermuda company is part of the same multinational corporation as the local company in USA, so the very high interest rate it’s just an internal transition of profit between subsidiaries inside the same multinational company. That because Bermuda is a tax haven the local company in Bermuda almost doesn’t have to pay any taxes on the big profits from the loans to the American company.

Wikipedia have an article that probably are a lot better then me explaining transfer mispricing that also for example can be the cost of a product. There are also links so you can read more about it.

For example, assume company A, a multinational which produces a product in Africa and sells it in the United States, processes its produce through three subsidiary companies: X (in Africa), Y (in a tax haven, usually an offshore financial center) and Z (in the US), each of which acts under instruction from A. Company X sells its product to Company Y at an artificially low price, resulting in a low profit and a low tax for Company X in Africa. Company Y then sells the product to Company Z at an artificially high price, almost as high as the retail price at which Company Z then sells the final product in the US. As a result, Company Z also records a low profit and, therefore, a low tax. Most of the apparent profit is made by Company Y, even though it acts purely as a middleman without adding much (if any) value to the product (it is likely that the products never pass the country Y, but are shipped directly from X to Z) Because Company Y operates in a tax haven, it pays very little tax, leading to increased profits for the parent Company A. Both jurisdictions of companies X and Z are deprived of tax income, which they would have been entitled to if the product had at each stage been traded at the market rate.[2]

About 60% of capital flight from Africa is from improper transfer pricing.[3] Such capital flight from the developing world is estimated at ten times the size of aid it receives and twice the debt service it pays.[4][5] The African Union reports estimates that about 30% of Sub-Saharan Africa's GDP has been moved to tax havens.[6] One tax analyst believed that if the money were paid, most of the continent would be "developed" by now.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_mispricing

That Swedish bank you mention show the greed amongst companies. Because that bank can't accept the proposal that banks should pay a little more taxes even if the four Swedish major banks made a profit of 92 billion Swedish kronor last year, over 10 billion dollars. That by having countries compete by lowering their business taxes you just fuel the greed of big companies and their owners.

 

[ludin]

My point is that is not always the case that companies must pay taxes their it’s earned. That a multinational company have a local company in USA that makes a profit of one 100 million dollars from their operations in USA before financials costs and revenues, while that American local company borrow money to finance their operations from a company in Bermuda to a very high interest rate so the profit after financial revenues and costs will only be 10 million dollars and it on those 10 million dollars the American company must pay taxes on.

Getting a loan is a tax deduction for any business. There are some qualifications. 1 the company doing the borrowing must have the money to lend. That means it would have to have liquid capital of that much. They can't borrow money that doesn't exist.
Next that is not tax avoidance. The money on the loan has to be paid back. If the IRS finds otherwise the deduction is voided.

There the local Bermuda company is part of the same multinational corporation as the local company in USA, so the very high interest rate it’s just an internal transition of profit between subsidiaries inside the same multinational company. That because Bermuda is a tax haven the local company in Bermuda almost doesn’t have to pay any taxes on the big profits from the loans to the American company.

The money is not longer in the US. they can't tax it however if the IRS audits the loan and sees that it is made in bad faith i.e. The company that borrowed the money can't pay then it can void the deduction.

Wikipedia have an article that probably are a lot better then me explaining transfer mispricing that also for example can be the cost of a product. There are also links so you can read more about it.

All legal business transactions. Something you still don't seem to understand

That Swedish bank you mention show the greed amongst companies. Because that bank can't accept the proposal that banks should pay a little more taxes even if the four Swedish major banks made a profit of 92 billion Swedish kronor last year, over 10 billion dollars. That by having countries compete by lowering their business taxes you just fuel the greed of big companies and their owners.

Then when they leave were do you bank?
Now you are starting to see why you will never raise corporate rates to 52%

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Getting a loan is a tax deduction for any business. There are some qualifications. 1 the company doing the borrowing must have the money to lend. That means it would have to have liquid capital of that much. They can't borrow money that doesn't exist.
Next that is not tax avoidance. The money on the loan has to be paid back. If the IRS finds otherwise the deduction is voided.



The money is not longer in the US. they can't tax it however if the IRS audits the loan and sees that it is made in bad faith i.e. The company that borrowed the money can't pay then it can void the deduction.



All legal business transactions. Something you still don't seem to understand


Then when they leave were do you bank?
Now you are starting to see why you will never raise corporate rates to 52%

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s good. That the OECD estimates that as much as 240 billion dollars every year is lost in tax revenue because of tax avoidance techniques. There many of those tax avoidance techniques are probably legal. So, you need new laws and more cooperation between countries to drastically reduce corporation’s ability to use those tax avoidance techniques.

While at the same financal secrecy in tax havens needs to be stoped. That it’s not only about that corporations and the wealthy should not be able to hide their money from being taxed. That it also about that we ordinary citizens all over the world have seen a reduction in our right to privacy in the fight against terrorisms so why should we tolerate financial secrecy in tax havens that also can be used by terrorists, criminals and dictators?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...ar-to-tax-avoidance-who-really-ends-up-paying

Also, that the Swedish bank, Nordea is threatening is to move its headquarter to another country. That could be a bad move because they could lose more in bad PR than what they gain from reduced taxes. Especially since Nordea and the other major Swedish banks have had huge profits for several years, so it's not like a little more taxes will mean that they will go broke.

Nordea was also named in The Panama Papers.

Nordea is named in The Panama Papers, a huge cross-border journalism collaboration that has been analysing millions of records held by an international law firm based in Panama.

The Swedish bank is listed alongside around 500 other banks or subsidiaries including global household names such as HSBC, UBS and Société Générale, as creating offshore companies through the legal firm, Mossack Fonseca.

The global investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) looked into the leaders, criminals and celebrities using secretive offshore companies.

https://www.thelocal.se/20160404/swedens-nordea-bank-in-global-tax-tangle

 

[holbritter]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...x-plan-delivers-an-economic-miracle-in-sweden




Due to smart policy, Sweden is turning into an economic powerhouse. They also run a budget surplus. That should get Rand Paul's attention. Wait a minute, Conservatives told me that tax cuts produce growth? Could it be that they were wrong about economics?

Over the past 20 years, Sweden averaged a higher GDP growth rate than the United States. But, the U.S. has been bogged down by bad policy decisions and stubborn refusals to legislate on behalf of the middle class and working classes. Imagine if the United States would have never passed the Bush Tax Cuts. How much healthier would our economy be right now?



Last year Sweden topped 4% growth. So, if Sweden is getting 3-4% growth with high taxes and a huge welfare state, that is proof positive, that high taxes and a huge welfare state doesn't strangle economic growth or activity.. this is a delusion conservatives make painfully clear they believe. That delusion is patently false. High taxes and a robust welfare state, if they do not directly cause BOOMING economic times, they certainly don't impede growth. Trump would nut himself to produce 4% GDP growth in the United States. It looks like the template is high taxes, a robust welfare state, and wealth redistribution. After the GOP sees the results in Sweden, I'm sure we can expect the GOP and Trump to get on board with a Nordic model.



Kindly dispose of the "homogenous population" talking point in the garbage, on your way out. Sweden took in record numbers of refugees. Where's your ideology conservatives? Sliced up and full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

That's a good growth rate, no doubt. Maybe they will catch up to US's GDP someday. Meanwhile, we do have growth and are ranked #1 while Sweden is ranked #22.

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

 

[holbritter]

That the so-called conservatives have not yet figured out that "trickle-down" does not work is one of the most baffling things I have yet to witness. It became clear to me that the TD theory was hogwash back in the 90's, and that was during a boom. That they still hold onto that myth here in the 20-teens, after experiencing the worst of its terrible effects, first hand over the past 12 years, is freaking amazing.

Maybe I look at it too simply. I'm not an economics guru, but trickle down seems to be common sense. Why do you think it doesn't work?

As a simple example: rich person builds a new mansion, contractors, subs, laborers make money, product manufacturers make money, employees of manufacturers keep their jobs. All of the previously stated spends more money, the recipients of that money(retail, etc.) make money and spend it; town/state/county get more tax revenue, better or more services to residents of those town/state/counties.

v.s.

rich person decides not to build a new mansion - none of the above happens.

Isn't that trickle down?

 

[calamity]

Maybe I look at it too simply. I'm not an economics guru, but trickle down seems to be common sense. Why do you think it doesn't work?

As a simple example: rich person builds a new mansion, contractors, subs, laborers make money, product manufacturers make money, employees of manufacturers keep their jobs. All of the previously stated spends more money, the recipients of that money(retail, etc.) make money and spend it; town/state/county get more tax revenue, better or more services to residents of those town/state/counties.

v.s.

rich person decides not to build a new mansion - none of the above happens.

Isn't that trickle down?

TD doesn't work because the rich just hoard their money. After all, there are only so many golden showers one man can buy. Best is to spread the wealth around to the many, those who will spend it on cars, refrigerators, pool tables, TV''s, etc.

 

[holbritter]

TD doesn't work because the rich just hoard their money. After all, there are only so many golden showers one man can buy. Best is to spread the wealth around to the many, those who will spend it on cars, refrigerators, pool tables, TV''s, etc.

And the rich don't buy those things? If rich people didn't spend their money, then how does Rodeo Drive survive? How does Lamborgini or Mercedes survive, how does 7th Ave survive? How does Tiffanys survive?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Maybe I look at it too simply. I'm not an economics guru, but trickle down seems to be common sense. Why do you think it doesn't work?

As a simple example: rich person builds a new mansion, contractors, subs, laborers make money, product manufacturers make money, employees of manufacturers keep their jobs. All of the previously stated spends more money, the recipients of that money(retail, etc.) make money and spend it; town/state/county get more tax revenue, better or more services to residents of those town/state/counties.

v.s.

rich person decides not to build a new mansion - none of the above happens.

Isn't that trickle down?

No, its not. Trickle down is the proposition that lowering taxes on income (which is the whut nearly all con argument propose to do) will cause greater amounts to be spent by the wealthy, effecting GDP and wealth distribution generally. It didn't.

The graph shows the marginal (top) tax rates for income and capital gains over the past century, and the top 1% shares of personal income and capital gains.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And the rich don't buy those things? If rich people didn't spend their money, then how does Rodeo Drive survive? How does Lamborgini or Mercedes survive, how does 7th Ave survive? How does Tiffanys survive?

Look up the concept of "marginal propensity to consume".

 

[calamity]

And the rich don't buy those things? If rich people didn't spend their money, then how does Rodeo Drive survive? How does Lamborgini or Mercedes survive, how does 7th Ave survive? How does Tiffanys survive?

A few rich people with a billion dollars can only buy so many toys. But, 350,000,000 people with a few thousand dollars can buy a lot of regular things that employs many people. Use your head.

 

[Fruityfact]

A few rich people with a billion dollars can only buy so many toys. But, 350,000,000 people with a few thousand dollars can buy a lot of regular things that employs many people. Use your head.

Shhh stop making sense.