Turns out Sweden got it right

[Triton]

No, your article doesn't point to the opposite, it just doesn't have the complete story.

Well by all means point us towards the "complete" story. Show us some evidence that this article has it wrong and in fact Sweden's economic turn around is a result of increased taxes (despite what Sweden's finance minister says in the article.)

[Triton]

Well, for one thing it's more complex and has all the information instead of part of it.

I understand that there are always links that show opposite conclusions on this complex issue. That's why trading links really doesn't accomplish much.

So if a chart is more complex and has more information that makes it the correct chart? Or only when that chart supports your position?

[jdm61]

Which in reality means a 7% increase in taxes. Something tells me the obfuscation, from your side, was deliberate.

No, it would be 7% of TOTAL income going to taxes. As a percentage of tax, it would be 25%. Let me put it in terms that you can understand better as a Swede. If you had 28 of the 100 ABBA records in print and you bought 7 more, you would have 25% more ABBA records than you started off with..

[timcsaw]

No, it would be 7% of TOTAL income going to taxes. As a percentage of tax, it would be 25%. Let me put it in terms that you can understand better as a Swede. If you had 28 of the 100 ABBA records in print and you bought 7 more, you would have 25% more ABBA records than you started off with..

"ABBA records"... now THAT'S funny stuff!

[jdm61]

I would have said 28 bottles of akvavit, but with the taxes in Sweden, he would probably have to sneak into German to be able to buy 28 bottles.

"ABBA records"... now THAT'S funny stuff!

[timcsaw]

ON EDIT: But wasn't ABBA Sweeeedish? Eh, ,,, Sweeed/Swiss... six to one, half dozen the other. (Just don't call them Norwegians))

[Nordic Viking]

No, it would be 7% of TOTAL income going to taxes. As a percentage of tax, it would be 25%. Let me put it in terms that you can understand better as a Swede. If you had 28 of the 100 ABBA records in print and you bought 7 more, you would have 25% more ABBA records than you started off with..

1. When you say 25% instead of 7% you're either trying to fool someone or sell something.
2. It's Ace of Base not ABBA, sheesh Everybody has all the ABBA albums.

[ttoney83]

Once again I am compelled to refute the assertion of some folks and groups who self identify as "conservatives', that lower taxes create jobs, and/or, that decreasing spending is the only way out of an economic crisis. Sounds great in theory, but in practice, "something else" always seems to intervene to falsify the assertion.....
(This should not be taken to mean that I believe there is NO WASTE to be trimmed from the government which could help our economic condition.)

The argument, presented in the main stream propaganda machine, and in various threads here and elsewhere, GROSSly oversimplifies the issue, in that it treats ALL government spending as equal and ALL tax policy as equal. Clearly, even a cursory examination of the facts demonstrates the fallacy of both of the following assertions;
1) That reduction in spending is a necessity.
2) That lower tax rates, particularly on the rich "job creators" are the keys to economic recovery and future prosperity.

To the first point; the correlation between tax rates and job creation as demonstrated by the numbers and shown in the graphs in the following link actually shows the opposite of the second assertion above, even though the article claims no direct correlation exists. CLEARLY the graph shows that while the top tax rates have trended SHARPLY downward from 1948 to 2010, unemployment has trended upward, albeit at a relatively more modest rate.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010...and-taxes.html
If the image above shows up, it shows that there is at least one other factor which influences job growth.
As the next link shows, the top tax rates for most of the 20th century to 1963 was 90%-92%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

As one can see from the graph showing tax rates and unemployment, the unemployment rate over the long term, 1948-2010, have hovered around 5%-6% +- with some interesting decreases and increases.

I'm not sure why the graph shows an increase in the top marginal tax rate from 1948 to 1954-58 because the tax information from the third link above shows the top bracket was 91%.

In 1964 there was a sharp decrease in the top tax bracket from 91% to 77% which corresponds to a sharp decrease in unemployment from 1963 to 1970. (Note, the decrease in unemployment actually preceeds the decrease in taxes by about a year.

HOWEVER, even though the top tax bracket goes down even further to 70%, unemployment rises SHARPly from approximately 1970 to approximately 1982. It then trends downward, along with decreasing tax rates to 2008, when the unemployment rate again spikes upward, but more dramatically this time, to an apparent all time, post WW II high, DESPITE some of the lowest tax rates in our modern history.....

CLEARLY something else is up.

Clearly the modern conservative believes that all government spending is equal and that lower tax rates mean greater job creation (lower unemployment). It is demonstrated that the tax claim is false. Tax rates have fallen sharply, while unemployment has trended upward over the long term at the following respective rates; Taxes- DOWN by .903% per year, unemployment UP by .097% per year.
CLEARLY, BY THE NUMBERS, as taxes fall, unemployment goes up.... EVen if one takes out the sharp spike in unemployment from 2008 to present...

Government spending

It should be obvious, to even the most dull of economics students, that all spending is not equal, government or otherwise.
For example; spending 500 million to construct a Dam with power generation capability will produce jobs during construction, and lasting jobs for maintenance and the continued generation of power, whereas 500million spent to merely GIVE money to out of work persons, without requiring work of those individuals, contributes nothing to the long term growth potential of the economy, and questionable benefit to the economy in the short term.

There is an interesting period, 1964 to 1970,and two potential contributors to lower unemployment rates hinted at in the graph above. This was the period shortly after Kennedy's announcement of the intention to go to the Moon; the start of the Apollo Program with an accompanying increase in government spending ON THAT PROJECT. Then too, there was the Vietnam War with peak troop levels occurring in 1968. So, here we have two examples of government spending decreasing unemployment, and having NOTHING to do with decreasing taxes on the self proclaimed "job creators," as the decrease in unemployment PRECEEDED the tax reductions by at least a year.

What is needed in this country now is;
1) the reenactment of Glass Steagall with the accompanying breakup of all those financial institutions who were too big to fail, and have become bigger, AND the writing off of all the illegitimate gambling losses of all those institutions which engaged in that gambling. This alone would free up TRILLIONS.
2) Dissolution of the Federal Reserve (Bankrupt anyway) along with the rechartering of a 3rd National Bank, and the return of monetary policy back to the Congress, where it belongs Constitutionally. This must be accompanied by a return to a Bimetallic monetary system to help keep Congressional spending in check. (A Fiat currency just will not do. If Bankers can't manage such a system there is no reason to believe that Congress can control themselves any more.)
3) All new credit uttered into existence by the Congress MUST be associated with a project to improve the PHYSICAL economic condition of the United States, projects like water management systems, power plants, interstate transportation systems etc. This is consistent with Hamilton's assertion that any debt created must be in association with the means to extinguish the debt. In other words, debt should only be created and funded if that debt is a physically productive enterprise which will produce capital in the form of physical goods and services. (See last paragraph of Hamilton's 1st Report on the Public Credit 1789).
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/hist...ts/ch08_02.htm

Persuaded as the Secretary is, that the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing: Yet he is so far from acceding to the position, in the latitude in which it is sometimes laid down, that "public debts are public benefits," a position inviting to prodigality, and liable to dangerous abuse,—that he ardently wishes to see it incorporated, as a fundamental maxim, in the system of public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment. This he regards as the true secret for rendering public credit immortal. And he presumes, that it is difficult to conceive a situation, in which there may not be an adherence to the maxim. At least he feels an unfeigned solicitude, that this may be attempted by the United States, and that they may commence their measures for the establishment of credit, with the observance of it.

(bold mine)

What is missing today, is a fundamental understanding of what economy is.....

[Triton]

Once again I am compelled to refute the assertion of some folks and groups who self identify as "conservatives', that lower taxes create jobs, and/or, that decreasing spending is the only way out of an economic crisis. Sounds great in theory, but in practice, "something else" always seems to intervene to falsify the assertion.....
(This should not be taken to mean that I believe there is NO WASTE to be trimmed from the government which could help our economic condition.)

The assertion made in this thread is that Sweden took steps to reduce government spending and cut taxes and their economy has turned around in a positive way, dramatically so.

In opposition we seem to be taking steps to increase government spending and increase taxes... and our economy still stinks with no realistic sign of anything remotely resembling a good recovery.

Therefore it would appear that Sweden got it right and we are getting it wrong. Are you saying that this is not so and that in fact our way to recovery should include more taxes and more government?

[BG42EDGE]

I continue to try to engage your comments and opinions and I will tenaciously also continue to demand that you provide source material, data, and justification for your positions. You have admitted to "dodging" questions, and continue to do so and this does affect your credibility here.

You would do well to read Preacher Man's big red post and read the links he provided. You can attempt to "converse" or you can continue to rant and act the border-line troll who's only real reason for posting is to inflame others and cause hate and discontent. We don't want that here.

We really don't mind other opinions, but we do mind when no support or valuable dialog supports those opinions. Other posters here who hold views similar to your own are accepted because they converse... they don't just rant. I would name them but they know who they are, and their supported views and arguments are welcomed, and from a personal perspective, I find them invaluable. They make me think and evaluate my own positions so that I can learn, and I thank THEM for their willingness to actually discuss a subject with a level of open mindedness. THEY are credible sounding boards.

Please take this in the spirit it is given as advice, and not as an attack.

No, that's not an attack.

LOL!

I don't "dodge" questions at all. I will not waste my time with disingenuous questions or hostile comments.

If such people are persistent and offensive, I will simply put them on ignore. If I have time, and feel especially gracious, I will sometimes read some of their posts just to see if there has been improvement. If there is, I will sometimes respond to those posts.

If someone posts (as happened here) and omits relevant facts, I will provide those facts (example being that the taxes on dividends and capital gains were raised in Sweden).

That's significant, since the whole point of the thread was to erroneously claim that Sweden's success was based solely on tax cuts.

I happen to know that the taxes on dividends and capital gains were raised because have a special interest in the economies of Sweden and other nations that have generous and compassionate social and education programs and their success in relation to the mean, callous and uncaring methods that have been traditional in America.

This information is not difficult to find and if you want to call me a liar, that's going to end up reflecting poorly on you.

As for your UNsolicited advice, if I want your advice, I'll ask for it. Until then, keep it to yourself.

[quietmike]

If someone posts (as happened here) and omits relevant facts, I will provide those facts (example being that the taxes on dividends and capital gains were raised in Sweden).

That's significant, since the whole point of the thread was to erroneously claim that Sweden's success was based solely on tax cuts.

You "will" provide them? That's what we've all been asking for.

I happen to know that the taxes on dividends and capital gains were raised because have a special interest in the economies of Sweden and other nations that have generous and compassionate social and education programs and their success in relation to the mean, callous and uncaring methods that have been traditional in America.

This information is not difficult to find

If it's that easy to find, why not source it and end the argument?

[parbajtor]

The assertion made in this thread is that Sweden took steps to reduce government spending and cut taxes and their economy has turned around in a positive way, dramatically so.

In opposition we seem to be taking steps to increase government spending and increase taxes... and our economy still stinks with no realistic sign of anything remotely resembling a good recovery.

Therefore it would appear that Sweden got it right and we are getting it wrong. Are you saying that this is not so and that in fact our way to recovery should include more taxes and more government?

Given that the Swedish Corporate tax rate was 26.3% Individual tax rates ranged from 0%–57% and Income taxed at source (Payroll tax) was 31.42% You would have to significantly increase your tax rates to match Swedens. Plus the fact that the long term effects of decades of "socialist state levels of taxation" has been that there are vast amounts of "public" money/ capital already invested in the infrastructure and national industries, just as there was in the UK pre-Thatcher. The effects of tying up capital in this way is that it reduces end user/consumer cost at the expense of profit to shareholders and reduced cash flow within the economy. Sweden can give tax breaks and stimulate the economy by releasing capital tied up in their assets. The majority of countries have already spent this equity. The UK did this by privatisation started by Thatcher and continued by Blair/Brown and again by selling off the gold (while stupidly telling everyone for a month behorehand when they were going to sell). This tactic would not work very well for the US, because there is very little equity (and absolutely no equality) in the infrastructure and national industry to begin with.
To put it in more simple terms, Sweden has saved furiously for decades and now can afford to spend a little of their "national savings" to stimulate their economy. Most other economies (US included) have to re-mortgage/borrow to do the same thing.

[timcsaw]

No, that's not an attack.

LOL!

No, I did not intend it as an attack, and you should not choose to take it as one. It is critical of your behaviour, but not of you as an individual.

I don't "dodge" questions at all. I will not waste my time with disingenuous questions or hostile comments.

Shall I post your comment where you freely admitted that you DID dodge my question?

[B]If someone posts (as happened here) and omits relevant facts, I will provide those facts (example being that the taxes on dividends and capital gains were raised in Sweden).

You have not posted any "facts" to support your claim, only your "say-so", and that isn't good enough.

This information is not difficult to find and if you want to call me a liar, that's going to end up reflecting poorly on you.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that you have made a claim and now keep avoiding direct requests from many members to support that claim. We are not responsible to support YOUR arguments, you are (and whether you do or don't, reflects on your credibility here and yours alone). If it is as easy to find as you suggest, pleas find it, and show it.

As for your UNsolicited advice, if I want your advice, I'll ask for it. Until then, keep it to yourself.

Fine, I'll do that. Just don't say that I (and others) didn't try to help you out.

[BG42EDGE]

Shall I post your comment where you freely admitted that you DID dodge my question?

Yes, please do that.

[BG42EDGE]

If it is as easy to find as you suggest, pleas find it, and show it.

From the first article that popped up.

Government spending is still about 50 percent of the economy. Cigarette and gasoline taxes were raised. And the rich took a hit as taxes on dividends and capital gains rose.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/07...ebt-taxes.html


There, that took ten seconds to find.

Why bother me about details like that when you know I'm right anyway?

[timcsaw]

BG42EDGE said;

I don't "dodge" questions at all.

I asked if he wanted me to post his dodge.

Yes, please do that.

Ask and ye' shall recieve;

You forgot the obvious choice #3. 3. You don't have a valid argument against the hard, fast numbers and aren't willing to admit that things were turning around under Bush and the republicans until the Democrats took over the purse strings.

Of the three choices, it's pretty obvious to everyone here, which is most appropriate as an answer for you (especially since you found the original instance of my post as having enough merit and did address it then (without supporting your position)). Again, the numbers don't lie.

I'll take number three for $1000 Alex.

If forum parlance, we call the avoidance of a pointed question an "obvious dodge"... But I can live with that.

I agree it's a dodge.

I have a policy of dodging posters that are consistently disingenuous and lacking in merit and especially if they are also consistently bellicose.

As you seem willing to live with that, so will I.

You need to do a better job of supporting your positions BG (not advice... it's in the rules).

[timcsaw]

From the first article that popped up.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/07...ebt-taxes.html

There, that took ten seconds to find.

Why bother me about details like that when you know I'm right anyway?

Thank you for complying... I'll look over the link. That's all you needed to do to begin with. Good job.

[BG42EDGE]

I have a policy of dodging posters that are consistently disingenuous and lacking in merit and especially if they are also consistently bellicose.

So, Tim......based on my policy, you're on ignore again. I gave you many last chances. Sorry you couldn't resist making me the topic and attacking me.

[quietmike]

So, Tim......based on my policy, you're on ignore again. I gave you many last chances. Sorry you couldn't resist making me the topic and attacking me.

You asked and he answered. If that's the way you act, re-ignore me too.

[timcsaw]

You asked and he answered. If that's the way you act, re-ignore me too.

Ignored? [In my best Brando "Col. Kurtz"...] "The horror... the horror."

Unfortunately, if one posts information that is contrary to another's opinion, or expects support of an opinion, that is an "attack" and "ignore-worthy"... ah well, can't say I didn't try to be cordial and helpful.