If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Corporate tax rate cut to 22%, economic growth stimulated, new jobs emerge. FARK: In Sweden   (marketwatch.com) divider line 59
    More: Spiffy, Sweden, Organisation for Economic Co-operation, tax rates, cutting in, Swedish Government  
•       •       •

1264 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Sep 2012 at 10:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-13 08:37:09 AM
Of course Sweden already has a fairly balanced budget, very low deficit and one of the stronger economies in Europe, so they can afford to stretch things more to try and improve their situation. The US is already being stretched to far to risk too much change.
 
2012-09-13 08:40:36 AM
Hey subby, there is a thing called "tense". It has past, present and future forms.
 
2012-09-13 08:43:33 AM
Wow. The article clearly says that this proposal is going to happen next calendar year and has not actually occurred yet. Beyond that, it doesn't discuss the actual economic impact of their previous corporate tax cuts. Nicely done, dumbassmitter.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-13 08:43:34 AM
Except that the corporate tax hasn't been cut, it's just a proposal. The economic stimulation must have come from the highest marginal income tax rate of 56.7% right?

Link
 
2012-09-13 08:58:34 AM
Where does it state in the article that economic growth has been stimulated, or even a single job created?

vpb: Except that the corporate tax hasn't been cut, it's just a proposal. The economic stimulation must have come from the highest marginal income tax rate of 56.7% right?

Link



This too
 
2012-09-13 08:59:21 AM
Hahaha good to see that lying headlines aren't just confined to the politics tab
 
2012-09-13 09:20:40 AM

blackhalo: Hey subby, there is a thing called "tense". It has past, present and future forms.


Subby is all time lord up in this biatch, doncha know?
 
2012-09-13 10:15:12 AM

Jackson Herring: Hahaha good to see that lying headlines aren't just confined to the politics tab


did mitt romney submit this?
 
2012-09-13 10:34:40 AM

Serious Black: Wow. The article clearly says that this proposal is going to happen next calendar year and has not actually occurred yet. Beyond that, it doesn't discuss the actual economic impact of their previous corporate tax cuts. Nicely done, dumbassmitter.


I guess going from 30% to 28% in 1993 and then from 28% to 26.3% in 2009 is a sign that this new tax cut will not work? I guess the commenters are butt-hurt that cutting the corporate tax rate can actually help. Obviously the economic impact has hurt that economy since they continue down the same path.
 
2012-09-13 10:42:59 AM

trey101:
I guess going from 30% to 28% in 1993 and then from 28% to 26.3% in 2009 is a sign that this new tax cut will not work? I guess the commenters are butt-hurt that cutting the corporate tax rate can actually help.



You might want to take a look at their income and VAT tax rates, Supply Side Hero, and what they pay for with them (like UHC and other social services).
 
2012-09-13 10:45:44 AM
Cutting the corporate tax rate entices more companies to build factories, headquarter, or open regional offices in your country. That's the economic stimulus. Large American conglomerates that HQ in the US and registered and have many of their factories and offices overseas where the corporate tax rate is much lower than the US's 35%. Switzerland is 8%. Using the transfer pricing rules in place, companies move their profits from high tax countries to low tax countries without paying tax. If the US were to become one of the lower tax rate countries, they would benefit sheerly through companies removing that extra step in money moving because it doesn't save them money. I'll take 25% of $1 billion in revenue over 35% of zero.
 
2012-09-13 10:51:26 AM
Fark you Subby, it doesn't work that way... I learned so here on Fark...
 
2012-09-13 10:52:13 AM
I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.
 
2012-09-13 10:54:08 AM
Everybody laugh at subby. Point at him and laugh, and make him feel ashamed of how stupid he is.
 
2012-09-13 10:54:26 AM

Arkanaut: I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.


You mean one of the least progressive and least income redistributing tax systems in the world. Yeah, me too
 
2012-09-13 10:56:40 AM
Yes, let's copy Sweden and lower our Fed rate to negative interest and print tons of money, libmitter.

The Swedish citizens are wishing they had bought gold as their radically socialist government commits to endless rounds of quantitative easing, plunging the value of their currency to nothing more than a worthless piece of paper.

When Swedes see how massive hyperinflation redistributes their money because of this loose monetary policy, they will wish they had chosen a non-fiat currency and put their money in Gold.

Gold is real. It has intrinsic value. It's not just a piece of paper!
 
2012-09-13 11:04:50 AM

Rapmaster2000: Gold is real. It has intrinsic value. It's not just a piece of paper!


Yeah, but there are only so many switch or connector contacts one has to plate. You can use it as a catalyst too, but usually Platinum or Palladium is better.
 
2012-09-13 11:17:51 AM
So how loophole-laden is the Swedish corporate tax code?
 
2012-09-13 11:24:17 AM
Slives

Of course Sweden already has a fairly balanced budget, very low deficit and one of the stronger economies in Europe, so they can afford to stretch things more to try and improve their situation. The US is already being stretched to far to risk too much change.

Exactly, why change when everything is so good here.
 
2012-09-13 11:24:45 AM

beta_plus: Arkanaut: I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.

You mean one of the least progressive and least income redistributing tax systems in the world. Yeah, me too


Their Gini index is only 23, compared to our 45 and China's 48, so they must be doing something right.

Also, I just looked up Sweden's social security spending* on the OECD website, and it seems that it's generally comprises about 18% of their GDP**. By contrast the US spent about 12% a year under Bush and 15% a year under Obama.

*Website defaults to Belgium; you have to select Sweden from the top drop-down. Social security spending is represented by line D62_D631XXCG: Social benefits and social transfers in kind for products supplied to hhds
**This one defaults to Australia. Bad web design is bad.
 
2012-09-13 11:27:36 AM

Rapmaster2000: Yes, let's copy Sweden and lower our Fed rate to negative interest and print tons of money, libmitter.

The Swedish citizens are wishing they had bought gold as their radically socialist government commits to endless rounds of quantitative easing, plunging the value of their currency to nothing more than a worthless piece of paper.

When Swedes see how massive hyperinflation redistributes their money because of this loose monetary policy, they will wish they had chosen a non-fiat currency and put their money in Gold.

Gold is real. It has intrinsic value. It's not just a piece of paper!


Once Sweden switches to the bitcointm backed economy, their wealth is really going to take off! No more fiat monies for Sweden, only the tried and true currency of bitcointm*.



*May actually not be as tried and true as advertised. Or stable. Or used by people who are not internet LOLibertarians and Furries.
 
2012-09-13 11:31:24 AM

Arkanaut: beta_plus: Arkanaut: I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.

You mean one of the least progressive and least income redistributing tax systems in the world. Yeah, me too

Their Gini index is only 23, compared to our 45 and China's 48, so they must be doing something right.

Also, I just looked up Sweden's social security spending* on the OECD website, and it seems that it's generally comprises about 18% of their GDP**. By contrast the US spent about 12% a year under Bush and 15% a year under Obama.

*Website defaults to Belgium; you have to select Sweden from the top drop-down. Social security spending is represented by line D62_D631XXCG: Social benefits and social transfers in kind for products supplied to hhds
**This one defaults to Australia. Bad web design is bad.


Take your farking facts and cram them with walnuts libby!
 
2012-09-13 12:13:45 PM

kmmontandon: trey101:
I guess going from 30% to 28% in 1993 and then from 28% to 26.3% in 2009 is a sign that this new tax cut will not work? I guess the commenters are butt-hurt that cutting the corporate tax rate can actually help.


You might want to take a look at their income and VAT tax rates, Supply Side Hero, and what they pay for with them (like UHC and other social services).


We should also have a VAT, now that you mention it. Lowering corporate income taxes and replacing the revenue via higher taxes on investment income and a VAT would tremendously improve the efficiency of the tax code, improving both the economy and the fiscal deficit.
 
2012-09-13 12:31:51 PM

Slives: Of course Sweden already has a fairly balanced budget, very low deficit and one of the stronger economies in Europe, so they can afford to stretch things more to try and improve their situation. The US is already being stretched to far to risk too much change.


"We're in so much shiat that we can't afford to dig ourselves out." So what we should do is just sit in shiat and complain?
 
2012-09-13 12:58:24 PM
Low business taxes and high personal taxes encourage putting profits into the business rather than hoarding them.
 
2012-09-13 01:06:23 PM
 
2012-09-13 01:10:46 PM

FarkedOver: Arkanaut: beta_plus: Arkanaut: I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.

You mean one of the least progressive and least income redistributing tax systems in the world. Yeah, me too

Their Gini index is only 23, compared to our 45 and China's 48, so they must be doing something right.

Also, I just looked up Sweden's social security spending* on the OECD website, and it seems that it's generally comprises about 18% of their GDP**. By contrast the US spent about 12% a year under Bush and 15% a year under Obama.

*Website defaults to Belgium; you have to select Sweden from the top drop-down. Social security spending is represented by line D62_D631XXCG: Social benefits and social transfers in kind for products supplied to hhds
**This one defaults to Australia. Bad web design is bad.

Take your farking facts and cram them with walnuts libby!


Oh, I'm so sorry, but as usual you used an irrellavent statistic to back up your bogus liberal talking point:

lh3.googleusercontent.com 

Swedish Economist on how much of your tax money that you get back.

But keeping using lies about Sweden to take that which is not yours from other Americans because you're too lazy to take responsibility for you life.
 
2012-09-13 01:10:50 PM
There is only one thing that creates jobs: Demand.

Demand isn't created by corporate tax cuts, it's created by increasing discretionary income for the majority of the population (you can lower the cost of living, reduce their tax burden/use kickbacks, or any number of other methods for getting money into the hands of the people who consume). The more people who have excess income, the more demand for all products, the more jobs required to fill that demand. Businesses do not hire more people just because they are spending less in taxes - they pocket the money and divide it up amongst execs and shareholders. Yes, those execs and shareholders are people as well, but they are small in number and generally already well-off enough to be spending to their heart's content. You have to capitalize on economies of scale by spreading the money out amongst a large pool of people who would be spending, if only they had the ability to do so. Giving five people millions of dollars who already have millions in the bank does nothing at all to spur economic activity. Giving five million people a few bucks puts those millions of dollars back into the economy via immediate food/entertainment spending.

In other words, fark giving money directly to those who already have plenty. Give the money to people who will use it for services, and those people at the top will still end up with a chunk of those funds as the wealth trickles upward. No matter how you slice it, the people at the top will reap the benefits either way, so the money should be funneled through the economy before it comes to rest in their wallets. Just straight-up giving them money does nothing to help the economic situation.
 
2012-09-13 01:29:47 PM

trey101: Serious Black: Wow. The article clearly says that this proposal is going to happen next calendar year and has not actually occurred yet. Beyond that, it doesn't discuss the actual economic impact of their previous corporate tax cuts. Nicely done, dumbassmitter.

I guess going from 30% to 28% in 1993 and then from 28% to 26.3% in 2009 is a sign that this new tax cut will not work? I guess the commenters are butt-hurt that cutting the corporate tax rate can actually help. Obviously the economic impact has hurt that economy since they continue down the same path.


No, commenters are angry that a blatant lie was told in the headline
 
2012-09-13 01:35:20 PM

Kuroshin: There is only one thing that creates jobs: Demand.

Demand isn't created by corporate tax cuts, it's created by increasing discretionary income for the majority of the population (you can lower the cost of living, reduce their tax burden/use kickbacks, or any number of other methods for getting money into the hands of the people who consume). The more people who have excess income, the more demand for all products, the more jobs required to fill that demand. Businesses do not hire more people just because they are spending less in taxes - they pocket the money and divide it up amongst execs and shareholders. Yes, those execs and shareholders are people as well, but they are small in number and generally already well-off enough to be spending to their heart's content. You have to capitalize on economies of scale by spreading the money out amongst a large pool of people who would be spending, if only they had the ability to do so. Giving five people millions of dollars who already have millions in the bank does nothing at all to spur economic activity. Giving five million people a few bucks puts those millions of dollars back into the economy via immediate food/entertainment spending.

In other words, fark giving money directly to those who already have plenty. Give the money to people who will use it for services, and those people at the top will still end up with a chunk of those funds as the wealth trickles upward. No matter how you slice it, the people at the top will reap the benefits either way, so the money should be funneled through the economy before it comes to rest in their wallets. Just straight-up giving them money does nothing to help the economic situation.


It's sad that your simplistic view has been accepted by such a large segment of society. There are many moving parts and providing more money to middle class individuals sounds great, it's not necessarily better than alternative policies.

You have to consider what the rich would do with extra money vs. the middle class. The rich are more likely to invest rather than consume, which provides may provide greater benefit to the economy if consumption has been excessive. Investments increase demand as there is the need to buy equipment, offices, etc., and hire workers. The people who sell equipment or build offices or work at the new company will use their income from this for other things, etc, etc.

Also, any type of government spending/tax cuts have to come from somewhere. If you borrow $100b to provide more money to the middle class, where does that $100b come from? It comes from investors who bought the additional treasury securities instead of whatver they would have done with it otherwise (invest/consume). The additional demand from govt spending of $100b is offset by the reduction in demand due to the foregoing of the alternative use, unless you borrow from abroad (and have to pay it back eventually or interest perpetually) or print money.

There's a rational for keynesian stimulus to the middle class, but it depends on the circumstances. It's not as simple as you try to make it.
 
2012-09-13 01:37:39 PM

beta_plus: FarkedOver: Arkanaut: beta_plus: Arkanaut: I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.

You mean one of the least progressive and least income redistributing tax systems in the world. Yeah, me too

Their Gini index is only 23, compared to our 45 and China's 48, so they must be doing something right.

Also, I just looked up Sweden's social security spending* on the OECD website, and it seems that it's generally comprises about 18% of their GDP**. By contrast the US spent about 12% a year under Bush and 15% a year under Obama.

*Website defaults to Belgium; you have to select Sweden from the top drop-down. Social security spending is represented by line D62_D631XXCG: Social benefits and social transfers in kind for products supplied to hhds
**This one defaults to Australia. Bad web design is bad.

Take your farking facts and cram them with walnuts libby!

Oh, I'm so sorry, but as usual you used an irrellavent statistic to back up your bogus liberal talking point:

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 305x400] 

Swedish Economist on how much of your tax money that you get back.

But keeping using lies about Sweden to take that which is not yours from other Americans because you're too lazy to take responsibility for you life.


Very interesting. How do they define 'market income' in that table? Those numbers seem low.
 
2012-09-13 01:43:42 PM
I have no problem with a 22% corporate tax rate. Or even a 20% tax rate. But first we close the tax loophole and no deductions. When you have G.E. paying no tax on 14 billion in profits, that shiat has to end.
 
2012-09-13 01:49:03 PM

FlashHarry: Jackson Herring: Hahaha good to see that lying headlines aren't just confined to the politics tab

did mitt romney submit this?


No he didn't. Romney wants the tax cuts on people, not companies.

Socialists countries in Scandinavia has low taxes on companies, not people. Because why not? The people will come to the jobs, they're not going to outsource themselves to Mexico. ;)
 
2012-09-13 02:37:54 PM

Slives: Of course Sweden already has a fairly balanced budget, very low deficit and one of the stronger economies in Europe, so they can afford to stretch things more to try and improve their situation. The US is already being stretched to far to risk too much change.


They also have a very low regulatory burden on business. Much lower than ours.
 
2012-09-13 02:43:05 PM

beta_plus: FarkedOver: Arkanaut: beta_plus: Arkanaut: I'm cool with copying Sweden's tax structure, if that's what subby's trying to say.

You mean one of the least progressive and least income redistributing tax systems in the world. Yeah, me too

Their Gini index is only 23, compared to our 45 and China's 48, so they must be doing something right.

Also, I just looked up Sweden's social security spending* on the OECD website, and it seems that it's generally comprises about 18% of their GDP**. By contrast the US spent about 12% a year under Bush and 15% a year under Obama.

*Website defaults to Belgium; you have to select Sweden from the top drop-down. Social security spending is represented by line D62_D631XXCG: Social benefits and social transfers in kind for products supplied to hhds
**This one defaults to Australia. Bad web design is bad.

Take your farking facts and cram them with walnuts libby!

Oh, I'm so sorry, but as usual you used an irrellavent statistic to back up your bogus liberal talking point:

[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 305x400] 

Swedish Economist on how much of your tax money that you get back.

But keeping using lies about Sweden to take that which is not yours from other Americans because you're too lazy to take responsibility for you life.


Where does that chart come from? I would also like to know how "market income" is defined.

In any case, it may be pertinent to note that Swedish wages at the top end of the spectrum is significantly lower than American incomes at the top, and significantly higher (percentagewise) at the lower end. So while it may be true that less income is redistributed, there is also less need for redistribution. Also I'm not sure if your chart proves anything about redistribution since it doesn't address anything about how the government spends the money on each income decile. The video might address that, but I won't be able to watch that at work.

By the way, let's not get personal about this. I don't know you, you don't know me. I'll say for my own part though that I do pay my taxes in the 25% bracket.

Sources:
Swedish income deciles in krona
US income deciles in USD

Odds are though I've missed something -- the US site isn't an "official" stat, and different countries do tend to calculate these things differently.
 
2012-09-13 02:48:38 PM
This headline brought to you by Paul Ryan.
 
2012-09-13 03:19:13 PM

Slives: Of course Sweden already has a fairly balanced budget, very low deficit and one of the stronger economies in Europe, so they can afford to stretch things more to try and improve their situation. The US is already being stretched to far to risk too much change.


...because the current ideas are working so well.
 
2012-09-13 03:23:18 PM
In Sweden you also don't have the antagonism between employers and employees that you have in the US. Which helps a lot.
 
2012-09-13 03:28:27 PM
Lower corporate income taxes and institute a VAT. I like it. Keep businesses in the country and collect their tax revenue. Institute personal tax rate cuts. Institute a VAT. VAT is essentially a consumption tax. If you spend frivolously, then you pay a ton, if you spend frugally, you don't pay much. Exempt VAT on the purchase of staple items like groceries, gas, utilities, etc.
 
2012-09-13 03:33:15 PM
Dont they also have zero write off's so you pay the full %.

correct me if i'm wrong

/like i needed to type that
 
2012-09-13 03:43:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: In Sweden you also don't have the antagonism between employers and employees sociopathic profiteers who leverage decades of decline the the American educational system coupled with a deep current of racism to allow them to buy the influence needed to legalize their theft and deception to further increase their profits at the expense of the average American that you have in the US. Which helps a lot.


FTFY
 
2012-09-13 04:47:28 PM
If we had Sweden's income distribution, I wouldn't mind their tax structure.

Too bad it isnt even close
 
2012-09-13 04:47:40 PM

JolobinSmokin: Dont they also have zero write off's so you pay the full %.

correct me if i'm wrong

/like i needed to type that


What do you mean by zero write offs? They get to deduct expenses, like every other company in the world.
 
2012-09-13 04:58:16 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Kuroshin: There is only one thing that creates jobs: Demand.

Demand isn't created by corporate tax cuts, it's created by increasing discretionary income for the majority of the population (you can lower the cost of living, reduce their tax burden/use kickbacks, or any number of other methods for getting money into the hands of the people who consume). The more people who have excess income, the more demand for all products, the more jobs required to fill that demand. Businesses do not hire more people just because they are spending less in taxes - they pocket the money and divide it up amongst execs and shareholders. Yes, those execs and shareholders are people as well, but they are small in number and generally already well-off enough to be spending to their heart's content. You have to capitalize on economies of scale by spreading the money out amongst a large pool of people who would be spending, if only they had the ability to do so. Giving five people millions of dollars who already have millions in the bank does nothing at all to spur economic activity. Giving five million people a few bucks puts those millions of dollars back into the economy via immediate food/entertainment spending.

In other words, fark giving money directly to those who already have plenty. Give the money to people who will use it for services, and those people at the top will still end up with a chunk of those funds as the wealth trickles upward. No matter how you slice it, the people at the top will reap the benefits either way, so the money should be funneled through the economy before it comes to rest in their wallets. Just straight-up giving them money does nothing to help the economic situation.

It's sad that your simplistic view has been accepted by such a large segment of society. There are many moving parts and providing more money to middle class individuals sounds great, it's not necessarily better than alternative policies.

You have to consider what the rich would do with ...


You do realize you pretty much stated what he stated right?

Those investments into a specific project created temporary demand with the possibility of permanent demand unless the speculation fails. Those "workers" put the money back into the economy buying other things such as food/entertainment which created additional demand.

The OP is correct. Demand creates jobs. You basically said: "You are wrong" then proceeded to provide a bunch of ways to increase demand.
 
2012-09-13 05:01:32 PM
Just think, if we could somehow harness the energy generated by democraps spinning this story, we could truly have green energy.
 
2012-09-13 05:23:49 PM

Jackson Herring: Hahaha good to see that lying headlines aren't just confined to the politics tab


Liars garner hits. Hits are good. Therefore, liars are good.
 
2012-09-13 05:53:36 PM
That's funny, subby. Here in the US, we were told that if the Bush tax cuts were extended, employers would start hiring again. The extension passed. Companies decided to hold on to their tax savings, giving them record-high cash surpluses. The few jobs that are being created are at or near minimum wage levels. Yeah, that worked out real well.
 
2012-09-13 06:10:55 PM

FormlessOne: Jackson Herring: Hahaha good to see that lying headlines aren't just confined to the politics tab

Liars garner hits. Hits are good. Therefore, liars are good.


Liars. Hits. Good.
 
2012-09-13 07:49:14 PM

Rapmaster2000: Gold is real. It has intrinsic value. It's not just a piece of paper!


My sarcasm meter broke. You owe me a new one.
 
2012-09-13 09:01:27 PM
There are only 9 million people in Sweden. That's roughly the size of New York City, right? Why do we think of anything Sweden does policy-wise as anything more than an interesting way to run a large metropolitan area?
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report