4 ms·

Is this why IKEA, which is one of the largest non-state owned Swedish companies is set up as Netherlands-based entity (INGKA Holding), ostensibly for tax evasio

Is this why IKEA, which is one of the largest non-state owned Swedish companies is set up as Netherlands-based entity (INGKA Holding), ostensibly for tax evasion purposes? Sweden does have a lower corporate tax rate than the U.S., though the U.S. tax code offsets this by providing a multitude of different deductions for business expenses. Among other things, government imposed fines are tax deductible as per the U.S. Tax Code. When it comes to personal tax rates, Sweden's rate is much higher than the rate in the U.S. (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-scandinavian-countries-pay...) Not debating the validity of your larger point here, but your assertion re Sweden being economically free as compared to the U.S. isn't that accurate. It is a very much a socialist nation that is also very prosperous.

adventured 10y ago
I never argued that Sweden was more economically free than the US (although frankly they may be at this point, US federal regulations have increased drastically in the last 40 years, the regulatory burden is far larger than it used to be). I said that Sweden was in a two decade long economic slump, and only climbed out of it courtesy of de-regulation and de-taxation of their economy. I'd be happy to link to several articles covering this historical fact; the Swedish architects of that event have talked openly about how and why they did it. Can you name the ways in which Sweden is a Socialist nation? I'm aware of very few things that can even be argued to define them as such. Quite the opposite, their overwhelming characteristics economically are that they heavily rely on the market economy determined by individual business owners and investors rather than a command economy dictated by the State. - Do they allow private ownership of property, including the means of production? Yes, Sweden's economy is almost entirely driven by private businesses. - Does nearly all of their economy function around private business ownership? Yes. - Do they allow the existence of so called capital classes? People whose wealth is primarily existent in capital, investment, real estate, etc.? Yes. - Do they force the redistribution of wealth, so as to attempt to prevent the existence of rich and poor classes? No. - Do they allow the private ownership of real estate, farm land, etc? Yes. - May the government arbitrarily nationalize your wealth, investments, or business? No, that would be a rare event in Sweden. - Do they primarily function via the free market economy of non-coerced trade? Or is all trade primarily dictated by the State? Right, almost entirely free trade. - Does the State determine all investment priorities for all businesses? No, quite the opposite, businesses are free to set their own priorities, build new products at will, choose how they allocate capital. - Does the State dictate most allocations of capital? No, the opposite. Things like healthcare, slightly heavy economic regulation, education - are the primarily arguments I'm aware of regarding Sweden, however those define them as a welfare state, not a Socialist state. The US for example has vast free healthcare, housing, and food systems, along with a massive entitlement system, which is why the US is also a welfare state (and not primarily a Capitalist nation as it was a hundred years ago).
- andrewjl 10y ago
  > - Do they allow private ownership of property, including the means of production? Yes, Sweden's economy is almost entirely driven by private businesses. Government spending as % of GDP is an excellent metric re size of the government relative to the private economy. This assumes that as a nation is more socialist, the size of the government will increase. Sweden slightly over 50% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-spending-to-gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-spending-t...) U.S. 20% (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S) I don't doubt that private property ownership is permissible in Sweden, but the government dominates GDP as compared to any single private sector. > - Do they force the redistribution of wealth, so as to attempt to prevent the existence of rich and poor classes? No. Sweden has higher personal tax rates than the U.S. I dispute your "No." here. > - May the government arbitrarily nationalize your wealth, investments, or business? No, that would be a rare event in Sweden. It depends. The Swedish government is a highly functional one and will not act capriciously. I believe they will step in and nationalize wealth/real property if doing so was important to the wellbeing of the nation, whereas the U.S. even during the bailouts of 2008 went through great pains to avoid direct government ownership / control, even to the point of handing private equity firms free risk-adjusted money. > - Does the State determine all investment priorities for all businesses? No, quite the opposite, businesses are free to set their own priorities, build new products at will, choose how they allocate capital. Given the GDP % stated above, this is debatable. > - Does the State dictate most allocations of capital? No, the opposite. Same as the previous point.

adventured 10y ago

I never argued that Sweden was more economically free than the US (although frankly they may be at this point, US federal regulations have increased drastically in the last 40 years, the regulatory burden is far larger than it used to be). I said that Sweden was in a two decade long economic slump, and only climbed out of it courtesy of de-regulation and de-taxation of their economy. I'd be happy to link to several articles covering this historical fact; the Swedish architects of that event have talked openly about how and why they did it. Can you name the ways in which Sweden is a Socialist nation? I'm aware of very few things that can even be argued to define them as such. Quite the opposite, their overwhelming characteristics economically are that they heavily rely on the market economy determined by individual business owners and investors rather than a command economy dictated by the State. - Do they allow private ownership of property, including the means of production? Yes, Sweden's economy is almost entirely driven by private businesses. - Does nearly all of their economy function around private business ownership? Yes. - Do they allow the existence of so called capital classes? People whose wealth is primarily existent in capital, investment, real estate, etc.? Yes. - Do they force the redistribution of wealth, so as to attempt to prevent the existence of rich and poor classes? No. - Do they allow the private ownership of real estate, farm land, etc? Yes. - May the government arbitrarily nationalize your wealth, investments, or business? No, that would be a rare event in Sweden. - Do they primarily function via the free market economy of non-coerced trade? Or is all trade primarily dictated by the State? Right, almost entirely free trade. - Does the State determine all investment priorities for all businesses? No, quite the opposite, businesses are free to set their own priorities, build new products at will, choose how they allocate capital. - Does the State dictate most allocations of capital? No, the opposite. Things like healthcare, slightly heavy economic regulation, education - are the primarily arguments I'm aware of regarding Sweden, however those define them as a welfare state, not a Socialist state. The US for example has vast free healthcare, housing, and food systems, along with a massive entitlement system, which is why the US is also a welfare state (and not primarily a Capitalist nation as it was a hundred years ago).

andrewjl 10y ago
> - Do they allow private ownership of property, including the means of production? Yes, Sweden's economy is almost entirely driven by private businesses. Government spending as % of GDP is an excellent metric re size of the government relative to the private economy. This assumes that as a nation is more socialist, the size of the government will increase. Sweden slightly over 50% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-spending-to-gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-spending-t...) U.S. 20% (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S) I don't doubt that private property ownership is permissible in Sweden, but the government dominates GDP as compared to any single private sector. > - Do they force the redistribution of wealth, so as to attempt to prevent the existence of rich and poor classes? No. Sweden has higher personal tax rates than the U.S. I dispute your "No." here. > - May the government arbitrarily nationalize your wealth, investments, or business? No, that would be a rare event in Sweden. It depends. The Swedish government is a highly functional one and will not act capriciously. I believe they will step in and nationalize wealth/real property if doing so was important to the wellbeing of the nation, whereas the U.S. even during the bailouts of 2008 went through great pains to avoid direct government ownership / control, even to the point of handing private equity firms free risk-adjusted money. > - Does the State determine all investment priorities for all businesses? No, quite the opposite, businesses are free to set their own priorities, build new products at will, choose how they allocate capital. Given the GDP % stated above, this is debatable. > - Does the State dictate most allocations of capital? No, the opposite. Same as the previous point.