5 ms·

The linked article claims that they only pay 31% tax, but that's only a part of the tax they pay, not including VAT or the part of your salary paid by your empl

by sebcat 9y ago

The linked article claims that they only pay 31% tax, but that's only a part of the tax they pay, not including VAT or the part of your salary paid by your employer, that you don't receive. Martin Borgs made a movie about swedish taxes: Somebody Else Pays. It's watchable on youtube, with english subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdi-Lg9pwkY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdi-Lg9pwkY I really recommend watching it.

kcorbitt 9y ago
The best way I've found to compare taxes between countries with very different tax regimes is by comparing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. Wikipedia has a nice table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven... Denmark tops the list, at 50.8%. Sweden comes in 4th, with 45.8%. The US is fairly far down and lower than almost all developed countries, at 26%.
- wav-part 9y ago
  Tax Revenue USD/Capita: https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ont https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ont Welfare Spending USD/Capita: https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ons https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ons
  - isostatic 9y ago
    In 2013, the United States spends $9350.80/head on social programs. The United Kingdom spends $8116.20/head. Yet it's the UK that has healthcare free at the point of use. Where does that social spending go in the US? Why is it so inefficient?
    - mcv 9y ago
      That's exactly it. In many cases it seems Americans pay just as much as Europeans, but get much less value in return. They pay more for healthcare than anyone else, yet have shorter life expectancy. They even pay a lot of socialized healthcare (Medicare) which isn't accessible for most people. They pay for public education but complain about the poor quality. For higher education, the options are to go deep into debt or opt for a low-pay career. They pay for police that's likely to shoot them and take their stuff. And then they pay for an excessive military and government corruption. (Alright, slight hyperbole, but only slight.) I think dogmatic belief that laissez-faire capitalism is always more efficient, has prevented them from looking for efficiencies elsewhere.
- madarco 9y ago
  But then you don't account for fiscal evasion. For eg. in Italy the taxes on the lower wages are higher due to the impossibility to evade (they are detracted from the salary by the employer)
panarky 9y ago
It's not about what you pay or who you pay. It's about what you get for what you pay. Tax dollars are not burned — they are used to provide collective goods that are beyond the reach of any individual and benefit everyone. In the US I pay multiple taxes (federal, state, local, property, sales, etc.), then pay again to put 3 kids through college, then pay again for health insurance, then pay again for all the medical bills the insurer doesn't cover. Our household income is about 4x the US median, and it looks like we'd be better off in "high tax" Sweden. I can only imagine that households with lower incomes would benefit even more.
snowAbstraction 9y ago
This film is the flip side of some left leaning people saying Sweden is paradise because of more heavily subsidized child care, health care and public transportation. The film is heavy anecdotal stories and not much about statistics or economics. Is there some part of the film that points out something unique about Swedish government misspending? It is probably better to read some studies about the relative efficiency of government spending to understand various governments' spending policies. In purely disposal income terms, ignoring crime and violence in the U.S., if you are above the median then you are better off in the U.S.

by sebcat 9y ago

kcorbitt 9y ago

The best way I've found to compare taxes between countries with very different tax regimes is by comparing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. Wikipedia has a nice table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven... Denmark tops the list, at 50.8%. Sweden comes in 4th, with 45.8%. The US is fairly far down and lower than almost all developed countries, at 26%.

wav-part 9y ago
Tax Revenue USD/Capita: https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ont https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ont Welfare Spending USD/Capita: https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ons https://data.oecd.org/chart/4Ons
- isostatic 9y ago
  In 2013, the United States spends $9350.80/head on social programs. The United Kingdom spends $8116.20/head. Yet it's the UK that has healthcare free at the point of use. Where does that social spending go in the US? Why is it so inefficient?
  - mcv 9y ago
    That's exactly it. In many cases it seems Americans pay just as much as Europeans, but get much less value in return. They pay more for healthcare than anyone else, yet have shorter life expectancy. They even pay a lot of socialized healthcare (Medicare) which isn't accessible for most people. They pay for public education but complain about the poor quality. For higher education, the options are to go deep into debt or opt for a low-pay career. They pay for police that's likely to shoot them and take their stuff. And then they pay for an excessive military and government corruption. (Alright, slight hyperbole, but only slight.) I think dogmatic belief that laissez-faire capitalism is always more efficient, has prevented them from looking for efficiencies elsewhere.
madarco 9y ago
But then you don't account for fiscal evasion. For eg. in Italy the taxes on the lower wages are higher due to the impossibility to evade (they are detracted from the salary by the employer)

panarky 9y ago

It's not about what you pay or who you pay. It's about what you get for what you pay. Tax dollars are not burned — they are used to provide collective goods that are beyond the reach of any individual and benefit everyone. In the US I pay multiple taxes (federal, state, local, property, sales, etc.), then pay again to put 3 kids through college, then pay again for health insurance, then pay again for all the medical bills the insurer doesn't cover. Our household income is about 4x the US median, and it looks like we'd be better off in "high tax" Sweden. I can only imagine that households with lower incomes would benefit even more.

snowAbstraction 9y ago

This film is the flip side of some left leaning people saying Sweden is paradise because of more heavily subsidized child care, health care and public transportation. The film is heavy anecdotal stories and not much about statistics or economics. Is there some part of the film that points out something unique about Swedish government misspending? It is probably better to read some studies about the relative efficiency of government spending to understand various governments' spending policies. In purely disposal income terms, ignoring crime and violence in the U.S., if you are above the median then you are better off in the U.S.