4 ms·

No, I'm not part of that movement, another smear, directly from the communist handbook. But you will get nowhere with that here. It is of course fine to questi

• cess11 2y ago
  You're quoting something that quotes a story Lindgren made up. Pomperipossa is not a real person. Here's from the previous link: "Även om den fortfarande är en viktig påminnelse om värdet av låga marginalskatter, visar Timbros chefsekonom Jacob Lundbergs undersökning att hon faktiskt aldrig behövde betala 102 procent i skatt." 'Even if it's still an important reminder of the value of low marginal tax rates, an examination by the chief economist of Timbro [a reactionary propaganda organisation] shows that [Astrid Lindgren] never had to pay 102% in taxes'. Sweden hasn't had bolsheviks since the war. The communist party dislodged politically from Moscow in the sixties, though they continued to receive funds for another decade or two. You must have a very weird view of how power was transfered from the tsar to the bolsheviks. Do you seriously think that the civil war had nothing to do with it and they did it through parliamentary deliberation, like with the löntagarfonder? Or are you lying? Edit: Your buddies at the reactionary think tank has made a neat little graph at the bottom here: https://timbro.se/skattekoll/marginalskatt/ https://timbro.se/skattekoll/marginalskatt/
  • tored 2y ago
    > Pomperipossa is not a real person No shit. Talk about desperate argument. She didn't need to pay the 102% tax in the end because of the Social democrats changed the law (as I already described earlier) because it became too unpopular, if they hadn't she would have. Thus is was not made up, it was a reality. Confirmed by the report from Ratio. Thus if Astrid Lindgren hadn't written that article Social democrats would have been perfectly fine with Swedes paying more than 100% in taxes. That is why Social democrats during this era were radicals. And also even after the change in law you could still pay 90% tax. > You must have a very weird view of how power was transfered from the tsar to the bolsheviks It didn't happened that way. It was the Mensheviks that took the power from the Tsar in the February Revolution of 1917. The Bolsheviks took in turn power from the Mensheviks in the October Revolution of 1917 and then murdered the Tsar and his family who was already in house arrest by the Mensheviks. Thus Bolsheviks did not remove the Tsar from power, a common falsehood by Bolsheviks, because he had already abdicated. The Russian Civil War was a consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution against the Provisional Government, which was not accepted by many different political groups, everything from social democrats, liberals to monarchists. Somehow Bolsheviks always forgets this important detail. Wonder why. But anyway, I was correct about Löntagarfonderna, the implementation, the goal and it's consequences.
    • cess11 2y ago
      How is it desperate? You don't seem to understand how marginal tax rate works. It's OK, almost no one on the far right does, but almost everyone knows a little about that story about Pomperipossa. You're like a machine, just ticking away with confidence. I hope I get to see your movement die out during my lifetime.
      • tored 2y ago
        Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a sore loser looks like. No arguments left, only smears. Desperate because you are used to that your bullying tactic works, that people back off and gets sidetracked, but here it didn't, which I already explained to you that you get nowhere with that here. Swedes rejected your ideas, first in the general election of 1976, were Social democrats got ousted and lost an election for the first time in 40 years, and the second time in of the largest demonstrations ever recorded in Swedish history, the 4th of October demonstration of 1983, against fund socialism. And if you are old enough you saw your own movement die with the fall of the Berlin wall on the ninth of November 1989. I remember, I saw it on Television.