3 ms·

> 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 cha

by 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.
  - cess11 2y ago
    I'm closer to syndicalism, but unorganised since I'm in a position of leadership. It's weird to phrase it as "Swedes rejected", when it was the labour buyer's cartel that bused people to the demonstration in Stockholm, and the Social Democrats polled quite high after LAS and the general parental insurance. The string of wildcat strikes at the time didn't affect their polling performance. It was newspaper scandals that won that election, things like the Pomperipossa story, Ingmar Bergman being investigated for tax fraud and leaving the country, a union leader lounging on the beach in Franco's Spain, things like that. And, of course, mythmaking of the sort you're engaging in here, claiming that reformism is actually bolshevism and whatnot.
    - tored 2y ago
      If the reforms leads to Bolshevism then it is Bolshevism. What Bolsheviks never accept is that society is more than their political ideas. It is important to remember that the Social democrats is the political wing to the LO union. It is the union that has permanent seat in the governing board of the Social democrats (Verkställande utskottet), not the other way around. It is the LO union that funds the Social democrats. It is in the union where the real power is (at least back then). What the union wanted was to get the political wing to implement a legislation so that the union could confiscate private business. This would have been the end of Sweden's pluralistic parliamentarism. Instead an all ruling union with unelected bureaucrats with it's own political wing would have almost total control economically and eventually politically and then later socially. Your timeline is completely messed up, jumping years back and forth, probably intentionally to confuse the reader what actually happened. Here is a real timeline with the most important dates 1973 September: Social democrats wins election 1974 : LAS Lag om anställningsskydd (Employment Protection Act) Abandoning the spirit of Saltsjöbadsavtalet from 1938 1974 : General parental insurance 1975 August : LO union present the idea of Löntagarfonder (Employee funds) 20% of company profits should forcibly be transformed to equity issuance and handed to the union No limit on number of shares, i.e eventual union takeover 1975 November : Dictator of Spain Francisco Franco dies 1975 New Years: Union boss Hans Ericson vacations in Spanish Canary Islands 1976 March : Astrid Lindgren writes here famous story about high taxes in "Pomperipossa i Monismanien" 1976 April : Ingmar Bergman leaves Sweden 1976 May : Reduction of taxes as a response to Astrid Lindgren critique about high taxes 1976 Summer : LO union decides on supporting Löntagarfonder 1976 Autumn : Right wing opposition attacks the Löntagarfonder, calling it "Öststatssocialism" (East State Socialism) 1976 September: Social democrats loses election to the Right wing opposition First pure right wing government since 1936 Coup d'état as a famous social democrat called it 1978 : Pamphlet "Fritt näringsliv eller fondsocialism", opposition from the Swedish employers' organization SAF 1979 September: Right wing wins election 1982 Februari : Revised version legislation for LAS (note this is by the right wing government) 1982 September: Social democrats wins election 1982 October : Big Bang, massive devaluation of 16% for the Swedish Krona (SEK) 1983 October : Massive demonstrations against Löntagarfonder 1983 December : Revised and water downed version, because of the massive protests, of Löntagarfonder implemented 5 different funds each fund could not own more than 8% of a company (less than 50%) 1985 September: Social democrats wins election 1985 December : Swedish Centralbank (Riksbanken) decided together with the social democratic finance minister to approve de facto unlimited loans for commercial bank customers 1986 Februari : Prime minister Olof Palme murdered 1988 September: Social democrats wins election (probably would have lost if Palme hadn't been murdred) 1989 November : Berlin wall falls 1990 August : Iraq invades Kuwait, increased interest rates follows 1990 October : Investment company Nyckeln cannot pay its debt speculation on real-estate with massive loans Begins the Banking, Housing and Financial crisis in Sweden Banks and real-estate companies goes bankrupt 1991 September: Right wing wins election First decision of new government is to scrap Löntagarfonder 1992 Autumn : Floating exchange rate for the Swedish Krona (SEK) after a failed attempt to defend a fixed exchange rate The era of politicians devaluing the currency is over 1994 September: Social democrats wins 1996 : Finanspolitiska ramverket (Fiscal policy framework) no more overspending by politicians, end of Keynesian politics 1998 September: Social democrats wins 1999 Januari : Independent Central bank by law No more money printing by politicians to bribe the electorate What does this all sum up to? That the "reform politics" of the Social democrats died in the 1980s. The 1990s was the tough years of cleaning that mess up. Today the Social democrats is just an empty shell of its former glory. Just an empty vessel for corruption and greed without any new ideas or reforms.

by tored 2y ago

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.
- cess11 2y ago
  I'm closer to syndicalism, but unorganised since I'm in a position of leadership. It's weird to phrase it as "Swedes rejected", when it was the labour buyer's cartel that bused people to the demonstration in Stockholm, and the Social Democrats polled quite high after LAS and the general parental insurance. The string of wildcat strikes at the time didn't affect their polling performance. It was newspaper scandals that won that election, things like the Pomperipossa story, Ingmar Bergman being investigated for tax fraud and leaving the country, a union leader lounging on the beach in Franco's Spain, things like that. And, of course, mythmaking of the sort you're engaging in here, claiming that reformism is actually bolshevism and whatnot.
  - tored 2y ago
    If the reforms leads to Bolshevism then it is Bolshevism. What Bolsheviks never accept is that society is more than their political ideas. It is important to remember that the Social democrats is the political wing to the LO union. It is the union that has permanent seat in the governing board of the Social democrats (Verkställande utskottet), not the other way around. It is the LO union that funds the Social democrats. It is in the union where the real power is (at least back then). What the union wanted was to get the political wing to implement a legislation so that the union could confiscate private business. This would have been the end of Sweden's pluralistic parliamentarism. Instead an all ruling union with unelected bureaucrats with it's own political wing would have almost total control economically and eventually politically and then later socially. Your timeline is completely messed up, jumping years back and forth, probably intentionally to confuse the reader what actually happened. Here is a real timeline with the most important dates 1973 September: Social democrats wins election 1974 : LAS Lag om anställningsskydd (Employment Protection Act) Abandoning the spirit of Saltsjöbadsavtalet from 1938 1974 : General parental insurance 1975 August : LO union present the idea of Löntagarfonder (Employee funds) 20% of company profits should forcibly be transformed to equity issuance and handed to the union No limit on number of shares, i.e eventual union takeover 1975 November : Dictator of Spain Francisco Franco dies 1975 New Years: Union boss Hans Ericson vacations in Spanish Canary Islands 1976 March : Astrid Lindgren writes here famous story about high taxes in "Pomperipossa i Monismanien" 1976 April : Ingmar Bergman leaves Sweden 1976 May : Reduction of taxes as a response to Astrid Lindgren critique about high taxes 1976 Summer : LO union decides on supporting Löntagarfonder 1976 Autumn : Right wing opposition attacks the Löntagarfonder, calling it "Öststatssocialism" (East State Socialism) 1976 September: Social democrats loses election to the Right wing opposition First pure right wing government since 1936 Coup d'état as a famous social democrat called it 1978 : Pamphlet "Fritt näringsliv eller fondsocialism", opposition from the Swedish employers' organization SAF 1979 September: Right wing wins election 1982 Februari : Revised version legislation for LAS (note this is by the right wing government) 1982 September: Social democrats wins election 1982 October : Big Bang, massive devaluation of 16% for the Swedish Krona (SEK) 1983 October : Massive demonstrations against Löntagarfonder 1983 December : Revised and water downed version, because of the massive protests, of Löntagarfonder implemented 5 different funds each fund could not own more than 8% of a company (less than 50%) 1985 September: Social democrats wins election 1985 December : Swedish Centralbank (Riksbanken) decided together with the social democratic finance minister to approve de facto unlimited loans for commercial bank customers 1986 Februari : Prime minister Olof Palme murdered 1988 September: Social democrats wins election (probably would have lost if Palme hadn't been murdred) 1989 November : Berlin wall falls 1990 August : Iraq invades Kuwait, increased interest rates follows 1990 October : Investment company Nyckeln cannot pay its debt speculation on real-estate with massive loans Begins the Banking, Housing and Financial crisis in Sweden Banks and real-estate companies goes bankrupt 1991 September: Right wing wins election First decision of new government is to scrap Löntagarfonder 1992 Autumn : Floating exchange rate for the Swedish Krona (SEK) after a failed attempt to defend a fixed exchange rate The era of politicians devaluing the currency is over 1994 September: Social democrats wins 1996 : Finanspolitiska ramverket (Fiscal policy framework) no more overspending by politicians, end of Keynesian politics 1998 September: Social democrats wins 1999 Januari : Independent Central bank by law No more money printing by politicians to bribe the electorate What does this all sum up to? That the "reform politics" of the Social democrats died in the 1980s. The 1990s was the tough years of cleaning that mess up. Today the Social democrats is just an empty shell of its former glory. Just an empty vessel for corruption and greed without any new ideas or reforms.