Sweden cutting income taxes to spur employment (1 Viewer)

[N.O.Bronco]

And I am repping you because Sweden has hot chicks and I always rep hot chicks

Then I'll rep because I approve of hot chicks. But I will not be able to use the box rep and give you my full rep power because you did not provide pictures of said hot chicks.

 

[UK SAINTS]

tax cuts didn't work so well when Dubya was in office, so you are right that it'll be interesting to see if it'll work in Sweden.

How 'bout under Reagan?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

How 'bout under Reagan?

If were talking about creating jobs, it didn't work well under Reagan either. Job growth began in late 83 when Paul Volker, fed chairman, pulled back on the monetary policies that he used to chock off inflation. One could argue it served as an icing on the cake that Volker baked but it wasn't much more than that imo because the icing led to diabetes and upset stomachs (bloated deficits and huge wealth disparities) and the growth was going to happen regardless of tax cuts thanks to the relaxation of interest rates.

However, this is one of those topics that has lots of differing opinions and seems to always evolve into several pages of back and forthing between the different viewpoints and honestly, its Monday and i just don't think I have the energy for it today.

 

[RazorOye]

i gave you a thumbs-up (helpful) for this thread KingBarkus

And I will rep you for repping him because I feel like repping people today. I will probably also rep Barkus

And I am repping you because Sweden has hot chicks and I always rep hot chicks

Then I'll rep because I approve of hot chicks. But I will not be able to use the box rep and give you my full rep power because you did not provide pictures of said hot chicks.

and I'm repping the next person to post in this thread!

 

[AlbertaSaintsFan]

ME!

 

[Hanau Eepe Saint]

And I am repping you because Sweden has hot chicks and I always rep hot chicks

Too bad they are beaches..

And yup.. It's lowered to about 31% income tax, 35% employment tax. Plus 25% VAT.. Not to forget taxes on taxes on taxes.
But atleast we have some hot politicians:

Sorry

Now im going off topic..


Back to taxes eh..

 

[N.O.Bronco]

ME!

And look, between me and RazorOye we got you a new bar!

 

[AlbertaSaintsFan]

And look, between me and RazorOye we got you a new bar!

Huzzah! Hooray for Sweden!

 

[IntenseSaint]

How 'bout under Reagan?

There were no hot chicks under Reagan..

 

[dapperdan]

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2009/01/historical-federal-tax-rates-by-income-group.html

 

[IntenseSaint]

I want some rep too dammit....

And now I can no longer post cause my post count is just too freakin cool.

 

[Shockmo]

Tax cuts never work. They should make the taxes 100%, because everyone knows the more you charge in taxes the better off we are.

 

[SWJJ]

:Insert partisan talking points:

 

[dapperdan]

First off, the argument comparing Bush policies versus Clinton policies are a rather moot point right now. Obama's economic policies are nowhere close to be recognizable to the final product that Clinton produced. Likewise, Bush's economic policies are not very close to Reagan's policies. It's convenient to lump policies in by party affiliation, but imo, it seems to cloud the issues more than it does to provide clarity. Obama is not Clinton, Bush (take your pick 41 or 43) was not Reagan. None, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 come close to Obama's policies. All four listed above (Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43) are much more alike compared to each other than they are to Obama. Obama is at a completely different strata of economic policy.

Secondly, over the years, it appears that the appropriate level of marginal income tax rates has for the most part settled into a reasonable zone; conservatives, like myself, would prefer a lower rate, say in the 28% range, while the upper end of the zone is in the 37% range. The bottom line is, we're really just arguing a difference of 9% or so on the top marginal rate. We'll see if this changes, I suspect it will.

Thirdly, probably the most important part of the conversation is being missed: employment taxes. When you're self employed, you've got to pay both sides of the employment tax (double taxation for small businesses). In recent years we've seen a string of increases in employment taxes, not a big deal when the economy is humming along and it's easy to pencil in marginal income coming from a new employee. Now though, it's a big deal...when you combine the cost of the employer's side of the payroll tax, combine with a lack of visibility regarding the economy, plus the additional expense in some states (like Washington) for items such as L&I (labor and industries tax), and unemployment compensation, it creates a fairly large hurdle to small businesses to hire new people. It's cheaper to invest in new technology and become more efficient.

 

[Optimusaint]

I want some rep too dammit....

And now I can no longer post cause my post count is just too freakin cool.

+rep for leetness and a hot swedish brunette.