6 ms·

You can't add 55+25 like that; VAT is 25 % of the 45 % left over. So maximum total marginal tax rate is 66.25 %

jollybean 4y ago
It's still uncompromisingly brutal in the minds of most people. The 'Swede' I know best (Doctor) left for that reason. The argument most often used is 'But I Get Good Services' - which I'm suspicious of because 1) well, you could just keep the money and spend on the services you want, instead of the services the state chooses for you and 2) there's incredible efficiency in private institutions. I don't see any government in the world ever making a good 'Spotify'. Despite it's flaws, it's nice to have 'music when I want it'. In short, probably thinks like 'Healthcare for Everyone' (though maybe not socialized entirely) and better retirement comp. are really good ideas and should be universally applied (much as we now know that 'central economic planning soviet style' is a bad idea). But 2/3's to the State is just a gigantic amount. Even a small adjustment such as '15% must go towards your Healthcare Insurance' and then let people pick plans, or, 10% must go to a 'Retirement Savings Plan' (of which some of it cannot be withdrawn until 65 and some of it pooled) might even be beneficial. I think that would start to create some social nudging functions (i.e. payment for Healthcare) while being a bit more fair (i.e. service quality sometimes proportional to money put in). And maybe the 66% kicks in, but at some much, much higher rate, like over 1M in income. Finally, we don't seem to account for just 'organizational intelligence' which I think is the biggest difference. When I see the lunches Swedish kids get I don't think 'they are rich' I think 'they are smart'. Lunches, esp. mostly vegetables do not have to be expensive, I think the whole 'burgers and tater tots' you see in USA is just stupid, lazy thinking. Just being a bit creative with the menu, a bit conscientious with the process, and esp. having children help quite a bit would help. Any school kid can do 'something' and past age 8 they can wash veggies, help clean up, sweep. They do this in Japan for a lot of things, why can't we? I suggest children can even learn to prepare certain kids of veggies responsibly. Since a lot of education is kind of just 'daycare' why not give them some responsibilities as well? I mean, it's like a 'win win'. The remaining meal functions can be done by a staff. We can't avoid inherent costs in things but I suggest there is enormous upside in being intelligent about things in 'whatever' systems: Drugs, Incarceration etc.. My minimal exposure to Swedish startups is that they have way better communications - they present their concepts using language, visuals, way ahead of others. This despite Swedish formal education system flailing a little bit behind others (that's a complicated thing). p All of that said I 100% agree that 'safety net' will improve the likelihood of participation 'early stage' startups, not sure what it means beyond that stage.
- jacobr 4y ago
  > I think that would start to create some social nudging functions (i.e. payment for Healthcare) while being a bit more fair (i.e. service quality sometimes proportional to money put in). An interesting definition of “fair” - in Sweden the principle is equal health care prioritized according to who needs or benefits most from the care, not how much you pay. If you see it from that point of view, tax is not a transaction where you pay for the services you receive. You pay for the society you receive, which includes people in general being more healthy, not just yourself.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    Most people would reject the idea that someone works hard all of their life gets the same healthcare that someone who does nothing. Most people are somewhere in the middle, but there absolutely are people do nothing and people who are always being constructive, some in powerful ways. A society in which 100% of resources would be allocated in that manner (basically communist) would completely fall apart. I think 'same treatment Healthcare' is actually a bit of a hard-socialist idea that happened to make it's way through society historically (because it needed to have some socialization) but that will ultimately fail, it's on the edge in Canada right now as they are discussion private options. In much the same way I think fully-private healthcare is a failure. For the later (fully private) we have to understand the mechanisms are not the same as for regular products or even food etc. - there are existential issues which create gigantic asymmetries. So there must be heavy regulation and likely socialization in certain aspects. But the converse is still true: 'everyone the same' is a disaster for most of the economy, it's also maybe not such a good idea for healthcare. FYI - in Sweden the are Private Clinics. In Canada, where I am from, we have pretty crazy laws, some of those most limiting in the world. It's illegal to provide private services for all but a minority of issues. Just consider that: a mechanic can fix your Mazerati, but it's illegal for them to fix your arm. In practice - there is filtering. 'Important People' somehow manage to get good access, like Sports Stars, politicians. Actual Doctors/Hospitals are not owned by the government (as they are in UK) so they are selective, but the billing rates are theoretically the same. On the other end, you may or may not get the surgery depending on if you're an alcoholic/smoker etc.. Due to all of this there are very, very weird asymmetries in Healthcare all over the place, notably Doctor's guilds controlling access to their domain, pricing insanity in the US for actual services, insane drug prices due to IP laws and lobbying, inability of governments to innovate effectively. One weird artifact of the later is how much we have to depend on the advancements of other nations. The NGO style they have in the US is an interesting model as well.

It's still uncompromisingly brutal in the minds of most people. The 'Swede' I know best (Doctor) left for that reason. The argument most often used is 'But I Get Good Services' - which I'm suspicious of because 1) well, you could just keep the money and spend on the services you want, instead of the services the state chooses for you and 2) there's incredible efficiency in private institutions. I don't see any government in the world ever making a good 'Spotify'. Despite it's flaws, it's nice to have 'music when I want it'. In short, probably thinks like 'Healthcare for Everyone' (though maybe not socialized entirely) and better retirement comp. are really good ideas and should be universally applied (much as we now know that 'central economic planning soviet style' is a bad idea). But 2/3's to the State is just a gigantic amount. Even a small adjustment such as '15% must go towards your Healthcare Insurance' and then let people pick plans, or, 10% must go to a 'Retirement Savings Plan' (of which some of it cannot be withdrawn until 65 and some of it pooled) might even be beneficial. I think that would start to create some social nudging functions (i.e. payment for Healthcare) while being a bit more fair (i.e. service quality sometimes proportional to money put in). And maybe the 66% kicks in, but at some much, much higher rate, like over 1M in income. Finally, we don't seem to account for just 'organizational intelligence' which I think is the biggest difference. When I see the lunches Swedish kids get I don't think 'they are rich' I think 'they are smart'. Lunches, esp. mostly vegetables do not have to be expensive, I think the whole 'burgers and tater tots' you see in USA is just stupid, lazy thinking. Just being a bit creative with the menu, a bit conscientious with the process, and esp. having children help quite a bit would help. Any school kid can do 'something' and past age 8 they can wash veggies, help clean up, sweep. They do this in Japan for a lot of things, why can't we? I suggest children can even learn to prepare certain kids of veggies responsibly. Since a lot of education is kind of just 'daycare' why not give them some responsibilities as well? I mean, it's like a 'win win'. The remaining meal functions can be done by a staff. We can't avoid inherent costs in things but I suggest there is enormous upside in being intelligent about things in 'whatever' systems: Drugs, Incarceration etc.. My minimal exposure to Swedish startups is that they have way better communications - they present their concepts using language, visuals, way ahead of others. This despite Swedish formal education system flailing a little bit behind others (that's a complicated thing). p All of that said I 100% agree that 'safety net' will improve the likelihood of participation 'early stage' startups, not sure what it means beyond that stage.

jacobr 4y ago
> I think that would start to create some social nudging functions (i.e. payment for Healthcare) while being a bit more fair (i.e. service quality sometimes proportional to money put in). An interesting definition of “fair” - in Sweden the principle is equal health care prioritized according to who needs or benefits most from the care, not how much you pay. If you see it from that point of view, tax is not a transaction where you pay for the services you receive. You pay for the society you receive, which includes people in general being more healthy, not just yourself.
- jollybean 4y ago
  Most people would reject the idea that someone works hard all of their life gets the same healthcare that someone who does nothing. Most people are somewhere in the middle, but there absolutely are people do nothing and people who are always being constructive, some in powerful ways. A society in which 100% of resources would be allocated in that manner (basically communist) would completely fall apart. I think 'same treatment Healthcare' is actually a bit of a hard-socialist idea that happened to make it's way through society historically (because it needed to have some socialization) but that will ultimately fail, it's on the edge in Canada right now as they are discussion private options. In much the same way I think fully-private healthcare is a failure. For the later (fully private) we have to understand the mechanisms are not the same as for regular products or even food etc. - there are existential issues which create gigantic asymmetries. So there must be heavy regulation and likely socialization in certain aspects. But the converse is still true: 'everyone the same' is a disaster for most of the economy, it's also maybe not such a good idea for healthcare. FYI - in Sweden the are Private Clinics. In Canada, where I am from, we have pretty crazy laws, some of those most limiting in the world. It's illegal to provide private services for all but a minority of issues. Just consider that: a mechanic can fix your Mazerati, but it's illegal for them to fix your arm. In practice - there is filtering. 'Important People' somehow manage to get good access, like Sports Stars, politicians. Actual Doctors/Hospitals are not owned by the government (as they are in UK) so they are selective, but the billing rates are theoretically the same. On the other end, you may or may not get the surgery depending on if you're an alcoholic/smoker etc.. Due to all of this there are very, very weird asymmetries in Healthcare all over the place, notably Doctor's guilds controlling access to their domain, pricing insanity in the US for actual services, insane drug prices due to IP laws and lobbying, inability of governments to innovate effectively. One weird artifact of the later is how much we have to depend on the advancements of other nations. The NGO style they have in the US is an interesting model as well.