Sweden's Tax System

[tradeunionsupporter]

According to this article Sweden in the 1970's had a income tax rate above 100% which was a 102% marginal tax rate my question is could a tax rate this high make the incomes equal and take all the wealth that the millionaires and billionaires have also I don't understand I have had people tell me tax rates on income can't go above 100% than I read this ?

Pomperipossa in Monismania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Pomperipossa in Monismania" (also called Pomperipossa in the World Of Money) is a satirical story written by the Swedish children's book author Astrid Lindgren in response to the 102% marginal tax rate she incurred in 1976. It was published starting on 3 March 1976 in the Stockholm evening tabloid Expressen and created a major debate about the Swedish tax system.

The marginal tax rate above 100% which was dubbed the 'Pomperipossa effect' was due to tax legislation which required self employed individuals to pay both regular income tax and employer's fees.

The story, a satirical allegory about a writer of children's books in a distant country, led to a stormy tax debate and is often attributed as a decisive factor in the defeat of the Swedish Social Democratic Party - for the first time in 40 years in the elections later the same year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania)

Could higher taxes on the Rich/Wealthy at the rate of 100% or higher really send the Rich to the Poor house Stephen Moore says it is possible ?

The vast majority of Americans don't want to tax the rich out of existence;

Why Is Bill Clinton Cultivating Envy?

by Stephen Moore








This article appeared on cato.org on July 31, 1997.

Republicans shouldn't have wilted so easily. They should have met the class-warfare argument head-on. This is not -- nor has it ever been -- a nation principally motivated by greed and envy. Most Americans don't hate rich people as much as Dick Gephardt apparently does. Americans don't begrudge billionaires like Microsoft's Bill Gates or Federal Express's Fred Smith their fortunes. The vast majority of Americans don't want to tax the rich out of existence; they want to become rich themselves.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6111 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6111)
Tax Cuts and Class Wars

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it — even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them. Yet the class warriors forget that American wealth is not static, but rather very dynamic. Poor people become rich, and rich people lose all of their money. In fact, at no time in American history have more of the nation's wealthy earned rather than inherited their money. Rich family dynasties are increasingly rare, and are quickly destroyed by unproductive spendthrift generations. So when the left attacks the rich, they're attacking a fluid group that many poor Americans hope to join someday by moving up in life. Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul74.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul74.html)

[tradeunionsupporter]

My question is would a progressive tax rate of 100% or over 100% leave the Rich Capitalists without any money ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Sorry if Im posting a dumb topic but Im trying to learn about how taxes work and I find it hard to believe that the Rich won't be able to buy their big Mansions if their taxes are raised high ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansion

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/10/monster-billionaire-mansions_slide.html

[Apoi_Viitor]

My question is would a progressive tax rate of 100% or over 100% leave the Rich Capitalists without any money ?

If kept up for a while. For example, I'm a capitalist who has a net worth of 20 million. Each year I make 1 million, and my income tax rate is set at 200%. That means (not taking into account expenses or any other factor), if this tax rate stayed the same for 20 years, I would be left with no money.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for your answer I did not know this so your saying that it is possible to equal out the incomes and prevent income inequality by use of the tax code ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Im guessing Sweden did not have a tax rate of 102% for very long.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Im guessing Sweden did not have a tax rate of 102% for very long.

It did not last very long, no. The social democrats lost the following elections partly due to the turmoil revolving around the marginal taxes.

(Offtopic, but also: Astrid Lindgren sucks.)

[Apoi_Viitor]

Thank You for your answer I did not know this so your saying that it is possible to equal out the incomes and prevent income inequality by use of the tax code ?

In theory, yes. But with an effective tax rate of over 100% your creating an incentive for capitalists to not invest their money.

I'll give a more detailed explanation this time...

Say taxes were bracketed like this.

Taxable Income / Tax Rate

1 to 25,000 = 10%
25,001 - 50,000 = 50%
50,001 and over = 105%

If I make 50,000 in taxable income, the amount I pay in taxes would be much less than my actual income. However, as I start to make over 50,000 in income, the amount of money I pay in taxes would start to (and likely would) supersede my actual income. Therefore, a marginal tax rate over 100% would discourage economic growth significantly.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

In theory, yes. But with an effective tax rate of over 100% your creating an incentive for capitalists to not invest their money.

I'll give a more detailed explanation this time...

Say taxes were bracketed like this.

Taxable Income / Tax Rate

1 to 25,000 = 10%
25,001 - 50,000 = 50%
50,001 and over = 105%

If I make 50,000 in taxable income, the amount I pay in taxes would be much less than my actual income. However, as I start to make over 50,000 in income, the amount of money I pay in taxes would start to (and likely would) supersede my actual income. Therefore, a marginal tax rate over 100% would discourage economic growth significantly.

The idea of it "discouraging growth" is really an argument of capitalist-sympathising liberals and conservatives. Most importantly, such high effective tax rates rarely operate directly in terms of brackets, because the tax on income is not the primary one; in the example of Sweden, for example, a large chunk was also the wealth tax, a tax charged only on accumulated savings (including large properties with a great value far higher than any reasonable home and similar) as well as other taxes that accumulated to reach past 100%. I don't remember exactly but the actual income tax was not much above 70% for the highest brackets.

This meant that in some cases holding onto the money was less profitable than investing it, also. There were also very heavy penalties for transferring the money out of the country and a strict exchange control; and very high taxes existed more or less throughout Swedish history from the 50's onwards, and did not in any meaningful way deter raw GDP growth - there was problems by the 1970's as a result of international instabilities and so on, but overall the result was fairly good, and the government policy remained a steadfast dedication to Keynesianism with all its flaws. Worker productivity improved rapidly.

Obviously, such policies could not continue indefinitely. Social-democracy is never a lasting solution. At its peak in the 60's and early 70's there was a strong left and the social-democratic movement also boasted a very thriving grass-roots organisation with wide participation, but by the 1980's all major ideological moves of the social-democrats were towards liberalising and more unfettered capitalism. The social-democratic welfare state had played out is role, and the militancy of the workers that until then had been strong and a major concern of the capitalists all since the late 1800's had declined. The corporatist model typical of social democracy in the middle of the 20th century was abandoned and they became a barren, desolate place of token gestures towards the workers movements and became more and more concerned solely with satisfying capitalist whims, and this culminated in the deregulation of the currency markets in 1985 and the deep banking crisis and recession that followed the collapse of the currency market in 1989-1993.

[RichardAWilson]

The Financial Crisis in Sweden (1989-1993) can be attributed to the crash in Russia. The Scandinavians relied on the Soviet-Union for trade and foreign exchange. Also, why the hell would one save and invest if they're being penalized? A 100% Income Tax Burden will offer close to zero in revenue. Sweden's economy and state suffered from the Wealth Tax.

Furthermore, if you're questioning the effectiveness of taxation as a means of expropriation, such an approach would be ineffective. (Hoarding cash under the mattress would become common for the super-rich)

There's only one method of expropriation and that involves the socialization of the means of production.

[Judicator]

As soon as you tried to socialize the means of production you'd find that all of the means of production had disappeared from your country. A factory that's about to be nationalized is worth $0 to it's owner, so it makes more sense to scrap the thing and sell the parts.

[RichardAWilson]

Not if you compensate the owners. WTF Dude!? The French and British nationalized entire sectors of the economy and those economies didn't crash. Plus, I'm not talking nationalization, I'm talking socialization. There's a big difference. Interest rates are low enough that we could borrow at a low rate to socialize undervalued companies. We could have socialized the High-Finance Banks in 2008 instead of allowing them to be sold at a rock bottom price to J.P. Morgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

The same could be said of the automakers.

Had we socialized General Motors instead of rescuing them with corporate welfare, we could have acquired them at a rock bottom price. The same is true of the Big Commercial Airlines.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The Financial Crisis in Sweden (1989-1993) can be attributed to the crash in Russia. The Scandinavians relied on the Soviet-Union for trade and foreign exchange. Also, why the hell would one save and invest if they're being penalized? A 100% Income Tax Burden will offer close to zero in revenue. Sweden's economy and state suffered from the Wealth Tax.

Furthermore, if you're questioning the effectiveness of taxation as a means of expropriation, such an approach would be ineffective. (Hoarding cash under the mattress would become common for the super-rich)

There's only one method of expropriation and that involves the socialization of the means of production.

It had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. What are you on about? Then again, you're a Green Party supporter, you must be a social-democrat. Sweden had very limited trade with the Soviet Union. Finland was the only country in Scandinavia to have fairly strong trade and exchange with the SSSR.

The Swedish crisis had to do with an enormous credit bubble that finally collapsed. Part of this collapse was a run on the krona which the central bank tried its best to avert (similar to what happened in the UK in the late 70's IIRC). George Soros was heavily involved in this run on the currency, investing heavily. Finally the Central bank gave up and let the krona fall.

Prior to this the Swedish economic had relied on Keynesian policies. To facilitate economic growth, a system of regular devaluation of the currency for the sake of the export sector became the status-quo until the late 80's.

Secondly, with your nonsensical liberal ramblings (one can't help but think you're a reformist and want to peacefully socialise the means of production and want to encourage private capitalism with the way you present things), it was not a 100% income tax. Private personal investment was discouraged and frankly considered irrelevant if not undesirable (something further enhanced by the frequent currency devaluations which made private savings of limited value for longer times, whether they were in banks or in mattresses) and had little bearing on the economy. State investment in some sectors was strong, and also, most importantly: Private companies were very lightly taxed, both when it came to savings and income, far lower than in the United States for example.

[RichardAWilson]

Save the name calling for somewhere else. I like sticking to factual data.

Toward the truth, the Soviet Crisis contributed to the Swedish one.

Finland and Sweden did trade with one another.

Indeed, Sweden's economy relied more on trade than America's and Britain's. A high share of Sweden's trade and exchange was conducted with Finland and Norway, thus correlating Sweden with the performance of the USSR.

The Swedish housing bubble wasn't that unusual.

The United States also suffered from a housing bubble during the same period.

Inflation led to negative interest rates, making housing more speculative than stocks. Big money chases the money. (I.e. Capital is attracted to capital)

When inflation-adjusted interest rates are negative: Real estate, gold, silver and commodities offer those returns.

Britain was different than Sweden in the sense that the British were being subjected to the EERM (which was correlated with the Deutsche Mark) during a period when the manufacturing sector was bleeding and trade and capital deficits had become the norm. (Thatcherism)

Furthermore, as I said, the Wealth Tax discouraged private investing. The rich, as I said, will hoard money under the mattress instead of investing it in the economy.

Even a Keynesian knows that you can't have cash being hoarded (I.e. Withdrawn from the Monetary Cycle).

Plus, even you have to agree that you can't expropriate via taxation.

Also, just as there is a brain drain, there can be a capital drain. Full taxation of investments will lead the rich to take their cash and run to lower taxed markets. You can't expropriate what has been withdrawn.

Since Sweden never did have a large state managed sector (state owned companies like Norway), the Swedish State couldn't serve as a meaningful investor in the means of production.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/1982/205/ifdp205.pdf

I.e. Sweden was taxing and discouraging the same investments that the State couldn't provide. For this reason, Sweden's economy underperformed from 1971 to 1980 relative to the EEC as a whole. Even the Incentives, which encouraged businesses to rebuild their inventories, didn't make up for the reduced incentive to save and invest in the means of production.

I'm not even mentioning the effect on venture capital and Initial Public Offerings that finance new and innovative start-up businesses. Apple is just one name that emerged from that decade. In Sweden, few new businesses were formed. Even fewer were formed in technology and biotech.

Sweden's Economic Model no longer worked within the context of the market-oriented system.



with your nonsensical liberal ramblings (one can't help but think you're a reformist and want to peacefully socialise the means of production and want to encourage private capitalism with the way you present things),


You're right in that I happen to believe that in industrial democracies, it is possible to socialize the commanding heights of the economy without using violence. Marx happened to believe the same thing. However, like Marx, if a Socialist Revolution were to happen, I'd back it.


socialise the means of production and want to encourage private capitalism

I'm assuming the above is a typing error? Contradiction?

[Nox]

No. Because when they lose part of their wealth by paying 102% income tax, they will go down into the lower bracket and pay, say, 99% income tax.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Toward the truth, the Soviet Crisis contributed to the Swedish one.

Finland and Sweden did trade with one another.



It did not, and for what it is worth, there was no severe crisis in the Soviet Union at the time, although the results of the Gorby deforms was beginning to stir some issues. The Swedish crisis began with a dramatic increase in lending beginning in 1987-88, and your nonsense about the connection to the Soviet Union makes no sense. There was some trade with the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc, of course, but it was not significant. The largest trading partners was the United States and West Germany.


The Swedish housing bubble wasn't that unusual.

The United States also suffered from a housing bubble during the same period.

It wasn't primarily a housing bubble. I never suggested it was a housing bubble. It was a credit bubble, loans were for general consumption, not primarily for housing investments.


Furthermore, as I said, the Wealth Tax discouraged private investing. The rich, as I said, will hoard money under the mattress instead of investing it in the economy.

As I said, this would be useless because of the high inflation and frequent devaluations and following domestic price rises, so if they simply slept on their money they be loosing even more money.


Plus, even you have to agree that you can't expropriate via taxation.

Also, just as there is a brain drain, there can be a capital drain. Full taxation of investments will lead the rich to take their cash and run to lower taxed markets. You can't expropriate what has been withdrawn.

Of course I don't think that expropriating via taxation is a good thing to do; it doesn't go far enough and still creates an economic dependency on the activities of the capitalist class.

This was before there was any easy ways to transfer money, and extremely harsh penalties were in place for anyone trying to move money out of the country. However, with the 1985' deregulation of currency, loaning and exchange, this became easier, and this contributed to the crisis, because there was a massive transfer of money out of the country. This same deregulation relaxed regulations on banks and made easier to more liberally lend money. It also affected trade and increased imports.


Since Sweden never did have a large state managed sector (state owned companies like Norway), the Swedish State couldn't serve as a meaningful investor in the means of production.

Norway didn't either have a particularly large state-managed sector. Finland was, again, the exception, owing to political influence resulting from the proximity to the SSSR. It is true, then, that Sweden did not have a large state sector, however, the essential export industries were at various times state-owned, notably the forest- and ore producing industries. By the late 80's all forms of government economic involvement had been decreased.

The earlier system was one of state-supported private industries characterised by corporatism; where the union managements and the industry leaders, with support from the state, worked together. This was obviously nothing but reprehensible class-collaboration.


I.e. Sweden was taxing and discouraging the same investments that the State couldn't provide. For this reason, Sweden's economy underperformed from 1971 to 1980 relative to the EEC as a whole. Even the Incentives, which encouraged businesses to rebuild their inventories, didn't make up for the reduced incentive to save and invest in the means of production.

Although this is a popular line with the Svenskt Näringsliv/Sveriges Arbetsgivareförbund/Swedish Association of Employers (the main business union, soon to be anarcho-capitalist) and was used from 1973 onwards to justify right-ward shift in economic policy and liberalising the economy, your reasoning for this are simplistic and seems to ignore the component of the capitalist labour market and so on. (Also that paper you cite there calls Sweden's economy socialist, :laugh:)

This does, however, show that there is only so far that the social-democratic model can go. It is not a solution, and collaborationist approaches are always disastrous for the working classes in the end. After 1980, the Social democrats capitulated to Mises/Friedman policies like their Moderate opponents and begun to undo the welfare state and gradually do away with many social policies and deregulate the markets.


I'm not even mentioning the effect on venture capital and Initial Public Offerings that finance new and innovative start-up businesses. Apple is just one name that emerged from that decade. In Sweden, few new businesses were formed. Even fewer were formed in technology and biotech.

Are you saying IPO's and venture capitalists are desirable?



Sweden's Economic Model no longer worked within the context of the market-oriented system.

It never did, it came into existence and existed for as long as it filled its role in promoting social peace for the capitalists. When it was no longer necessary for those reasons, it could be dismounted. Today the Employer's Association regularly post debates in the press saying that Swedish income inequality need to get even higher, and with time, more and more this feelings permeates popular sentiment.


You're right in that I happen to believe that in industrial democracies, it is possible to socialize the commanding heights of the economy without using violence.

Socialising the commanding heights is not sufficient. It cannot exist concurrently with "small-scale" capitalism without resulting in an undesirable degenerate mix. Socialisation must be done without any compensation to former owners; they must have their (material) wealth seized. Their currency savings and other investment circle-jerk methods will be irrelevant when the stock markets close and currency is abolished.


I'm assuming the above is a typing error? Contradiction?

I mean, you seem like you want to buy out the larger companies and let the rest be, by 'private' I meant more along the lines of smaller capitalism, petit-bourgeois activities and private capitalism in the sense of private individuals investing and trading. As long as such exchanges persists, there can be no end to capitalism.

[RichardAWilson]

I’m going to defend the position on the U.S.S.R. Yes, Sweden’s economy would have contracted. However, it would have been a much softer landing.

The Soviet Economy was crashing before it was dissolved in 1991.

Furthermore, oil had fallen and the Norwegian economy was facing a slowdown.

The Scandinavian Economies are interconnected. A recession in Finland and a slowdown in Norway will have ripple effects in Sweden.


Between 1989 and 1992, 260,000 Swedes lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector.


Sweden's housing bubble formed the backbone of financial lending. Like I said, the U.S. had a housing bubble during the same period. We had our own financial crisis called the Savings and Loan Fiasco.


I'm not blaming the Soviet-Union for Sweden's entire crisis. Yes, much of it can be attributed to financial deregulation, just like in the United States. Nonetheless, I'm not going to ignore the Greater Scandinavian Recession that resulted from the USSR.



Also that paper you cite there calls Sweden's economy socialist.


True. It's a publication from the Federal Reserve, which has a greater understanding of how capitalism works than how socialism works. Sweden's "deformed capitalism" wasn't working.



Are you saying IPO's and venture capitalists are desirable?


No. I'd much rather have a socialized lending institution finance new businesses. A socialized lending institution would allow working class men and women to earn the same returns as millionaires and billionaires. Toward that end, I believe in socializing the entire financial system. As long as we have private capitalism in finance, there will be insiders that are able to scam the smaller investors. (I.e. Ever heard of the infamous Pump and Dump?)


P.S. Notice how I said investor and didn't mention speculation. There's a big difference between investing and speculating.


Like I said:


Sweden's Economic Model no longer worked within the context of the market-oriented system.


Since Sweden was still a free market oriented nation, overtaxing and discouraging private investing and venture capital was counterproductive and harmful. Venture capital is the backbone of innovation under the free market system. Under a social system, socialized capital and massive investments in human capital (I.e. Education and Training) would be the driver of innovation.


The financial sector has to be the first sector to be socialized. Otherwise, everything else will be meaningless.


Transitional Socialism: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/TSE68ii.html

[tradeunionsupporter]

My next question would be did Sweden's Tax Rate of 102% on high earners make all incomes equal ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is this correct ?

once you're passed 100%, it's not really just an income tax but also a savings tax. the additional money can't come from income if it is greater than 100% of your income. it has to come from stored up wealth of the person you're taxing them on.

PS - look up what 'marginal tax rate' means. it isn't the same as 'income tax rate'.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone know thank you for your answers.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone have an opinion ?

[Apoi_Viitor]

PS - look up what 'marginal tax rate' means. it isn't the same as 'income tax rate'.

Marginal tax rate is the rate you pay on the taxable income that falls into the highest bracket you reach.

Income tax is a general term for any tax levied on the income of an individual or corporation.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for your answer.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is this true ?

a marginal tax rate is an 'effective' tax rate. ie - what percentage of your income you're actually paying when it is all said and done. the income tax rate is the actual rate calculated based on how much money you have stated that you earned.

once you are passing 100% in that respect, it isn't really an income tax any longer. since there is no possible way for the person to pay the burden without taking money from other sources such as investments, savings, loans, etc. a person with no assets or savings would be unable to pay the bill if the only money they had was what they earned in a year. in that respect, it wouldn't really make sense to call it an income tax if it takes more than 100% of your income. since an income tax is quite literally, a tax on what you make as income. if you are taxing more than just income, you're reclassified the tax.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for your answers.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Please anyone reply to this thread.

[Apoi_Viitor]

a marginal tax rate is an 'effective' tax rate. ie - what percentage of your income you're actually paying when it is all said and done. the income tax rate is the actual rate calculated based on how much money you have stated that you earned.

Sort of. Read this and ask if you have any questions:

http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates/


once you are passing 100% in that respect, it isn't really an income tax any longer. since there is no possible way for the person to pay the burden without taking money from other sources such as investments, savings, loans, etc. a person with no assets or savings would be unable to pay the bill if the only money they had was what they earned in a year. in that respect, it wouldn't really make sense to call it an income tax if it takes more than 100% of your income. since an income tax is quite literally, a tax on what you make as income. if you are taxing more than just income, you're reclassified the tax.

Again, sort of. 1. You can have a marginal tax rate over 100% without it surpassing the person's total income. 2. Even if what you mentioned occurs, then it would still be an income tax. Everything you said would still be true, but since the tax is based off the individual's income it would still technically be an income tax.

[tradeunionsupporter]

How high can tax rates go since they can go past 100% ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

My question would be did Sweden's Tax Rate of 102% on high earners make all incomes equal ?

Is this correct ?

once you're passed 100%, it's not really just an income tax but also a savings tax. the additional money can't come from income if it is greater than 100% of your income. it has to come from stored up wealth of the person you're taxing them on.

PS - look up what 'marginal tax rate' means. it isn't the same as 'income tax rate'.

Pomperipossa in Monismania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Pomperipossa in Monismania" (also called Pomperipossa in the World Of Money) is a satirical story written by the Swedish children's book author Astrid Lindgren in response to the 102% marginal tax rate she incurred in 1976. It was published starting on 3 March 1976 in the Stockholm evening tabloid Expressen and created a major debate about the Swedish tax system.
The marginal tax rate above 100% which was dubbed the 'Pomperipossa effect' was due to tax legislation which required self employed individuals to pay both regular income tax and employer's fees.
The story, a satirical allegory about a writer of children's books in a distant country, led to a stormy tax debate and is often attributed as a decisive factor in the defeat of the Swedish Social Democratic Party - for the first time in 40 years in the elections later the same year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania

[tradeunionsupporter]

Could a Government tax the Rich so high that the Rich end up with very little money left is this possible that Progressive Taxes on both income and savings could make the incomes equal ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for your answers.

[Apoi_Viitor]

How high can tax rates go since they can go past 100% ?

Hypothetically, they can be any number. Even 1000%. Of course don't expect that to actually occur.


Could a Government tax the Rich so high that the Rich end up with very little money left is this possible that Progressive Taxes on both income and savings could make the incomes equal ?

Again, hypothetically they could. But in actual practice that will never happen.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Since a Income Tax comes from a person's Income they make or they are paid how often is a tax on savings paid is it every year ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is the definition of a Income Tax based on the money a person makes from wages or gets paid or makes ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

In my view higher taxes on the Rich would not make the rich poor or all incomes equal if it did that would take many years to make a rich pperson poor the rich person wo0uld have to stop working am I correct or right ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

What does everyone else think ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Pomperipossa in Monismania by Astrid Lindgren was this just a Story or did Sweden really have a tax rate of 102% ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Lindgren

[Apoi_Viitor]

Pomperipossa in Monismania by Astrid Lindgren was this just a Story or did Sweden really have a tax rate of 102% ?

It did actually occur, although I believe it wasn't intentional.


Is the definition of a Income Tax based on the money a person makes from wages or gets paid or makes ?

Yeh pretty much.