Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 09, 2019

As part of sweeping pension reforms in the 1990s, Sweden made a part of its Social Security system private.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Occasionally the weak and feeble attempt on the part of GWB to install private accounts inside of small part of SS gets lambasted as the most evil deed since the Holocaust.

We point to the health care systems from these countries...but what about their retirement structures?

#1 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 09:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We point to the health care systems from these countries...but what about their retirement structures?

#1 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Excellent question. I'd love to hear some answers to it.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 09:50 AM | Reply

Just say no! Keep saying no! Never stop saying no! No! No! No!~ No! Hell no!
When we stop saying no, the theives will steal what we have had deducted from our paychecks all our lives. Just say No, no, no, no, no!
Any fool is a person soon to be relieved of his money.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd be perfectly willing to privatize it, if it were invested in a mutual fund of everything Congress is invested in. Set up a panel of blue-ribbon Trustees, and force Congress to disclose (to them only) their investments.

We'd have the equation in balance in no time.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We point to the health care systems from these countries...but what about their retirement structures?"

Your question is a contradiction. WE look at their socialized healthcare systems but then you want to compare that to partial privatization of the pension system?
Their privitization seems to be an experiment that didn't result in success.
Privatization of any public pension plan or healthcare plan is to knowingly hand over profits for no logical reason. Thieves are always out there plotting to steal everything from us so absolute ideas are necessary. The absolute Idea I support is NO, NO, NO, NO, NO we will never agree to privatization of SS or Medicare ever! Never ever!
Take your schemes and plots and put them where the sun don't shine.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Their privitization seems to be an experiment that didn't result in success.

I cut out the only thing worth addressing.......the rest is garbage.

unsuccessful? how so?

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:04 AM | Reply

"Occasionally the weak and feeble attempt on the part of GWB to install private accounts inside of small part of SS gets lambasted"

Check your history. The more people learned about Dubya's plan, the worse the approval rating. By the end, Republicans we're running from it, and Dubya was forced to admit his "fix" wouldn't even address the problem.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:05 AM | Reply

So far, the country has proved its system works " the Swedish pension has survived during periods of market volatility, including the Great Recession, Boulhol said. "The system proved to be resilient," he said.

it's a quote from one person...maybe it's crap. Prove it wrong, then.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:05 AM | Reply

"Check your history."

check it for what? did I misrepresent something?

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:06 AM | Reply

"if it were invested in a mutual fund of everything Congress is invested in"

do you have access to that strategy now?

I assume your point is that congress has the inside edge on investing the rest of us do not, correct?

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:08 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

The problem with Dubya's plan was the timing. It was over 2 decades too late.

It would have needed to have been implemented in the early '80's. Diverting any monies out of the trust in the 2000's would have only exacerbated the funding problems facing SS.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 10:10 AM | Reply

As always, follow the money.

Does Sweden lead the world in speculative monetary gambling? No.

That's America's job to create ridiculous bubbles that burst and roiling world markets and plunging global economies into great recessions.

Allowing bankers to use pensions for speculative gambling is a really bad idea ...

unless you like whole populations pissed off when their pensions disappear the moment people need them.

Once upon a time, gambling with other peoples money was criminal activity.

#12 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-09-09 10:16 AM | Reply

"unsuccessful? how so?"

Stock market is for gambling not for retirement pensions. Just because it hasn't collapsed badly enough doesn't prove it won't.

If you really want to insist on it though I have a thought. OK, we'll invest a percentage of our SS payments into the stock market but the handlers of those funds will have to accept immediate death if they fail. Otherwise, no. They are vipers and snakes just yearning to steal our money. If and when they do I demand the right to see their head on a pike.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I assume your point is that congress has the inside edge on investing the rest of us do not..."

Correct. Call Tom Price for further information.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

13

Did you even try to answer the question?

How is Sweden's system unsuccessful?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:27 AM | Reply

And furthermore Eberly or anyone else, you have never read better advice in your life.
Any willingness to let the vipers and snakes into SS or medicare will end up in disaster so let's just NEVER EVER do that. Let's don't even talk about doing it. When someone brings it up, let's tell them to shut up forever. That is our retirement. Don't let any crook cheat you out of it and there are crooks out there, right this minute, plotting to do exactly that.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danforth, do you have any money in the stock market? I'm talking stock ownership outright or inside mutual funds.

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:28 AM | Reply

"check it for what? did I misrepresent something?"

Yeah, the idea wasn't "lambasted" for no reason. It was a horrible idea, which would've exacerbated the problem. Even Republicans were running from it by the end of Dubya's promotional tour.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:31 AM | Reply

-Let's don't even talk about doing it.

let's do. You're right, "That is OUR retirement". not yours. It's ours.

And would someone besides me read what Danni writes?

How is Danni not more of a curmudgeon than anybody else here?

She's worse than Ray, for christs sakes.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Did you even try to answer the question?
How is Sweden's system unsuccessful?"

It is unseccessful because it opens the door to crooks. When you have a door that is locked, keep it locked. You seem to think that if an experiment like their made a little profit then hey, let's open the doors and make more profits!!!
Doesn't work that way and you are smart enough to know it.
No, we just don't open the door, at all, for anyone.
Security!!!!
We don't play with it. We just keep it locked always. Forever. No concessions, no discussions. It just stays locked.
The "Chicago Boys" went to Chile. Convinced the people there that they could have better benefits in their SS system and then proceeded to loot and bankrupt their SS system.
Some of us learn from things like that. Some of us don't and there are probably some of us who think that is an opportunity to become rich.
No.
We need to kick anyone who even suggests investing SS money in the stock market right in the head so they can't repeat it and convince the stupid people that they have a great new idea. And keep kicking them in the head until they can't repeat garbage like that.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:35 AM | Reply

"...do you have any money in the stock market? I'm talking stock ownership outright or inside mutual funds."

Yes, mutual funds, where one of my goals is to eliminate all fees possible. I have about 24 accounts, and pay $34 annually outside of the internal fund fees themselves, which I also judge/choose partially on fees. Dubya's equation added fees, and not much else.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:37 AM | Reply

-Yeah, the idea wasn't "lambasted" for no reason.

I didn't say it was lambasted for no reason. I understand why it was defeated and even abandoned by the republican party.

You just accused me of misrepresenting history.....why do you have lie to argue with me?

back to the point....I don't know if the republicans ran from it because it was a bad idea no matter what or because the timing was horrendous. But yes...they did run from it. Personally, I belive it was to save their own asses, politically.

"Does Sweden lead the world in speculative monetary gambling? No."

good point and probably at the top of the list of my reservations of this idea.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:39 AM | Reply

They are vipers and snakes just yearning to steal our money.

Its not our money once we hand it over to SS, it the governments to do what they want, and if they screw up, which they are, and there is absolutely no recourse.

They could cancel it at anytime, and if push comes to shove, due to the governments debt/deficits. I have no doubt they would do it.

Buckle up buttercup.

#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-09 10:39 AM | Reply

"You just accused me of misrepresenting history.....why do you have lie to argue with me?"

My apologies; I was wrong there. It just seemed like you used that word because you thought it was an unfair assessment. As you've noted, it certainly wasn't.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:42 AM | Reply

It is unseccessful because it opens the door to crooks.

so, it's not unsuccessful...you're just scared and willing to lie through your teeth claiming it's unsuccessful because of your fear.

Your fear is fine....I have reservations for similar reasons.

but your'e LYING through your teeth to argue it's unsuccessful in Sweden. You have NOTHING to back it up.

Gee...such lying on this thread from people who believe they're as pure and the wind driven snow while pissing and moaning about other who lie.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How is Danni not more of a curmudgeon than anybody else here?"

One way. I'm not an advocate for gold or any other investment. I do believe that we have to learn to protect our SS and Medicare and not let anyone with any scheme take it away from us. Many here don't really realize how valuable it is and would let some smart talker make us think that investing it would bring us larger returns. But then, we had 2008. That argument flew directly out the window that year. No! Security for SS is primary and if that makes me a curmudgeon??? I don't care.
Realize one thing, it will only take on single snake oil salesman to convince America to go along with some scheme which will transfer huge wealth to a few and bankrupt SS.
Don't ever let any politician even discuss it. Shout them down. Throw things at them. Do whatever it takes to shut down such discussion and don't let any fool tell you that your are against the first amendment for doing so.
Protect what we have built as if it is your own property because is is.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They could cancel it at anytime"

Nonsense. Even at the nadir, the income stream can pay 70% of the promised benefits.

They should just jack up income taxes on the wealthiest to put the equation back in balance.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 10:45 AM | Reply

No Eberly, I just know that when you let a fox into the hen house bad things happen, so, I keep the fox out of the hen house. If you can't see the validity of that then I suspect you are a fox.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:46 AM | Reply

Yes, mutual funds, where one of my goals is to eliminate all fees possible.

"but, what about the snakes and vipers??"

-danni

but seriously...you're sensitive to fees, as am I.

But I'm also sensitive about control....SS gives me little. I'm not anti-SS by any means....

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:48 AM | Reply

"They should just jack up income taxes on the wealthiest to put the equation back in balance."

Of course but they will spend billions building propaganda networks with the intent of selling an alternative because there is money to be made. there are no legths to which the corrupt right won't go to steal from the ignorant poor.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:49 AM | Reply

"But I'm also sensitive about control....SS gives me little. I'm not anti-SS by any means...."

SS doesn't eliminate your opportunity to invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, gold, whatever. But it is one source of income guaranteed to us when we are disabled or old and no one should have any right to gamble with it in any way.
We need the security of it even if we might have earned a little larger benefit by gambling with it. No. It has be be secure and protected from those who would gamble with it. I mean ABSOLUTELY secure so no one gets to play with it.
I honestly do think this is an argument that should be presented to the American people ofter, they need to recognize the truth that I am expressing, to ignore it is to risk peril and poverty in your old age.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 10:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Danni, you are proving you understand NOTHING about the issue of private accounts.

You just want to advocate violence, and lie about the success of Sweden's system.

You're just a 2-bit liar advocating violence against anybody you disagree with.

and a curmudgeon.

Danforth, magnanimously, retracted something I made an issue out of....but you can't.

which makes you no different than some folks here who you think are pond scum.

You're

the

same.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 10:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

-It has be be secure and protected from those who would gamble with it. I mean ABSOLUTELY secure so no one gets to play with it.

are you under the assumption this is the way we have it now?

LBJ put SS into the general fund in 1968 to help pay for your favorite war. That makes it "absolutely secure"?

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 11:00 AM | Reply

"Don't ever let any politician even discuss it. Shout them down. Throw things at them. Do whatever it takes to shut down such discussion and don't let any fool tell you that your are against the first amendment for doing so."

Classic totalitarian SJW, Maoist Red Guard, antifa anarcho-communist.

#SnivelingStalinist

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-09 11:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If the US tried it, the corrupt politicians and lobbyists would create a system that rewards them and wall street and bankrupts the rest of us.

Look no further than the GOP Tax Scam. Everything they said it would do has failed miserably.

#35 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-09 11:29 AM | Reply

"If the US tried it, the corrupt politicians and lobbyists would create a system that rewards them and wall street and bankrupts the rest of us."

I believe that's going on now, with the wild swings in the market: insiders going long before Trump announces talks with China, and shorting the market right before tariffs are announced. Once they've extracted all the wealth out of America, everything will crash.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

^"all the" should be "enough"

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Personal Income Tax Rate in Sweden is 61.85%
That is twice what we pay here in the states
leave it to card carrying member of the habitual liar's club to only focus on one element of Sweden's success while ignoring everything else

"We point to the health care systems from these countries...but what about their income tax structures"?

#38 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-09 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We can discuss anything about Sweden's political and economic structures. Nothing was "ignored".

It's all fair game and everyone has been invited to post something that contradicts the premise of the subject article.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Now, when the drunken savage wakes up from his alcohol induced coma...this is where everybody else scatters.

The stench is too great....

www.google.com

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 12:30 PM | Reply

"Classic totalitarian SJW, Maoist Red Guard, antifa anarcho-communist."

In Nulli's disturbed brain FDR is Mao. That's just crazy.

"Danni, you are proving you understand NOTHING about the issue of private accounts."

No, you're wrong. I understand private accounts, have all of them you want but just keep your hands off SS. That is the basic retirement system for our working class and we don't want anyone playing with it. You want other investments then great, I would love to have other investments myself but I depend on SS being there and I don't want any part of it privatized in any way. I want it to be the safest investment in the world, like U.S. Treasury Bills. NO, they don't make anyone rich but they remain the safest investment in the world.
There are always schemes where con artists are trying to privatize SS, George W. Bush was the most recent. Fortunately, the American people saw what he was up to and ignored his frat boy ass. Just too bad they didn't listen to me a little sooner, could have saved them the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Could have avoided the economic collapse in 2007-2008, all these grifters are the same but only some of us recognize them when they first come on the scene. To me, George W. Bush was an obvious grifter from the first time I saw him, my opinion of him has never changed.
And then along came Donald Trump and Don Jr. and many here don't see through them? I find it almost comical that some don't see through them as the grifters that they obviously are.
You want crooks like them to have access to SS money??? Our retirements would be backed by Trump Hotels in every podunk in America, everyone of them going bankrupt almost immediately.

#40 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-09 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm in favor of leaving the structure of SS as is.

Here's what I think needs to be done in order to shore up the solvency of SS AND Medicare:

Increase the FICA tax 1 point on each side.

Increase the income cap by $5000.

Slowly raise the age of elibility. 1 year a decade from now. Another year 5 years after that and a 3rd year 5 years after that.

I would love for the CBO to forecast what doing those 3 things would do to the unfunded liabilities of the 2 programs.

Also, it would be a mix of tax increases and spending cuts - a good compromise.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 01:50 PM | Reply

41

your last 2 items are sort of a reality already.

we've been increasing the income subject to the withholding consistently over time. at least at the rate of inflation.

and the benefit eligibility and ages have moved up over time as well.

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 01:57 PM | Reply

We point to the health care systems from these countries...but what about their retirement structures?

As a concession to conservatives, i'll agree to Sweden's model of social security if they'll agree to Sweden's model for healthcare, so long as there is something built into the social security scheme that protects the public from wild swings in the financial markets like the 2008 collapse.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-09 01:58 PM | Reply

"I'm in favor of leaving the structure of SS as is."

Aren't you one of those guys who says it's a Ponzi scheme?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 01:58 PM | Reply

43

If there is a knock at your door soon, it's going to be danni looking to hit you with something.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 02:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"we've been increasing the income subject to the withholding consistently over time. at least at the rate of inflation."

Well at least we're doing one thing right!

I would up the wage cap to however much the President makes, and pin it there by statute.
Actually, maybe pin it to the highest paid Federal employee, or even State employee.
I am fine with paying the University of Texas Football Defensive Coordinator $2 million a year, provided it has some benefit elsewhere in society, such as paying for Social Security.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 02:04 PM | Reply

"Increase the FICA tax 1 point on each side."

You can stop there. Do that, now, and SS is in balance for the next 75 years...or as actuaries call it, perpetuity.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Increase the FICA tax 1 point on each side."

Grover Norquist and the entire GOP on Line 2.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 02:13 PM | Reply

"Increase the FICA tax 1 point on each side."

fair idea...but it'll get attacked for being a middle class tax increase...and a large one at that...so it's hard to run with.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 02:19 PM | Reply

"Increase the FICA tax 1 point on each side."

You can stop there. Do that, now, and SS is in balance for the next 75 years...or as actuaries call it, perpetuity.

#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Keep in mind I said SS AND Medicare.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 02:24 PM | Reply

"fair idea...but it'll get attacked for being a middle class tax increase"

Which is also true.
Whereas upping the cap merely redistributes the burden towards those best suited to carry it.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"SS AND Medicare"

The latter will eventually require single-payer. We should start with a public option and refine the plan until it evolves into single-payer. The equation doesn't have a chance otherwise.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 02:28 PM | Reply

"and the benefit eligibility and ages have moved up over time as well."

But you of all folks know: not as much as needed.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 02:30 PM | Reply

www.ssa.gov

It's increased approximately at rate of inflation

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-09 02:42 PM | Reply

Many here don't really realize how valuable it is

You know why it's valuable to you Danni? It's because you are getting ALOT more out of SS than you ever put in. And in your mind, it's the treasury putting out the money, so it cant run out, like a private investment could.

That's why you are fighting so hard for this..

#55 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-09 03:01 PM | Reply

"It's because you are getting ALOT more out of SS than you ever put in."

This seems... iffy.
Social Security is set up where what you get out is based on what you put in.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The latter will eventually require single-payer. We should start with a public option and refine the plan until it evolves into single-payer. The equation doesn't have a chance otherwise."

When an American politician says they want to follow Western Europe's lead when it comes to healthcare, many are lying. At best, they don't know what they're asking for, or understand taxes in Europe.

Unlike Americans, Europeans aren't demanding that "the rich" pay for their healthcare. Instead, they pay hefty value added taxes on purchased. Here in Germany, it's 19% for most non-food consumer goods. Food it 7%.

I've said it time and time again since I moved to Europe and came face to face with it, but Bernie would be dead in the water if he proposed what would effectively be a 19% sales tax on TVs, cell phones, cars, and all the other things we spend money on.

And I would be interested to hear how many supporters of MFA would still be supporters if it was implemented alongside a 19% sales tax.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:10 PM | Reply

Increase the income cap by $5000.

Lift the cap.

#58 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-09 03:11 PM | Reply

"Unlike Americans, Europeans aren't demanding that "the rich" pay for their healthcare. Instead, they pay hefty value added taxes on purchased. Here in Germany, it's 19% for most non-food consumer goods."

Who pays more Euros into VAT, a rich person or a poor person?

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 03:14 PM | Reply

"As a concession to conservatives, i'll agree to Sweden's model of social security if they'll agree to Sweden's model for healthcare..."

Sweden has a 25% Value Added Tax on most goods and services.

...still down?

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:16 PM | Reply

"Sweden has a 25% Value Added Tax on most goods and services."

You get what you pay for.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 03:16 PM | Reply

"Who pays more Euros into VAT, a rich person or a poor person?"

Percentages are not adjusted based on one's income. A poor person will pay the same 25% rate as the rich person.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:17 PM | Reply

"You get what you pay for."

Are you saying you would be in favor of a 25% VAT to pay for a national healthcare scheme?

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:17 PM | Reply

Right, so who pays more money for health care that's funded through VAT, a rich person or a poor person?

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 03:17 PM | Reply

There's no right ow wrong answer.

I'm simply pointing out that, unlike the US, Europeans appear willing to bear the cost of government plans themselves, rather than shifting the responsibilities of carrying those burdens to others.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:18 PM | Reply

"Right, so who pays more money for health care that's funded through VAT, a rich person or a poor person?"

Hmm. That's a good question. Kind of along the lines of who pays more in taxes in the US? The rich or the poor?

Of course we know the rich pay more, because the CBO and others collect data showing that the enormous gap between who pays taxes and who doesn't.

Given that the VAT is equally applied to all members of society, it would be much more difficult to track that sort of information.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:21 PM | Reply

If nothing else...the VAT is a fair tax. Much fairer than anything we have here in the US.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-09 03:22 PM | Reply

This doesn't have to be like pulling teeth, you know.

You could just acknowledge that rich people spend more money than poor people, you ------- doofus.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the CBO and others collect data showing that the enormous gap between who pays taxes and who doesn't."

No one doesn't pay taxes, unless you're playing Humpty Dumpty with your definitions.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 03:46 PM | Reply

#69 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I knew this post was coming.

Everyone knows what madbomber is referring to but DeflectionDan.

#70 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-09 03:54 PM | Reply

Everyone knows what madbomber is referring to"

Exactly. He wants to count the taxes he wants to count, and ignore all the taxes he wants to ignore because they ruined his argument.

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 03:58 PM | Reply

"Everyone knows what madbomber is referring to"

Specifically, Republican Math.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 04:26 PM | Reply

"Stock market is for gambling not for retirement pensions"
Genius

Tell that to pension investors all over the world.
You continue to expose yourself daily.

#73 | Posted by homerj at 2019-09-09 04:40 PM | Reply

"Tell that to pension investors all over the world."

Pension investors, with billions of dollars in assets under management.
Do they know more about investing that your average retiree, or are they pretty much the same?

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 04:54 PM | Reply

"we'll invest a percentage of our SS payments into the stock market but the handlers of those funds will have to accept immediate death if they fail. "

On who's horizon?

And define "fail".

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 06:32 PM | Reply

"Stock market is for gambling not for retirement pensions"

That depends on your timeline, and your actuarial pool.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 06:34 PM | Reply

"Stock market is for gambling not for retirement pensions.

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI "

Only if you are a day trader. The stock market has proven to be, by far, the best long term (decades) investment as far as return and minimalization of risk.

#77 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-09 06:42 PM | Reply

Talk about Europes's social examples and libs are "But, but, but Norway does it this way. Sweden does it that way. Therefore, the US can, too".

#78 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-09 07:00 PM | Reply

The privatization they're describing in the article is a lot like a 401(K). What they did was allowed a portion of the company's total pension contribution for that worker to be diverted to an employee-directed investment account.

Whereas, what happened in America, is they mostly got rid of pension plans, and replaced them with employee-directed investment accounts, aka 401(K)s and IRAs.

The pension system in Sweden looks like an actual national system designed to meet Sweden's needs, which is not a thing I can say about America.

Pension Systems
Sweden's public pension pillar is unique in Western Europe. Part of the social security contribution is paid into individual investment accounts and a funded pension is built up with independent fund management companies responsible for the asset management.

In addition, mandatory occupational pension schemes are in place for employees working in industries covered by nationwide collective bargaining agreements. Employers who are not part of collective agreements may offer plans on a voluntary basis. Voluntary individual pension savings complement the pension landscape in Sweden.

www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk
Public Pensions
The public pension system consists of three elements:

1. The income-based pension
The major component of the state pension system is the income-based pension. It is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. The contribution rate amounts to 16%, which is recorded in notional accounts. The retirement age is flexible and retirement benefits can be claimed from the age of 61 at the earliest...

2. The premium pension
The premium pension is the funded part of the earnings-related old-age pension. The premium pension system is administered by the state Premium Pension Authority (PPM)...

3. The guaranteed pension
In addition to the income-based and premium pension, the guaranteed pension, a means-tested benefit, provides a minimum pension for persons older than 65 with low or no income and at least 40 years of residency in Sweden. It is financed by the government's budget...

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-09 07:08 PM | Reply

Well, even the Swede have their greedy scum to contend with all centered around financial mischief.

#80 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-09-10 12:55 AM | Reply

"You could just acknowledge that rich people spend more money than poor people, you ------- doofus."

And you could just acknowledge that rich people pay more taxes than poor people, you ------ doofus.

But again, that's not the case here. A rich person, at least one who is still earning income, will pay more in taxes for each dollar earned than a poorer person will.

The richest person in Germany is going to pay the same VTA as the poorest.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-10 06:58 AM | Reply

"No one doesn't pay taxes, unless you're playing Humpty Dumpty with your definitions."

How so?

As a resident of Idaho, I don't pay Massachusetts taxes. And actually, I don't pay taxes in Idaho. While deployed, I didn't pay any Federal Income Taxes. With the exception of FICA SS and FICA Medicare. Because they are being collected to fund my own entitlements. Without me paying in, I would have no claim to the entitlements.

That would be OK, but let's stop the dishonest by pretending that FICA taxes, which income earners do pay as a means of funding individual future-year needs, is the same as paying federal income taxes that actually fund society.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-10 07:07 AM | Reply

"Talk about Europes's social examples and libs are "But, but, but Norway does it this way. Sweden does it that way. Therefore, the US can, too".

But they're selective when they talk about it. Again-the big difference between the US and Europe is that Europeans are committed to accepting those larger tax burdens-themselves, as opposed to trying to unload them on someone else-as a means of providing services.

And I've noticed that no one has answered my question about proponents of Medicare for All supporting Value Added Taxation as the mechanism for funding the plan. I can only assume that they don't. When they say they want a European-style healthcare system, they're not being honest. Europeans are willing to pay for their care. Progressives want someone else to pay for it.

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-10 07:10 AM | Reply

If nothing else...the VAT is a fair tax. Much fairer than anything we have here in the US.

#67 | Posted by madbomber

A VAT tax is a regressive tax. The poor pay in at a far greater percentage of their income than the wealthy.

#84 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-09-10 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Stock market is for gambling not for retirement pensions. Just because it hasn't collapsed badly enough doesn't prove it won't."

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-09-09 10:24 AM | FLAG: Really? That's news to me.

"Until relatively recently, pensions funds invested primarily in stocks and bonds. Today, they invest in a variety of asset classes including private equity, real estate, infrastructure, and securities that hedge inflation."
Where Do Pension Funds Typically Invest? - Investopedia

www.investopedia.com articles credit-loans-mortgages what-do-...<>

#85 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-10 01:10 PM | Reply

"These pension plans are at risk of going broke. Now lawmakers need to agree on a fix"

www.cnbc.com

So, say we let them invest SS in stocks, etc. what entity would be capable of bailing it out?

#86 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-10 01:35 PM | Reply

Takers get an excellent return on their SS investment and don't want to privatize or invest it. Makers don't get such excellent returns.

#87 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-10 02:01 PM | Reply

"A VAT tax is a regressive tax. The poor pay in at a far greater percentage of their income than the wealthy."

I don't think you understand how VAT works. Unlike taxes on earned income, VAT is collected at the point of sale. Someone who doesn't spend much is going to pay less in VATs than someone who spends more...regardless of how much money they make.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-10 02:01 PM | Reply

"The richest person in Germany is going to pay the same VTA as the poorest."

No, they're going to pay the same rate.
Their tax amount will be much higher.

Looks like you are emotionally invested in not comparing quantities, but only rates, so I won't bother trying to break up your happy marriage to half-truths.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-10 02:05 PM | Reply

You clearly don't understand what a regressive tax means, or how VAT -- or any sales tax -- is regressive.

Because you're willfully ignorant.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-10 02:07 PM | Reply

Sales taxes are regressive. Google it.

#91 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-10 02:29 PM | Reply

See, even this right-wing goon agrees with me, MadBomber.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-10 02:31 PM | Reply

I enjoy seeing the Conservatives point to this as something to emulate...

They just ignore the part where workers/employers pay 18.5% taxes on salaries to the pension system.

It's probably not so bad to privatize 2.5% when 18.5% is being taken. We are only at 12.4%.

#93 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-10 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Looks like you are emotionally invested in not comparing quantities, but only rates, so I won't bother trying to break up your happy marriage to half-truths."

Truth be told, I've tried comparing quantities...only to be told that it's rates that matter.

In fact I think you've told me that. Danforth most certainly has.

"Because you're willfully ignorant."

Maybe I'm just buying in to Europe's vision of "regressive policies" as the answer to funding things like...I dunno...healthcare?

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-10 02:46 PM | Reply

"Sales taxes are regressive. Google it."

Only because pricing schemes are regressive.

If a new car cost less for someone on welfare than it would for someone with more money, the tax scheme would follow suit.

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-10 02:50 PM | Reply

"Maybe I'm just buying in to Europe's vision of "regressive policies" as the answer to funding things like...I dunno...healthcare?"

So which universal health care paradigm do you support for America?
www.kingsfund.org.uk

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-10 02:56 PM | Reply

"Sales taxes are regressive. Google it."

"Only because pricing schemes are regressive."

No, those are entirely unrelated.

Sales tax is regressive because poorer people spend a larger percentage of their income to buy the same stuff, resulting in a higher effective tax rate on those purchases.

When I earn ten dollars and buy a dollar of stuff and pay a ten cent tax, that's a 1% tax on my earnings.
When I earn a hundred dollars and buy a dollar of stuff and pay a ten cent tax, that's a 0.1% tax on my earnings.

I'm starting to think you don't know the meanings of the very basic terms being used in this discussion.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-10 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't think you understand how VAT works. Unlike taxes on earned income, VAT is collected at the point of sale. Someone who doesn't spend much is going to pay less in VATs than someone who spends more...regardless of how much money they make.

#88 | Posted by madbomber

I TOTALLY understand how it works. Why don't you?

Again if you read what I posted - AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME the poor pay more than the wealthy. All sales taxes are a form of regressive taxation. Wealthy people don't have to spend all their money. In fact the truly wealthy only "spend" a small fraction. Yes they "pay more" in taxes but as a PERCENTAGE OF INCOME it is far less than even the middle class.

#98 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-09-10 04:10 PM | Reply

The race to have healthcare run by Donald Trump.

You're going to love it. USA Number One.

#99 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-11 07:35 AM | Reply

"No, those are entirely unrelated."

You don't think pricing schemes are regressive?

Right now, the richest shopper on Amazon is going to pay just as much for an Echo as the poorest.

#100 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 09:28 AM | Reply

"I'm starting to think you don't know the meanings of the very basic terms being used in this discussion."

Trust me, I do. You refer to is as "regressive taxation." I call it equal, or fair taxation. But the tax scheme itself is unchanged.

And to the larget point, which no one has yet to answer, is whether or not those who are in favor in a western-european style healthcare scheme would remain supportive if is was accompanied by a western european style funding scheme. So far, all I've heard is crickets...

...which leads me to believe that no one wants a western european style heathcare plan if they pay for it the way the people in western europe pay for it. And crickets are why you don't see bernie or Liz out there pushing any sort of VAT.

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 09:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-And crickets are why you don't see bernie or Liz out there pushing any sort of VAT.

not even in their primary.....

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 09:50 AM | Reply

--no one wants a western european style heathcare plan if they pay for it the way the people in western europe pay for it.

Ancient Chinese proverb: Free stuff loses glitter when not free.

#103 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-11 10:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

no one wants a western european style heathcare plan if they pay for it the way the people in western europe pay for it.

Does "no one" include western europeans?

#104 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 10:34 AM | Reply

-Does "no one" include western europeans?

of course not...they don't vote in US elections.

#105 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 10:46 AM | Reply

whether or not those who are in favor in a western-european style healthcare scheme would remain supportive if is was accompanied by a western european style funding scheme

Americans currently spend more on healthcare than western europeans do. They just pay it out of their own pocket and via contributions from their employer. If an American was "in favor of a western-european style healthcare scheme" why would they care if they spent less on healthcare in the form of taxes?

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 10:59 AM | Reply

They just pay it out of their own pocket and via contributions from their employer. If an American was "in favor of a western-european style healthcare scheme" why would they care if they spent less on healthcare in the form of taxes?

#106 | POSTED BY JOE

We've gone over this before. You have to be able to convince 10's of millions of people that they are going to pay more and get less and this includes a big part of the Dem base - Think: UAW workers. Further, polling shows that 85% of people who have plans through their employer are satisfied with said plans. It is a REALLY tall order getting people to willingly give up those plans and go on a government plan. Then, you will have people pointing to the flaws in government run plans - long waits, in some cases substandard care, rationing, etc. On top of that, the health insurance lobby is extremely powerful and it was because ACA was structured in a way that was favorable to that industry that they threw their weight behind ACA and can probably be cited as a reason that it was able to be barely dragged across the finish line even with big Dem majorities in both Houses.

A public option gets you there over time. Why? Because it's impossible to compete with government when they can write the rules and officiate the market in favor of their own plan. Essentially, with a public option, the government can (and most certainly will) simply regulate private insurance out of business.

Can't get there all at once. See: Overton Window.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 11:11 AM | Reply

-why would they care if they spent less on healthcare in the form of taxes?

you'd have to show them that...nobody has done that yet.

you'll have to show folks how a VAT is cheaper than what they do now.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-11 11:12 AM | Reply

you'll have to show folks how a VAT is cheaper than what they do now.

#108 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The problem is a VAT is more expensive for UAW workers and they get less coverage for more money out of their pockets.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 11:15 AM | Reply

You have to be able to convince 10's of millions of people that they are going to pay more and get less

Even if that is true, Madbomber's question was limited to Americans who already "favor a western european style healthcare system." So those people don't need convincing. But i'll address your post anyway.

they are going to pay more and get less

We have indeed been over this. While those Americans with top tier plans now will indeed "get less" from their Medicare policy, every estimate shows Medicare costing less than a top tier policy, and there is nothing stopping those people from procuring a supplemental private healthcare plan to shore up Medicare and make it equal to what they have now. It could even be at their employer's expense - just as it is now.

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 11:37 AM | Reply

you'd have to show them that...nobody has done that yet.

The studies are out there. If you mean a politician needs to convince people, i agree. So far misinformation has dominated the debate.

Dems are terrible at selling left policy. Probably because most of them aren't all that interested in implementing left policy in the first place.

#111 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 11:38 AM | Reply

Joe,

I'm not denying the math.

I am merely pointing out the steep political hurdles that await any politician making a serious push for single-payer.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 11:39 AM | Reply

The problem is a VAT is more expensive for UAW workers and they get less coverage for more money out of their pockets.

You seem to be missing the big picture.

Let's say a top tier insurance plan costs $30,000. And that someone's employer pays $26,000 of it and the employee pays $4,000 of it.

Let's also say the Medicare premium is $24,000. In that scenario, the employer could pay the entire premium and still be $2,000 in the black. They and the employee could split a supplemental policy that costs $6,000 with nobody having paid a cent more than they do now.

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 11:42 AM | Reply

I'm not denying the math.

Yes you are. When you say people will pay more, that is denying the math. I admit they will get less - but they will not pay more, and the "less" can actually be made right at little to no cost to the employee.

#114 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 11:43 AM | Reply

The part I'm excited for. Where the diehards convince people how much they're going to love 50% taxation and 25% sales tax, and their life will be better because of the competence and efficiency of the US Federal Government.

#115 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-11 12:38 PM | Reply

"Does "no one" include western europeans?"

I'm specifically referring to Americans.

I don't hear a lot of complaints out of the locals about the VATs.

"Americans currently spend more on healthcare than western europeans do. They just pay it out of their own pocket and via contributions from their employer. If an American was "in favor of a western-european style healthcare scheme" why would they care if they spent less on healthcare in the form of taxes?"

So...can we chalk you up as being in favor of a 19% VAT? If it is used to fund some form of government-provided healthcare?

#116 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 01:30 PM | Reply

"Even if that is true, Madbomber's question was limited to Americans who already "favor a western european style healthcare system." So those people don't need convincing. But i'll address your post anyway."

That is absolutely NOT true.

I have heard many progressives say they are in favor or a western European style system...but not when a VAT is folded in as the funding mechanism. Because I don't think many Americans know what a VAT is or how it works, and the progressives who do know don't want that word getting around.

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 01:33 PM | Reply

"While those Americans with top tier plans now will indeed "get less" from their Medicare policy, every estimate shows Medicare costing less than a top tier policy, and there is nothing stopping those people from procuring a supplemental private healthcare plan to shore up Medicare and make it equal to what they have now."

You're making an assumption here. Where Bernie goes off into uncharted territory is where his plan would prohibit healthcare plans that would compete with government plans. The language is a little vague, but this could (and I think would be) be interpreted as, "if the government offers this service, private providers cannot." Which would effectively make supplemental health plans illegal.

I don't think this is very likely...I think it would be brought to light prior to implementation. But I also think Bernie correctly understands that, as long as private care is available, the government will never be able to totally control costs and distribution.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 01:37 PM | Reply

"Yes you are. When you say people will pay more, that is denying the math. I admit they will get less - but they will not pay more, and the "less" can actually be made right at little to no cost to the employee."

So far, the selling point for MFA has been that the rich would pay for it, allowing costs to be reduced for everyone else. So yes, many people would pay more, while getting less.

...unless it was funded by a VAT.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 01:40 PM | Reply

So far, the selling point for MFA has been that the rich would pay for it, allowing costs to be reduced for everyone else.

No, that's the Republican strawman. Facts are that Americans already pay more than any other country for healthcare and that they will pay less for Medicare for All. Can you respond to those facts or do you only deal in strawmen?

#120 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 01:59 PM | Reply

his plan would prohibit healthcare plans that would compete with government plans

A supplemental plan that provides coverage on top of Medicare does not necessarily compete with Medicare. If it wouldn't be purchased as a standalone plan it is not a competitor.

#121 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 02:00 PM | Reply

So...can we chalk you up as being in favor of a 19% VAT? If it is used to fund some form of government-provided healthcare?

If it's funded by my employer in the form of increased wages since they aren't paying tens of thousands of dollars to an insurance company anymore? Or perhaps even paid by them directly, just as my health insurance premium is now? And it costs less than my healthcare does today? Sure. Why wouldn't i be?

#122 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 02:02 PM | Reply

"Because I don't think many Americans know what a VAT is or how it works"

Its a sales tax doofus.
Everybody knows how that works.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 02:18 PM | Reply

"The part I'm excited for. Where the diehards convince people how much they're going to love 50% taxation and 25% sales tax"

You forgot the nearly zero corporate tax rate.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 02:20 PM | Reply

"No, that's the Republican strawman. Facts are that Americans already pay more than any other country for healthcare and that they will pay less for Medicare for All. Can you respond to those facts or do you only deal in strawmen?"

How is it a strawman when Bernie himself has proposed funding MFA by increasing the top rate on incomes over $10M to 70%, as well as a 77% on inheritance tax, and an unspecified tax on "extreme wealth."

Nothing about the patients themselves paying for it.

What I will say is that, if the government were able to provide the same quality healthcare (or better) at the same cost (or better), people will go for it. I just don't see that happening.

"A supplemental plan that provides coverage on top of Medicare does not necessarily compete with Medicare. If it wouldn't be purchased as a standalone plan it is not a competitor."

That's the question Joe. If the government (MFA) offers a hip replacement with an average wait time of 8 months, would a private plan that offered it in 8 weeks be seen as competition? It's a valid question, because if the supplemental plan pays better, those patients are the ones doctors will see first. In the UK, there is a huge difference between the way NHS patients are treated and those with private insurance. In the UK, specialists will routinely reject referrals on the grounds that they could be handled by a GP. But, if the patient has supplemental healthcare, they will be seen very quickly. Specialists in the UK make up to 50% of their total income by seeing patients with private healthcare. The same would likely be true in the US.

"Its a sales tax doofus."

The fact that you say that is 100% why I don't think Americans understand VATs. Unless you happened to be joking.

#125 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 02:35 PM | Reply

You continue to miss the big picture.

In 2017 Americans spent $10,224 per person on healthcare. The next country on the list was Switzerland at $8,009. Swedes spent $5,511, Germans $5,728. And whether you measure a system by access, administrative efficiency, health outcomes, or equity, those countries all outpace the United States, in many cases at half the cost.

If there is a good reason not to emulate their systems, i'm not seeing why. The only argument i ever see against it is that a fraction of Americans with top tier policies might somehow have lesser coverage than they do today. But (1) we shouldn't let a vast minority control the debate; and (2) other countries allear to be providing their citizens with "more," not "less," when you look at the data.

#126 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*appear

#127 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 03:08 PM | Reply

"The fact that you say that is 100% why I don't think Americans understand VATs."

LOL whatever.
What am I missing?

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:08 PM | Reply

"And whether you measure a system by access, administrative efficiency, health outcomes, or equity, those countries all outpace the United States, in many cases at half the cost."

He rejects all those measures.

The only measure I'm aware of, that he truly believes in, is MRI machines per capita.

He's broken beyond repair.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:10 PM | Reply

"LOL whatever. What am I missing?"

Uhh...pretty much all of it?

Did you even try and Google VAT?

#130 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 03:13 PM | Reply

If it were a sales tax, they would simply call it a sales tax. It's not.

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 03:13 PM | Reply

"If it were a sales tax, they would simply call it a sales tax. It's not."

You mean like the way we call our sales tax a sales tax, but it doesn't actually apply to all things that get sold?

You have been educated beyond your intelligence.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:16 PM | Reply

You don't know what a VAT is, do you?

#133 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 03:29 PM | Reply

You don't know you're making a fool of yourself, do you?

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 03:32 PM | Reply

"He rejects all those measures. The only measure I'm aware of, that he truly believes in, is MRI machines per capita."

You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the availability of healthcare (or MRI machines per capita) is the biggest complaint for those who have a government healthcare program. Because more MRIs per capita translates into less time waiting for an MRI. Or hip replacements. Or cataract repair. Or whatever.

#135 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 03:39 PM | Reply

I'm going to try and move this discussion forward:

What is a Value-Added Tax (VAT)?
A value-added tax (VAT) is a consumption tax placed on a product whenever value is added at each stage of the supply chain, from production to the point of sale. The amount of VAT that the user pays is on the cost of the product, less any of the costs of materials used in the product that have already been taxed.

It operates differently than a sales tax which is applied only at the point of sale.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-11 03:41 PM | Reply

"You don't know you're making a fool of yourself, do you?"

Dude, trust me. I know a dumb USan when I see one.

Most USans grown up shielded from the realities of the world. They know their little postage stamp...but that's pretty much it.

It's unfortunate...but nothing to be ashamed about. You're pretty much the basic USan.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 03:43 PM | Reply

It operates quite a bit differently. But in ways Snoofy is not going to be familiar with, viewing the world from inside his parent's basement.

#138 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-11 03:45 PM | Reply

I'm going to try and move this discussion forward:

The discussion was moved forward in #126.

Certain people aren't interested in responding, so the discussion will sit and rot. As usual.

#139 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-11 03:51 PM | Reply

"It operates quite a bit differently."

From the consumer perspective it's practically indistinguishabe from a sales tax.

It's like saying a gas powered truck amd a diesel powered truck operate quite a bit differently. Makes little difference to the person getting run over by one.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-11 04:23 PM | Reply

"From the consumer perspective it's practically indistinguishable from a sales tax."

It's actually not. Consumers don't actually pay the tax. It's already been included in the cost of production. It's part of the total cost of the item being purchased.

#141 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-12 03:02 AM | Reply

You forgot the nearly zero corporate tax rate.

#124 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-11 02:20 PM | FLAG:

Sweden corporate tax rate: 22%
Denmark corporate tax rate: 22%
US corporate tax rate: 21%
Norway corporate tax rate: 19.7%
UK corporate tax rate: 19%

Ours was previously 35%, same as France. Both countries have cut at about the same time. France is down to 28% and will end at 25%.

#142 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-12 10:09 AM | Reply

"Ours was previously 35%, same as France. Both countries have cut at about the same time. France is down to 28% and will end at 25%."

Yeah...nearly zero dude.

#143 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-12 02:53 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort