> The country scrapped wealth and inheritance taxes in the 2000s, and tax rates on money made from stocks and pay outs to company shareholders are much lower than taxes on salaries. The corporate tax rate has also dropped from around 30% in the 1990s to around 20% - slightly lower than the European average.
Right now the ultra wealthy in Sweden are pouring that money back into their local economy. But that won't last. Eventually it will get passed down and children will not feel obligated to do the same thing. This is why they should keep the corporate rate high and bring back the wealth and inheritance tax.
In addition to mytailorisrich's comment, this is a vacuous description of Sweden's economy because many of its new billionaires are operating in a global technology and finance economy that wouldn't exist without US capitalism. If a Swedish company lists their IPO on the New York Stock Exchange and the founder becomes a billionaire, they became a billionaire via the American economy, not solely the Swedish one.
I suspect there is effectively a "negative externality" of income inequality, where Swedish residents can enjoy America's horrible shareholder-first corporate culture, without directly screwing over the Swedish poor. To be clear I am not trying to say that the Swedish are exploiting the US[1] and the Stockholm exchange does make plenty of billionaires (Ericsson is listed there). But you can't consider, say, Spotify to be a Swedish success story in isolation.
[1] In the precise same sense that most US corporations are not "exploiting" Delaware.
In the literal context of my comment, we can say that when the UN establishes a stock exchange :)
Obviously I am kidding, I meant "via the American economy" in a literal sense, via Wall Street (or Silicon Valley). I agree it makes more sense to view this stuff as a global economy with the US as simply a very big player.
[flagged]
> The country scrapped wealth and inheritance taxes in the 2000s, and tax rates on money made from stocks and pay outs to company shareholders are much lower than taxes on salaries. The corporate tax rate has also dropped from around 30% in the 1990s to around 20% - slightly lower than the European average.
There's no miracle...
Right now the ultra wealthy in Sweden are pouring that money back into their local economy. But that won't last. Eventually it will get passed down and children will not feel obligated to do the same thing. This is why they should keep the corporate rate high and bring back the wealth and inheritance tax.
In addition to mytailorisrich's comment, this is a vacuous description of Sweden's economy because many of its new billionaires are operating in a global technology and finance economy that wouldn't exist without US capitalism. If a Swedish company lists their IPO on the New York Stock Exchange and the founder becomes a billionaire, they became a billionaire via the American economy, not solely the Swedish one.
I suspect there is effectively a "negative externality" of income inequality, where Swedish residents can enjoy America's horrible shareholder-first corporate culture, without directly screwing over the Swedish poor. To be clear I am not trying to say that the Swedish are exploiting the US[1] and the Stockholm exchange does make plenty of billionaires (Ericsson is listed there). But you can't consider, say, Spotify to be a Swedish success story in isolation.
[1] In the precise same sense that most US corporations are not "exploiting" Delaware.
At what point can we say 'via the global economy'?
In the literal context of my comment, we can say that when the UN establishes a stock exchange :)
Obviously I am kidding, I meant "via the American economy" in a literal sense, via Wall Street (or Silicon Valley). I agree it makes more sense to view this stuff as a global economy with the US as simply a very big player.
The Dutch are to blame for all of this.