Another vote loser.Follow

You guys are totally looking at this backwards. You're trying to calculate the tax rates on individual economic transactions. That's far too complex and inaccurate when you're looking at the big picture of national economics.

When I say "tax rate" in the context of a nations economy, I'm talking about the percentage of a nations GDP that is consumed by its government. I don't care how that happens. It could be because some portion of the GDP is generated via state run industry. It could be due to taxes, levies, tarrifs, whatever. It does not matter. I'm measuring what percentage of the productive output of a nation remains in the hands of that nations citizens versus what percentage remains in the hands of its government (economic "freedom" if you will).

This is really easy to calculate. Simply divide federal revenues (the amount of money the government makes each year) by the GDP (the total amount generated by the economy). Sweeden has a GDP of 268B and federal revenues of 210B. Thus, 210/268=.783, which means Sweedens "overall tax rate" is 78.3% or "almost 80%".

In contast, the US's GDP is 12.41 Trillion, and its federal revenue is 2.12 Trillion, giving it a 17% "tax rate". Thus, the US government consumes 17% of the US economy, leaving the other 83% in the hands of private citizens to do with as they please. Sweeden's government consumes 78% of the economy, leaving only 22% for the private citizens to do with as they please.


That's the point I was getting at. It's a dramatic difference. That's the "cost" of socialism. If you're ok with the government deciding how the money is divvied up, then by all means support socialism and praise nations like Sweeden. If you'd rather that the people keep and use their money as they wish, then you wont see Sweeden as a success story at all...

Edited, Aug 17th 2006 at 10:47pm EDT by gbaji

I remember hearing former NY governor Mario Cuomo being interviewed by Larry King, and Mario said several times, as if it were a mantra: "We just wanted to 'do good,' Larry. We just wanted to 'do good.'"

I admire this goal. Making like better for normal people is a wonderful thing, and it's what has turned virtually the whole world socialist. Even the USA is partially socialist, although we don't want to admit it. This is a simple message that resonates with average folk, and when it works, it's great.

But that's the problem: making it work.

Here's what I don't understand. Why is it that we take some of our most noble endeavors - the quest to "do good" - and put the responsibility for carrying this out in the hands of some of the most wretched, awful people in all creation?

The bureaucrats.

We hate corporations for very good reasons. They exist to serve themselves - to pay their CEOs and fatcat shareholders at apparently any cost to the rest of us - including pollution and selling out jobs (they will casually put 1000s of people out of work to bump up earnings a few points - they will permanently move jobs overseas for the same reason). While Gbaji can explain to us why there are "good" reasons for this - most of us still will hate corporations (I would guess) - and - here's what's important - how are government bureacrats different?

Well, they are different - but not in the areas that count. I have friends who still believe in the myth of the tireless, selfless, honest "civil servant" - a wonderful person who gave up a shot at making big money in the private sector to instead slog it out in the bureacracy's trenches to "do good." I have to laugh at this dream.

Maybe in Eurpoe you guys are able to attract quality people to run your gov't programs. In the USA we are not.

Anyway, we just blithely and often blindly accept that bureaucrats are going to run our sacred "doing good" programs - and they ***** almost all of them up.

But we're unlikely to ever see change or improvement here. This issue is complex and can't be easily reduced to a sound bite. In the USA, Dims aren't going to bring it up - why should they? It would make no sense. Rips should bring it up, but the truth is - once they get entrenched, they feed the bureacratic system almost the same as the Dims.

A few years ago I saw a spark of light on this issue. A Dim governor of Georgia said the waiting times at his state's DMV (where you renew drivers licenses, etc.) were so bad that he was going to institute a "pizza promise" - if you didn't get service w/in 30 minutes of arriving at a DMW office, your transaction was free. I don't know if this ever went into effect, or if it worked. But it was one little bright spot for me - one politician was thinking "how can I make gov't serve the voter" - rather than the other way around.

This is what is missing in socialism, at least in the USA - a sense of "we're here to serve you." Instead, they become a "big brother" (bad metaphor perhaps) or a parental figure who are there to "take care of us" - not to "serve" us. For you Europeans, I have no idea if this is an issue for you. But if you've ever wondered why Americans in the bottom two quintiles "vote against their pocketbook," this is one reason they do it (one of many) - they feel, consciously or unconsciously, that whatever program or service offered to them by the gov't will be complete crap - because it won't be well administered.

I submit that if the Dims could restructure their socialist offer towards one of service to people rather than enservitude of people to them ... that they'd be in charge of things again. I know many of you won't see it this way - but I'm not surprised. This facet of the problem is not easily reduced to a media sound bite, and therefore you're not used to this issue. Please trust me - it's huge - and we're mostly blind to it.

I like Pie

I got them from the CIA factbook figures at theodora.

Click on this year. Scroll down to Sweeden. Click on it. Click on "economy". Read. Find where it says "GDP-purchasing power parity". That's your GDP value. Scroll down to where it has budget numbers. Read off the Revenue figure. Do some really simple math...


Do you know where that reform website got its numbers? I'm betting the just add up "taxes". But that's not the whole picture. While calling it the "national tax rate" may not be technically correct, it is relevant. I'm trying to find the total amount of a nations economy that is consumed/controlled directly by its government. Unless you can think of a better way to do this then simply looking at the total "revenue" of the government, I'll continue to use this as my baseline method.

I'm not measuring "tax burden on citizens". I'm measuring the cost of a government in total. Those are different things.

Winberry > Gerbils

Word