US Trails Socialist Giants!

Loose monetary policy and out of control fiscal policy, taxes that are too high and until recently a real estate bubble. Let's keep this in perspective though, Sweden will never be an economic giant.

Now let's look at the market reaction's to our policies, while we pretend to have deflation, the dollar is sinking against a host of commodities, the Japanese Yen & the Swiss Franc.

So while the gov't manipulates the yield curve, the effect shows up in commodities and currencies. The world prefers safe currencies like the Yen & the Franc and it costs us more to buy Gold, Oil, Food and products produced in Japan , Switzerland and the Krona which is at a two year high.

Our taxes have never been lower in the last 50 years; we seem to be lowering our taxes into national oblivion.

Not clear. Property taxes are through the roof and the discussion from Washington there seems to be a desire to punish earners with higher taxes rather than cut spending.

"Our taxes have never been lower in the last 50 years; we seem to be lowering our taxes into national oblivion" - is this sarcasm or are you mad??

Gov't is inclined to tax more and spend inefficiently. Look at the latest proposal out of white house, more inefficient spending. If the gov't wanted to invest efficiently in projects for our future it would end Davis Bacon, collective bargaining, engage in a true bidding process including non-union and foreign producers.

Tax rates in this country have been going up for the last twenty years... Also Maly what you are not considering is the effect of inflation which pushes us all into higher income tax brackets. You also seem to be ignoring property tax rates, sales tax rates and a whole host of other ways government at the Federal State and Local level reach into our pocket book.

Even with the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" (35% federal plus 11% state and local for NYC residents, not to mention medicare and social security), the top income tax rates in Singapore (20%) and Switzerland (11.5%) are MUCH lower than the top US rates. Sweden's national rate is lower (25%), but is somewhat higher when you include municipal income taxes (53-59%). Nice try.

http://www.taxrates.cc/

"Tax rates in this country have been going up for the last twenty years"

Really?

Americans paid the LOWEST taxes under Obama in 2009 since 1950.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

"If the gov't wanted to invest efficiently in projects for our future it would end Davis Bacon, collective bargaining, engage in a true bidding process including non-union and foreign producers."

Oh, great! Back to the days of the Robber Barons!

Careful there, Riversider: I'm a Vanderbilt on my mother's side, a cousin of the rich ones. See you in Biltmore, where you'll be polishing my silver and bronze.

HAHAHAHAHA!

What was the lsat product you bought or your company bought from Singapore or Switzerland or Sweden?

Chocolate.

Power.

Sweden has a SURPLUS. Not a deficit, a SURPLUS. So too does Finland, Sweden, and Norway. No out of control deficits there, no sir. Same or lower unemployment rates. Better economic growth. Canada beats us too. Hmmm...

I am not kidding or sarcastic. It's kind of funny when people say with a straight face that US taxes have been going up in the last 20 or 50 years. This is not true, unless you look at a little bit out of context. By most measures, taxes are way down for most people in the US, and are down in aggregate. At exactly the same level of income, adjusted for inflation, most people are paying less now than under Reagan. The post-war low was 1950, after a big tax cut, to 14.4%; it only lasted 1 year, as taxes were increased to pay for the Korean war (as an aside, isn't it nice people paid for their own wars back then, instead of passing the buck to their kids?). By 1952, the tax burden was back to 19% of the GDP, and had risen to 20.8% by 1980. Reagan's tax cuts (well really not just tax cuts, but maybe tax revolutions?) in 1981 and 1986 managed to get the tax burden down to 18% in 1990. This was the start of our new and improved tax math, the "revenue neutral" tax cut, where we are supposed to believe that decreases in marginal tax rates actually increase tax collection. After Clinton increased taxes in 1993, the tax burden was back to 20.8% in 2000. Bush tax cuts echoed Reagan-era reforms, adjusting taxes for the wealthiest, to encourage investments, in a revenue-neutral fashion - interestingly enough, the main results were to explode the Federal debt, and widen the gulf between the hoi polloi and the other .5% - a coincidence, I'm sure.
Anyway, by 2009 the tax burden was the lowest since 1950. I know it runs counter to what you've heard and what you intuitively "know", but go ahead and check.

Under Regan the top bracket was lowered to 28%. It's never been that low since. Furthermore income tax rates are not indexed to inflation. So more people over time get pushed into the higher brackets. Furthermore today's real estate taxes are higher than in Reagan's time. Sales tax is higher too. And with health care the dividend tax rate was raised.

Its hard to argue with those lack of statistics, Riversider. But Reagan also raised the social security tax and eliminated a bunch of loopholes.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

Let's face it, Reagan would be facing a primary challenge today from some tea party hack.

'Under Regan the top bracket was lowered to 28%. It's never been that low since."

You are a dunce and a moron. Its EFFECTIVE tax rates that matter, NOT nominal rates! As Malthus points out, its the taxes you pay net of deductions, credits, write-offs, whatever. Net-net, taxes are lower as a percentage of GDP and for the vast majority of Americans then they have been in my lifetime.

...So to be clear, the EFFECTIVE tax rates under Eisenhower were NOT 90%. You frikin idiot. They highest EFFECTIVE marginal tax rate for the past 30 years was about 37%. See slide 8 of 10 at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266216/

See a bunch of data on this at

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/comparing-tax-rate-by-income/

about 6 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

"Our taxes have never been lower in the last 50 years; we seem to be lowering our taxes into national oblivion."

Only for the 47% of americans who pay ZERO in income tax.... For the top 2%, they're lugging the rest on their backs. I think it's time for the 47% to start paying their 'fair share'.

So ugly Julia..how much would you suggest? A family of four with two kids under 17 can earn up to $50 k before paying fed income tax. Of course, they are paying their share of FICA, as well as sales tax. How much would you like them to pay? How much would make you happy, ugly one?

julialarge, you are an insult for morons...

and tell me, are you the top 2%? FLMAOz... I guarantee you I'm in the top 2%, lovez paying my taxes.. hell if our sailboat went down mid-channel, pop off the EPIRB, had some burly coast guard dude in the water in 15 minutes, we'd been back at the yacht club by the first course....

"Americans paid the LOWEST taxes under Obama in 2009 since 1950."

We're bragging that we're paying less taxes because our income dropped? Really?
"Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero."

Also, remember that Europe has been moving RIGHT....

OK Julialg, here's your dunce cap. Go in the corner until you learn the difference between effective tax rate, marginal tax rate, and tax burden relative to GDP. The richest Americans have received the most tax breaks in the last 50 years.

47% pay ZERO in income tax.. Of course the losers want higher and higher taxes and greater and greater 'benefits'. 14 trillion in debt and the lunatic left wants to spend more. Eliminate the income tax and starve the beast.

Because the richest paid by far the most taxes... as a percent of total taxes, and as a percent of their incomes.
If you did just even tax reduction across the board, they'd benefit the most because they *pay* the most.

Its tough to lower taxes on the folks who don't pay any.

Julia, you fool. For decades after its enactment, only a tiny minority of Americans paid the federal income tax! The entire point, both from GOP and Demo politicos was to "tax the rich." It was only in the 50s that it became a broad based tax - and it was Reagan who wanted to pare it back so that the poorer paid no taxes! Both bushes followed this approach.

The poor and lower middles pay proportionately more in sales and excise taxes, as well as tolls and fees. The lower middle and middle class pay proportionately more in property taxes. Taken as a whole, state and local taxes are REGRESSIVE. The payroll taxes, taken together, are flat to regressive. Adding all of this up, the rich pay proportionately less as a percentage of national income than they have in 50 years.

All taxes are taxes. Not just the ones that further your argument.

" Eliminate the income tax and starve the beast."

14 trillion in debt jason10006. With geniuses like you and your storm troopers on the left, the country is broke... You can tax the 'rich' at 80% and confiscate every last dollar of the top 5% and the country will still go bankrupt jason10006. Entitlements have destroyed a once great country.

once again you are spouting your nonsense. how did you manage to jump from 39.6% to 80%?

How about just putting the top marginal rate back at 39.6% and start paying back the deficit?

The federal government took in 2.1 trillion in tax receipts in 2009. It looks like the Fed's have a spending problem and could use some credit counseling. Maybe they cold take Dave Ramsey's advice and purchase some used cars and maybe they could shop a little better for their contracts and even go(gasp) non -union or foreign once in a while. If they can't manaage a balanced budge on 2.1 trillion, they're hopeless.

" Eliminate the income tax and starve the beast."

And yet Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark run SURPLUSES. These four a have LOWER debt to GDP ratios than us. Lower taxes does NOT automatically equal lower deficits.

In my lifetime, deficits and debt/GDP went down ONLY under Carter and Clinton, and went UP under Reagan and the Bushes. Interesting, huh?

Notice the Scandies plus the Swiss, Luxembourg, New Zealand, and Australia all do better than us.

http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html

The higher-tax UK, Sweden, Spain (!), Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Iceland (!), Germany, France, Australia, Austria, Finland, Denmark, and Canada all will be better than us - AND EVEN UNDER BUSH (in 2008) the US was above the OECD average, and worse than EVERY SINGLE country I just listed.

With higher taxes and [GASP!!!] universal healthcare!!!!

No riversider, We need to tax the 'rich', they are not paying their 'fair share'. We have to help the poor and the children. Only the government can help. Why are the rich so selfish?

Juliag, that just sounds like populist rhetoric.
Gov't is there to provide basic services including enforcing basic laws. Examples may include providing for the common defense, building and maintenance of roads, garbage collection, building o schools and providing education, maintaining a court system.
Excessive taxation and cost structure in the U.S. economy is the reason we're not doing well when competing internationally. Screwing the ant to feed the grasshopper who didn't prepare for winter only encourages more grasshoppers and discourages more ants.

'Excessive taxation and cost structure in the U.S. economy is the reason we're not doing well when competing internationally."

Again, no. The winners on the above list ranked above the US include Sweden and Switzerland. Germany is barely below, and moved up. Its a bit hard to say taxes is what did us in. In fact, they cite lack of universal healthcare as one of main weaknesses. Ooops!

On the debt thing I will annoy juliag the way she annoys me. If you notice, back in 2006 when we had BOTH a GOP presidency and Congress, the US was STILL above the OECD average in terms of debt to GDP, with only 7 of the 35 countries worse than us.

The best we have ranked in terms of debt to GDP since 1002 is 2000.

So you can, as Luxembourg, Norway, Finaland, and Sweden do, have a SURPLUS with high taxes, or a frequent surplus like Australia or Denamark. Starve the beast is nonesense.

Why did the deficits and debt to GDP only go UP under Reagan and the Bushes, even when bush 2 had 6 years of GOP control?

Germany, Sweden an Switzerland and Japan all have trade surpluses something we do not. Very different balance of payments. And Congress and the President are not promoting free trade and exports.

Jason, higher government taxes will not increase exports! And the argument that universal health care will increase exports is also weak.

But you do raise a good point about Germany even if you fail to adequately describe the reason for their good performance...

Germany started WWII and tried to exterminate a ppl. You are comparing US to germany? WTF? Flmaoz.

When all is said and done, the us is a stable political system where 26k civilians killed for a drug route will never happen. Flmaoz.

jason10006 Let me educate you about Finland. My significant other is Finnish, so I know the country well. First,about 95% of the country citzen are blond/blue eyed, very very little immigration. They don't like it or want it and have a token amount. There are only 5 million Finns in a country the size of California. College is free for everyone, even the wealthy.( no $50,000 tuition).but jasson10006 not everyone gets to go, if you're not that smart, can't pass the exam, no college for you. No spots saved for special cases jason10006. Also, the high schools are great, best in the world, but also if you're not that smart, trade school for you. Vat tax, very very high jason10006, very regressive(you hate that)but it pays for your beloved universal health care. The heath care is great, but they do ration. If you're old(65+)and have a bad cancer jason10006, there is a waiting list. long lines for care. The tax rate is high, but if you live in NYC you pay about what the finns pay. The real estate tax in Finland is really really cheap jason10006. The wealthy keep land and property for hundreds of years in the same family. A farm of say 100 hectors 500 euros a year tax jason10006. A big estate on a lake with 7 hectors 300 euros a year tax.(jason10006, the u.s.progressives would really hate that) I could go on and on jason10006. It is foolish to compare different cultures and societies.

9

WWII is over. The people responsible for genocide are old or dead... Time to move on. You don't punish the children for the sin's of the father. And if Germany has things to teach us , we should learn.

As a country we're doing much better than Finland. Germany has been exporting capital equipment to China, which raises interesting questions for them later on. I do think Germany does a better job than the u.s. in helping prepare its citizens to compete. Not everyone can/should go to university, some are better suited for trade schools.

And as a country, the less efficient we make our system the less competitive we are.

w67thstreet
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse Germany started WWII and tried to exterminate a ppl. You are comparing US to germany? WTF? Flmaoz.
When all is said and done, the us is a stable political system where 26k civilians killed for a drug route will never happen. Flmaoz.

Curious, you said thousands of people have touched your wife, and we haven't clarified if that is 2,000 or 3,000 or so, or are we talking about 900,000 or 999,000 or so. But is number increasing? I mean, are there people right now touching your wife, or earlier today, were there any new people touching your wife?

julia, the ugly one.

move to finland.

quickly.

columbiacounty Ignored comment. Unhide

Beyonce. 'put a ring on it'. Flmaoz. Speaks volumes. Flmaozz

Why won't you narrow down the number of people who touched your wife?

"Germany, Sweden an Switzerland and Japan all have trade surpluses something we do not. Very different balance of payments. And Congress and the President are not promoting free trade and exports."

You kind of contradicted yourself there. You advocated free trade and cited Japan as a success sotry, but everyone knows that Japan has significant protectionist trade policies.

Yet again RS denies empirical evidence and consistent theory, and decides to go with his BRING ON THE ROBBER BARONS economic policies.

Sad.

And in the bizarro world of LICC, Nobel-prize winning economists are "left-wing shills." I suppose, then, that just because Kelsey Grammer is a right-wing Republican, it makes him a good actor.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Enjoy your weekend on Water Taxi Beach!

Julia F U. Your post is the most moronic asinine thing every written.

Because Obama pays respect to heads of other countries are you saying he is a terrorist? Do you have problems with Bush having the Saudi princes to his HOME? Kissing them? Holding their hands?

Do you have a problem with W's Father George HW Bush having breakfast with bin Ladens brother on 9/11?

PArtisan moron

because Obama pays respect to heads of other countries are you saying he is a terrorist? Do you have problems with Bush having the Saudi princes to his HOME? Kissing them? Holding their hands?

The bushes are a disgrace also.

So steve is wrong on his facts and analysis again. Shocking . . .

I love when people try to compare the U.S. to Finland or Sweden and then when all the facts come out, they look totally clueless.

What facts, LICC? What facts?

User_Usertofferson
27 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

"Julia you are a disgrace and a moron"

Anyone who doesn't agree with the lunatic left is stupid. Anyone who agrees with the socialist agenda is brilliant. It's getting very tired and old. Now, the genius obama will spend the next two months demonizing boehner.

Anyone who believes half of your slogans is clearly not living in the same universe that the rest of us inhabit.

cc.. Did you get your government checks this month? If so, why so bitter?

Hey stupid. Unfortunately the money always goes in the other direction. I'm not the bitter one, you are. I'm not ranting and raving about the so called regime. You are. I'm not spouting a bunch of tired slogans. You are. I don't think that our country is down the drain. You do.

cc.. Did you get your government checks this month? It's a yes or no question.

Can't you read?

'It is foolish to compare different cultures and societies. "

Ah, so the fact that they are blond and don't have immigrants is the key to their success. And the fact that they have really high taxes - which by the way are taken together FAR more progressive! Their GINI coeeficient is MUCH lower than ours. They have one of the most egalitarian income distributions in the OECD. The very opposite of every Ayn Rand trash talk you spout. Basically, you are saying Finland is great because its among the most socialist of all OECD nations. And has a lot of white people.

The problem with your "argument" is that Canada and Sweden, which I also mention, have a similar percentage of foreign-born immigrants than do the US.

Luxembourg, the richest country in the OECD is 37% foreign-born. Switzerland, which beats us in TOP, is 22.9%. Australia, which runs a surplus, has higher GDP growth than us, and lower unemployment, is 19.9%. Canada is 18.8% Then come New Zealand, Austra, and Ireland. Germany, the US and Sweden are all about 12%.

Visiting Stockholm or Gutenberg, as I have, you see PLENTY of African, Latin American, eastern European, Chinese, middle eastern, Indian, etc immigrants. See:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/imm_imm_pop_imm_as_per_of_sta_pop-immigrant-population-immigrants-percentage-state&int=-1&id=OECD

obama is really pathetic. It's like listening to my college marxist professor. olinski would be proud.

"Ah, so the fact that they are blond and don't have immigrants is the key to their success. And the fact that they have really high taxes - which by the way are taken together FAR more progressive! Their GINI coeeficient is MUCH lower than ours. They have one of the most egalitarian income distributions in the OECD. The very opposite of every Ayn Rand trash talk you spout. Basically, you are saying Finland is great because its among the most socialist of all OECD nations. And has a lot of white people."

jason10006. What i'm saying is they have a different culture and history. It is a completely different society. Do you like a very very high regressive vat tax to pay for universal health care jason10006?

Next lets take the cannard that Riversider and JuliaG spout about the US being too socialist.

if you go to the tabs on taxes as a percent of GDP - this includes state/provincial/local taxes - you see that the US is the third lowest (or "best" from a right-wing POV) after only Korea and Australia. Out of 30. That is whether you look at the Clinton years or the projections for 2010 and 2011. In fact, the US spends LESS as a percent of GDP in 2009-2011 than it dis under BUSH in 2002-2007. Or Clinton.

Hmmmm....

Next look at SPENDING as a percent of GDP. Here the US in 2011 is...fifth from the lowest out of 30, behind Korea, Switzerland, Australia, and Slovakia.

So both in terms of SPENDING and taxes, including ALL state, federal, and local taxes, including sales, income, payroll taxes and fees etc, plus ALL spending for ALL purposes at ALL levels, the US under Obama is ahead of

Japan
Canada
Luxembourg
Total OECD
Spain
New Zealand
Poland
Norway
Ireland
Iceland
Czech Republic
Estonia
Germany
Hungary
Greece
Portugal
Euro area
Italy
Slovenia
Austria
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Belgium
Sweden
France
Finland
Denmark

http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34573_2483901_1_1_1_1,00.html

User_Usertofferson......In case you missed your illustrious leader....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

how could anyone have missed this since you've posted it at least 20 times. get some new material or at least a new sandwich board.

p.s. when do you leave for finland? tonite, i hope?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY cc.... Can you imagine his obsequiousness in private.

as usual, you're making things up. just like going from 39.6% to 80% for marginal tax rates. too bad you're too ugly to work for fox news.

how ugly?

Really, really, ugly.

'What i'm saying is they have a different culture and history. It is a completely different society. Do you like a very very high regressive vat tax to pay for universal health care jason10006?"

Right, which is why I have given you several other examples. In fact, more than 20, listed above. All with lower levels of government than the US, and several of which have similar or better performance than the US per TOP.

I also gave you the other Nordic nations, who DO in fact have lots of immigrants. Sweden is about equal to the US in terms of % of immigrants. Still does better than the US by most measures.

Secondly, the VAT tax is regressive, but the ENTIRE tax system, taken as a whole is progressive. I am not opposed to consumption taxes per se, as long as the entire spectrum of taxes are progressive.

In any event, every other nation in the OECD has universal health care. Some, like Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia have MOSTLY or even 100% private insurance and hospitals. The Dutch and Swiss plan, in particular, are much like Obama's plan. The Swiss in fact do not even have medicare or medicaid equivalents - just subsidies for poor people to buy MANDATED private insurance. Sound familiar?

You also have universal health care with public insurance but private doctors (Canada.) You have places in between Canada and the Netherlands (France.) You have totally socialist places like the UK.

You have universal health care paid for by the consumers out of pocket with subsidies for the poor in the Netherlands and Switzerland, a hybrid of this and government funded in France and Australia (the latter is like Obamacare plus the public option), and entirely government funded in Canada and the UK. Some are paid with payroll taxes, some income, some VAT, some a combination.

There is certainly no REQUIREMENT that any country, including Finland, use the VAT to fund healthcare. Its entirely disengenuous for you to say "OMG! You need a regressive VAT to pay for healthcare!"

I think, however, that if the trade-off was free k-PhD education, free healthcare, free childcare, rent subsidies, etc - on top of the entitelments we have in the US - many poor here would say "sign me up!"

The end result is Finland and the Scandies have some of the most egalitarian income distrubution amongst the OECD.

The US has the worst save for Mexico.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png

http://www.bagofnothing.com/uploaded_images/Keira-756132.jpeg

Right, KN is hot.

Anyway, the human development index is measured by life expentancy (a proxy for health), per capita PPP GDP (wealth) and literacy (education).

The US ranks 13th on the list - just after Finland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries

But wait, countries with even MORE immigrants (and in some case NON-WHITE IMMIGRANTS!!!!) rank higher.

Australia - #2. The Swiss at #9. Canada at #4. Ireland at #5. Countries with similar levels of immigrants - France, Sweden, the Netherlands - rank higher too.

I.E. your patently racist, xenophobic and nativist argument falls quite flat on its face.

jason10006... Your statistics are extremely tedious.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

very ugly because she is filled with right-wing venom? or ugly based on physical attributes?

or both?

her ramblings make me perversely attracted to her in a dana perino sort of way.

conformity and political correctness are certainly a libido suppressor.

Something lost in the conversation is how much the "Socialist European Countries" have been moving more to the right.

it is more your dogmatic adherence to the right-wing agenda. hot, hot, hot!

Anyone who has ever owed a short wave radio will recognize Deutsche Welle
---------------------

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced an unprecedented austerity package involving initial spending cuts of 11.2 billion euros beginning in 2011. The government hopes to save 80 billion euros by 2014.

The German government on Monday unveiled the largest package of austerity measures in the country's history, with deep cuts in social welfare programs and the public sector.

The plan will see savings of 11.2 billion euros ($13.4 billion) in the 2011 budget. The following years would see incrementally increasing savings adding up to 80 billion euros by 2014.

The package announced is much larger than expected, with many analysts having predicted cuts of around 50 billion euros. The government, a coalition of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats, is now pushing larger cuts over a shorter period of time.

Total budget cuts are to rise to 17.1 billion euros in 2012, 25.7 billion euros in 2013 and 32.4 billion euros in 2014. The measures include 10,000 public sector job cuts over four years and reductions in tax cuts and various state subsidies.

Announcing the plan, Merkel said Germany's pension rate would not change, nor would the coalition government's planned reforms to health care.

She said however the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, would undergo significant structural reform, with Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg earlier having been asked to examine ways the 250,000-strong Bundeswehr could shed some 40,000 personnel.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5658604,00.html

It's extreme libertarianism not right-wing agenda. The left wing and right wing are remarkably similar. Opposite sides of the SAME coin

so why are you with that socialist Fin?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a3018ceef6a0590e0fe87c97c608ebdc.4b1

Sweden's centre-right government on Saturday announced income tax cuts of 10 billion kronor to stimulate the job market, its primary objective.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and three other ministers in the four-party coalition said the reduction would mean most wage earners would have 200 to 250 kronor (20 to 25 euros, 29 to 36 dollars) more in take-home pay every month.

The proposal, to be presented to parliament on Monday as part of the 2010 budget bill, is the fourth leg of a tax cut programme introduced in January 2007 to stimulate employment.

The fourth leg would enter into force on January 1, 2010.

JULIAG

WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE JPG?

http://www.bagofnothing.com/uploaded_images/Keira-756132.jpeg

"She said however the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, would undergo significant structural reform, with Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg earlier having been asked to examine ways the 250,000-strong Bundeswehr could shed some 40,000 personnel."

See people, cutting defense spending is NOT the end of the world. Unlike Germany, here we hae pseduo spedning cuts as defense is ALWAYS off the table.

Germany is no longer a world military power. Germany's military only acts as a counter-balance to Russian influence over Europe. Very different.

Nothing like the facts to get in the way of jason's delusions.

LICC is talking about delusions? You do live in Long Island City, don't you?

"For decades after its enactment, only a tiny minority of Americans paid the federal income tax! "

For decades before its enactment, no Americans paid the federal income tax!

"Taken as a whole, state and local taxes are REGRESSIVE. "

But taken as a whole, TAXES are PROGRESSIVE.

Add it all together, the rich pay a larger share of their incomes in taxes than anyone else.

"So steve is wrong on his facts and analysis again. Shocking . . ."

Really now....

about 3 hours ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse

"how could anyone have missed this since you've posted it at least 20 times. get some new material or at least a new sandwich board.

p.s. when do you leave for finland? tonite, i hope?" CC..You never add anything to the discussion, just petty predictable snipes. Really,really boring.

Julia, the ugly one.

I find your endless rants repetitive, revolting and foolish.

As noted above, get some new material or better yet go away. Leave the country and the people you so totally despise.

'conformity and political correctness are certainly a libido suppressor'

Or some kind of crazy aphrodisiac.....
Utah, perhaps the state that most matches the above quote, is the most prolific end point user of internet porn!
Brigham Young, Brigham old, just make sure their naked! Remember not to shake hands.....

Germany has had a BIGGER stimulus than the US up until now, and in 2011 - NEXT YEAR, will introduce austerity.

Here is the increase in total government spending, all levels, from Q42007 to 2Q2010.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/US_german_gov.PNG

The US has increased spending by a net otal of 4.5% or so, versus Germany's 7.5% or so.

From the Economist at http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/08/german_recovery_3

"Germany is one of the few euro zone countries to increase its budget deficit from 2009 to 2010. And planned 2011 cuts are quite small relative to those in countries pursuing crash austerity programmes, which are also suffering very weak recoveries (Greece has yet to get out of recession, and Spain may be heading back in).

This doesn't mean that stimulus is the key to German success. But Germany is absolutely not an example of strong growth despite austerity."

Also, per the FT : "Germany is recovering faster this year because it contracted faster last year....

...If you look at the period since the beginning of the financial crisis, Germany's economic performance has been dismal. If you compare levels of gross domestic product between Germany and the US since the crisis, you find the US significantly outperformed Germany during that period. That situation may still be reversed if the US were to go into a double-dip recession. But the best judgment we can make now is that of Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, in her recent interview in the Financial Times: Germany is recovering faster this year because it contracted faster last year, when GDP fell by 5 per cent. So far, this looks like classic dead-cat bounce..."

Germany is benefiting from strong exports to China. Not because it had stimulus and not because of a previous contraction. Stop making up facts to support an argument.. The Euro is weaker against the dollar and if there is a stimulus they benefited from it is a Chinese one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10912218

Germany's exports rose faster than expected in June, a further sign of recovery in Europe's biggest economy.

Exports were up 3.8% compared with a month earlier, and up 29% on the year, according to Germany's federal statistics office.

Investors hope the strong figures mean Germany's economy grew faster in the second quarter of the year.

Exporters' profits have been boosted recently by strong demand from Asia and other emerging economies.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

German exports are benefiting from the positive development on global markets - above all from the rise of emerging markets supported by capital goods, stimulus packages and the relatively weak euro exchange rate”

End Quote Chambers of Industry and Commerce

Exports to countries outside the eurozone grew by 37% compared with a year ago, the figures showed, while exports to the eurozone were up 22%.

The growth has widened Germany's trade surplus, with the value of exports now 12.3bn euros ($16.3bn; £10.2bn) greater than the value of imports.

Imports also rose in June, by 1.9% compared with May.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,713478-3,00.html

Nowadays, Germany isn't just supplying capital goods for the development of Chinese industry. As the Chinese upper class becomes more affluent, there is growing demand for consumer goods, including luxury cars made by the likes of Mercedes, BMW and Audi, high-end kitchens and expensive shoes. Even German stuffed animals are finding their way east. The Chinese, the world's largest toy exporters, have a yen for teddy bears and stuffed rabbits made by the legendary German toymaker Steiff. Ironically, for quality reasons Steiff is shifting some of its Chinese production back to Europe.

If the Germans have their way, this symbiotic relationship could go on indefinitely. On the one hand, the Chinese export T-shirts and athletic shoes, flat-screen TVs and CD players to Germany. In return, German industry sells its high-tech products -- cars, aircraft, railroads and machines -- to China.

And because the country is so big and so much of its land is still underdeveloped, especially in the rural western provinces, this mutually beneficial division of labor could continue for years, generating consistently high growth rates and benefiting German industry.

Hang on. Switzerland and Singapore both rank AHEAD of the United States on the Index of Economic Freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/

In other words, if anything, they are LESS socialist than the United States, and that probably goes a long way towards explaining their success.

Not sure what to say about Sweden, except that they have been trending towards less, not more, government since 1990.

Well said Post87deflation!

I did not say it benifited ONLY because of stimulas. But its growth is NOT, as Fox news and the WSJ would have you believe, BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY. Total lies.

In Wednesday's WSJ, said that Keynsians were angry at "what they regarded as Germany's overly strict fiscal discipline...Yet Germany's real output expanded at a robust 9% annual rate in the second quarter, while the U.S. economy grew at an anemic 1.6% rate. So is Germany now a role model for how to recover? "

On Fox, Cuvuto said "[France and Germany] apparently get capitalism and we do not...[and are] benefiting from cooling it on spending, and we're not benefiting because we haven't remotely cooled it on spending..."

Fred Barnes says: "We know what Germany did. What Germany did was reduce their unemployment benefits for one thing; they cut spending and cut their deficit and they loosened up on the labor market -- on hiring and firing and so on -- which could be very strict in Europe.

And what happened? In the second quarter -- 9 percent growth. Unemployment is down to I think 7.6 percent. And compare that to the Obama administration that did the opposite of all of those things. And what do we get here -- 9.5 percent unemployment, 1.6 percent of growth."