Our Swedish correspondent LN took exception to my most recent post about Sweden:
Today I am no expert on Swedish taxation, but as far as I can see Skalman’s version is highly slanted, if not incorrect.
Every dollar I make costs my employer (at least) two dollars because he has to pay a fee (tax) to the state that is just about equal to what I earn.
This is obviously not true. The employer fee is 32% — not 100%, as stated!
Sociala avgifter 2007
Procent av årslönen Arbetare Tjänstemän Arbetsgivaravgifter enligt lag Ålderspensionsavgift 10,21 10,21 Efterlevandepensionsavgift 1,70 1,70 Sjukförsäkringsavgift 8,78 8,78 Arbetsskadeförsäkring 0,68 0,68 Föräldraförsäkringsavgift 2,20 2,20 Arbetsmarknadsavgift 4,45 4,45 Delsumma lagstadgade avgifter 28,02 28,02 Allmän löneavgift 4,40 4,40 Totalt 32,42 32,42
– – – – – – – – –
Of course Swedish taxation is totally abnormal; however, it does not differ that much, as far as I know, from the Danish one.
A rigorous matter-of-fact presentation would have been a big thing, but this emotional version of poor Skalman’s difficulties and his not being able to afford a third child with a wife who is a pediatrician is jum-jum.
What about your or rather GoV’s credibility?
In a way you are our voice to the world, and now and again you through gullibility are risking giving it up. With a lost credibility you are just ridiculous — the Baron and his Baroness, as the “the happy family”, or in Swedish: Löjliga familjen.
DO NOT DO THAT TO US!
Also incorrect is — still — your illustration:
…with some 65% infection of mo-mould instead of realistic some 15% (really realistic would have been 85% red socio-mould, that like house-mould you never can be 100% rid of).
I’m no expert on Swedish taxation, either, so I’ll let our Swedish readers weigh in on whether Skalman was guilty of distorting the tax situation in his country.
As for the illustration — I told LN that it represents not the present, but Sweden’s future, if things continue in the direction they are going now.