“Building me a fence, Building me a home, Thinking I’d be strong there, But I was a fool”*

Sweden, often held up by “progressives” as a model of socialism’s efficiency has collectively come to realize the error of it’s ways and is employing a radical tact to stimulate job growth.

Sweden’s centre-right government on Saturday announced income tax cuts…to stimulate the job market, its primary objective.

[needle scratching on Abba record]

Income tax cuts! To stimulate the job market?!!!

Back here in the U.S.S.A, Obama would be focused on bolstering the job market too if it weren’t for his Magical Mystery Tour promoting health care reform that most of America doesn’t want or need, and the government can’t afford.

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.

Tax cuts stimulate employment? Really? I wonder why Obama and his stooges uber-czars haven’t thought of that (you know, cutting taxes for those that are in a position to hire employees, versus cutting taxes for those that don’t pay them)?

“The coalition government has agreed on reforms for jobs and entrepreneurialism that will increase employment in the long-term. It has to be more profitable to work and more companies should be able to hire employees,” the government said.

Companies hire employees in Sweden? Naw, really? Here in America, under the Obama administration, the government hires employees. Are we missing something?

Since coming to power in late 2006, the government has launched a series of measures aimed at inciting Swedes to return to the job market instead of living off of state subsidies.

But that would require effort. Here in America we are sustained by Hope® and Change®.

The government said it would also propose a series of measures in the budget bill aimed at boosting incentives to start companies and improve the business climate.

Seriously, somebody should text TheOneWhoWon this innovative idea.

*from Winner Takes It All (Abba)

5 thoughts on ““Building me a fence, Building me a home, Thinking I’d be strong there, But I was a fool”*

  1. The Liberal knows that tax cuts/reduced tax rates stimulate economic growth and job development. Look no further than the Liberal dominated entertainment industry. Recently while traveling in Michigan, I heard a discussion on Mitch Albom’s radio show about Michigan’s tax breaks for production company’s. Mitch, an avowed Liberal who has some experience producing movies made from his dreadful books, said that without the 60%(!) tax break production company’s get in Michigan, NO ONE would produce movies or TV shows ever again in Michigan. There was the story of ultra-Liberal Alec Baldwin claiming that if New York did away with its entertainment production tax incentives, tv and movie production would pick up and move to a more tax friendly area. Even Minnesota’s own Cohen Bros. (don’t know their politics, but I would guess they are Liberals) weren’t going to shoot their latest make fun of Minnesotans flick here until the “right” package was presented. You see JR, it’s only when you proles look for tax breaks for your manufacturing facilites, strip malls and chain restaurants or reduced tax rates for all that asking for tax breaks is considered greedy and uncaring.

  2. I think it shows you that conservatives everywhere can be equally wrong. If the income tax cuts result in long-term sustained growth, let me know, because it’s never worked that way here.

  3. I think it shows you that conservatives everywhere can be equally wrong.

    How so?

    If the income tax cuts result in long-term sustained growth, let me know, because it’s never worked that way here.

    Well, it’s not like the U.S. (especially Minnesota) has had long, uninterrupted periods of lower taxes AND minimum regulation of the market (that is, lower taxation certainly helps, but is not necessarily a “panacea” or guarantee against the business cycle or the kind of stupid government intervention like raising tariffs or putting American corn and sugar producers on welfare).

  4. For starters – not sure what you mean.

    Tax cuts prompted booming growth during the sixties (when Kennedy cut them), the eighties under Reagan, and the early-mid ’00s under Bush. Now, in each of those cases the growth was the predominant economic feature of the decade (or in Bush’s case, the half-decade between the recession he inherited and the one we’re in). How “long-term” do you need it to be? If you mean “eternity” – OK. You got me there. I don’t think anyone claims tax cuts repeal the business cycle, of course. Nobody claims that they’re perfect, or a panacaea – which is the standard you appear to be using.

    And “long-term growth” is nice, but when we’re in the midst of an epic recession, short-term recovery is at least as valuable. And tax cuts ALWAYS work for that. No exceptions. Never been one, never will. Tax cuts are ALWAYS better that hikes during recessions.

    The Swedes, for once, are right. We – as we will likely be for at least the next three years – are wrong. Hope our various jobs survive.

  5. You have three choices. You can have zero taxes and lots of money to spend and hire and build, but the government gets nothing. Which is nice, but never is going to happen. You can have 100% taxes where the government gets everything, but even a die hard leftest would admit productivity would go down, there would be no hiring or building as there is no incentive to risk capital. The argument is where the best percentage for both investment and taxes for the maximum amount of growth in the economy but still give the government money to piss away in addition to the legit expenses it needs to cover. To sum up for penigma, the conservatives are arguing that the tax percentage is too close to the 100% while you are (I think) arguing that it is too close to zero. The tax rate is so skewed right now that a huge percentage of the population, while paying nothing in income tax, is claiming that the people who do pay the tax, (and pay for most of it) are not paying enough. I would love to start at zero on the budget, and see what is needed to cover what government is supposed to cover, and then structure the tax around that. Which, of course will never happen. We are in the process of voting ourselves rich. The other guy will pick up the tab.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.