Like that the age of consent should be at 5? Sigh....

I was thinking more along the lines of retaliatory airstrikes being assumed to make things more secure and higher tax rates producing higher revenues. But yeah, if you want to base everything around a funny meme, sure.

Can these things even be fixed? Like how do you make a game more balanced when the game developer thinks that public broadcasters reduces fake news?

Originally posted by Squinky:

Can these things even be fixed? Like how do you make a game more balanced when the game developer thinks that public broadcasters reduces fake news?

By changing that relationship. But I'm not a coder, so I have no idea if it is even possible.

I think you guys need more evidence before you can credibly claim something like that the game contains "naive assumptions".

Libertarianism is, on the global stage, a fringe ideology. Fringe ideologies tend to have a warped perception of reality. I suspect that's why the devs stuck with the tried, true and supported by conventional wisdom.

There is, after all, the risk of simply being wrong about something.

Originally posted by Claire Underwood:

I think you guys need more evidence before you can credibly claim something like that the game contains "naive assumptions".

Libertarianism is, on the global stage, a fringe ideology. Fringe ideologies tend to have a warped perception of reality. I suspect that's why the devs stuck with the tried, true and supported by conventional wisdom.

There is, after all, the risk of simply being wrong about something.

Couldnt have said it better myself...🤔

Originally posted by Claire Underwood:

I think you guys need more evidence before you can credibly claim something like that the game contains "naive assumptions".

Libertarianism is, on the global stage, a fringe ideology. Fringe ideologies tend to have a warped perception of reality. I suspect that's why the devs stuck with the tried, true and supported by conventional wisdom.

There is, after all, the risk of simply being wrong about something.

Thanks for you input. Which economist says that raising tax rates infinitely high produces evermore revenue? In the game the only negative attached to that is an opinion loss among the wealthy, middle income, and capitalist voting blocs. In reality, it discourages economic growth. This is not a fringe concept.

Originally posted by garthurbrown:

Originally posted by Claire Underwood:

I think you guys need more evidence before you can credibly claim something like that the game contains "naive assumptions".

Libertarianism is, on the global stage, a fringe ideology. Fringe ideologies tend to have a warped perception of reality. I suspect that's why the devs stuck with the tried, true and supported by conventional wisdom.

There is, after all, the risk of simply being wrong about something.

Thanks for you input. Which economist says that raising tax rates infinitely high produces evermore revenue? In the game the only negative attached to that is an opinion loss among the wealthy, middle income, and capitalist voting blocs. In reality, it discourages economic growth. This is not a fringe concept.

1.
No educated economist denies the existance of the Laffer-curve. The debate and research within academia is mainly focused on how to pinpoint and what affects the Laffer point. The Laffer point is where additional taxation stops increasing state revenue due to economic damage and increased tax evasion.
No conclusive answer has been reached, but most seem to agree that it's when top rate marginal taxes surpass somewhere between 50% and 70% of marginal income, depending on an array of economic factors.

2.
The game does actually have a negative effect on GDP that scales with taxes on economic activity(income, corporate, capital gains, various punitive taxes). Furthermore, high taxes trigger the "tax evasion" red bubble, which further emulates the Laffer dynamic by decreasing revenue. If you want to check it out play Italy. They have tax evasion triggered from the start.

3.
Pointing out the Laffer-curve in the context of the economic-growth-vs-taxation/welfare debate is not uniquely libertarian. Most politicians from the centre-right to far-right tend to do it.

Assuming that the Laffer point has been passed is, however, intellectually dishonest/lazy when arguing for lower taxes. The argument is by its very nature counter-intuitive(taking more means gaining less), and therefore, by the generally accepted rules of logic, the person claiming the Laffer point has been passed should present some proof that the conventional logic(taking more means gaining more) of taxation has been upended.

When I claim the ideology is fringe, I'm referring to this assumption, and the fact that libertarians tend to be quite few in number compared to, for example, social democrats or regular liberals. Libertarians I have spoken and whose writings I've read to tend to assume the Laffer point has been passed, without any credible proof. Therefore all their arguments past that point rest on an unproven, counter-intuitive premise.

To sum up: Unproven opinions on the far end of a political scale + low numbers of adherents = fringe theory

Hi Claire Underwood,

For some reason I cannot quote your response in my reply.

1. So suddenly there is a requirement of proof? Weird, considering how many assumptions the developers of the game make without 'something as trivial as'-proof stopping them. Quite indicative that when something is perceived as left leaning then there is no proof requirement but as soon as it is perceived right leaning then there must be proof.

2. But sure, lets go with the proof approach here. What do you define as proof, summarised in writing or empirical examples?

If research summarised in writing:

"Mertens and Olea (2018) used time series data from 1946 to 2012 to estimate the impacts of marginal tax rates on individual income. They found that marginal rate cuts led to both increases in real GDP and declines in unemployment. A 1 percentage-point decrease in the tax rate increases real GDP by 0.78 percent by the third year after the tax change. Importantly, they find that changes in income following a tax change are responsive to the marginal rate change regardless of the change in the average tax rate. This illustrates that the positive GDP changes the authors find are the response to changes in the incentives, rather than due to an increase aggregate demand through the consumption channel. Cuts in tax rates for the top 1 percent also have positive impacts on other income groups, consistent with a supply-side narrative of how reductions in top marginal rates can increase incomes for other groups over time. However, tax cuts for the top 1 percent do increase inequality."

https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/

If empirical examples you can just look at Sweden. Sweden had a very low tax rate up until the late 80's (and a small public sector too). Up until then, Sweden was an example for the rest of the world when it came to unemployment (only at %2), social issues (free university anyone?) and entrepreneurship (Volvo, Saab, IKEA, Ericsson, H&M etc.) Since then the tax rate has double and now we see a country with almost double digit unemployment, one of the highest crime rates in the EU and has fallen in most comparative social comparisons such as for example in education (PISA).

Another way taxes are 'obviously' bad are the principal of applying them in the first place. If they were so good for the area they are applied too then why would government introduce them as a way to discourage usage? Thinking of different ways of taxing alcohol consumption and emissions. If these are suppose to stop/reduce the usage then applying the same mindset, what do you think taxes on labour or capital does if not reduce it or encourage a black market?

Hi Garthurbrown,

I am having the same issue as my reply above where I cannot seem to quote (pressing the button does not do anything).

As reply to your comment, and as a software developer, yes it is a code/relationship thing but since the developers mindset is reflected in the code quite extensively (and even in the game behaviour itself) it might be very hard, if not impossible, to introduce a mod that would reflect the impact of taxes on a society in a more realistic way.

Originally posted by Squinky:

Hi Claire Underwood,

For some reason I cannot quote your response in my reply.

1. So suddenly there is a requirement of proof? Weird, considering how many assumptions the developers of the game make without 'something as trivial as'-proof stopping them. Quite indicative that when something is perceived as left leaning then there is no proof requirement but as soon as it is perceived right leaning then there must be proof.

2. But sure, lets go with the proof approach here. What do you define as proof, summarised in writing or empirical examples?

If research summarised in writing:

"Mertens and Olea (2018) used time series data from 1946 to 2012 to estimate the impacts of marginal tax rates on individual income. They found that marginal rate cuts led to both increases in real GDP and declines in unemployment. A 1 percentage-point decrease in the tax rate increases real GDP by 0.78 percent by the third year after the tax change. Importantly, they find that changes in income following a tax change are responsive to the marginal rate change regardless of the change in the average tax rate. This illustrates that the positive GDP changes the authors find are the response to changes in the incentives, rather than due to an increase aggregate demand through the consumption channel. Cuts in tax rates for the top 1 percent also have positive impacts on other income groups, consistent with a supply-side narrative of how reductions in top marginal rates can increase incomes for other groups over time. However, tax cuts for the top 1 percent do increase inequality."

https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/

If empirical examples you can just look at Sweden. Sweden had a very low tax rate up until the late 80's (and a small public sector too). Up until then, Sweden was an example for the rest of the world when it came to unemployment (only at %2), social issues (free university anyone?) and entrepreneurship (Volvo, Saab, IKEA, Ericsson, H&M etc.) Since then the tax rate has double and now we see a country with almost double digit unemployment, one of the highest crime rates in the EU and has fallen in most comparative social comparisons such as for example in education (PISA).

Another way taxes are 'obviously' bad are the principal of applying them in the first place. If they were so good for the area they are applied too then why would government introduce them as a way to discourage usage? Thinking of different ways of taxing alcohol consumption and emissions. If these are suppose to stop/reduce the usage then applying the same mindset, what do you think taxes on labour or capital does if not reduce it or encourage a black market?

1.
I have not disputed the existance of the Laffer-curve. What I questioned was assuming the Laffer point has been passed when debating.

I agree with your evidence. There is clearly a point where additional taxation does more harm than what good could be done with the money. This is also a commonly held belief, which means that it doesn't need to be proved to be assumed while debating(see point 2).

What I disagree with is assuming the economic growth spurned by lower taxation OUTWEIGHING something. THAT is what libertarians fail to prove imo.
This also applies to your last paragraph. Does the damage done by taxation OUTWEIGH the benefit brought by social programmes it funds?

2.
Rules on demanding evidence serve to balance situations where knowledge on a particular subject is not readily available. The rules on evidence in courts of law generally exclude the necessity of proving the obvious and facts that are not in dispute.

The rules of procedure in courts of law are usually the logic employed by people in general enforced by codification to prevent confusion. Therefore court procedure can be used analogously on normal debates, such as this one.

In debating, things everyone agrees on should consequently require no proof. Since facts are not opinions, knowing a fact is tantamount to agreeing with it, unless you are disputing it.

General knowledge is what everyone knows, and therefore nobody disputes, such as that the sky is blue. Consequently, if you make a statement that contradicts general knowledge you have the burden of proof, since the exception for proof requirements to general knowledge no longer applies to you.

In this case, the general knowledge is that taking more money than before from someone is going to lead to the person taking it having more than before.

3.
I actually was born, grew up, and live in Sweden. I'm not the wife of a fictitious US president, lol. Ask for any proof you want. What you state about our taxes could not be further from the truth.

Sweden has historically been politically dominated by the social democratic party, which favours the taxation/welfare approach. Swedish tax rates were infamous in the 70s for producing a marginal tax rate over 100%(the so called "pomperipossaskatt" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania).

Swedish taxation is still rather high by OECD comparison, despite reductions since. I'll list the major tax rates below to give you a notion. The source is "Lag om inkomstskatt"(Law on income tax) and "Lagen om mervärdesskatt"(Law on Value Added Tax).
I happen to study law and have studied economics both in one of those free universities(Lund Uni) :D

Basic income tax(local council tax, "Kommunalskatt"):
~30%
*council can change it if they want, so it varies between 25-35% depending on where you live.
*there is an earned income tax credit that lets you keep a lot of money.

Payroll tax(arbetsgivaravgift):
~20%
*Lots of discounts based on age. Original rate is 31,42%. Actual sum comes in around 20%.

State income tax(top rate added onto basic tax after a certain income level has been reached):
20%
*There was a third stage before known as "Värnskatt"(guarding tax), that added an additional 5% even higher up, but this was abolished recently.

Capital Gains tax:
~30%
*20% for dividends from small businesses
*22% for profit on sale of homes

VAT:
25%
*12,5% for food-related expenses
*6% for culture-related expenses

Corporate tax
~20%
*Varies a bit every year, but stays around 20%

We do not have property tax, inheritance tax/taxes on gifts

4.
Concerning the social problems Sweden has you seem to be in the dark on the facts.

Crime:
We do have significantly more crime than before, with sexual violence and gang activity sticking out in particular, but we are not more affected by crime more than other comparable OECD countries. Our crime rates were absurdly low in the 80s-90s, from which they grew to today's numbers, which are more in line with the rest of the west and Europe.
Especially the legal defintion of rape is making us look bad, since the definition is extremely wide by international standards(absence of consent). There have even been cases of people being convicted for raping somebody online(https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/uppsala/hovrattens-beslut-om-natvaldtakter-41-aringen-far-10-ars-fangelse).
I still agree with the law though, since the act of rape is technically difficult to separate from normal sex when attempting to prove it.
Source: BRÅ("Brottsförebyggande rådet", Council on preventing crime)

There are a number of theories to why this happened, but there is consensus that increased segregation, reduced state presence, immigration and political deadlock. This is major political debate here atm, and is likely to bring down the government in next years elections.

Unemployment:
Unemployment bottomed out in 1990 at 2%, before the 1991 housing crash. Now it's at 8-6%, depending on how you measure it. This growth has coincided with reduction in state size, immigration, tax reduction and spending compared to GDP, which I suspect has caused it.

PISA results:
The swedish school system is unique in encouraging market competition between state subsidised schools run either directly by the local coucil or entrepeneurs funded by the state. This has engendered negative competition and grade inflation between schools as they inflate the grades in order to draw students, whose number the subsidy amount depends on.
This, if anything, proves market competition is not always good. Certainly not when authorities are made to compete in an area they are supposed to impose restrictions(grades in this case).

Industry strength:
Our market model of all-covering collective bargaining and strong unions has reduced the number of strikes. We've also historically had some industrial policy of questionable morality(undercutting domestic currency to encourage exports).

1.

Which social programs? You assume that the money from taxation is spent on social programs rather than, as in most cases, being eaten by favours to interest groups or corruption, You also assume that social programs per definition lead to better social conditions, which is just ridiculous since the increases in taxes of late years in the OECD has not lead to better social conditions. Probably because of the first incorrect assumption you do.

2.

I am not disputing the importance of facts/research/evidence. I am disputing the necessity for facts when it is convenient only. Never has it been proven that higher taxes leads to better social conditions. On the contrary, the lower taxation has constantly been proven better, even when the money has been spent on so called social programs. Sweden, as mentioned before, is evidence of this, as the higher taxation in Sweden in recent years has lead to MORE social problems not less since we have had less job growth and corruption spiralling out of control (just re-branding corruption to lobbyism doesnt make it less destructive).

3.

I am Swedish too, uppvuxen i Malmo men flyttade fran Sverige nagra ar tillbaka. What I state about taxes is the true, whether you like it or not. That is why Sweden is experiencing a professional drain (in addition to all the Swedish companies moving offices abroad or being bought by other countries).

The Social Democracts in Sweden started favouring higher taxes in the middle of the 80's. Before that the expansion of the welfare sector did not require higher taxation as corruption was low (varje felanvand krona ar en stold av folket, remember?). With the continued expansion of the welfare section (mostly eaten by corruption as well-being has decreased despite of this), the taxation level has HAD to increase.

The Pomperipossa-skatt was not a median, average not even a top but a scenario that could present itself, and did unfortunately for some, but to refer to it as if it was reflective of the around 20-30% tax on GDP is just misleading and irrelevant to the overall tax debate of Sweden.

No the Kommunalskatt does not vary as anyone barely lives in municipalities with low rates. The average is 33 plus. Can you name a city with 50K with a rate below 30? A village in the middle of nowhere, where noone wants to live is of course completely irrelevant.

No the payroll tax barely moves. The few exception considering age were just a grant Moderaterna gave McDonalds because of lobbyism (remember that corruption?). To refer to it as if it has any relevance to 99% of the companies in Sweden is just ridiculous.

Regarding state income tax and capital gains tax, do I need to say more or are we in agreement that they are ridiculously high (despite you not even mentioning that they kick in at very low levels, 500k SEK for state income)?

"4.
Concerning the social problems Sweden has you seem to be in the dark on the facts."

Detta skriver du till en person som vaxte upp i Malmo och gick i skola med halva Rosengard? Driver du med mig? Kanske i din sota, rosa villaforort sa kanske det var annorlunda men for nagot som ser hur samhallet haller pa att bryta samman mer och mer, ar for ar, sa ar din kommentar rentav skrattretande.

In English, you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.

When it comes to crime, only Croatia has more gang shootings that Sweden. How you concluded from this that the crime rates in Sweden are just normalising to the rest of the EU is ridiculous now that Sweden is at the top, not the bottom, not the middle, but the top. Your excuses of the out of control crime rates in modern Sweden are completely irrelevant considering your own requirement of proof.

"There are a number of theories to why this happened, but there is consensus that increased segregation, reduced state presence, immigration and political deadlock. This is major political debate here atm, and is likely to bring down the government in next years elections."

There is no consensus that those are the reasons, at least not any proof-based ones. Reduced state presence? Is that a joke? The welfare state constitute 50% of the nations economy and besides minor variations (as when the right was in power last time where it fell to 48%) it has been constant around the 50 mark for the last 20 years.

"Unemployment:
Unemployment bottomed out in 1990 at 2%, before the 1991 housing crash. Now it's at 8-6%, depending on how you measure it. This growth has coincided with reduction in state size, immigration, tax reduction and spending compared to GDP, which I suspect has caused it."

So we are just going to ignore the standardise way of measuring unemployment for international comparisons because it fits certain interests? So much for that proof-based debate huh? Swedens unemployment as of today is 9.8%, as stated before almost double digit. When my parents moved to Sweden when I was a baby it was 2%. Since then taxes as of GDP has doubled, the public sector as doubled and unemployment as almost five folded. But yeah what was that consensus again, reduced state presence? Please do not try to blame this in COVID considering any comparable country is still faring better, Danmark nagon?

"PISA results:
The swedish school system is unique in encouraging market competition between state subsidised schools run either directly by the local coucil or entrepeneurs funded by the state. This has engendered negative competition and grade inflation between schools as they inflate the grades in order to draw students, whose number the subsidy amount depends on.
This, if anything, proves market competition is not always good. Certainly not when authorities are made to compete in an area they are supposed to impose restrictions(grades in this case)."

It is not unique in any way (kanske dags att sluta titta pa SVT?). The US (several states to be specific as schooling is mostly a state issue) and Chile (the most advance economy in Latin America with the best schools in that continent, didnt SVT tell you that?) to name 2 from the top of my head have it too. In any case, a crony system was set up in Swedish school to transfer funds from the state to private companies so that politicians could return the favours from lobbyism and this you claim to be prove that more government interference is needed?


"Industry strength:
Our market model of all-covering collective bargaining and strong unions has reduced the number of strikes. We've also historically had some industrial policy of questionable morality(undercutting domestic currency to encourage exports)."

I agree with this comment but not sure how it in any way relates to the discussion. This, once again, is nothing unique for Sweden, many countries do not have a minimum wage and let the industry parties negotiate basic terms.

God its so depressing seeing someone who Benefited from Social Democracy try to downplay it through the use of big words, Lobbyism really? Trying to hurt the Working Class through "any other means" indeed...

Originally posted by Squinky:

1.

Which social programs? You assume that the money from taxation is spent on social programs rather than, as in most cases, being eaten by favours to interest groups or corruption, You also assume that social programs per definition lead to better social conditions, which is just ridiculous since the increases in taxes of late years in the OECD has not lead to better social conditions. Probably because of the first incorrect assumption you do.

2.

I am not disputing the importance of facts/research/evidence. I am disputing the necessity for facts when it is convenient only. Never has it been proven that higher taxes leads to better social conditions. On the contrary, the lower taxation has constantly been proven better, even when the money has been spent on so called social programs. Sweden, as mentioned before, is evidence of this, as the higher taxation in Sweden in recent years has lead to MORE social problems not less since we have had less job growth and corruption spiralling out of control (just re-branding corruption to lobbyism doesnt make it less destructive).

3.

I am Swedish too, uppvuxen i Malmo men flyttade fran Sverige nagra ar tillbaka. What I state about taxes is the true, whether you like it or not. That is why Sweden is experiencing a professional drain (in addition to all the Swedish companies moving offices abroad or being bought by other countries).

The Social Democracts in Sweden started favouring higher taxes in the middle of the 80's. Before that the expansion of the welfare sector did not require higher taxation as corruption was low (varje felanvand krona ar en stold av folket, remember?). With the continued expansion of the welfare section (mostly eaten by corruption as well-being has decreased despite of this), the taxation level has HAD to increase.

The Pomperipossa-skatt was not a median, average not even a top but a scenario that could present itself, and did unfortunately for some, but to refer to it as if it was reflective of the around 20-30% tax on GDP is just misleading and irrelevant to the overall tax debate of Sweden.

No the Kommunalskatt does not vary as anyone barely lives in municipalities with low rates. The average is 33 plus. Can you name a city with 50K with a rate below 30? A village in the middle of nowhere, where noone wants to live is of course completely irrelevant.

No the payroll tax barely moves. The few exception considering age were just a grant Moderaterna gave McDonalds because of lobbyism (remember that corruption?). To refer to it as if it has any relevance to 99% of the companies in Sweden is just ridiculous.

Regarding state income tax and capital gains tax, do I need to say more or are we in agreement that they are ridiculously high (despite you not even mentioning that they kick in at very low levels, 500k SEK for state income)?

"4.
Concerning the social problems Sweden has you seem to be in the dark on the facts."

Detta skriver du till en person som vaxte upp i Malmo och gick i skola med halva Rosengard? Driver du med mig? Kanske i din sota, rosa villaforort sa kanske det var annorlunda men for nagot som ser hur samhallet haller pa att bryta samman mer och mer, ar for ar, sa ar din kommentar rentav skrattretande.

In English, you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.

When it comes to crime, only Croatia has more gang shootings that Sweden. How you concluded from this that the crime rates in Sweden are just normalising to the rest of the EU is ridiculous now that Sweden is at the top, not the bottom, not the middle, but the top. Your excuses of the out of control crime rates in modern Sweden are completely irrelevant considering your own requirement of proof.

"There are a number of theories to why this happened, but there is consensus that increased segregation, reduced state presence, immigration and political deadlock. This is major political debate here atm, and is likely to bring down the government in next years elections."

There is no consensus that those are the reasons, at least not any proof-based ones. Reduced state presence? Is that a joke? The welfare state constitute 50% of the nations economy and besides minor variations (as when the right was in power last time where it fell to 48%) it has been constant around the 50 mark for the last 20 years.

"Unemployment:
Unemployment bottomed out in 1990 at 2%, before the 1991 housing crash. Now it's at 8-6%, depending on how you measure it. This growth has coincided with reduction in state size, immigration, tax reduction and spending compared to GDP, which I suspect has caused it."

So we are just going to ignore the standardise way of measuring unemployment for international comparisons because it fits certain interests? So much for that proof-based debate huh? Swedens unemployment as of today is 9.8%, as stated before almost double digit. When my parents moved to Sweden when I was a baby it was 2%. Since then taxes as of GDP has doubled, the public sector as doubled and unemployment as almost five folded. But yeah what was that consensus again, reduced state presence? Please do not try to blame this in COVID considering any comparable country is still faring better, Danmark nagon?

"PISA results:
The swedish school system is unique in encouraging market competition between state subsidised schools run either directly by the local coucil or entrepeneurs funded by the state. This has engendered negative competition and grade inflation between schools as they inflate the grades in order to draw students, whose number the subsidy amount depends on.
This, if anything, proves market competition is not always good. Certainly not when authorities are made to compete in an area they are supposed to impose restrictions(grades in this case)."

It is not unique in any way (kanske dags att sluta titta pa SVT?). The US (several states to be specific as schooling is mostly a state issue) and Chile (the most advance economy in Latin America with the best schools in that continent, didnt SVT tell you that?) to name 2 from the top of my head have it too. In any case, a crony system was set up in Swedish school to transfer funds from the state to private companies so that politicians could return the favours from lobbyism and this you claim to be prove that more government interference is needed?


"Industry strength:
Our market model of all-covering collective bargaining and strong unions has reduced the number of strikes. We've also historically had some industrial policy of questionable morality(undercutting domestic currency to encourage exports)."

I agree with this comment but not sure how it in any way relates to the discussion. This, once again, is nothing unique for Sweden, many countries do not have a minimum wage and let the industry parties negotiate basic terms.

Ok, so it's gonna be one of THOSE debates.... -_-


1.
Yes, assuming that giving money to poor people will make them less poor is a sound assumption to make. It's also common knowledge, so the burden of proof is on you here.
Vague implications of corruption and and inefficiency do NOT constitute a sound counter-argument. You have to provide specific proof of a pattern(no anecdotical evidence).

You could also start by defining what you mean by corruption, because being vague about it might include NGO influence, independent researchers, interest groups for marginalised groups, etc. When these influence a government that can hardly be called corruption. A good source for defintion can be found at Transparency International, the premier anti-corruption organisation in the world.

As for the increasing taxation/welfare focus of OECD countries: Social programmes, like all other economic activity, are subject to the law of diminishing returns. There is, of course, an upper limit to what can be achevied with a reasonable amount of money given a certain level of structural efficiency.
Looking at when these limits were not yet reached(1945-1980) you can see the clear increase in living standards prompted by things like child benefits, univeral healthcare, state pensions, paid parental leave, unemployment benefit,, increased schooling, care for the elderly, etc. All funded through taxation.


2.
The absense of proof does not constitute proof, that's called an ad ignorantiam-argument. You are contradicting common knowledge by stating, in essence, that tax-funding giving money to the poor does not make them less poor. Please provide proof.

Also, correlation is not causation. Just because taxes went up does not mean they caused everything that happened in the meantime.


3.
Taxation in Sweden was not lower in the 80s.
Here, read:
https://www.ekonomifakta.se/fakta/skatter/skattetryck/skattetrycket-historiskt/#:~:text=2020%20uppgick%20skattetrycket%20till%2042,%C3%A4ndam%C3%A5l%2C%20har%20utvecklats%20%C3%B6ver%20tid.

As for you drivel about relevance, I was just stating what the law says. I wasn't even making an argument there.
You're free to actually read the tax law if you want, it's all there. Inkomstskattelagen, Lag om mervärdesskatt, Socialavgiftslagen, etc. You can find the old tax law online too, if you want, on the riksdagen.se and regeringen.se homesite by searching for the yearly propositions. I think they've got it all scanned in back to the 60s.
Also all the info is readily available so it can actually be read without prior understanding of the subject on skatteverket.se

Where the stepping up into the next tax tier takes place is a matter for political debate when actually knowing the state budget, so I can't say if it's actually low or high. I have never gone into the upper tiers, despite having worked full time in a low-end job, so I wouldn't say it's "ridiculously low".

Also, Stockholm city council(Stockholms kommun) has a rate of 29,82% this year while running a surplus. Kävlinge, with 32 000 residents has 29,69%. I took both one over and one under, because I didn't understand what you were implying.


4.
Samhället "bryter samman"(Society is "falling apart") is a highly subjective statement. That could mean anything you want it to, but I assume it means high unemployment combined with segregation, crime, and a low level of trust in society. These things tend to go hand in hand.

Dina personliga erfarenheter är anekdotiska bevis per definition, och har varken relevans eller bevisvärde.
Men, om vi MÅSTE ha en tävling i martyrskap, kan jag nämna att jag växte upp i Blackeberg och Vällingby(Tornen på Skattegårdsvägen) och var brevbärare i Husby efter gymnasiet(Gick ut 2014). Mina föräldrar flyttade till Sverige på 90-talet från Ungern. Jag har ett påtagligt utländskt efternamn.


Crime:
I expressly admitted that gang violence sticks out in Sweden. I was speaking about the general rate of crime, not gang violence specifically when I said that it's not any different from other EU countries. It's absolutely normal that more of a certain crime, while less of another, happens in certain countries. For example, gun violence is famously more common in the US, while they have less sexual crimes than most south american countries,even the more stable ones like Uruguay, Chile and Costa Rica. In Sweden non-narcotic smuggling, for example, is not a large problem.

By "state presence" I mean both the absence of police and the abscene of social integration efforts such as available administrative work, job training, etc. It's a vague term that I used in order not to support one side or the other.
Also, the size of the state currently stands at 42,8% of GDP, if measured by taxation.
https://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Arbetsmarknad/Integration/arbetsloshet-utrikes-fodda/

I can recommend the book "Tills alla dör" by Diamant Salihu. He's an investigative journalist who's specialised on gangs in segregated ares in Sweden. Everybody he has spoken to(authorities, family of cirminals, victims, etc.) in relation to his work state that gangs take over where the state falls back.


Unemployment:
Unemployment stands at 9.8%
https://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Arbetsmarknad/Arbetsloshet/Arbetsloshet/
Before the coronavirus hit, it stood at 6,0% or 7,1%, with the latter adjusting for seasonal variation.
This is a lot. I agree. The state should, imo, start hiring people to do all the work around the seniors that needs doing. That is public sector work. Also more police and health workers are needed. That is also public sector.
Swedish unemployment is highly tied to people not being able to integrate into society when living in segregated areas, as indicated by the 13% difference between foreign-born people and natives. This is unique to Sweden, considering our immigration levels in the 2010-s.
https://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/Arbetsmarknad/Integration/arbetsloshet-utrikes-fodda/

Also, Denmark is smaller and therefore naturally has a lower level of unemployment, due to structural advantages compared to Sweden. This makes the comparison unfair.


PISA results:
What I was stating was that it's unsound for a state authority to compete with another in the area in which they are execising that authority(myndighetsutövning). That's like having two tax authorities and being allowed to choose which one you want to pay your taxes to.

The swedish system is unique in the following ways:
1. State organs charged with exercising authority compete over having the subjects of that authority under them.
2. The losers recieve less funding.

This means that schools have to draw students in, even though they are supposed to grade them, which entices them to be lenient. This engenders grade inflation, and should be banned, that is more state authority is needed to prevent competition.

You could argue that the whole thing should be privatised and paid for by students's families, but that would mean schooling would no longer be universal and we'd be back in the 1700's.

Industry strength:
Striking is banned when there is a collective agreement in place. This ensures no production stops and therefore high productivity.


If you're gonna respond to this please observe the following:
1. Correlation is not causation
2. No crackpot theories(BS:en om SVT)
3. Stay on topic
4. What is commonly known does not need to be proven. This includes common sense deductions.
5. Counterarguments by rethorical question do not prove your point.

Originally posted by Aturchomicz:

God its so depressing seeing someone who Benefited from Social Democracy try to downplay it through the use of big words, Lobbyism really? Trying to hurt the Working Class through "any other means" indeed...

Libertarians are usually, in my experience, basement dwellers who desire power over people that can't do anything about it.
They rationalise their desires as "protecting rights", but the pattern where it's always the ruling elites/rich/white(read Rothbard) that have "rights" and those who really need what libertarians want to take away always have to be "disciplined", "work harder", "stop being lazy", etc. quickly becomes apparent.
It's just more of the "undeserving poor" drivel from the 1800:s, that eventually spawned notions of natural superiority in some. Libertarians fundamentally just want to rule like kings over people, but not through state power, opting instead for corporate power.