Ironic, nu-i asa?
De fiecare data cand cineva incearca sa argumenteze o crestere de taxe pentru a sustine un “stat social” Suedia este data ca exemplu. In cultura populara Suedia este vazuta ca tara unde taxele sunt mari si toti o duc bine.
Este normal atunci ca nimeni sa nu aminteasca ca Suedia a luata o decizie contrara tuturor tarilor din UE pentru a iesi di criza economica: a taiat taxele. Aveti aici un articol din 2010 care vorbeste despre succescul acestor masuri.
Acum la 2 ani dupa ce au fost luate aceste masuri rezultatele sunt mult mai clare si acum suntem siguri ca “experimentul” Suedez a fost un succes. In acelasi jurnal a aparut de curand un alt articol care face un bilant al acestor masuri.
“‘Everybody was told “stimulus, stimulus, stimulus”,’ he says — referring to the EU, IMF and the alphabet soup of agencies urging a global, debt-fuelled spending splurge. Borg, an economist, couldn’t work out how this would help. ‘It was surprising that Europe, given what we experienced in the 1970s and 80s with structural unemployment, believed that short-term Keynesianism could solve the problem.’ Non-economists, he says, ‘might have a tendency to fall for those kinds of messages’.
He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it; he even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden. The last bit was the most unpopular, but for Borg, economic recovery starts with entrepreneurs. If cutting taxes for the rich encouraged risk-taking, then it had to be done. ‘In most cases, the company would not have been created without the owner,’ he says. ‘There would be no Ikea without [Ingvar] Kamprad. We would not have Tetra-Pak without [Ruben] Rausing. They are probably the foremost entrepreneurs we have had in the last few decades, and both moved out of Sweden.’”
Nu pot sa mai spun decat: Deci se poate!!!.
Articol preluat de AICI