Skip to comments.Taxing the self-employed - the Swedish Model (Soon to be the U.S. Model?)
Posted on 10/18/2008 10:38:18 AM PDT by trueamerica
In 1976, a scandal arose in Sweden when marginal tax rate for self-employed was 102%. Yes, 102%!!! It is not a typo. This was to be known as the "Pomperipossa effect" from a story published on March 3, 1976.
The publication led to a stormy tax debate. In the parliamentary election later in the same year the Social Democrat government was voted out for the first time in 40 years, and the tax debate was one of several controversies that may have contributed to the election result.
So for every dollar you make after a certain point, you are taxed $1.02? Ha. Let’s not give Obama any ideas.
"...and the tax debate was one of several controversies that may have contributed to the election result."
And of course, the world is well aware of all the innovations, research and betterment that comes out of Sweden . . . right?
So after Joe’s pie is confiscated, he’ll be ordered to a government work camp to bake additional pies (to be confiscated and traded for votes in the gutters of Chicago, Philly, and DC).
Yes, but the self employed felt good about themselves, because of what they were doing for society. /s
They were mighty patriotic!
Astrid Lindgren...isn’t that the author of “Pippi Longstocking”?
We are already there. They just do it to you case by case in divorce court.
Are all of our courts this incompetent?
The total award of interim spousal support to Laurie $5,741 is approximately 64 percent of Ned’s monthly gross income which the trial court found to be $9,000. (9)
Thus, after satisfying his monthly obligations for interim spousal support in the amount of $5,741 and child support in the total amount of $2,372.17 per month as ordered by
the court, Ned would be left with $886.83 (10) of his gross monthly income to use toward his own expenses. Considering the facts of this case and the trial court’s finding that
Ned’s monthly gross income was $9,000 we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in setting Laurie’s award of interim spousal support. Given Laurie’s needs, Ned’s ability to pay and Laurie’s entitlement to an amount in keeping with the standard of living enjoyed by the spouses during the marriage, we conclude that the most the trial court could have reasonably awarded in direct payment to Laurie in interim spousal support is $2,300 per month through the date of the rendition of the divorce. The judgment will be amended accordingly.
(8) Notably, LSA-C.C. art. 112(B) (1997) provided that the sum awarded under LSA-C.C. art. 112(A) for final spousal support shall not exceed one third of the obligor s net income. No similar provision is provided with respect to an award of interim spousal support.
(9) As owner of the vehicle that Laurie had been driving the clinic had been paying the monthly note in the amount of $630 for this vehicle as well as the monthly insurance premium of $143 associated with that vehicle. With the reduction of these amounts the remaining portion of interim spousal support would be approximately 55 percent of Ned’s gross income.
(10) After reduction for amounts paid by the clinic Ned would have $1,659.83 of his gross monthly income remaining.
Link to the ruling