Several unions in Sweden also have opinions about the proposed tax-exempt basic level. The union SACO, believes that the proposal "increases the complexity" of the tax system. What they mean is not quite clear, but one argument could be that in a family with several family members, you could distribute the savings in an account for each person and thus increase the tax-exempt basic level for the family as a whole.
Another union, LO, believes that the proposal costs far too much money in the form of lost tax revenue. In order for the proposal to be a "cost to the state", it must be assumed that the money first and foremost belongs to the state. Only then, and only depending on how I choose to spend this money, can this become a cost to the state.
To clarify LO's reasoning, if I forego a minor pleasure such as a visit to the cinema or the like and instead save $85, I become a cost to the state in the form of reduced tax revenue under this proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment