Silvaire wrote:
One difference is that Scandinavian culture encourages success, because it’s seen as the source for funding government activity that satisfies the objectives of a very uniform majority, along with e.g. 70% total tax rates
What is this 70% total tax rate you’re talking about? Please explain! If you are talking about the combined effect of VAT, income tax etc. as you suggested earlier it is not enough to be “the 1%” to reach that level. You need to be “the 0.1%”.
Total tax take in most countries in Europe is around 75% of gross salary, IIRC. This is the combined effect of all the taxes, if you spend the money on “stuff”.
Let’s break this down.
Let’s assume a Swedish net monthly salary of 30 000 SEK for a person living in Lund municipality during 2021.
Skattetabell 33 applies. Thus the gross monthly salary needs to be 40 370 SEK. Annually 484 440 SEK.
An Aktiebolag needs to invoice 484 440 SEK + 31.42% Arbetsgivaravgifter = 636 651 SEK annually.
On top of that comes 407 807 + 25% VAT = 795 814 SEK.
Let’s summarize:
Net salary per year: 360 000 SEK
Total value invoiced: 795 814 SEK
Total tax rate: 55%
I have not considered any insurances, vacation time, pension (tjänstepension), business expenses, etc. But those are expenses that a company would have to cover in another country as well.
As I mentioned, I was talking about successful people, those targeted for high tax rates, perhaps those who make the equivalent of $250 or 300K a year gross or five times the average. In the US that’s earners in top 5 to 10 percent, and anywhere in the world it makes you a good candidate for GA activity.
Let’s say the effective income tax rate plus social security tax for a successful person leaves them with 50% of their wage income before spending it. Then in Sweden they lose a quarter of the half that’s left in VAT, leaving about 38% to spend. Then miscellaneous other taxes like property tax on their house, capital gains tax on assets sold, vehicle road tax and so on. I think you get down to down to 30% left over pretty easily.
Peter wrote:
Total tax take in most countries in Europe is around 75% of gross salary, IIRC. This is the combined effect of all the taxes, if you spend the money on “stuff”.
Are you sure? Most countries are around 45-50% income tax for high net income plus around 20% on the remainder that you spend (between 25% and 50% of the original 100%). So it adds up to 50%+20% x 25-50% = 55-60%worst case…is it not?
I think what’s being got at is the proportion of your after-tax income that goes back to the state as VAT (and other taxes) if you behave as a good little consumer should and keep the economy chugging along by spending all your money on ‘stuff’.
Of course I actively try to avoid this as much as I can, but if I spend some presumably fairly high proportion of my net salary on stuff that attracts VAT at 20% (or 25% in other European countries) then it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the proportion of my gross salary that goes on tax in one form or another quickly rises way above 50% and towards the numbers described.
Fuel is the worst – duty on it, and then VAT on both the fuel and the duty. Tax on tax!
Graham wrote:
Fuel is the worst – duty on it, and then VAT on both the fuel and the duty. Tax on tax!
I forgot that one 
in the U.K. it used to be that 70 to 80% of what you paid per liter went to the government, not sure how that may have changed over time.
I’m with you in avoiding sales taxes whenever possible. In many US states you pay sales tax on a used vehicle purchase on which the previous owners also paid sales tax with their purchase. Similar to the UK fuel situation although only single digit tax percentages per sale. The good news is that if you buy used goods out of state, the recorded sales price is whatever you tell your state – there is no other reporting mechanism.
Silvaire wrote:
As I mentioned, I was talking about successful people, those targeted for high tax rates, perhaps those who make the equivalent of $250 or 300K a year gross or five times the average. In the US that’s earners in top 5 to 10 percent, and anywhere in the world it makes you a good candidate for GA activity.Let’s say the effective income tax rate plus social security tax for a successful person leaves them with 50% of their wage income before spending it. Then in Sweden they lose a quarter of the half that’s left in VAT, leaving about 38% to spend. Then miscellaneous other taxes like property tax on their house, capital gains tax on assets sold, vehicle road tax and so on. I think you get down to down to 30% left over pretty easily.
Five times the average income is not in any way representative for GA pilots in Sweden. Sweden has a much flatter income distribution than does the US.
And, please, check how the Swedish tax system works otherwise this is pure guesswork from your side. There is no capital tax in Sweden and a very low cap on property tax for houses, so that is negligible. Also, people don’t “lose a quarter” in VAT – they lose 20%.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Five times the average income is not in any way representative for GA pilots in Sweden.
Given how much less expensive flying is in the US, that’s true here too, but you asked me to whom I was referring when mentioning 70% total taxation in Sweden. I’m sure sure there are people in Sweden whose gross pay is equal to the top 5 or 10% in the US (the $250-300K gross range that I mentioned), and it was the tax percentage on financially successful people that I referred to, and which was therefore being discussed.
Here is some readily accessible Swedish taxation data that I looked over before posting originally Data
Sweden apparently has 30% flat capital gains tax, up to 0.3% annual property tax on residential housing value, 25% VAT, 22% tax on sale of a residential property. Are those numbers in error?
Gender question: no matter how hard the politically correct establishment tries to shove women into aviation (or the STEM fields), the simple truth is that they are generally just not as interested as men are. Period.
Which is not genetically or naturally or whatever explainable, it’s for historical/cultural/societal reasons. It’s cognitive stuff and starts before we’re born.
Try going into a department store and asking for some clothes for a baby. The first question you’ll be asked is „Boy or girl?“. Then you get offered the stupid pink/blue division.
Sweden, Norway, Denmark fare much better in that regard compared to Austria, for instance.
But, no need to be afraid, most airlines still only have a single % digit of female pilots in their cockpits ;)
GA could experience a huge boost if an effort was made to include/invite women to get a PPL.
The single greatest problem of GA is that it’s such a marginal activity.
