The real urban tax, for the leading groups of winners, is significantly lower than today 1992. The lack of information about the deduction of the employment tax deduction still dominates the case our urban rates.
picture: Peter Ottosson
Älmhult has raised the tax of most Swedish boroughs. However, due to the tax deductions for work, most employees have received lower income tax.
The maps published by Professor Charlotte Mellander of the International Business School in Jönköping speak their clear language. At present, the high tax in 1992 is the norms of the Swedish boroughs. Tax rates rise gradually to new levels slowly. And at the same time, there are differences in extradition increases. The Vellinge borough has a deduction that has six chorons lower than Dorotea.
The picture is true and correct. But he does not say everything at the same time. In the opposite case, the urban tax exemption for the large group of wage winners is lower today than it was in 1992.
Take Älmhult as mentioned when the Ekored steps report the research. Here, urban tax has increased most in the country during the period. From 29.29 to 32.96 kronor per dog breed of earnings.
Although the urban tax in 1992 amounted to 29 per cent, the wage winner with an income of 26,000 kronor in the month today has a real income tax of 23.4 per cent. For those who earn a low and medium income in Sweden, income rates are so much lower today than in 1992.
This fact appears to be flawed in all arguments, which are about increasing urban taxes, regional tax differences and an impact on the tax work environment. The job tax loop presented by the League government has a very big impact on income tax, and therefore leads to the fact that taxation of large groups in the labor market is around 25 percent.
As the income tax deduction increases with urban taxes, it is also much higher in high tax taxes than in low-tax (bourgeois) towns. Even the one who earns 26,000 SEK in Dorotea, where the tax in SEK 35, pays a 25 percent tax!
Behind this system is that government spending is increasing. There are no pressure on boroughs to hold up tax increases because they are largely paid for by the state and that that ultimately causes the state to get higher expenses. That must tax other taxes. Smaller tax relief, on the other hand, results in a reduction in the tax deduction.
Citizens, the people who work, find it harder for this system to assess the link between urban taxes and, for example, welfare. They never see more than the real tax rate in the statement, but they pay a much lower tax to the borough.
In addition, the job tax deduction operates as a further equal system. One can also object to the fact that residents of higher income boroughs pay lower taxes than their discretionary leadership decides.
The work tax deductions system has really been profitable to work for low pay groups too. It has also reduced the marginalized tax of low income and reduced regional discrimination of tax exemptions. For sickness absence, parents and unemployed, higher urban taxes are an increasing problem, and it is rarely discussed – because they do not have a job tax deduction and pay much higher taxes. During the year of force of the green government, more and more people have had to pay state income tax already in force at SEK 38,000 per month.
But the perception that local astronomical rates also resist targets such as increasing employment and well-being. Those whose job tax deductions have been designed for – unemployed to be motivated to work – are the least aware of their incident. In this perspective, it is less fortunate that employees believe they have an urban tax of SEK 32 when they actually pay 25.