Please bear in mind that 1) that number is the highest marginal tax bracket, only paid by those with the most income, and 2) it's actually 57% not the rounded up value of 60%.
For comparison, the marginal tax rate for the highest tax bracket in the US was above 60% during 1932-1986, with a peak was 91% in 1946-1964.
Of course you're mostly just sniping numbers, since that article you quoted also says Swedes say they are "very happy to pay high taxes because I know I am getting value for the money later on."
In the US we pay for things directly which are, in Sweden, paid indirectly through taxes.
Do you really care if you pay 5% less in taxes only to have to pay 10% of your income per year in health care?
> Do you really care if you pay 5% less in taxes only to have to pay 10% of your income per year in health care?
There is one difference: you can't shop around. It's probably not a problem in Sweden, but in a lot of other "government provides everything" countries, there's a huge variation in quality of government-provided services (like schooling and doctors). You might get stuck with a crappy doctor (because of geographical assignment), while there's a great one on the next street. If I can keep my 5%, I pick my own doctor (within my budget).
My point was that comparing the overall tax rate is worthless.
I gave a counter-example to show why.
I did not say nor mean to imply that it was a universal counter-example, although it seems you took it that way.
Your argument now is that "low taxes and affordable access to good services is better than high taxes and haphazard access to good services."
This is a different argument, and in fact is the same argument that I'm making, which is that you have to look at all of the costs and benefits, and not just simple income tax rates.
I was only arguing about a specific point in your post, not all of it. I read the rest of your post as "some people pay/paid high taxes, and are/were doing just fine". That implies (or at least that's how I read it) that higher taxes don't have a downside, which is what I was arguing against.
