WhiteLove
2nd January 2017, 14:37
The government of Sweden has reported on the operating vs net income on privately owned businesses within the social (education, healthcare, care) vs. service sector and it shows that the net income in the social sector is currently overall twice as high as in the service sector, no matter how you count it.
The government of Sweden proposes a ceiling on the net income for privately owned businesses within the social sector at +7% plus the state obligation rate (~2,25%), the rest should be re-invested into the business so that the tax payer money stays within the business and is used to build the business in such a way that the society grows more healthy when the business grows more healthy.
Source: http://www.di.se/nyheter/utredning-vinsttak-och-tillstandsplikt-for-valfardsforetag/
Keep in mind that this is not a fixed ceiling, it is a percentage. 9,25% net income ceiling can still be very lucrative and the asset will keep growing in value. So it is a soft type of limit.
This reform is in my view the result of a fairly strong left wing in Sweden's current government, which is highly critical to private businesses within the social sector that today puts money as a top concern although these businesses are supposed to make the society more healthy. The rich grow more rich while the unhealthy grow more unhealthy and that has to then come to an end.
This reform proposal has started a debate in Sweden, the capitalists don't like it, the socialists like it. In my view limitations are by themselves not good, but you need to remember that money in itself is a limitation, so in this case by introducing this kind of limitation you apply limitation on limitation and that actually then has a reversed effect - less limitation all in all. The result is simply that the returns on investments are not pouring into more limitation (money), instead it is pouring into re-investments and these re-investments are then consumable by the society and that then results in a more healthy society. So it is a good thing, the model and the thinking is right. Those that don't like that, because of money being such a high priority, should then become active with businesses in the service sector instead.
The underlying statement in this reform proposal is that where the tax payer's money goes counts, within the private businesses in the social sector it must not be about making huge returns into the own pockets, it must be about cooperation towards creating a more healthy society.
This sends the right signal to TPTB.
This model is pretty scalable too, because when this starts to lift the society nothing stops you from placing more business types under the same umbrella. Since this type of policy removes incentives to start privately owned businesses within the social sector vs. the service sector, the social sector becomes more fueled by tax payer money rather than by greed. At the same time because you can put additional business types under the same umbrella it becomes a way of channeling the tax payer money much more efficiently. For instance you could view privately owned music businesses as a type of social business rather than a service business and now you could pour more tax payer money into these types of businesses to start them up and keep them healthy while limiting the money pouring out of them, in this way people gain more music of higher quality while more people can work within the music industry without being taken out by the few really huge well established media companies that put huge amounts of money into their pockets from royalties/copyright. This would also weaken frequency control.
So this is a very scalable concept in a democracy.
The government of Sweden proposes a ceiling on the net income for privately owned businesses within the social sector at +7% plus the state obligation rate (~2,25%), the rest should be re-invested into the business so that the tax payer money stays within the business and is used to build the business in such a way that the society grows more healthy when the business grows more healthy.
Source: http://www.di.se/nyheter/utredning-vinsttak-och-tillstandsplikt-for-valfardsforetag/
Keep in mind that this is not a fixed ceiling, it is a percentage. 9,25% net income ceiling can still be very lucrative and the asset will keep growing in value. So it is a soft type of limit.
This reform is in my view the result of a fairly strong left wing in Sweden's current government, which is highly critical to private businesses within the social sector that today puts money as a top concern although these businesses are supposed to make the society more healthy. The rich grow more rich while the unhealthy grow more unhealthy and that has to then come to an end.
This reform proposal has started a debate in Sweden, the capitalists don't like it, the socialists like it. In my view limitations are by themselves not good, but you need to remember that money in itself is a limitation, so in this case by introducing this kind of limitation you apply limitation on limitation and that actually then has a reversed effect - less limitation all in all. The result is simply that the returns on investments are not pouring into more limitation (money), instead it is pouring into re-investments and these re-investments are then consumable by the society and that then results in a more healthy society. So it is a good thing, the model and the thinking is right. Those that don't like that, because of money being such a high priority, should then become active with businesses in the service sector instead.
The underlying statement in this reform proposal is that where the tax payer's money goes counts, within the private businesses in the social sector it must not be about making huge returns into the own pockets, it must be about cooperation towards creating a more healthy society.
This sends the right signal to TPTB.
This model is pretty scalable too, because when this starts to lift the society nothing stops you from placing more business types under the same umbrella. Since this type of policy removes incentives to start privately owned businesses within the social sector vs. the service sector, the social sector becomes more fueled by tax payer money rather than by greed. At the same time because you can put additional business types under the same umbrella it becomes a way of channeling the tax payer money much more efficiently. For instance you could view privately owned music businesses as a type of social business rather than a service business and now you could pour more tax payer money into these types of businesses to start them up and keep them healthy while limiting the money pouring out of them, in this way people gain more music of higher quality while more people can work within the music industry without being taken out by the few really huge well established media companies that put huge amounts of money into their pockets from royalties/copyright. This would also weaken frequency control.
So this is a very scalable concept in a democracy.