Assuming it’s true, I love that countries like Norway, Finland, and Baltic states have responses closer to 50%, implying better democratic representation of taxation policies. I see this as less of “wealth inequality” and more of “political inequality”.
In Denmark we have something called top tax where everyone over a certain income level are taxed a little over 50% of their income.
Unless, of course, you are a mega-rich corporation, then you pay 4% tax or less because you have the power to take your business elsewhere if you get offended and your 4% tax or less still contributes a pretty significant amount to our country, so no one dares to put pressure on you to contribute what you owe to society. 🫠
So it isn’t exactly perfect. Those who are rich enough get to do whatever they want even in a system that is otherwise built to support the collective.
It sometimes pisses me off to know how easily most of our issues could be solved if companies like Mærsk and Novo Nordisk paid one or two percent more in taxes. Not even close to what they actually owe, but just one or two percent more. It could be a fucking game changer for our healthcare and educational system.
I feel like the percentages should be higher in Denmark, but I don’t think people think about corporations getting to cheat the system when they are asked this question. They think about the well off civilians among us who already pay over half of their income in taxes and they will probably feel like it would be unfair to have to pay even more. At that point the thought would go to: why the fuck did I even get this degree, took on this responsibility and worked these hours if at the end of the day I have the same money after tax as a school teacher?
I can’t speak for all the other Nordic countries, though I suspect similar constellations there.
@Nangijala hard agree. Same in Holland, low corporate taxes, it’s the Delaware of Europe. Royal Dutch Shell paying 1% more could probably get everyone free education, no more study loans etc. Another 1% could give them all free and 100% funded basic health care insurance, no more “private contributions”.
Re: Denmark and Maersk etc, the deal is usually “look we don’t want to pay more than 4%, otherwise we’ll move to Poland and we’ll take all the jobs with us”, and the Danish govt gives in. BUT - Maersk is huge, billions of dollars. Lots of boats, lots of workers. But here’s the question - how many Danes work for Maersk? The vast majority are sailors from Russia, Phillipines, China, India, etc. ? Would anything change for them if Maersk would exit to say Warsaw, and pay their 4% tax there? No. How many Danes? Only a small percentage of Maersk staff. So why not say to Maersk: look, 30% tax like everyone else or just go fuck off. Take the risk. It’s a lot smaller than you think.
I mean if I was in charge of government, I would probably be willing to take the gamble, but alas, I’m not and Mærsk and Novo Nordisk both use some of their money on “charity” work in Denmark where they set up funds that support the industry or they pay to build stuff like The Black Diamond which was Mærsk’s present to Denmark. Many think it’s super duper gracious of them and through my job, I have also benefitted from the Novo Nordisk fond. But others think that it shouldn’t be like this. They should pay their taxes and let it be up to the government what the money is spent on instead of doing this charity shit where they more or less pay for initiatives that benefits their own interests. In an ideal world, the latter would be how things were, but again, what can you do? If they decided to pull out of Denmark as punishment, those funds would probably disappear too. To me, it’s mafia behavior but I have been called out before for uttering such words about our gracious Mærsk xD especially back in the 2000s where the wider opinion was that we should be grateful and not greedy for them paying anything at all to the state. At least that was the opinion in the area where I lived at the time.
I was also being way too generous toward Mærsk. If I remember correctly, Mærsk pays somewhere around 2% tax. Apparently they paid 3,7% tax in 2022 and were praised for it haha. I don’t remember what Novo Nordisk pays in taxes, but my guess is they pay more than Mærsk but less than the lowest tax percent for poor people here.
If there’s something good for the people you can do/get in another EU country they regulate it instantly making it equal to the worst country.
When it’s stuff like capital flight they do nothing.
We are ruled by oligarchs.
Basically the same in Sweden. I think the reason %-turnout is a bit higher here is because of some very beneficial tax structures on existing wealth for private individuals. Capital gains is normally taxed at 30% of the earnings but you can opt to place (parts of) your portfolio in special accounts (”Investeringssparkonto” and ”Kapitalförsäkring” for example) where the tax is below 1% of that entire account’s value. Makes it possible to get much more out of certain investments.
One argument might then be that if you have enough capital to invest from the beginning, you’ll be at an advantage compared to those that don’t. And wealth gaps might become larger as a result
Assuming it’s true, I love that countries like Norway, Finland, and Baltic states have responses closer to 50%, implying better democratic representation of taxation policies. I see this as less of “wealth inequality” and more of “political inequality”.
In Denmark we have something called top tax where everyone over a certain income level are taxed a little over 50% of their income.
Unless, of course, you are a mega-rich corporation, then you pay 4% tax or less because you have the power to take your business elsewhere if you get offended and your 4% tax or less still contributes a pretty significant amount to our country, so no one dares to put pressure on you to contribute what you owe to society. 🫠
So it isn’t exactly perfect. Those who are rich enough get to do whatever they want even in a system that is otherwise built to support the collective.
It sometimes pisses me off to know how easily most of our issues could be solved if companies like Mærsk and Novo Nordisk paid one or two percent more in taxes. Not even close to what they actually owe, but just one or two percent more. It could be a fucking game changer for our healthcare and educational system.
I feel like the percentages should be higher in Denmark, but I don’t think people think about corporations getting to cheat the system when they are asked this question. They think about the well off civilians among us who already pay over half of their income in taxes and they will probably feel like it would be unfair to have to pay even more. At that point the thought would go to: why the fuck did I even get this degree, took on this responsibility and worked these hours if at the end of the day I have the same money after tax as a school teacher?
I can’t speak for all the other Nordic countries, though I suspect similar constellations there.
@Nangijala hard agree. Same in Holland, low corporate taxes, it’s the Delaware of Europe. Royal Dutch Shell paying 1% more could probably get everyone free education, no more study loans etc. Another 1% could give them all free and 100% funded basic health care insurance, no more “private contributions”.
Re: Denmark and Maersk etc, the deal is usually “look we don’t want to pay more than 4%, otherwise we’ll move to Poland and we’ll take all the jobs with us”, and the Danish govt gives in. BUT - Maersk is huge, billions of dollars. Lots of boats, lots of workers. But here’s the question - how many Danes work for Maersk? The vast majority are sailors from Russia, Phillipines, China, India, etc. ? Would anything change for them if Maersk would exit to say Warsaw, and pay their 4% tax there? No. How many Danes? Only a small percentage of Maersk staff. So why not say to Maersk: look, 30% tax like everyone else or just go fuck off. Take the risk. It’s a lot smaller than you think.
I mean if I was in charge of government, I would probably be willing to take the gamble, but alas, I’m not and Mærsk and Novo Nordisk both use some of their money on “charity” work in Denmark where they set up funds that support the industry or they pay to build stuff like The Black Diamond which was Mærsk’s present to Denmark. Many think it’s super duper gracious of them and through my job, I have also benefitted from the Novo Nordisk fond. But others think that it shouldn’t be like this. They should pay their taxes and let it be up to the government what the money is spent on instead of doing this charity shit where they more or less pay for initiatives that benefits their own interests. In an ideal world, the latter would be how things were, but again, what can you do? If they decided to pull out of Denmark as punishment, those funds would probably disappear too. To me, it’s mafia behavior but I have been called out before for uttering such words about our gracious Mærsk xD especially back in the 2000s where the wider opinion was that we should be grateful and not greedy for them paying anything at all to the state. At least that was the opinion in the area where I lived at the time.
I was also being way too generous toward Mærsk. If I remember correctly, Mærsk pays somewhere around 2% tax. Apparently they paid 3,7% tax in 2022 and were praised for it haha. I don’t remember what Novo Nordisk pays in taxes, but my guess is they pay more than Mærsk but less than the lowest tax percent for poor people here.
If there’s something good for the people you can do/get in another EU country they regulate it instantly making it equal to the worst country.
When it’s stuff like capital flight they do nothing.
We are ruled by oligarchs.
Basically the same in Sweden. I think the reason %-turnout is a bit higher here is because of some very beneficial tax structures on existing wealth for private individuals. Capital gains is normally taxed at 30% of the earnings but you can opt to place (parts of) your portfolio in special accounts (”Investeringssparkonto” and ”Kapitalförsäkring” for example) where the tax is below 1% of that entire account’s value. Makes it possible to get much more out of certain investments.
One argument might then be that if you have enough capital to invest from the beginning, you’ll be at an advantage compared to those that don’t. And wealth gaps might become larger as a result