What's new
What's new

FYI: Denmark sucks

Status
Not open for further replies.
What did you expect from The Gray Lady?

“You need a reality check about Denmark, check OECD where we outrank US,” said Haifaa Awad, a doctor and pundit who rarely finds herself in agreement with the Danish government."

Interesting that the only NYT quote is from a woman who is not Danish.

They do this all the time in the European press. The photographic bias is even worse.

The worst culprit is the BBC. I was greatly pleased when your great president refused to take BBC questions, that was a beauty.

Sad to learn that the USA is also infected.
 
A brief quote from Haifaa Awad, but mostly from Anders Krab-Johansen. She might have been born in Syria, but she's been Danish since she was aged 7. She's at least as Danish as Gordon is and he's certainly a patriot.
 
A brief quote from Haifaa Awad, but mostly from Anders Krab-Johansen. She might have been born in Syria, but she's been Danish since she was aged 7. She's at least as Danish as Gordon is and he's certainly a patriot.

"Patriot", "PITA", "Pussy Riot".. wot's in a label anyway?

Dunno as the blame is Socialism or just "culture", but by seeking to reduce sources of stress and level it all out, Denmark seems to have shut-down healthy outlets, variety in general, and gotten it to endure and fester chronically.

Mindful of "just living with" the mental equivalent of dandruff, athletes' foot, shitty commuter traffic, robocalls, daytime TV, or junk mail.

Not as if they have any sort of actual patent on it, IOW.
 
Just for the record, I am copying the comments to text because web links always go bad eventually (aka please don't post links, post the data):

Fox News "host" Trish Regan Sunday, August 12, 2018:

“Denmark, like Venezuela, has stripped people of their opportunities,”.... “Nobody is incentivized to do anything because they’re not going to be rewarded."

Obviously, the Danish did not appreciate their country being economically compared to Venezuela.

In defense of Denmark, I would point out that its GDP per capita is significantly higher than that of both France and the UK, so in terms of productivity and the welfare state, it would be more accurate to target France and the UK, which are both much more economically oppressive than Denmark. Much of this is related to regulations. For example, the UK has far more economy-stifling regulations and bureaucrats than does Denmark. It is true that Denmark has some heavy socialistic policies, but they are not trying to regulate the diameter of a tooth paste tubes and stuff like that you find in England and France.

Of course, the gold standard of economic productivity continues to be set by the United States and by the city states, Singapore and Hong Kong, all of which are (relatively) low tax, low regulation jurisdictions.
 
Uk is not stifled by regulations, and in reading threads on here about city planning osha and other stuff in the us possibly harder. The enemy of business in the UK is crippling real estate costs.
Ive lived in France where you have low wages coupled to high tax where it does cause a problem.
 
Uk is not stifled by regulations, and in reading threads on here about city planning osha and other stuff in the us possibly harder. The enemy of business in the UK is crippling real estate costs.
Ive lived in France where you have low wages coupled to high tax where it does cause a problem.

"Reading threads" is a snapshot at best.

Novate a few body-corporate, several countries, UK doesn't seem bad atall. Spend some time as a Member Institute of Directors, share notes with other Directors who have also operated globally, it isn't that grand, either. To be fair, Italy is WORSE. Most other EU "majors" about the same total load, just hits in different ways. The whole lot of the majors are seriously heavily ossified vs The Americas or Asia. Commerce - of any type - is meant to be a meal-ticket for parasites and very much IS.

Brexit may help. Part of the burden is the dual-hit, UK & EU regulations.

The other is causing the UK to have to drag its collective HEAD out and go back to working like Hell to survive. Which they can do, and rather well, when they must do.
 
. The enemy of business in the UK is crippling real estate costs..

How so? A quick look shows industrial rents in the UK, for good space ranging between $5.50 and $7.50., That might be marginally higher than rates in the US in some markets, but comparable in others for new high cube product. It looks like a minimal difference and certainly not so much that it would identified as an over arching economic issue.

Industrial Rents Map | United Kingdom | Colliers International

As for Denmark sucking, I certainty would find such a high tax environment oppressive, ours is bad enough. They are heavily taxed but the real reason they can afford the social programs is because they don't break the bank on military spending. It should be no surprise that average and below average people would love life in a heavily taxed welfare oriented social democracy.
 
How so? A quick look shows industrial rents in the UK, for good space ranging between $5.50 and $7.50., That might be marginally higher than rates in the US in some markets, but comparable in others for new high cube product. It looks like a minimal difference and certainly not so much that it would identified as an over arching economic issue.

Industrial Rents Map | United Kingdom | Colliers International

As for Denmark sucking, I certainty would find such a high tax environment oppressive, ours is bad enough. They are heavily taxed but the real reason they can afford the social programs is because they don't break the bank on military spending. It should be no surprise that average and below average people would love life in a heavily taxed welfare oriented social democracy.

My experience is based on getting reamed by real estate prices firsthand
For example my first workshop was 5000 sq ft in a poorer area. Rent was £2400 pcm(cheap) and rates £1000pcm.it was a nice building.
It got compulsory purchased so I had to move 5 miles to the mainland so to speak.
3000Sq ft shithole with leaks rent £4500 pcm rates £5000pcm. Funnily enough I threw in the towel and downsized to 1000sq ft and could get rates exemption

My former employer moved to serbia a few years back.He had paid over £20million in rates in the last thirty years .
He asked for a six month rates tax break to save the company. Council said no. Serbian government paid him to relocate. He demolished his uk facility as the rates cost
rendered it unrentable.
A lot of buildings got demolished for this very reason

We also have the secondary real estate cost problem of housing costs and the burdon this causes.
 
Is this a poke at a member here with BS (news) found online?
Why?
More important have you been on the ground there, talked with real people living it.
When was the last time you spent time in dirt sides of Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and heard the stories from the street?
If you want to see the real dark side of life I can show you so much right here in my home which was not here 30 years ago.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Bob
 
. . . Of course, the gold standard of economic productivity continues to be set by the United States and by the city states, Singapore and Hong Kong, all of which are (relatively) low tax, low regulation jurisdictions.

Curious to know where you came up with that? This source suggests the US and Denmark are about the same in terms of productivity: These Are the Most Productive Countries in the World | Time With Denmark ahead on other metrics such as labor participation rate, quality of life, etc.

It does seem to me that "productivity" comes from both investment in machines and thinking/working labor. Capital is somewhat borderless -- it will find a way to go wherever it can get the highest returns. Lots of it went to, say, Goldman Sachs in the run up to 2008 and (for a while) saw outstanding returns if not real jobs and prosperity created.

It does seem that the US is a better place to start a high tech firm than Denmark. Access to schools, talent, venture capital and tech partners only now being approached by countries like China.
 
My experience is based on getting reamed by real estate prices firsthand
For example my first workshop was 5000 sq ft in a poorer area. Rent was £2400 pcm(cheap) and rates £1000pcm.it was a nice building.
It got compulsory purchased so I had to move 5 miles to the mainland so to speak.
3000Sq ft shithole with leaks rent £4500 pcm rates £5000pcm. Funnily enough I threw in the towel and downsized to 1000sq ft and could get rates exemption

My former employer moved to serbia a few years back.He had paid over £20million in rates in the last thirty years .
He asked for a six month rates tax break to save the company. Council said no. Serbian government paid him to relocate. He demolished his uk facility as the rates cost
rendered it unrentable.
A lot of buildings got demolished for this very reason

We also have the secondary real estate cost problem of housing costs and the burdon this causes.

Real estate costs always scale to the general population's ability to stagger-along under their burden - any country, city, or county.

They only look more favourable - or UNfavourable - to folk from OTHER environments.

UK is dear to a Virginian, cheap to a New Yorker, bargain of the age to a San Jose'an , and near-as-dammit "free" to Hong Kong Chinese or Muscovian Mafia.

Serbia is dear to Serbs, cheap to other Europeans, unaffordable to sub-saharan Africans....etc.

Tax burdens in general are not all that different in relative terms. Matched to what a population can and will endure before voting with their feet or dropping-out, in-place.

Not new, or humans wudda never left Africa, let alone settled the Americas more recently.

Or wherever.

I'm not entirely convinced it all started in Africa, anyway. We may simply have better undisturbed fossil records than busier crossroads around the globe left to be found, yah?
 
. . . It should be no surprise that average and below average people would love life in a heavily taxed welfare oriented social democracy.

It turns out that these "heavily taxed welfare oriented social democracies" have far more than their share (per capita) of both Olympic Gold Medal and Nobel Prize winners. Guess way-above-average people like them too? And, these heavily taxed social democracies actually seem to have a significantly higher labor participation rate than the US, despite their relatively cushier social safety nets.

Seems to me that exceptional financial motivations are mainly likely to create more hedge fund, financial, making money off money types -- people whose main measure of their self worth is money. That's not necessarily bad -- but it doesn't account for what motivates most of us. Inventors, scientists, world class athletes, exceptional small business owners, and other talented and motivated people rise to the top (in ways they think important) pretty much regardless of (within reason) the tax rate.

Here in the US some of our greatest years in terms of industrial innovation were with marginal tax rates over 2x what they are now.

Fair enough that a lot of governments waste money -- businesses as well. Waste, whether it comes from public stupidity or private cupidity is a drag on any economy. Could be we have too much of both that in the US, maybe less in some other countries ? Your own point about the US spending trillions on "defense" (and wasting lives and money in most every war since 1948) might be an example. Not sure anyone measures national efficiency, from both public and private sectors. Tax rate certainly doesn't measure it. Even GDP per capita doesn't measure it. Saudi Arabia is way above average, as an example, but that's more about oil riches than sheiks and guest workers busting their asses to create innovative new companies.

This notion that a nation has to have the lowest possible tax rate to attract or keep motivated people simply isn't true. What's really required is a clean shot at success. There's lots more (infrastructure, rule of law, education, skilled workers, fact-and-science oriented culture, access to capital, even marriageable prospects) to the equation. As for the original Fox "news" bit that TR posted, probably in jest, it's wrong on most every assertion.
 
That's not necessarily bad --
No, it is bad. Every ethical system and religion since time began warns of and teaches against it. Gordon Gecko is scum. Greed is not good. Greed is evil, disgusting, despicable, destructive.

The finance industry, as embodied in the US today, is utter shit.

It is bad. Truly bad.

jscpm said:
Of course, the gold standard of economic productivity continues to be set by the United States and by the city states, Singapore and Hong Kong, all of which are (relatively) low tax, low regulation jurisdictions.
Singapore and Hong Kong unregulated ? Low taxed ? Can I have some of that, please ?
 
Here in the US some of our greatest years in terms of industrial innovation were with marginal tax rates over 2x what they are now.

That is not actually true. While technically the tax rates might have been 2X to what they are now, hardly anyone actually paid that since there were many more deductions and tax credits.

Investment credit and accelerated depreciation were two biggies in addition to substantial R&D deductions and credits.

We are actually paying a larger percentage of our total gross income in taxes at today's so called reduced rates than what we paid when the rates were the so called 2X.

We just can't compare rates since that is only a part of the story.
 
That is not actually true. While technically the tax rates might have been 2X to what they are now, hardly anyone actually paid that since there were many more deductions and tax credits.

Investment credit and accelerated depreciation were two biggies in addition to substantial R&D deductions and credits.

We are actually paying a larger percentage of our total gross income in taxes at today's so called reduced rates than what we paid when the rates were the so called 2X.

We just can't compare rates since that is only a part of the story.

serious question, how would you know if someone is paying the marginal rate? who's tax returns have you access to? Unless you are tax attorney or tax accountant, the only data available is the IRS info which clearly shows top earners pay the lions share so it seems to add up that they are paying at a very high rate, although of course you can't know for sure that its at the margin rate. However, similarly, how do you know its not?

With this stuff the devil is in the details, exactly how is this suppose to happen? Often its some identifiable trick like sneaking in dividend income (ala Warren Buffet). Maybe you're right and there's some tax accountant study comparing two eras, it just usually makes doubtful around claims of what others tax returns are as the data is not available. Anecdotally, when I've made a lot of money, I've paid a lot of tax at the margin rate, it doesn't matter how many high priced advisors you talk to there is not way around it unless you want to risk the crow bar hotel, but then again I've not filed a US tax return.
 
serious question, how would you know if someone is paying the marginal rate? who's tax returns have you access to? Unless you are tax attorney or tax accountant, the only data available is the IRS info which clearly shows top earners pay the lions share so it seems to add up that they are paying at a very high rate, although of course you can't know for sure that its at the margin rate. However, similarly, how do you know its not?

With this stuff the devil is in the details, exactly how is this suppose to happen? Often its some identifiable trick like sneaking in dividend income (ala Warren Buffet). Maybe you're right and there's some tax accountant study comparing two eras, it just usually makes doubtful around claims of what others tax returns are as the data is not available. Anecdotally, when I've made a lot of money, I've paid a lot of tax at the margin rate, it doesn't matter how many high priced advisors you talk to there is not way around it unless you want to risk the crow bar hotel, but then again I've not filed a US tax return.

I am speaking from experience of what my family has paid over the last 60 yrs and specifically what the business and personal deductions were in addition to what the tax credits that use to be offered were.

The original statement that I was replying to said that the US's best economic times occurred with the highest tax rates.

My point is that this is a false claim in that there is a difference between tax rates and actual taxes paid. While the time period being referenced did have a high max tax rate, the fact is that with all of the deductions and credits available at the time, it was very easy to drastically reduce the actual taxable income to a low amount.

The underlying fact is that most tax reforms have been mainly eye candy in that they appear to give a little upfront but take away a lot in the details.

It all gets back to who writes the tax laws and who gets to pay the taxes and it is not the same group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.








 
Back
Top