ForumGarden

Think your taxes are high? Okay, they are, but just imagine trying to make a living in Denmark, where income tax rates are 38-59% with a VAT of 25% !!



This link has a comparative list.

Interesting site.

The Danes make a very fine living, indeed. They have one of the very best standards of living in the world, and they consistently rank as the world's happiest and most contented nation.

Attached files

Richard Bell;535906 wrote: Interesting site.

The Danes make a very fine living, indeed. They have one of the very best standards of living in the world, and they consistently rank as the world's happiest and most contented nation.


And get beat by the US national soccer team.

Nah just kidding...

I know the Danes didn't have their regular guys...

We didn't either, but...

Richard Bell;535906 wrote: Interesting site.



The Danes make a very fine living, indeed. They have one of the very best standards of living in the world, and they consistently rank as the world's happiest and most contented nation.
I can't imagine myself enjoying such a culture for long.

Accountable;536496 wrote: I can't imagine myself enjoying such a culture for long.


The picture painted by the website is *very* incomplete.

It does not include local taxes and, more importantly, it does not include indirect taxes other than VAT.

So whilst it includes federal tax it would not show state tax.

Whilst it includes VAT it does not show purchase tax

Whilst it shows income tax it does not show national insurance.

It does not show the breakpoints between tax bands or categories for VAT rates

A country's tax is a blend of all of these factors and to present just a part of the picture is misleading.

For all of these problems, the bigest omission is the bell curve for personal income - without knowing relative pay levels how can we know how onerous the tax will be?

Say that the doubled your income tax rate but quadrupled your income without raising prices?

Their tax rates are high in order to pay for all the Social Welfare Benefits that are provided, of which there are many.

Lon;536526 wrote: Their tax rates are high in order to pay for all the Social Welfare Benefits that are provided, of which there are many.
That's the culture I was referring to. It bugs me to give up large amounts of my money and freedom, especially simultaneously, especially without my choice.

Just give me the money and I will negotiate my own benefits.

Lon;536531 wrote: Just give me the money and I will negotiate my own benefits.
Yup yup yup! :yh_clap

Mark the calendar. :wah:

Diuretic;536704 wrote: But tax is how government is funded. Surely Lon and Acc you're not arguing that we shouldn't pay tax at all?
First, where did I write that? Second, I thought that was your position, Mr Anarchy. :-2



Seriously, though, I think I've been clear about my position on government responsibility and individual responsibility. Minimum and maximum, respectively.

Diuretic;536704 wrote: But tax is how government is funded. Surely Lon and Acc you're not arguing that we shouldn't pay tax at all?


Of course taxes must be paid. It's when the taxes become high enough on either an individual or corporate level to stifle entrapenurial activity and lessen the inflow of capital. Hong Kong vs. Norway is a good example.

My company owns a Loudspeaker Cabinet making company in Denmark. I have spoken to the guys over there many times about thier taxes......they just shrug their shoulders.......They are happy with the benefits they get...low crime rates, fantastic health care, excellent schooling etc etc.



They all smoke like chimneys because ciggies are so cheap, but very few buy new cars because of the tax situation. There is heavy union involvement in the workplace.



There is very little immigration from what I have been told.

Richard Bell;535906 wrote: Interesting site.



The Danes make a very fine living, indeed. They have one of the very best standards of living in the world, and they consistently rank as the world's happiest and most contented nation.


This is the opnion that I have also formed working quite closely with Danish Colleagues.

http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=3 ... ema=PORTAL



Actually it seems I was wrong about immigration....a large part of this site is dedicated to foreigners wanting to work in Denmark.



My ex-boss went to work at our cabinet facility for 2 years and when his 'tour of duty' was over he decided to stay there. He fell in love with a Danish girl, found another job and is very happy there. A couple of years ago, he had cancer of the sinus passages and the care he got in Denmark was second to none.

Diuretic;538132 wrote: Interesting points there Bez.



You know I think this is going to be another of those inter-cultural clash threads. I hope not but I feel it coming on.



I wonder if we can keep discussing things without lobbing bad words at each other's countries' cultural values. No I'm not having a go at anyone, I think I'm giving myself a warning about being snotty.
I think it's beyond cool when I meet someone proud of their own country. When I was stationed in Asia, I met people who couldn't wait to leave their homes and go to Amehlikah, even apply for citizenship. That made me sad, and it angers me when some of my fellow Americans don't understand why my beloved isn't champing at the bit to change her citizenship.



My country's better than yours .... for me.

My culture's better than yours .... for me.

My family's better than yours .... for me.

My religion's better than yours .... for me.

I think it would be interesting to know how is the medium salary of - I say - a workman, or an employee and how much is the cost of living.

Here in Lombardy, for exemple, the medium salary/wage is higher than in Southern Italy, but life is also more expensive..

bye

Diuretic;538130 wrote: I'm not being disingenous but how does that work? I mean I'm seriously annoyed with our federal govt which is the highest taxing government we've had since the federal govt acquired income tax powers from the states during WWII and it's supposed to be a conservative government. Okay, I felt a rant coming on, must back off. No rant. Anyway sorry, how do we know when the tax rate stifles activity? I suppose it's when we see it but is there a sort of indicator?


Good question---------------Let's say that I have a few bucks stashed away and would like to start my own business, but after looking at the cost of setting up due to various and sundry taxes, hiring employees and paying payroll taxes, etc. etc. and then the tax rates imposed on my business once I am operational, I decide that I am better off working for someone esle or going to another country with less punitive taxes to start my business.

By the way this type of conversation is healthy and should not be an opportunity to bash another country or individual. What works in one country does not necessarily work well in another country nor is it necessarily in that countrys best interest to operate the same. China for example has over 50 ethnic groups. Trying to democratize that country at this point in their history could be a huge mistake.

Lon;538618 wrote: Good question---------------Let's say that I have a few bucks stashed away and would like to start my own business, but after looking at the cost of setting up due to various and sundry taxes, hiring employees and paying payroll taxes, etc. etc. and then the tax rates imposed on my business once I am operational, I decide that I am better off working for someone esle or going to another country with less punitive taxes to start my business.

By the way this type of conversation is healthy and should not be an opportunity to bash another country or individual. What works in one country does not necessarily work well in another country nor is it necessarily in that countrys best interest to operate the same. China for example has over 50 ethnic groups. Trying to democratize that country at this point in their history could be a huge mistake.


Well, business will always have it's denominators, so I would have to think it would souly depend on the demand of such a hypothetical product.

Then you have products that isn't in high demand yet requires a quality and assurance from the people who produce it. Which is the business My brother and I have been trying to venture into, but am lacking the money needed to start it...The quality of the products we produce accompanied with the integrity behind our work would be more than enough to keep us in business for the rest of our lives, taxes or no taxes...I think business is a little more complex, and if one has any hesitations in that business due purely on even the highest of tax rates are in the wrong business...

"I think business is a little more complex, and if one has any hesitations in that business due purely on even the highest of tax rates are in the wrong business..."

Two points--------business need not be just a product produced, but services as well. Also, if taxes are not to be considered in starting a business, why do countries with the highest tax rates have the least amount of new business formation?

Lon;538795 wrote: "I think business is a little more complex, and if one has any hesitations in that business due purely on even the highest of tax rates are in the wrong business..."

Two points--------business need not be just a product produced, but services as well. Also, if taxes are not to be considered in starting a business, why do countries with the highest tax rates have the least amount of new business formation?


I was speaking more or less in regards to necessity...Obviously, luxury based businesses will have their own agenda. But like I said, business was meant to be profitable, and for those to venture into business with a product of pure luxury, they will have to weigh their sacrifices in conjunction to their preferences. The necessities in life will always have it's own level of demand, which would in turn make that business profitable, and if it doesn't, then it's not a necessity, it's a luxury, in which as I said before, their in the wrong business. :wah: But as for the tax rates dictating business, when that comes into the line of limiting personal necessities in life, then you're talking brink of famine,..something which I don't believe anyone with the moralist of hearts could stomach. If that's the case, then one needs to look in another direction than to start their own business, but worrying about how to survive. A government in which wouldn't as you said have very many entrepreneurs.

I'd be interested in the influence countrys' different styles of taxing have on their people's general money management.



For instance, our tax systgem encourages investment and spending, but not saving.



I'll complete my thought later. Supper calls.

[quote=Accountable;538965]I'd be interested in the influence countrys' different styles of taxing have on their people's general money management.



For instance, our tax systgem encourages investment and spending, but not saving.





The U.S. Tax System does encourage savings if you consider IRA's, 401 K's and other tax deferred retirement plans as savings. Non deductible or non tax deferred savings is not presently attracitive due to the low rate of returns that are available, plus, and this is a big PLUS, Americans insatiable desire for consumer goods purchased on credit.

Here in New Zealand the savings rate is extremely low. This is mentioned frequently in the press and on radio and TV. There is no incentive to save even though interest on savings accounts is much higher than in the U.S. 5.5 % is readily available at banks and of course the interest is taxable.There are no tax deductible or tax deferred plans like in the U.S. Kiwi's, just like Yanks, indulge themselves with all the consumer goodies available, and go heavily into debt to do so. Also, just like in the U.S., the price of homes has soared, making the purchase of a new home for a young couple most difficult, if not impossible.

That's true. It's better than it used to be. Credit card interest & car loan interest used to be deductible, so people thought they were actually buying more than they could afford in order to save more on their taxes. #$%@ing idiots.



I get really frustrated with people who think getting a refund check is preferable to writing a tax check, or think that they save on taxes by purchasing a home - as if they net more income at the end of the year.



It's still preferable to the tax situation I saw in the UK in the early 90's (I can't speak to present-day). The VAT can be raised at any time with little hoopla and the consumer might not even notice. And the income tax - - I saw the amount my beloved lost from her paycheck so I called to find out if it was right. The very pleasant young lady asked me to hold. Two minutes later she came back with "Yes, it's all corect." - :-2 . I didn't know how to respond to that so I just hung up. It was like bringing a car back to the garage because it still ran poorly, and the mechanic saying "nope, it runs just fine."

Diuretic;538981 wrote: This is good, it's interesting to follow the discussion. Acc's point about a culture of taxes is very interesting too.
Do you think it's incidental/accidental, or do governments try to manipulate the citizenry through taxing?

[quote=Accountable;539316]Do you think it's incidental/accidental, or do governments try to manipulate the citizenry through taxing?[/



I believe that it is the intention of some politicians to purposely make it's citizenry dependent upon government for benefits by keeping taxes high. By doing this, the citizenry does not retain enough money to provide benefits for themselves.

If one of the present folks that have announced that they are rinning for U.S. president were to say "and if elected, I guarantee that within 12 months every one over the age of 18 will receive a free 58 inch flat screen TV and a brand new Ipod", there would be lots of folks vote for that person.

High taxes leave a cushion for the treasury that almost always run higher than initial estimates, IMO.

Lon;539540 wrote: [quote=Accountable;539316]Do you think it's incidental/accidental, or do governments try to manipulate the citizenry through taxing?[/





I believe that it is the intention of some politicians to purposely make it's citizenry dependent upon government for benefits by keeping taxes high. By doing this, the citizenry does not retain enough money to provide benefits for themselves.

If one of the present folks that have announced that they are rinning for U.S. president were to say and if elected, I guarantee that within 12 months every one over the age of 18 will receive a free 58 inch flat screen TV and a brand new Ipod, there would be lots of folks vote for that person.
That short-sightedness permeates our culture, sadly.

Diuretic;539645 wrote: I don't know, I really don't know. I suppose it depends on the transparency of the government. I've noticed some reports from US media sources that refers to politicians "stuffing" bills with spending provisions that have nothing at all to do with the purpose of the bill itself. I'm pretty sure in our parliamentary system that can't be done. I need to find out more about the US legislative process.

Our federal government has a PM who is notorious for buying popularity at election time. I think he's as good as Ralph Klein in Alberta, Canada. But it has caused us damage in the ten years of this govt. The money hasn't always gone where it should but has been sprayed around so we'd vote for his party.

On tax here - all political parties talk about "bracket creep"and do nothing about it. I know my country needs a total reform of how income tax in particular works.


The bill stuffing that you refer to is generally done by a politician to give or provide some benefit for his particular district or area that he represents, but has no real benefit to the rest of the country. Of course, this make the politician very popular with the folks that elected him to office and can even guarantee his re-election.

Taxation up to a point is certainly necessary, but it does enable government and the politician as well.

Diuretic;539913 wrote: Yes the bridge to nowhere in Alaska comes to mind Lon. Oh we do plenty of pork-barelling as well, no doubt about that, but I was curious that the practice there allows a bill to contain irrelevant matters (ie pork).



I don't particularly like paying tax but it has to be done in order to allow society to function. What does anger me is politicians giving us back our money and telling us good they are (this is usually right before an election). I want them to take the money and use it - build and staff hospitals and schools, don't bribe the electorate with a few tax breaks that are immediately swallowed up in the cost of living increase.
I'm alot more forgiving of state gov't than federal in this regard. IMO the federal gov't shouldn't be getting into the day-to-day of domestic issues, because the states are just too diverse. Spending decisions should be made as close to home as possible.



That doesn't mean state gov'ts are perfect, by any stretch. Our governor just announced he wants to make an STD vaccine mandatory for female school students, while he's against mandatory flu vaccines! Of course, it's completely irrellevant that his former chief of staff is a lobbyist for the drug company that makes the vaccine, which has also contributed a ton to his campaign coffers. :rolleyes:

Accountable;539258 wrote:

It's still preferable to the tax situation I saw in the UK in the early 90's (I can't speak to present-day). The VAT can be raised at any time with little hoopla and the consumer might not even notice. And the income tax - - I saw the amount my beloved lost from her paycheck so I called to find out if it was right. The very pleasant young lady asked me to hold. Two minutes later she came back with "Yes, it's all corect." - :-2 . I didn't know how to respond to that so I just hung up. It was like bringing a car back to the garage because it still ran poorly, and the mechanic saying "nope, it runs just fine."


The VAT rate has not changed in the past 20 years (17.5% on discresionary spend).

The tax rate is currently zero in the first n thousand (generally 5,000 but varies according to allowances), 10% on next 2,200, 22% on next 31,000 and then 40% on anything above that. (effectively you hit the 40% band when you exceed about $75,000).

What is more important though is take home pay as a percentage of cost of living and the shape of the pay curve. If a country's tax is twice that of it's neighbour but average income is three times and cost of living is half then the man in the street can purchase three time the goods and services of the poor sods next door even though their only taxed at half the rate.

The more you distort your pay curve from a bell the more poverty the country will experience. OK, the minimum wage and the dole will put a cut-off on the lower bound but put too many people in the lower percentiles and you will have social unrest and injustice.

The absolute tax rates are not all important.

Diuretic;540410 wrote: It's why I call social benefits "insurance", it helps to slow the creation of desperate people, apart from being necessary in humanitarian terms, it's insurance for those of us who are better off.


Some form of minimum family income is necessary to prevent illness / misfortune / whatever causing the sort of suffering seen in Dickensian London 100 years ago.

Insurance indeed, whatever you think of abuse of the system, the system is there for a purpose - it took us hundreds of years to (re)learn society's need to support those less fortunate (there, but for the grace of God go I) and society is all the better for it. If you don't work you starve is fine - whilst you're working.

I would take it one stage further and say that it applies equally to countries. International aid should not be charity bestowed (in return for favourable contracts) but should be a pool allocated by the IMF / World Bank / UN to countries in need.

Bryn Mawr;540357 wrote: What is more important though is take home pay as a percentage of cost of living and the shape of the pay curve. If a country's tax is twice that of it's neighbour but average income is three times and cost of living is half then the man in the street can purchase three time the goods and services of the poor sods next door even though their only taxed at half the rate.



The more you distort your pay curve from a bell the more poverty the country will experience. OK, the minimum wage and the dole will put a cut-off on the lower bound but put too many people in the lower percentiles and you will have social unrest and injustice.



The absolute tax rates are not all important.
But don't you find poverty to be a subjective term nowadays? In your example, that man on the street is still among the poorest in the country, regardless of how much he can buy. That's the situation we in the US are in. The only thing our poor have in shortage is hope, and the media and politicians seem to revel in taking that away by pointing to the disparaty between them and the mega-rich.



That creates social unrest, to be sure, but not necessarily injustice. IMO, squelching the ambition and creativity of those who are advancing our society (sure we can argue that point as well) just to make the poor feel better - reduce social unrest - is the greater injustice.

Accountable;540605 wrote: But don't you find poverty to be a subjective term nowadays? In your example, that man on the street is still among the poorest in the country, regardless of how much he can buy. That's the situation we in the US are in. The only thing our poor have in shortage is hope, and the media and politicians seem to revel in taking that away by pointing to the disparaty between them and the mega-rich.



That creates social unrest, to be sure, but not necessarily injustice. IMO, squelching the ambition and creativity of those who are advancing our society (sure we can argue that point as well) just to make the poor feel better - reduce social unrest - is the greater injustice.


The first paragraph is attempting to make the subjective term "poverty" more objective and, despite being amongst the poorest in the country he is less poor than the man in the next country and has a better standard of living.

The cause of social unrest *is* the disparity between poor and rich but also the degree to which passage from one to the other is blocked. I would argue that it is not, of itself, tha tax regeim that causes that blockage but the degree to which money is available for enterprise. This is more a function of bank lending rulles and interest rates than of tax - by the time you are paying tax your venture has either succeeded or is in trouble anyway.

It's less a case of "squelching the ambition and creativity of those who are advancing our society" than enabling those with the ambition but without the means.

How much difference does another $100,000 in tax make to someone who's annual take is measured in the tens of millions?

How much difference would $1,000 make to someone with nothing but a good idea?

Bryn Mawr;540819 wrote: The first paragraph is attempting to make the subjective term "poverty" more objective and, despite being amongst the poorest in the country he is less poor than the man in the next country and has a better standard of living.



The cause of social unrest *is* the disparity between poor and rich but also the degree to which passage from one to the other is blocked. I would argue that it is not, of itself, tha tax regeim that causes that blockage but the degree to which money is available for enterprise. This is more a function of bank lending rulles and interest rates than of tax - by the time you are paying tax your venture has either succeeded or is in trouble anyway.Lower taxes would leave would-be entrepeneurs with more seed money. Banks are business enterprises as well, at least in the US, and can't be expected to take unecessary risk.



Bryn Mawr wrote: It's less a case of "squelching the ambition and creativity of those who are advancing our society" than enabling those with the ambition but without the means.If they have ambition, they will find the means. What they need is hope, which costs not one dime. We need to stop telling people they can't make it without government help. We need to celebrate the successes rather than berate them.



Bryn Mawr wrote: How much difference does another $100,000 in tax make to someone who's annual take is measured in the tens of millions?



How much difference would $1,000 make to someone with nothing but a good idea?To the first: irrellevant. That person earned the money and deserves to use it as he/she sees fit.... possibly through venture capitalism.



To the second: It would mean alot. Why don't people who feel this way write a check, rather than insisting someone else do so?

Accountable;541185 wrote: Lower taxes would leave would-be entrepeneurs with more seed money. Banks are business enterprises as well, at least in the US, and can't be expected to take unecessary risk.


People who are not earning and have no money pay no taxes. The level of taxes therefore makes no difference whatsoever to their seed money.

Banks are in the business of taking risks. Fifty years ago each branch manager had discression over where the money went. He know his customers and could judge who was a good risk and who was not. Now, risk is assessed but a computer that knows only the figures and the man on the ground has no freedom to stray from the word of the oracle. The result is - to those that have is given, to those without, nothing.

Young Leonardo, living on his uppers in a rented bedsit whilst coming up with his inventions is not welcomed with open arms and, "for 50% of the profit and a share of everything you invent for the next 5 years, here's $1,000 to get you going" - it's "what collateral can you put down? What are your current earnings?".

Accountable wrote: If they have ambition, they will find the means. What they need is hope, which costs not one dime. We need to stop telling people they can't make it without government help. We need to celebrate the successes rather than berate them.



To the first: irrellevant. That person earned the money and deserves to use it as he/she sees fit.... possibly through venture capitalism.



To the second: It would mean alot. Why don't people who feel this way write a check, rather than insisting someone else do so?


It needs to be systematic rather than whim. The Venture Capitalists are the one source of start up available but they tend to want to own your soul in return for their help - again, to those that had is given.

The first part of your post makes it clear we're not communicating, so I'll leave it for the moment. But this statement:

Bryn Mawr;541276 wrote: It needs to be systematic rather than whim. The Venture Capitalists are the one source of start up available but they tend to want to own your soul in return for their help - again, to those that had is given.
It seems like you would support some kind of system that gives free money to anyone who wants to start their own business. No business plan, no track record to support credit risk, no guarantee the money will be repaid. Surely I'm reading this wrong?

Accountable;541355 wrote: The first part of your post makes it clear we're not communicating, so I'll leave it for the moment. But this statement:

It seems like you would support some kind of system that gives free money to anyone who wants to start their own business. No business plan, no track record to support credit risk, no guarantee the money will be repaid. Surely I'm reading this wrong?


Not suggesting that at all - just a removal of the inbuild block within the system that prevents the poor from getting a foot on the ladder even though their buisness plan might well stack up.

In your terms, no track record, no money. If you start from zero, how do you get a track record. As I found out the hard way today, without proof of identity, stable income, residence and fifty other forms of documentation you cannot even open a bank account to form the basis for a track record.

I would like to know where the communication is failing. What am I saying in :-

Bryn Mawr wrote: People who are not earning and have no money pay no taxes. The level of taxes therefore makes no difference whatsoever to their seed money.

Banks are in the business of taking risks. Fifty years ago each branch manager had discression over where the money went. He know his customers and could judge who was a good risk and who was not. Now, risk is assessed but a computer that knows only the figures and the man on the ground has no freedom to stray from the word of the oracle. The result is - to those that have is given, to those without, nothing.


that is so left field as to be beyond discussion?