3 ms·
One thing that's interesting is that this realization can itself push multiple ways. Denmark has for the most part concluded that the country is, in effect, a l
by mjn 14y ago
One thing that's interesting is that this realization can itself push multiple ways. Denmark has for the most part concluded that the country is, in effect, a little company in competition with the rest of the world. But it's not only (or even primarily) competing for rich people. Rich people in themselves are just some finite wealth. More importantly, Denmark is competing for market share in various markets, such as services and high-end manufacturing. In some of those markets, just like in tech, a higher-cost, upmarket strategy may be superior to a lower-cost, compete-on-price strategy. So it may be worth goign with higher taxes and a highly educated workforce. I wrote a bit about that elsewhere on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548497
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>So it may be worth goign with higher taxes and a highly educated workforce. The missing piece is that you don't always have to choose. If the low tax rate attracts businesses (or even just causes corporations to arrange to report all their profits in your jurisdiction) you may end up with quite a lot of revenue even at the lower rate. The key to that game is convincing all the other countries not to play. If you have low taxes and no one else does, you win. If you and all the other countries have low taxes, all the countries lose and the corporations win. The U.S. strategy is kind of interesting: The corporate taxes are nominally really quite high, but the largest corporations (i.e. the ones best able to leave or rearrange holdings) don't actually pay them.