4 ms·

It is true that you can save up the profit for next year (a rainy day as you say), but that doesn't create growth or benefit society. In a sense if you have a h

It is true that you can save up the profit for next year (a rainy day as you say), but that doesn't create growth or benefit society. In a sense if you have a higher corporate tax there is a larger incentive to spend that money in the same year on new hires, equipment, or assets. So you could argue that a larger corporate tax create more growth... However, that's just speculation on my part. That lower corporate taxes doesn't benefit society wasn't actually my viewpoint, but it has been addressed quite a lot in the media. I should have pointed to some references. My bad: Here is one from 2010. http://www.b.dk/danmark/eksperter-lavere-selskabsskat-har-lille-effekt http://www.b.dk/danmark/eksperter-lavere-selskabsskat-har-li... Two professors (one from Copenhagen Business School) and one from University of Århus states that it will have little impact. Or a survey from business (67% of business don't think it will have an effect): http://www.advodan.dk/nyheder/2013/4/7-ud-af-10-virksomheder-tror-ikke-paa-lavere-skat-som-vej-til-vaekst/ http://www.advodan.dk/nyheder/2013/4/7-ud-af-10-virksomheder... It has also been discussed in America: http://business.time.com/2012/02/23/will-a-lower-corporate-tax-rate-lure-jobs-back-to-america/ http://business.time.com/2012/02/23/will-a-lower-corporate-t... I actually asked earlier if he could show me an example of a country with a better model to better explain in what sense the Danish model is "broken". Isn't the Swedish "model" almost identical to the Danish "model"?

ThomPete 13y ago
Why do you insist on setting up a strawman for me to answer? I just don't get it.
mseebach 13y ago
Lowering the corporate tax rate won't create growth or jobs on it's own, it will preempt loosing it to eg. Sweden. Denmark is loosing jobs at an astounding rate. Keeping jobs in Denmark is a hurdle to clear before creating jobs and growth can meaningfully be discussed. The Swedish model is very similar to the Danish model, except they spent the good years implementing many of the reforms ThomPete and I have been advocating. It's not perfect, but they're doing better.
- joakleaf 13y ago
  Do you have references regarding the "Denmark is loosing jobs at an astounding rate" statement? It doesn't seem in line with the fact that the unemployment rate has been dropping over the last couple of years, or that it is in fact lower than it was in the 1990s. I know the unemployment statistics doesn't necessarily give the true numbers, but you can't just state something like that without references.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/danmark-oplever-det-stoerste-jobtab-siden-2009 http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/danmark-oplever-det-stoerste-... The reason unemployment numbers look decent is partly that the numbers hide a larger number of people on "not-ready-for-work" benefits and partly the fact that the baby boomers are retiring. Pensioners are not considered unemployed.
    - joakleaf 13y ago
      I wouldn't call a drop of 16000 in 2012 "astounding". It is 0.5% of the entire workforce. 6000 of those 16000 were from the public sector, so it was really just 10000 workplaces lost in the private sector in 2012 (Jan-Nov). If I look at the statistics at http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2013/NR350.pdf http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2013/NR350.pdf I see a drop of unemployed of 10000 since October 2012. I don't know if that number directly translates into 10000 new jobs of the kind that were lost in your article. But I think it is hard to determine if the 16000 mentioned in the article is just normal fluctuation over a 11 months. With that said, the 160000 jobs lost since 2008 is significant, but unemployment was at a record low at that time. From the graph (I linked to), it looks like most of those 160000 jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009. Do you have any numbers that do not mask pensioner's and "not- ready-for-work" people? It is hard make any actual judgment in any direction, if all the statistics are deemed untrustworthy or politically biased.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        Of the entire workforce? You mean of the private workforce.

ThomPete 13y ago

Why do you insist on setting up a strawman for me to answer? I just don't get it.

mseebach 13y ago

Lowering the corporate tax rate won't create growth or jobs on it's own, it will preempt loosing it to eg. Sweden. Denmark is loosing jobs at an astounding rate. Keeping jobs in Denmark is a hurdle to clear before creating jobs and growth can meaningfully be discussed. The Swedish model is very similar to the Danish model, except they spent the good years implementing many of the reforms ThomPete and I have been advocating. It's not perfect, but they're doing better.

joakleaf 13y ago
Do you have references regarding the "Denmark is loosing jobs at an astounding rate" statement? It doesn't seem in line with the fact that the unemployment rate has been dropping over the last couple of years, or that it is in fact lower than it was in the 1990s. I know the unemployment statistics doesn't necessarily give the true numbers, but you can't just state something like that without references.
- mseebach 13y ago
  http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/danmark-oplever-det-stoerste-jobtab-siden-2009 http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/danmark-oplever-det-stoerste-... The reason unemployment numbers look decent is partly that the numbers hide a larger number of people on "not-ready-for-work" benefits and partly the fact that the baby boomers are retiring. Pensioners are not considered unemployed.
  - joakleaf 13y ago
    I wouldn't call a drop of 16000 in 2012 "astounding". It is 0.5% of the entire workforce. 6000 of those 16000 were from the public sector, so it was really just 10000 workplaces lost in the private sector in 2012 (Jan-Nov). If I look at the statistics at http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2013/NR350.pdf http://www.dst.dk/pukora/epub/Nyt/2013/NR350.pdf I see a drop of unemployed of 10000 since October 2012. I don't know if that number directly translates into 10000 new jobs of the kind that were lost in your article. But I think it is hard to determine if the 16000 mentioned in the article is just normal fluctuation over a 11 months. With that said, the 160000 jobs lost since 2008 is significant, but unemployment was at a record low at that time. From the graph (I linked to), it looks like most of those 160000 jobs were lost in 2008 and 2009. Do you have any numbers that do not mask pensioner's and "not- ready-for-work" people? It is hard make any actual judgment in any direction, if all the statistics are deemed untrustworthy or politically biased.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      Of the entire workforce? You mean of the private workforce.