If there is one major factor that moves voters all around the globe it is taxes... Nothing else can mobilize people across social status and belief as ones belief when it comes to taxes.

In little Denmark it is always a struggle, mainly because our social structure is as costly as it is. A lot of services is offered from the public system that people in other countries have to pay for. These services are essential for an optimal social structure and development of a country with only 5 million inhabitants with limited human resources. But there are a lot of spin gathered around tax legislation. Much of these high classed spin can be traced back to the spin doctors at either DI (Dansk Industry/Danish House of Industries) or highly placed bankers. Their agenda always have been and always will be to mislead the middle and lower class into believing the necessity of low taxes on highly overrated wages and bonuses. Lets face it - the majority of inhabitants in all known societies have a low-to-middle income. Only a minor percentage have high or extremely high wages. This simply put means that the political tax scenario that favors wealthy people over poor people could forcefully be changed overnight into a more fair and pragmatic system, taking from the rich and give to the poor so to speak. In theory politicians could invoke laws that would divide the riches of any country evenly amongst all inhabitants. But we are all mislead into believing this isn’t what we want.

Myth 1: Generally lower taxes will make us work more

Is it really true that we refrain from working all that we can, because we don’t get enough out of it because of the taxes that we pay? When people are asked, the majority answers that they too would work more if they got more out of it. This is in fact a strange belief. Since most people either work as much as they can, or as little they can afford. The first group don’t have much extra time they can put in, and the second group will have to work less to afford their living.

This can be traced back to the two major stakeholder:
1. The rich people who don’t have to work more, but just will get an added monthly surplus on their private bank roll.
2. The industry leaders who are well aware that payroll negotiations always will come down to two figures: Income after tax compared to living expenses.

It is more than likely that lower taxes will result in more money for the rich, and lower wages for the rest of us! But it wont generate more working hours, or better workers.

Myth 2: High (income) tax rates will make industry growth stagnate
This myth has to do with the general blur between income taxes and the company taxation. Yes, it is true that high company taxes will make some industry choose other lower taxed countries as their home. However this postulate is mostly used regarding income tax on higher incomes. It has become a rich people mantra that the high income tax rates (DK: Topskat) is hindering growth for danish industry! How high tax rates on high incomes will make industry grow stagnate is an interesting statement, because it again originates from bank leader, rich people and business leaders, who pretty obviously would like to pay lower income taxes. Their reasons are obvious, however false. Understand that the wages a business leader is payed in salary is taken/comes from the business surplus. And the business surplus is the money the company use for investment, development and expansion! The millions poured into greedy leader pockets around the globe wont do the companies and its regular worker much good, except in keeping the leader with the company to earn his oversized wage for yet another year!

A company’s growth is determined by its surplus at the end of the year. The COMPANY taxation is what determines the size of this surplus. The INCOME taxes that the business leader pays of his privately held and spend economy have little if any effect on his company’s ability to invest or expand etc. On the contrary it can be claimed that high income taxes will actually make many smaller companies invest a higher percentage of their surplus in the company instead of paying out the surplus in wages to their owners.

For the general worker heavy taxation on the top incomes are likely to actually strengthen the companies they work for instead of ending up in their bosses mansion...

Opinion: High “unfair” top income tax rates are necessary for a fair society to evolve...
Who needs to earn more than 100 mio. danish kroner (dkr) a year? The answer is obviously NO ONE!

Couldn’t some of these money be better invested into the company where these high earner works? Yes indeed! It may seem unfair that the rich high yielding people should be taxed higher, but it only makes sense. And we don’t talk about the average to higher middle class who earns 500.000-1.000.000 annually. The top income tax should be further divided. There is a middle group that should be given tax deduction by raising the amount of money one can earn before being taxed substantially. But, there is also a group where a lot of these money could be regained. Somewhere between 1 million (83.000 dkr a month) and 1,5 million (125.000 dkr) the taxes should start to climb substantially until a point where it is close to 100%. It is my belief that no one needs or deserves a salary over 5 million a year. (416.000) a month which is in itself a perverse amount of money. This would put an end to redicious leader spending, and lead these wasted resources into development instead. We don’t need richer leaders, we need more development and expansion in their companies.

Do the math: Each year a fictive bank with just ONE leader at a cost of 100.000.000, has 100.000.000 less for expansion and investment. If a bank have ONE such leader for ten year that makes 1 BILLION kroner. In comparison the newly negotiated “investment package” is 100 billions, which translate to what 100 of those fictive bank leaders have been payed in bonus for the last ten years in total.

And this is just a fictive example. We know for a fact that the reality grocely outmatches any of these figures...

My final note is this: When liberal politicians needs to justify their favoritism towards overpaid leaders in their tax packages etc, their reasoning always comes down to this: In order to acquire professional and well qualified leaders we need to secure them huge amounts of cash in their pockets.
Strangely enough this isn’t quite the story when salaries for public servants is decided by our liberal government. But hey, they only lead small and unimportant institutions like The Army, The public Schools, Health care system and such unimportant way too costly operations...

There is a terrible misunderstanding when it comes to paying tax in society. Most people see taxes as a waste of economical resources, and often we all feel that society is just a money eating black hole...

But there is of course more to it than this widespread view. Taxes are the only way that regular voters like you and me, together can put money into projects larger than your own solidity, without putting your faith into the hands of corporations and their incentives to operate.

A lot can be said in favor of the liberal corporation structure, in regards to economical optimization and efficiency. However a lot of projects cant be trusted in the hands of corporations.

The well being of society functions often operates within a scope and time frame vastly too wide for any corporation to actually consider the aspects of getting involved.

Health care, education, research, infrastructure and the social system is all important areas of society. It should be all to obvious that a very important asset for any society is the inhabitants. Any inhabitants not put into good use is just a terrible waste, and a society shouldn’t let resource poor into the sewer.

Let me give you the example of the Social system, which is admittedly a huge expense for society. Many people cant help thinking: Why should I care what happens to others? Or, they had it coming. They didn’t save up, like me... etc etc.

But basically you should remember that whenever someone hits rock bottom, in the end society - meaning you - will pay the bill for the expenses that they will impend. And don’t consider the actual fronted expense the essential one! Because what happens in a society like the US, is that because of the fragile social system, one person dropping out of the system will often throw their whole family into despair.

This means that their sons and daughters, and their sons and daughters etc, won’t be able to lift themselves out of misery. And people in misery cost society huge loads of money. Lack of education and possibilities leads to boredom and criminal activities. And that extends the expenses in other areas. If enough people are thrown into poverty, expenses to police, security and jails will never see the end.

And remember, you can NEVER build a wall high enough, if you live in a world of poor criminals. Taxes, spent on societies needed projects like social services, is SAVING you and our future society money!

It may be an expense here and now, but there is only more expenses waiting behind any tax cut you will ever hear about!

In a finding that’s likely to vex would-be entrepreneurs, the U.S. scores even further down the list—No. 5—in support for R&D. Taiwan led the category, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. Here, the EIU scored countries based on the number of new IT-related patents, receipts from royalty payments and licensing fees, and public and private spending on R&D. Holley man says the BSA plans to share its findings with both major Presidential campaigns and with members of Congress.

There is many positive things to be said about the impact of liberalizing the scientific field. It is good for trimming an organization for making huge amounts of money. However therein lies also a problem. Because the darker side of liberal economics is that it can, and most likely will grow stagnant over time. As it is doomed to be the outcome of any truly liberal nation, there will grow a power core of companies that holds most, or almost all of the power to a nations knowledge.

All science is privately owned ergo can only privatized organizations own anything worth anything, and will therefore outgrow all other organizations in economy - and that means power! There is only one power greater than money in the democratic society, however that power (the people) will always be sustainable for impact from different sides, all controlled by money. Media, marketing etc etc.

If you can believe this assumption, which I believe most people can, then it is reasonable to assume that all vital R&D (Research and development) will be carried out by privately and capitalistic controlled corporations/companies/organization.

The utopia is coupled within the liberal thought itself. Market driver is economical incentive. If theres someone who will buy it - there is someone who will sell it.

But that also means that the bottom line for any incentive in any capitalistic corporation is: Never invent and market anything that diminishes the market within that given field!

Or put in other words: Why invent anything that doesn’t yield more economic input?

Because we can? Because mankind wants to become better all the time! However mankind doesn’t stand a chance against power corporations, and just as likely, a newly formed company can’t ever compete with the older power corporations with their new and revolutionizing products. Most likely they will just be bought off, which history proves is only a matter of the size of investment.

We believe it has happened with energy efficient discoveries. That huge power corporations like Shell have bought up discoveries that would render fossil fuel unsellable... it may never have happened, however it could of course happen, because anyone would do such a thing to survive. Just think it over... if you had a great product and all the money in the world - wouldn’t you too buy and scrap any competitors if you could? Its only all too human!

However, my point here is not the paranoid one above... because thats not what I consider proof of the liberal R&D utopia. The real problem is that none can realistically be expected to strive for inventing anything that you cant make money off. And the liberal capitalistic bottom line will fail us.. because it even inverses this bottom line into the cruel: Don’t improve what doesn’t want to be improved!

In the end, humanity will suffer, because our future lies in many discoveries who wont fit well with the current power corporations.

Here are some examples of varying degree, where you just cant expect anyone to actually find a permanent solution:

- Zero hole teeth: Who should invent such a cure? Dentists will welcome all the once in a lifetime customers!

- Tires who never wear down - yea right. Goodyear will surely sell you a set of lifetime tires!

- Light bulbs who last forever. How far will Osram go to hide such an invention?

- Cancer. Subscription meds are great business, but don’t expect the “Cancer Free” vaccination around the next millenniums!

- Aids - same as with Cancer.

- Unlimited energy... who would invent and give it away for free?

There are so countless many more of these examples some smaller than others, but the point is equally important regardless of the inventions size... and here is my final pointer: The real problem is that this is halting the scientific development, because all of the stalling fields altogether is ceasing the synergy in science. Most major discoveries leads to a whole series of other discoveries which then again trigger new inventions...

Unlimited energy may or may not be something hidden in the deep vaults of Shell Inventions, but unlimited energy would undoubtedly lead to countless inventions and improvements of our world.

Liberal capitalism makes Research and development takes on its own personality. It no longer wants to evolve for involvements itself, not even for humanity.

Inventions in the liberal capitalistic society will only happen if the current alpha-corporation can make money of it.

Only exceptions are when the inventors are more powerfull than the already existing powers on any related field. Or the alpha corporation somehow is unaware of the impact of a new discovery.

Liberal Research and Development will be in the hands of the powerfull corporations, how liberal is that?