Denmark: No aid for companies which pay out dividends or are reg. in tax havens

Post by ed312 » Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

bigfudge wrote: post #143

Saaster wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firms applying for Danish state aid must promise not to pay dividends or make share buy-backs in 2020 and 2021. Companies would be allowed to pay dividends again if they pay back the aid. This makes perfect sense, otherwise it's a textbook case of socializing the losses and privatizing the profit. Paying dividends (and stock buybacks) is a trade-off that companies make, that makes the company less resilient. Risk/rew…

I personally don't see why it's such a limited time frame.

Post by jorblumesea » Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

yalogin wrote: post #69

I keep saying over and over but the economic policy is something trump fucked up big time. He gave away the corporate tax breaks in times of prosperity when there was no need and the companies just made bank. He was dealt a great hand, a strong economy that would chug along no matter who the president was. Those are the times to focus on the poor and lift people up. Instead he wasted his opportunity on the tax cuts.…

Post by kortilla » Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #155

oconnor663 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should tax payers bail out a tax avoiding company? I think that depends on our answer to the prior question, "Why should tax payers bail out any company?" If the answer is "because we like them and we feel a patriotic/moral/righteous duty to help them", then the distinction between tax-paying and tax-avoiding companies does seem relevant. But if the answer is "to help workers keep their jobs", then the distinct…

The government has unilateral ability to invent jobs and even invent money if the goal is to help workers keep their jobs and/or remain fed and housed. So I feel that no company should get a bailout. If they fail, they fail, and the government can scoop up the workers and create an agency or just government-staked company that does the same thing, find some work in the country that needs doing and put the workers on…

Post by kortilla » Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #240

Certhas wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For historic reasons states have built systems that prevent normal governments from inventing money at scale: Independent Central Banks. It's of course an important ongoing debate in economics whether this is still appropriate, but it's unrealistic to expect governments to so dramatically alter the fundamental structure of monetary policy. That said, of course it's even more unrealistic to expect them to do so absent…

> For historic reasons states have built systems that prevent normal governments from inventing money at scale: Independent Central Banks. Could you explain this? I think the CB system does not quite prevent money creation, it just makes it less transparent. Inventing a jargon to nice sounding words to hide the creation of money (yes I look at you "quantative easing") also does not help. If govts wanted to limit thei…

Post by jmckib » Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #256

jmckib wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to disincentive tax avoidance would be to not allow it in the first place. A one-off policy like this punishes tax avoidance without necessarily discouraging it in the future. It depends on how likely businesses think it is for something like this to happen again.

I think there is a lot of lobbying for tax avoidance. But maybe that's just my perception of govts using democracy as a banner while in reality policy is much more influenced by lobby effort than voters sentiment.