Income taxes and payroll taxes are (significantly) higher though. Companies don’t need to leave the country but may want to hire top talent elsewhere if they need to keep taxes low.
For me as a Swede, keeping as little as half of my gross pay isn’t a big issue since I’m not required to pay for my kids higher education (or any education for that matter), nor do I need to save up a lot for retirement or future illness. But I can understand someone who wants to go to Sweden for a 5 year stint and needs to aggregate as much as possible because their kids will go to expensive schools etc. Moving to a high-tax high social security labor market can seem like a one way street in that regard.
Some issues:
Payouts for top talent are not great. Compared to US, you rarely get stock based comp or salaries higher than $80k/y and even then most of it goes to taxes. That is not unique with Sweden though, it's EU in general.
Second. The weather is not for everyone.
IMO that puts a cap in the potential growth as only the top companies can attract and pay the talent (Spotify Klarna, iZettle etc.).
I know this is not what you meant, but I have a story about city walks for you:
Got lost and had to walk alone in downtown DC one late night. Made me decide to not take that job in NY and move back to Europe.
Source: got lost in another country a month later. In a city with the highest homicide rate in the world.
This lifestyle suits a chill family life, not "Let's freaking build the next facebook and code 24/7".
In my experience, generally, there isn't a straight read from "company you have heard about" to "has any clue what they are doing".
If it were merely a matter of 'a few points more' and you get 'this benefit' ... I think the argument would make sense.
But taxes in Sweden are something to almost choke on, they are extremely high. Not just high ... and I'm not quite sure that the benefits reflect quite how high taxes are.
The payroll taxes are enormous (almost as much as income tax) - and with elevated base + VAT it really makes a difference.
At 'higher income levels' - say at more than $150K USD equivalent, you're going to be paying over 60% in 'total taxes' - though much of that is 'hidden' in payroll taxes. And what you take home, you pay a further 25% on almost anything you consume.
So at upper income, but not necessarily 'rich' - you're approaching $30 in your pocket for every $100 earned, which is quite egregious.
Despite the obvious systematic benefits of many social programs, I don't think it's fair that we can assume some arbitrary levels of efficiency in that taxation. I really do feel the bulk of it boils down to redistribution for almost arbitrary public sector work.
I wish there was a happy place in between Texas and Stocholm on that, but I'm not sure what the answer is.
A ~P75 software engineer can accumulate 1 MUSD within 15-16 years given 7% growth and decent city center living. <10 years for someone really good. Still, it’s not the US, but at least it’s possible.
Yes payroll taxes are everywhere, but they are considerably higher in Sweden at ~30% in some brackets.
For average earners, France/Belgium are the highest, but for upper income earners, Sweden is the highest [1]
Also, world is not binary as you describe it (high taxes&free education vs low taxes&costly education), there are tons of places which don't don't go mental on taxes like Sweden does, and still provide top notch free education.
Great for Sweden, would not be my top choice of residence and raising kids but its a good place nevertheless.
Yeah. Finland has a system similar to Sweden in many ways, in general it has worked great. Though during last decade or so without much economic growth and upside down demographic pyramid, some young people who follow the news have started to look at it with some suspicion. Current pension payments from our salary goes to current pensioners, but our retirement age is moving up and estimated future pension payments going down. Then in last year or two the birthrate dropped dramatically, and I updated from "concerned" to "heavily worried".
Yeah, the article mentions that Skype threatened to leave in 2016...
> Corporate tax rates are the same as other countries in Western Europe, and lower than the US.
...and it also mentions that they haven't actually left.
Except for Ireland with its 12.5%
You really shouldn't show off your ignorance like that.
Because if it’s the former I can find you lots of links, whereas if it’s the latter that’s merely the point.
https://ecfr.eu/article/for-europe-losing-britain-is-bad-kee...
https://amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20210501-human-rights-...
The equation moving to Sweden obviously isn’t the same. If you don’t intend to use the benefits (like childcare) taxes are very high compared to if they are offset by benfits. As a parent tech worker I feel like I’m having more money out than I’m paying at the moment.
It’s pretty easy (as far as I’m aware) to get permanent residency in Sweden as a professional.
Any data to back this claim?
Stockholm - 0.8 unicorns per 100,000
Silicon Valley - 1.4 unicorns per 100,000
Of those in both regions that crossed it, how many went through the next, then the next order of magnitude?
Silicon Valley has very few "unicorns" beyond those.
I'd also be interested in seeing long term outcomes. I'd wager stockholms is stronger.
Well, after the US and China, the UK is the next biggest tech/startup environment worldwide. Startups obviously do flourish at least in parts of Europe, even relative to the rest of the rich world (Japan, Korea, Russia kinda, the Gulf states, even Australia/Canada).
BTW here's a look at Y Combinator's bestest startups: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485360 (full thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27482589)
Did you just define arbitrage?
Same applies to most companies, right?
Same applies to most people (and animals too).
Greedy VCs/companies don't deserve to reap the benefits of civilization.
It's people who own and run businesses, and it's not unethical for people to want to put themselves in a better financial situation rather than a worse one.
Many who would call a business unethical for moving somewhere with a more favorable regulatory environment are entirely in favor of economic migrants moving to welfare states to be better off. They might argue the business should pay back the benefits it got from the welfare state, but would probably bristle at the suggestion that the migrants were unethical for wanting to benefit without paying into it.
In the end it's the same thing really, human nature. Nothing about a business generates any kind of ethics or generosity beyond what people have.
Also regarding getting a job to take a mortgage for life aspirations, the nordic countries have actually much more social mobility than most other countries in the world.
Doesn't that describe most if not all economies that have middle class?
Private mortgage was considered a great way to increase national wealth in "rich" post-WW2 economies. And so it became part of "the expected economic life path of the middle-class employee".
Most people who are employed work to satisfy basic economic needs: 1. house 2. food 3. health and after that 4. leisure. Some even turn to 5. investment at some point.
So I'm not sure what you are trying to say? Maybe expand/rephraze it a little bit?
It's an interesting paradox and highlights the way that VCs want to suck as much value out of an economy as they possibly can, without the willingness to contribute back to it proportionately.