Interesting article but it’s a little scant on the facts for the cities themselves. Like how much have their economies grown? What are there tax bases like?
The stuff it highlights about the asymmetric commute make sense, and the income tax going to Copenhagen. But what of the benefits to Malmö such as its own growth, and money coming in from workers spending in shops, paying local property tax? Or is it a net drain due to providing services with a smaller income tax base?
It feels like the article scratches the surface of a potentially very interesting topic that could be looked at in much more depth. Cross border cities is a big global topic and particularly in Europe where people have freedom of movement yet with their income tax benefiting employing countries while resident countries have to supply services.
Don’t you pay income tax in the country where you are resident, regardless of where you work? I don’t understand this. Sounds like a badly thought out deal.
More specifically, you pay tax first to the country where the income was generated, and are usually tax liable to the country you are resident in.
Typically taxation treaties prevent double taxation, but the net result is you will usually get hit with the equivalent of the highest tax across jurisdictions.
Interesting article but it’s a little scant on the facts for the cities themselves. Like how much have their economies grown? What are there tax bases like?
The stuff it highlights about the asymmetric commute make sense, and the income tax going to Copenhagen. But what of the benefits to Malmö such as its own growth, and money coming in from workers spending in shops, paying local property tax? Or is it a net drain due to providing services with a smaller income tax base?
It feels like the article scratches the surface of a potentially very interesting topic that could be looked at in much more depth. Cross border cities is a big global topic and particularly in Europe where people have freedom of movement yet with their income tax benefiting employing countries while resident countries have to supply services.
Don’t you pay income tax in the country where you are resident, regardless of where you work? I don’t understand this. Sounds like a badly thought out deal.
No, you pay income tax where the income is generated
More specifically, you pay tax first to the country where the income was generated, and are usually tax liable to the country you are resident in.
Typically taxation treaties prevent double taxation, but the net result is you will usually get hit with the equivalent of the highest tax across jurisdictions.