Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

People don't want to contribute to the country that made them rich. I expect that in a place like the USA, where your taxed money can go to helping people who don't look like you or don't have your same values. But I assumed Norwegians don't mind helping Norway.


> People don't want to contribute to the country that made them rich.

That's such a mean take. A fairer take is that they have already contributed - via income/gains taxes - and often because the company makes the country better off.

Wealth taxes are double taxation: you've worked to get rewards and then those rewards are rug-pulled from you.

Wealth taxes are also a lie: the Finland wealth tax rate of 1.1% appears so reasonable, however if your returns were 5% then the effective tax rate is fucking 22%.

If a country doesn't encourage businesses and business-owners, then the country goes to shit because there's nothing to tax (which pays for the goodness for everybody).

Disclaimer: I don't think all businesses are good or worthwhile. I do think that we need systems that deliver good compromises.

Edit: As voters we are asked to vote for party policy - however we are usually ignorant of the likely outcomes of policy. In my experience, very few people understand systems.


Yes, but if there is too much wealth concentration the country turns into an oligarchy.

Obviously there needs to be a balance. Each country needs to find it's own balance. The Norwegians have chosen their balance. Not everyone will be happy.


Fine. Is Finland an oligarchy?

The article mentions 54 billion net worth left the country. I guess we'd have to look at who left to make any comments regarding startup founders or regulation manipulators.

Yes, there is a balance. The default assumption is that the wealthy fuck over their countries. I'm not quite so cynical (e.g. I think Buffett is nothing like Ellison).

The article is super biased (the site helps rich people get second passports).

We've got a few billionaires in New Zealand. I have very little idea about their influence on our regulations (although I suspect Peter Jackson might have had a positive influence - he's certainly generally helped our economy).


People are already contributing a ton to Norway, with a tax-to-GDP ratio of approximately 42.2%. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund with over US$1.9 trillion in assets. Not getting taxed even more by Norway is hardly unreasonable.

At what point can we say people have contributed enough to help Norway?


As of 2024 it was actually 50% last I saw.

This trend is increasing across the whole continent and it's extremely bleak. The only growth sector in all of Europe is government spending. Aging populations mean social outlays are increasing every year, while the private sector is being actively looted by governments, stifled, and chased away so the economy isn't growing enough to fund the increasing social welfare demands.

Somehow my child understands that money must be earned before it can be taken away and redistributed, but the adults with PhDs can't figure this one out.

It's a death spiral of deficits, political instability, and more stupid policy like increasing taxes in countries that already have the highest taxes in the world.

Luckily Norway has oil wealth so they could probably afford to completely kill their private sector and chase away all private capital. It will just deepen their status as a petro-state. Becoming white Saudi Arabia is a bizarre goal for socialist politicians who also claim to be "moral" and care about "the environment." But as the saying goes, the children of wealth tend to make dumb decisions.


I think you're misrepresenting the issue here.

You're talking about taxing income but the wealth tax is not a tax on the income. Wealthy individuals pay MUCH lower taxes (in terms of the effective tax rate) than poor oflr middle-class people.

A good example of that is the UK, where the income is taxed up to 65% (marginal tax rate between £125k and £150k) while at the same millionaire getting their money from capital gains is taxed between 24% and 32%. Of course unless the money if funneled through the shell companies (common) and the effective rate dips well under 10%

As a person who pays their tax id like wealthy individuals to pay the same rate. Simple as that.


I think you're misrepresenting the issue.

You're talking about rates as if they are fungible, conflating income taxes, capital gains taxes, and wealth taxes. These all have different implementations and ideally different purposes, so the rates should be different.

Specifically, your UK example is just wrong. For 2022–23, the average rate of income tax paid was: Basic-rate taxpayers:10% of their income Higher-rate taxpayers:22% Additional-rate taxpayers (the very top):38%

So on average, the rich pay a higher effective income-tax rate than middle earners, not “much lower”. In the UK, roughly 60% of all income tax is paid by the top 10% of earners, and about 30% by the top 1%.

Because of the double taxation via a 25% corporation tax, for a typical UK investor, tax on capital income is often in the 40–50% range, depending on how the gain is classed.


That’s not at all the issue. You’re talking about individuals paying high personal taxes, high VAT, and high local taxes for a lifetime without complaint. Also Scandinavia has some meaningful issues of immigration & welfare.

The issue is taxing unrealized gains (stocks and property). You need post-tax money to pay taxes on the gross pre-capital-gains-tax value of assets before you make money on them. It’s highly punitive for certain kinds of entrepreneurs and portfolios, and fundamentally unfair.

Grading/graduating capital gains taxes to bake the pain into the process of realizing gains would make a lot more sense IMO. It’s not about dodging paying even an excess share, it’s about avoiding economic self-sabotage.


I moved to Germany at the start of my career. Did Germany make me rich, or was it the country where I was born, raised and educated?

Immigration makes you feel weird about those things. My presence here was very transactional for the first 8 years. My right of residence was tied to my income and my good behaviour. I paid a lot of taxes and got very little in return. In fact a large portion of the government thinks I ought to fuck right off.

Nonetheless it's the system I chose and the system I believe in, so I'll gladly support it with my taxes. I am not the one who benefits, but I do it for The Greater Good.

Still, now I can become a citizen. I have all the documents; I just need to send them. But there are talks of rearmament and conscription. I need to ask myself how much I really owe this country that just takes and takes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: