Anybody earning a wage pays tax on revenue, not profit. Property taxes can be even be on value, not revenue or profit. For any given tax burden, I don't see the "justice" problem by shifting more of that towards value and revenue and less towards profit. You could argue that in a vacuum that it is more just because it slightly incentivized investment over saving. And I'm sure you could argue the reverse too.

However, to me this mostly looks like a practical issue, and the traditional dogma that a broader tax base is a better one likely holds here too. Taxes should be on all three categories, and for both legal and real persons - and thus each specific category lower (and in particular thereby reducing the height of specific niche corners cases such as this one, and also reducing the opportunity to game the system).

Also, it's interesting to listen to anecdotes like this, but caveat lector; the article's author's experience may not be the norm; and the issues they experienced may be due to the specifics of norway's taxation system or their personal choices, not the principles behind it; and last but not least as long as money can flow mostly freely between tax systems it's not enough for a system to be fair and well designed in a vacuum; it also need to consider how shifting wealth/income/profits across borders will affect outcomes.

To my mind, this is all pretty orthogonal to justice. Clearly, you see that differently. Why does this smack of injustice to you?

You can avoid profit indefinitely - just ask uber. That's if we're sticking to the customary definition of "profit".

So that you know, the practice in question is to open a line of credit on the value of your stock. This enables you to put large amounts of money in your pocket without "realising" your gains. It's a blatant tax dodge. "going into debt" lol no. Close the loophole.

> Norway imposes a wealth tax that taxes unrealized gains at approximately 1% annually. Calculated on the full market value for publicly traded assets and the book value of private companies. On New Year's Eve, whatever your net worth - including illiquid assets - is subject to this tax. It doesn't matter if you're running a loss-making startup with no cash flow, if your investments have tanked after the valuation date, or even if your company has gone bankrupt—you still owe the tax.

"unrealised gains". gains, not losses.

any law I agree with is justice though, almost by definition.

I’m not sure why you think a wealth tax is related to entrepreneurship ship. I get that you’ll find a lot of people who like the author don’t want to pay taxes, but you’re going to find quite a lot who do. Especially here in Scandinavia. Of course it’s less of a problem when you have a non-crypto product which actually makes money or gives you the opportunity to take out a loan based on your assets.

I agree that there will be an ideologically divide, but I don’t think it’s related to entrepreneurship as much as it is to greed. Especially because those crypto “billionaires” were moving to Switzerland anyway. Personally I can see why you would think it was anti-business because it is. You have to keep in mind that not everyone thinks “businesses” which can’t make money, and likely never will, are always a benefit to society.

It’s amazing to me that people think this is what socialism is. This isn’t seizing the means of production.