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?

▲

cscurmudgeon 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Anybody earning a wage pays tax on revenue, not profit

Not really though. You do have deductions in the US (though limited).

https://www.irs.gov/credits-and-deductions-for-individuals

And lots of places don't tax houses or real estate.

	▲	emn13 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Those deduction in no way change the basics of income (and sales) tax, which is on revenue, not profit. A person that has a good wage will pay a significant amount in tax even if at the end of a year they have no more wealth than before it; i.e. no profit. And while of course there _exist_ places that don't work this way or don't tax real estate that doesn't diminish the fact that there exist places that _do_ work this way - which demonstrates the fact that there's no broad agreement that taxation must be limited to and occur after profits. Norwegian self-proclaimed entrepreneurs aren't unique in their "victimhood", which seems to be the angle of the original article. Consider a though experiment: In a fast-growing world, taxation limited to profits when honestly applied and without exploitable loopholes (not an obviously satisfied precondition) might be able to cover costs of shared concerns, i.e. government's primary business. But imagine for a moment that that growth were to significantly slow or even stop - without profits, taxation could fall to a trickle (limited to those niches that have zero-sum profits yet lack the ability to amortize over loss making periods and lack the ability to strike a deal to fiscally merge with a loss-making business for tax purposes). Clearly, that's not sustainable. I think it's hard to imagine that the the only "just" way to tax is one that is fundamentally dependent on permanent significant growth, even if we've been lucky enough to live in such a world for quite a while, at least on paper. Given how some costs (e.g. depletion of natural resources and pollution) aren't on the fiscal books, and that from an idealistic free market stance one might prefer to include those costs on the books, the true global growth is surely already lower than it looks on paper, even if it's still hopefully positive.