| ▲ | cbmuser 12 hours ago |
| I have lived in Norway for a year and it’s definitely not as bright as you’re painting it. Rent prices are extremely high and apartments are quite small compared to other European cities. Alcohol is so expensive, that Norwegians go on alcohol shopping tours to Sweden. Trains in Oslo don’t run 24 hours, so you have to take long detours with busses at night or pay obnoxiously high rates when taking a cab. No, Norway is definitely not the paradise you’re trying to make it. Also, these people that left Norway weren’t against paying taxes. They were against the socialist government trying to rip them off with a completely unfair taxation. |
|
| ▲ | jaredklewis 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| He's not "painting" a picture. He's citing statistics. You've countered with an anecdote. Of course data is not perfect, and there are often issues with methodology, data quality, or analysis the data. Even so, I usually find data more persuasive than anecdotes. |
| |
| ▲ | david38 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Statistics is exactly how people paint. Surely you’ve heard “there’s, damn lies, and statistics”? |
|
|
| ▲ | vidarh 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Alcohol is so expensive as a choice with broad political support in Norway. Yes, Norwegians like to whine about it, and go to Sweden or Denmark to avoid it, yet Norwegians also keep voting for the parties (almost all) that agree with keeping alcohol taxes high. Rent is high in large parts because average incomes are high. This is one of the effects of a relatively flat income structure. As someone earning far above average, I'm better off in the UK, while someone on a job below the top ~10% or so would probably have a higher standard of living in Norway. Not having things run 24/7 is annoying, but a factor of being a country with one of the lowest population densities in the world. > They were against the socialist government trying to rip them off with a completely unfair taxation. Nobody forced them to start their businesses. The wealth tax is not new, and has remained in place through both left- and right-wing governments, thought with some swings back and forth in rates. |
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone starts a company with the idea it may never apply to them, so why worry about it before it becomes a problem. Of course, with the leaving tax, they may just move abroad before doing anything. | | |
| ▲ | vidarh 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was not that it didn't apply to me. I've had shareholdings in Norwegian companies worth well over the deductible several times. The point is that it isn't a problem in practice as long as you're aware of it and plan accordingly. Yes, if you start a company in Norway without a liquid market for your shares, and without understanding the tax implications, you might end up having a bad time of it. If you spend an hour talking to an accountant beforehand, it's just a minor extra cost of doing business. E.g. at a $10m valuation you'll end up paying <$90k wealth tax after rebates. If your company is valued enough that your shares are worth $10m, you can finance a $90k loan either directly or via your company, and bake it into your funding rounds. Yes, it's an extra drag on your business, but from first-hand experience, preparing for this just isn't a big deal in most instances. You don't have to like it, and people are free to whine about it, but in reality it's a problem only if you don't know what you're doing. | | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > You don't have to like it, and people are free to whine about it, but in reality it's a problem only if you don't know what you're doing. Maybe? Or maybe it's just a PITA that most people don't want to deal with? It's not nice when you company is doing well, and your reward is having to pay a bunch of extra taxes and deal with financing all that somehow. At least, I find paying income/value-added tax a lot more palatable, since it's always over money you just received, not money you have to conjure into existence somehow. | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In accounting terms I guess the tax burden just decreases the NPV of all assets. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | elygre 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They left because they didn't want to pay taxes. No monkeying about, they want to be rich and tax free. |
| |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do you pay taxes for something that doesn't exist with money you do not have? | | |
| ▲ | mikrl 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the rationale is that if you have unrealized gains, there is a high likelihood that you are well off, and can therefore be pressured into reifying your economic potential into a resource that the government can appropriate (ie money) It’s not a straightforward tax like income tax, it’s more of a class based tax that has some aspects in common with income / CG taxes. It makes sense when you consider that the capital owning class is and was always the most well off, even more so than aristocrats, since the Industrial Revolution anyway. | | |
| ▲ | thrw42A8N 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | What a nice way to preserve feudal classes. It'd be just terrible if someone not rich attempted startups. |
| |
| ▲ | danudey 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the issue that these laws are trying to solve (and perhaps not with sufficient nuance) is that the ultra-rich get paid in stock or options, which then go up in value. Those "unrealized gains" aren't taxable (because they're only theoretical at this point), but they're still able to go to the banks and borrow against those gains anyway to fund their lifestyle tax-free. Obviously you need to be a bit sane about it; I have "unrealized gains" by virtue of having stock options in a company, but while I'm paid well I'm definitely not rich by any stretch. I'm just some dude with stock. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | HarryHirsch 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don't forget that Norway banned Life of Brian and people had to travel to Sweden to watch it. |
| |
| ▲ | vidarh 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | While I like to tell that story too (it was supposedly advertised in Sweden as "so funny it was banned in Norway"), it was not technically banned. It was not given a certificate, so it couldn't be shown in public cinemas, due to concern it might breach the blasphemy laws, at a point where Norway was still fairly religious. It's also the last time that ever happened - the Heathen Society tried repeatedly to provoke the use of the blasphemy paragraph for many years until it was repealed, and kept failing. The paragraph had at that point not actually been invoked since Arnulf Øverland was acquitted in 1933 (after being charged following a speech titled "Christianity, the tenth plague" - "Kristendommen, den tiende landeplage"). | |
| ▲ | SiempreViernes 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not even Swedes are so petty that they keep bringing that up dude. You are better of mentioning they raised the worst terrorist in the Nordics! |
|
