6 ms·

"Foreigners tend to view Nordic countries as "these socialist nanny states where everybody has a collectivist mindset," Partanen said. But "in fact a lot of the

by 762236 9y ago

"Foreigners tend to view Nordic countries as "these socialist nanny states where everybody has a collectivist mindset," Partanen said. But "in fact a lot of these services really support everybody's independence."" I pay a ton of taxes in the U.S. I don't get how Finland warrants an accusation of a collectivist mindset, while America takes and redistributes just as much money. Is it because spending on defense, instead of social services, doesn't qualify as a collectivist mindset?

microcolonel 9y ago
In Norway, you pay an annual tax on basically everything you own (update: yes, everything you own, not everything you earn that year) past the first ~$180k. I don't really care what sort of "independence" this supports for somebody, I'm not going to live somewhere that makes you rent everything from the state, after paying exorbitant taxes to "buy" it. update: corrected the cutoff figure with new exchange rates and policy updates, seems that two parties in NO are looking to eliminate the wealth tax. added: keep in mind purchasing power differences in Norway, where basically everything is more expensive relative to the U.S. exchange value of the kroner. 1,480,000 NOK (source of the $180k figure) will buy you about 40 sqft of suburban apartment in Norway, on average.
- Parcissons 9y ago
  Oh, you shun any product of science then?
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  If what happens to your income past the first $100k is a major concern for you, you are very much in the minority in the US, as the median family income in the US is about $60k[1], and most Americans have less than $1k in savings.[2] Sure, rich people have little to gain by having a great social safety net, as they can just rely on their own money for all of that. But for the vast majority of Americans, it matters. Also, for those who are complaining that the US has such high taxes, you should know that the US itself used to tax income of over 90%. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United... [2] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-in-their-savings-accounts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-i...
  - mwilliaams 9y ago
    The poster was talking about what "you own". It's really easy to have more than $100k in assets. That's basically anybody who owns a home.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      The median net household worth in the US in 2013 was still below 100k USD as per https://www.yahoo.com/news/median-wealth-whites-us-nearly-163001058.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/median-wealth-whites-us-nearly-16... (can’t find newer numbers atm, but I’d be surprised if the median did move significantly upwards) Keep in mind that wealth in the US is extremely unevenly distributed and you might be making observations in a bubble. The white median is for example about 50% higher than the combined.
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      The median net worth of Americans is $97k. [1] As for owning homes, many Americans don't own their home but rent. [1] - http://www.newstrategist.com/median-net-worth-97300-in-2016/ http://www.newstrategist.com/median-net-worth-97300-in-2016/
      - microcolonel 9y ago
        Land and housing is cheap in the U.S, relatively speaking. in Norway, wealth taxes start after about 40 sqft of out-of-town apartment.
        Moenghus 9y ago
        If that was true, I'd be very wealthy: 40 square feet is 6.3 by 6.3 feet. Or 3.7 square meters. That would make for a price of 57 000 $ per square meter! In reality, the national average price in Norway is $ 5000 per square meter and 10 000 in the most expensive area (Frogner, Oslo January 2016) So $ 180 000 buys you a studio apartment of 18 square meters in the most fancy area, or 36 sqm on the average. That is roughly 200 and 400 square feet.
      - 9y ago
- Xylakant 9y ago
  Taxes are not rent. Taxes are the share of expenses you pay for the services and security the state provides. In European countries, especially in the Scandinavian ones it’s commonly understood and agreed upon that the stronger ones carry more of that burden. That may sound like communism to people from a country with a stronger “each for his own good” mindset, but pretty much all statistics point in the direction that it makes for fewer extremely rich people but to an overall happier society. Not having to worry about health care is one of contributing factors. And when looking at the fact that a medical incident in the family nearly bankrupted the last Vice President of the US, you really have to be one of the few insanely rich to be certain that such an incident won’t hit you.
  - stingraycharles 9y ago
    What the parent is talking about is most likely the yearly tax you have to pay over your (already taxed) savings. E.g. here in The Netherlands you have to pay 4% tax a year over any savings over 25k euro. This includes anything like investments as well. The parent is considering that 4% the “rent” after you already paid 52% tax to “buy” it.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      What you pay taxes on doesn’t matter. It’s the part of your income, assets, inheritance that the society decided you have to contribute to be part of it. Call it donation, rent, protection money or stick with a less loaded term and call it taxes.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    A wealth tax is exactly equivalent to a rent. There is a genuine owner (the state) which has control of the property in a default, there is an unlimited recurring fee set by the owner (the state), and access to the property is predicated on paying that fee.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      Of course not. You still own whatever you own, and can still sell it, destroy it, modify it, whatever. You do pay tax on owning it, in a system that taxes wealth, but that does not mean someone else owns it. Calling it rent and calling the state the true owner doesn't really make sense--you're conflating two separate ideas, I think, to play on people's emotions ("oh noes, the state owns everything!"). It's not true or accurate, though.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  Everything you own? Or everything you earn? If the former, then this would an application of Piketty's idea, of taxing capital instead of revenue, which I thought had not been implemented anywhere yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Tabeller-og-satser/Formuesskatt/ http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Tabeller-og-satser/Formuesskat...
- Moenghus 9y ago
  Speaking as a Norwegian, the wealth tax is not really that much of an issue. It just not that burdensome. Its less than one per cent of your net worth above $ 180 k. Net worth, so you can subtract any debts such as your mortgage, student loans, etc first. And property only counts for 1/4 its actual value. Its just not going to impact on people. Anyone with enough net assets to make it relevant is going to consider the amount neglible. According to the Norwegian statistics authority, the average gross household worth is 3.4 million NKr ( 500 000 $ depending on exchange rate.) 2/3s are in property. Net after debts is 2.1 million, so you got 2.2 million in property and 1.3 million in debt. That means your taxable worth for this tax is equal to (2.1 million + 2.2 million/4) - 1.3 million - 1.5 million. Which is a negative 200 000. Converted to dollars, that means Norways Joe Average household with a gross worth of $ 485 000, and a net worth of $ 300 000 can still add 28 000 $ to his assets before the tax starts to kick in. Provided he does not take on more debts there. Property is reeeeal good that way since you can subtract your full mortgage. While only counting 1/4 the value of the property and the interest is deductible on your income tax. Joe Average also makes 70 k $ and pays 25 % tax.
  - Moenghus 9y ago
    PS Exchange rate 10 year average used.
grogenaut 9y ago
Effective tax rate in finland is around 50% https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rat... and seems to come from a income tax rate that is similar to the US 25-31% but also includes retierment / social monies around 18+3%, so ends up effectively being 50-51. Also capitol gains is taxed at 30% for anything over 30k euros. I found this info with one google request, first 2 answers. So the tax rate is OOM 2x the US. So it's not anywhere near as much money % wise. But yes we allocate it differently.
- pmorici 9y ago
  I think you are forgetting that in the US we also pay state and local income tax, state and local property tax, and State and local sales tax. Even if you rent you are paying property tax indirectly. There is also Social Security and Medicare taxes so pile on 12.6% for that as well. Once you figure in all those things the effective US tax rate is a lot higher than the federal income tax rates.
  - Analog24 9y ago
    it's obviously higher but it's nowhere near an effective rate of 50% for a lot of US citizens
    - d4rti 9y ago
      I figured it out as being pretty close between San Francisco and the UK, especially once you include healthcare costs on the US side.
      - grogenaut 9y ago
        numbers plz
        d4rti 9y ago
        Sure, for San Francisco according to https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-income-tax-rate-on-a-100k-salary-in-San-Francisco?share=1 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-income-tax-rate-on-a-100k-... it's 34K USD of state and federal income tax on 100K, so you pay ~34%, plus healthcare costs. In the UK, 100K USD is ~75K GBP, and according to the excellent tax calculator here https://listentotaxman.com/76467 https://listentotaxman.com/76467? you pay ~32% if you don't count Employers NI (which no-one would ordinarily in discussion, and really if I am to make that adjustment I should really ensure the grossed up amount was 76K, but it will make at most a few percentage point of difference), and if you do it's ~39%. It's quite possible I'm missing some taxation or complexity on the US side (FICA?); I'm UK resident not US resident. The UK side is correct. Other notable tax differences that come to mind include: * No worldwide income tax in the UK * Capital gains is a single rate in the UK * No property tax (we have Council Tax instead, and the average for a Band D property in England is £1,484/year)
uoaei 9y ago
> America takes and redistributes just as much money The statistics refute this claim.[1] All values in USD/capita. Stats are from 2015 USA - 14,794 Finland - 18,580 Iceland - 18,783 Sweden - 21,800 Denmark - 24,527 Norway - 30,138 The other Scandinavian countries are included for comparison. [1] https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm
- denzil_correa 9y ago
  It would be interesting to see income distribution as opposed to per capita. I think, it will throw up even more contrasts between USA and Nordics.
  - twoodfin 9y ago
    Yes. Arguing for a Nordic system is effectively proposing massive middle class tax increases. Citizens in those countries typically are paying for their own services, not having them provided by the rich.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      Let's not forget that childcare and healthcare costs would be removed from the equation. Would these costs be lower in a country with higher taxes? Well pretty much any progressive tax system will ensure that unless you majorly screw up the planning.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 9y ago
That's a good angle. We deify the military and then question whether the government can be trusted to build roads.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  Whatever stupid military decisions the US has made, you are being quite flippant and ignoring one very important difference between the US and Finland and that is that the US is a superpower that maintains the geopolitical order with the help of its military. This includes the securing of maritime trade routes. Don't take that for granted. The US is heir to the British Empire and as such it is not a small Scandinavian country of less than 6 million people that, by the way, benefits, along with the rest of Europe, from the security provided by the American empire.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Sure I'm being flippant, but not about the military, about the bizarre attitude that a government can effectively police the world but can't be trusted to do much of anything else. Keep the Navy on the oceans, but damn it, keep the government out of my Medicare!
    - grogenaut 9y ago
      This will sound like a backwards argument but you saw what happen when the navy wasn't paying attention to the exit to the gulf by somolia. One can look at it as moving the price for gas to other locations (aka the navy via taxes). I'm placing no positives or negatives on it just stating it. In reality the economy is a massive set of levers or to put it in CS terms it's optimizing in a very large number of dimensions. The solution space is massive and there are many local minima which are no where near the global minima. However people love to argue about specific levers and bike shed the discussion based on the small windows they have into it.
  - pmezard 9y ago
    Including the destabilization of Middle East for at least the last 20 years, to secure/favor US interest? The US is a superpower that maintains its geopolitical order with the help of its military. Like any dominating nation before it, no argument there. But please stop justifying all this with good intents or universal values. The US does what it does to improve the life of its citizens, period (or at least a subset of its citizens).
smn1234 9y ago
I was recently in Denmark where I learned first hand from numerous locals about the social services working together whereby most (if not all?) medical care is completely covered, children's education is covered (if they go abroad as well), subsidies for having kids and for studying / continued education... this largely results in two major considerations: a "no-stress" lifestyle without cause for concern of saving up for unforeseen and significant medical illness, and no cause for concern of saving up for your child's schooling and higher education. So, despite a _slightly_ higher tax, does all the take home money not then become completely disposable income with nothing needing to be allocated for savings, unless desire for new car or housing, or luxuries?

by 762236 9y ago

microcolonel 9y ago

In Norway, you pay an annual tax on basically everything you own (update: yes, everything you own, not everything you earn that year) past the first ~$180k. I don't really care what sort of "independence" this supports for somebody, I'm not going to live somewhere that makes you rent everything from the state, after paying exorbitant taxes to "buy" it. update: corrected the cutoff figure with new exchange rates and policy updates, seems that two parties in NO are looking to eliminate the wealth tax. added: keep in mind purchasing power differences in Norway, where basically everything is more expensive relative to the U.S. exchange value of the kroner. 1,480,000 NOK (source of the $180k figure) will buy you about 40 sqft of suburban apartment in Norway, on average.

Parcissons 9y ago
Oh, you shun any product of science then?
pmoriarty 9y ago
If what happens to your income past the first $100k is a major concern for you, you are very much in the minority in the US, as the median family income in the US is about $60k[1], and most Americans have less than $1k in savings.[2] Sure, rich people have little to gain by having a great social safety net, as they can just rely on their own money for all of that. But for the vast majority of Americans, it matters. Also, for those who are complaining that the US has such high taxes, you should know that the US itself used to tax income of over 90%. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United... [2] - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-in-their-savings-accounts.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-i...
- mwilliaams 9y ago
  The poster was talking about what "you own". It's really easy to have more than $100k in assets. That's basically anybody who owns a home.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    The median net household worth in the US in 2013 was still below 100k USD as per https://www.yahoo.com/news/median-wealth-whites-us-nearly-163001058.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/median-wealth-whites-us-nearly-16... (can’t find newer numbers atm, but I’d be surprised if the median did move significantly upwards) Keep in mind that wealth in the US is extremely unevenly distributed and you might be making observations in a bubble. The white median is for example about 50% higher than the combined.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    The median net worth of Americans is $97k. [1] As for owning homes, many Americans don't own their home but rent. [1] - http://www.newstrategist.com/median-net-worth-97300-in-2016/ http://www.newstrategist.com/median-net-worth-97300-in-2016/
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      Land and housing is cheap in the U.S, relatively speaking. in Norway, wealth taxes start after about 40 sqft of out-of-town apartment.
      - Moenghus 9y ago
        If that was true, I'd be very wealthy: 40 square feet is 6.3 by 6.3 feet. Or 3.7 square meters. That would make for a price of 57 000 $ per square meter! In reality, the national average price in Norway is $ 5000 per square meter and 10 000 in the most expensive area (Frogner, Oslo January 2016) So $ 180 000 buys you a studio apartment of 18 square meters in the most fancy area, or 36 sqm on the average. That is roughly 200 and 400 square feet.
    - 9y ago
Xylakant 9y ago
Taxes are not rent. Taxes are the share of expenses you pay for the services and security the state provides. In European countries, especially in the Scandinavian ones it’s commonly understood and agreed upon that the stronger ones carry more of that burden. That may sound like communism to people from a country with a stronger “each for his own good” mindset, but pretty much all statistics point in the direction that it makes for fewer extremely rich people but to an overall happier society. Not having to worry about health care is one of contributing factors. And when looking at the fact that a medical incident in the family nearly bankrupted the last Vice President of the US, you really have to be one of the few insanely rich to be certain that such an incident won’t hit you.
- stingraycharles 9y ago
  What the parent is talking about is most likely the yearly tax you have to pay over your (already taxed) savings. E.g. here in The Netherlands you have to pay 4% tax a year over any savings over 25k euro. This includes anything like investments as well. The parent is considering that 4% the “rent” after you already paid 52% tax to “buy” it.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    What you pay taxes on doesn’t matter. It’s the part of your income, assets, inheritance that the society decided you have to contribute to be part of it. Call it donation, rent, protection money or stick with a less loaded term and call it taxes.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  A wealth tax is exactly equivalent to a rent. There is a genuine owner (the state) which has control of the property in a default, there is an unlimited recurring fee set by the owner (the state), and access to the property is predicated on paying that fee.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Of course not. You still own whatever you own, and can still sell it, destroy it, modify it, whatever. You do pay tax on owning it, in a system that taxes wealth, but that does not mean someone else owns it. Calling it rent and calling the state the true owner doesn't really make sense--you're conflating two separate ideas, I think, to play on people's emotions ("oh noes, the state owns everything!"). It's not true or accurate, though.
dorfsmay 9y ago
Everything you own? Or everything you earn? If the former, then this would an application of Piketty's idea, of taxing capital instead of revenue, which I thought had not been implemented anywhere yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty
- microcolonel 9y ago
  http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Tabeller-og-satser/Formuesskatt/ http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/Tabeller-og-satser/Formuesskat...
Moenghus 9y ago
Speaking as a Norwegian, the wealth tax is not really that much of an issue. It just not that burdensome. Its less than one per cent of your net worth above $ 180 k. Net worth, so you can subtract any debts such as your mortgage, student loans, etc first. And property only counts for 1/4 its actual value. Its just not going to impact on people. Anyone with enough net assets to make it relevant is going to consider the amount neglible. According to the Norwegian statistics authority, the average gross household worth is 3.4 million NKr ( 500 000 $ depending on exchange rate.) 2/3s are in property. Net after debts is 2.1 million, so you got 2.2 million in property and 1.3 million in debt. That means your taxable worth for this tax is equal to (2.1 million + 2.2 million/4) - 1.3 million - 1.5 million. Which is a negative 200 000. Converted to dollars, that means Norways Joe Average household with a gross worth of $ 485 000, and a net worth of $ 300 000 can still add 28 000 $ to his assets before the tax starts to kick in. Provided he does not take on more debts there. Property is reeeeal good that way since you can subtract your full mortgage. While only counting 1/4 the value of the property and the interest is deductible on your income tax. Joe Average also makes 70 k $ and pays 25 % tax.
- Moenghus 9y ago
  PS Exchange rate 10 year average used.

grogenaut 9y ago

Effective tax rate in finland is around 50% https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/finland/personal-income-tax-rat... and seems to come from a income tax rate that is similar to the US 25-31% but also includes retierment / social monies around 18+3%, so ends up effectively being 50-51. Also capitol gains is taxed at 30% for anything over 30k euros. I found this info with one google request, first 2 answers. So the tax rate is OOM 2x the US. So it's not anywhere near as much money % wise. But yes we allocate it differently.

pmorici 9y ago
I think you are forgetting that in the US we also pay state and local income tax, state and local property tax, and State and local sales tax. Even if you rent you are paying property tax indirectly. There is also Social Security and Medicare taxes so pile on 12.6% for that as well. Once you figure in all those things the effective US tax rate is a lot higher than the federal income tax rates.
- Analog24 9y ago
  it's obviously higher but it's nowhere near an effective rate of 50% for a lot of US citizens
  - d4rti 9y ago
    I figured it out as being pretty close between San Francisco and the UK, especially once you include healthcare costs on the US side.
    - grogenaut 9y ago
      numbers plz
      - d4rti 9y ago
        Sure, for San Francisco according to https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-income-tax-rate-on-a-100k-salary-in-San-Francisco?share=1 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-income-tax-rate-on-a-100k-... it's 34K USD of state and federal income tax on 100K, so you pay ~34%, plus healthcare costs. In the UK, 100K USD is ~75K GBP, and according to the excellent tax calculator here https://listentotaxman.com/76467 https://listentotaxman.com/76467? you pay ~32% if you don't count Employers NI (which no-one would ordinarily in discussion, and really if I am to make that adjustment I should really ensure the grossed up amount was 76K, but it will make at most a few percentage point of difference), and if you do it's ~39%. It's quite possible I'm missing some taxation or complexity on the US side (FICA?); I'm UK resident not US resident. The UK side is correct. Other notable tax differences that come to mind include: * No worldwide income tax in the UK * Capital gains is a single rate in the UK * No property tax (we have Council Tax instead, and the average for a Band D property in England is £1,484/year)

uoaei 9y ago

> America takes and redistributes just as much money The statistics refute this claim.[1] All values in USD/capita. Stats are from 2015 USA - 14,794 Finland - 18,580 Iceland - 18,783 Sweden - 21,800 Denmark - 24,527 Norway - 30,138 The other Scandinavian countries are included for comparison. [1] https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm

denzil_correa 9y ago
It would be interesting to see income distribution as opposed to per capita. I think, it will throw up even more contrasts between USA and Nordics.
- twoodfin 9y ago
  Yes. Arguing for a Nordic system is effectively proposing massive middle class tax increases. Citizens in those countries typically are paying for their own services, not having them provided by the rich.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Let's not forget that childcare and healthcare costs would be removed from the equation. Would these costs be lower in a country with higher taxes? Well pretty much any progressive tax system will ensure that unless you majorly screw up the planning.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 9y ago

That's a good angle. We deify the military and then question whether the government can be trusted to build roads.

bobthechef 9y ago
Whatever stupid military decisions the US has made, you are being quite flippant and ignoring one very important difference between the US and Finland and that is that the US is a superpower that maintains the geopolitical order with the help of its military. This includes the securing of maritime trade routes. Don't take that for granted. The US is heir to the British Empire and as such it is not a small Scandinavian country of less than 6 million people that, by the way, benefits, along with the rest of Europe, from the security provided by the American empire.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Sure I'm being flippant, but not about the military, about the bizarre attitude that a government can effectively police the world but can't be trusted to do much of anything else. Keep the Navy on the oceans, but damn it, keep the government out of my Medicare!
  - grogenaut 9y ago
    This will sound like a backwards argument but you saw what happen when the navy wasn't paying attention to the exit to the gulf by somolia. One can look at it as moving the price for gas to other locations (aka the navy via taxes). I'm placing no positives or negatives on it just stating it. In reality the economy is a massive set of levers or to put it in CS terms it's optimizing in a very large number of dimensions. The solution space is massive and there are many local minima which are no where near the global minima. However people love to argue about specific levers and bike shed the discussion based on the small windows they have into it.
- pmezard 9y ago
  Including the destabilization of Middle East for at least the last 20 years, to secure/favor US interest? The US is a superpower that maintains its geopolitical order with the help of its military. Like any dominating nation before it, no argument there. But please stop justifying all this with good intents or universal values. The US does what it does to improve the life of its citizens, period (or at least a subset of its citizens).

smn1234 9y ago

I was recently in Denmark where I learned first hand from numerous locals about the social services working together whereby most (if not all?) medical care is completely covered, children's education is covered (if they go abroad as well), subsidies for having kids and for studying / continued education... this largely results in two major considerations: a "no-stress" lifestyle without cause for concern of saving up for unforeseen and significant medical illness, and no cause for concern of saving up for your child's schooling and higher education. So, despite a _slightly_ higher tax, does all the take home money not then become completely disposable income with nothing needing to be allocated for savings, unless desire for new car or housing, or luxuries?