28 ms·

In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries betw

In Finland, everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record. One theoretical benefit of such a policy is that it eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining.

failwhaleshark 5y ago
That makes the lives of gold-diggers easier too. If it were opt-in that would be fine, otherwise it's an invasion of privacy of most people who aren't rich. It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it.
- lucideer 5y ago
  > If it were opt-in that would be fine If it were opt-in it would be pointless. Surely that's obvious? > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. This is a fair point, but I think these are relatively small individual downsides, which are also much more visible (and potentially addressable). Bribery is probably a harder nut to crack, but the legal system favouring the rich (& lawyered up) is something that one can potentially work toward balancing/mitigating with legislative measures.
- gota 5y ago
  I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information. To your points: > gold-diggers I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their money... this is a non-issue. Happy to debate it further, but it seems so silly and self-apparent that we shouldn't care at all about it > Invasion of privacy Arguably, but as long as only a minimum amount of whats is public, with only the lump-sums published, I think its fine in context. > It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. I think these are very different things, the difference is not just of severity. They are different classes of things. Financial information relates to money, which only makes sense in a society (money is for trade). A disease's effects are personal. When they aren't, you are obligated to disclose them and/or to comply to other rules (for example, to quarantine). > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. I think the experience where this has been applied is precisely the opposite - the rich are the ones affected the most. And - if your justice can be bought, the problem has less to do with the knowledge that the other can't find back and more to do with the legal system in the first place. > Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it. Can't argue with that, even if I wanted to, in fewer than 15 pages. Complex stuff!
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    > this is a non-issue. Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? > I think its fine in context. That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It's the only number that matters and yet you're stilling trying hard to trivialize it. > And - if your justice can be bought, Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Who are you to have the gall... Whoa, relax. ISTM GP is probably a typical human. "Gold-diggers" are not and have never been a major threat to reasonably well-adjusted people. For weirdos who temporarily possess more money than they deserve, perhaps "gold-diggers" are a spice of life. Fools and wealth are soon parted, but that's true no matter what gets published.
    - gota 5y ago
      I think you're being downvoted our of tone, rather than content. So let me respond in reverse order, as the first point seems to be the most emotional for you >Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff. I absolutely think that the core issue is that the legal system can 'be bought', i.e., it can bankrupt people even if they are right. Reforming that shouldn't be completely impossible and would by definition solve the niche problem you are describing. Btw, as a rule _any_ corporation can sue _any_ non-famously rich person and be sure that they threat of litigation costs will weight in their favor. Disclosed tax info worsens nothing from the current status quo. > That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It is opinion, yes. But all laws are someone's opinion 'deciding for other people'. And I mean absolutely all laws, even the most basic ones like the right to live or to have private property. It's all social constructs, and we decide which ones stand > Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? I must say I'm surprised this issue seems important to you (and again - completely irrelevant to me). I absolutely don't care about something that I've only ever heard about in soap operas and have never, ever, heard of an example that bothered me in real life. I'm curious what makes this a relevant issue in your view, but I understand if its personal and you don't want to explain. But if you don't have any personal biases, let me argue that the problem of gold diggers is primarily a problem for the gold-dug (?). If a rich person doesn't want to marry/have a relationship with a person that only likes them for their money... then don't. I don't care, and I think nobody should
- xutopia 5y ago
  Funny thing my STI results are shared with my sexual partners and their partners too. It doesn't bother me one bit.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    By you and them? Laudable and sensible. By the government? What business is it of the government to even know who my sexual partner(s) is/are (especially for a negative test result)?
    - failwhaleshark 5y ago
      We already know, and we knew even before you did. Two of them were sent to test your disclosure practices, and you failed. You're an absolutely terrible person. How dare you!? Good day to you, sir/madame. I said "Good day!" /s
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Communicable disease prevention. HIV infections are typically reported to the government, for example, and does not require patient consent (nor does such data sharing incur a HIPPA violation). > All 50 states require both physicians and laboratories to report to local or state health departments the names of persons newly diagnosed with Centers for Disease Control-defined AIDS [1]. However, because AIDS cases represent onset of the disease caused by HIV, HIV data is necessary to monitor the epidemic. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-law-striking-balance-between-legal-mandates-and-medical-ethics/2005-10 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-...
mlac 5y ago
I would also think that this makes neighborhoods less financially diverse. I can’t see someone with a higher than average income moving into a neighborhood knowing that their neighbors might make 1/4th as much. It puts a target on them.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  You obviously haven't been to Finland. In Scandinavia, the approach to other person earning couple of times more than you could be summarized by "good for you".
  - anovikov 5y ago
    But earning couple of times less lol? ) I don't think anyone at all wants live in a place where most people earn a lot less than themselves.
    - gmadsen 5y ago
      maybe in extremes. like 100:1, but 2:1, 3:1 doesn't seem that bad... honestly better for social cohesion
      - ghaff 5y ago
        I can pretty much guarantee that in the semi-rural town where I live, there are households that are probably down around median US income (~$50K) and households making hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
        Loughla 5y ago
        In my rural area, I was one of the rich people in our area (combined dual income from my spouse and I of around 80-90k/year). People used to give me shit for being Richie Rich (all in good fun). The income level around here hovers around 100-150% of the standard federal poverty level. Generally, most people are lower income, with some people making 100k plus. But, everyone sort of lives the same life; we hang out in the same places, our kids go to the same schools, that sort of thing. Then real wealth started moving in to buy property as investments. Now we have people who have gates and armed guards. They have private police to scare the locals. They harass school board members for access to school vouchers for the private schools they are starting so their kids don't have to attend the public schools. It's different around here now. It's a lot less 'community' and all it took was about a half dozen really wealthy folks to upset the apple cart. Nobody jokes about money anymore in any context, and people seem to be a lot less happy than they used to be just in general.
anovikov 5y ago
You mean that workers know incomes of other workers in the same company and role and thus there is no way to negotiate wages with people individually basically linking them to their negotiation skills?
jeffreyrogers 5y ago
Interesting. It seems to work for Finland. In some countries it would probably make you a kidnapping target.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  You become a kidnapping target by being rich, whether that's a matter of public record or just someone cruising the wealthier neighbourhoods is arbitrary. I mean over here you can't look up who makes how much, but the rough value of houses and neighbourhoods, which is used to determine property taxes, is public record. I'm sure there's some rich people / families living in otherwise underwhelming houses, but they're generally a minority.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    The solution to this is to eliminate wealth disparity.
    - faeyanpiraat 5y ago
      We tried that already. It wasn’t pretty.
      - Tostino 5y ago
        When? When did we actually try that?
    - tengbretson 5y ago
      Why stop at eliminating wealth disparity when you can eliminate wealth?
      - syshum 5y ago
        Same thing, the only way to eliminating wealth disparity is to eliminate wealth. The Authoritarian Left that goes on and on about eliminating wealth disparity has no interest in lifting everyone up to be wealthy, not they want to seize the wealth and drag anyone down they deem is "too wealthy" Which is ironically always someone more wealthy than the person advocating for wealth redistribution, for example Bernie Sanders used to talk about "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire, now like magic only billionaires are a problem for him
mistrial9 5y ago
some countries have a social "fabric" .. the USA is a geographic location with English-style law, and a lot of people who are very divided and increasingly antagonistic.. Try to build the Roman Empire, and you get Roman Empire problems in your population..
- bwestergard 5y ago
  While the U.S. certainly has regional, class, and other subcultures, there is very clearly a national culture and "social fabric". The easiest way to see this, if you grew up in the U.S. and have not traveled much, is to read tourist guides for your own country.
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    Is this really the case? Imagine you're at a masquerade ball with 25 people from random countries around the western world, 5 of whom are Americans from various states. Everyone speaks perfect, mechanical, unaccented English, and you are not permitted to discuss dead-giveaway topics like geography, political parties/candidates, specific foods, etc. How confident are you that you could pick out the Americans?
    - doytch 5y ago
      How confident are you that you'd pick out the Spaniard? Or Belgian? Or Canadian? Generally, people overestimate the variation in their own compatriots and underestimate that in foreigners.
      - anthonygd 5y ago
        I have zero confidence I would be able to pick out the Spaniard, Belgian, Canadian or American. I'm having a hard time matching your generalization with my experience. When I started travelling I was surprised how similar people were regardless of where they were from. Sure you can dig into political views and find themes but those aren't consistent or pervasive enough to make predictions on an individual basis.
MR4D 5y ago
> everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record That's an interesting approach. I have a couple questions out of curiosity. Does that include their "offshore" income? By that, I mean income earned outside of the country, not necessarily hidden. Also, what is income? If there is a billionaire investor and he loses $10 million, do you see that as well?
- koala_man 5y ago
  Can't answer for Finland, but in Norway: >Does that include their "offshore" income? Yes. It counts as taxable income even if you end up paying 0% tax on it (such as via foreign tax credit). >Also, what is income? Net realized income. You can't tell the difference between earning $1M, and earning $10M and losing $9M, and earning $10M on paper but only selling $1M.
  - taeric 5y ago
    So what would the public record for Musk be? The number reporting usually quotes? Or a much smaller one? (Still large, of course.)
    - mariozivic 5y ago
      $0 for income tax as his salary is $0 and he funds his lifestyle by borrowing against shares he owns: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billionaire-11588967043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billi...
      - taeric 5y ago
        That... Isn't accurate either. :(. He did actually pay some taxes, so income wouldn't be zero. This whole "loan against debt" story feels off.
  - mariozivic 5y ago
    In the current low interest rate environment, I've heard that it's common for founders like Musk to borrow against their shares instead of selling shares. The difference is that they pay small interest rate but don't pay larger income tax by realizing their income. Basically, the same thing that their companies used (or maybe still use) for avoiding high tax on repatriation or their non-US earnings. Edit: Here's a proof but with different incentives (keeping control): https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billionaire-11588967043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billi...
ksec 5y ago
>eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining. WOW! Never heard of this as an argument. I think it is a very good one for working class.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  (not OP) There is good evidence that when wages are public knowledge minorities and women get paid more too... https://time.com/5353848/salary-pay-transparency-work/ https://time.com/5353848/salary-pay-transparency-work/
  - ffggvv 5y ago
    likely everyone else just gets paid less in the interest of fairness.. this already happens at tech companies like stripe. "Oh we dont care how many competing offers you have or how qualified you are. we pay everyone the same in the name of "fairness".
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      You would like to think so, but if we compare Finnish to American payrolls, you would find instead that instead top management gets less, if anybody. But there is more... Economic prosperity is always most sensitive to what the bottom quarter gets paid, because they are who are obliged to spend what they get immediately. The greater general prosperity that results benefits everybody else, in sum, more than the increased minimum wage. This was recently demonstrated in Seattle, in practice. In short: no, you are 100% wrong. You should consider this good news.
      - ffggvv 5y ago
        you didn’t actually provide any proof to disprove my claim and then said i was 100% wrong. either way i don’t think we’re aspiring to be finland.
        ncmncm 5y ago
Hammershaft 5y ago
I am in favor of such a system.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I'm not, it's dumb and makes classism which is already a problem in the USA an even bigger problem.
GordonS 5y ago
I wholeheartedly agree, and I'd be in favour of such a system here in the UK. That said, I'm not sure it would work in the US, where individualism has been taken to such extreme lengths - I could imagine it being used as bragging rights, rather than a source of moral embarrassment as it would be in Europe and Scandinavia.
- HatchedLake721 5y ago
  Moral embarrassment of what?
  - tharkun__ 5y ago
    Moral embarassment of earning 5 million while everyone makes 50k. And everyone seeing this and quitting and going to a company where the boss only makes 100k if everyone else makes 50k (for example). This might be unfathomable to some people and I must admit that having all salaries public is a bit strange to me as well. I don't know if I like it. I also read elsewhere on here that it only reports net income. I wonder how many schemes of making it look like you have less net income than you really do are employed. Sort of like profitable companies making themselvesook like they are loosing money or barely scraping by to avoid taxes.
yeetman21 5y ago
makes it know who to rob
TrackerFF 5y ago
Same in Norway, but the result isn't very accurate. For one, the wealthy don't tend to have any serious income - it's mostly capital gains for one of their holding companies or similar. Second, those numbers can be seriously "massaged" by having debt - your income will show much lower if you have any significant debt (no mater how low the interest rate is). For normal / regular people, the public figure gives you a very rough estimate. Again - the rich and wealthy will almost always show up with income 0, tax 0, assets 0. You don't even need to be filthy rich to get it structured like that. edit: What it did create, though, was a cottage industry of tax snoopers. Over here, you can see who's been checking you out - and nosy people not wanting to do that, will pay a couple of bucks for some service where others will check out your information.
- lolive 5y ago
  I am no expert but how can you reduce your income tax with debt? I thought only companies could include their debts into their global accounting, not individuals.
  - zo1 5y ago
    Interest paid on debt is seen as an expense. In some tax codes (like in SA) expenses like that offset your taxable income as a private entity. To be fair the lines get blurry because tax codes like to tax individuals differently to business entities. E.g individuals get taxed on mostly gross profit (income) whereas companies get taxed on net profit after expenses. IMHO the whole thing would probably be filled with less gaps if we just relied on one of the two or unified them.

failwhaleshark 5y ago

That makes the lives of gold-diggers easier too. If it were opt-in that would be fine, otherwise it's an invasion of privacy of most people who aren't rich. It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it.

lucideer 5y ago
> If it were opt-in that would be fine If it were opt-in it would be pointless. Surely that's obvious? > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. This is a fair point, but I think these are relatively small individual downsides, which are also much more visible (and potentially addressable). Bribery is probably a harder nut to crack, but the legal system favouring the rich (& lawyered up) is something that one can potentially work toward balancing/mitigating with legislative measures.
gota 5y ago
I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information. To your points: > gold-diggers I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their money... this is a non-issue. Happy to debate it further, but it seems so silly and self-apparent that we shouldn't care at all about it > Invasion of privacy Arguably, but as long as only a minimum amount of whats is public, with only the lump-sums published, I think its fine in context. > It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. I think these are very different things, the difference is not just of severity. They are different classes of things. Financial information relates to money, which only makes sense in a society (money is for trade). A disease's effects are personal. When they aren't, you are obligated to disclose them and/or to comply to other rules (for example, to quarantine). > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. I think the experience where this has been applied is precisely the opposite - the rich are the ones affected the most. And - if your justice can be bought, the problem has less to do with the knowledge that the other can't find back and more to do with the legal system in the first place. > Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it. Can't argue with that, even if I wanted to, in fewer than 15 pages. Complex stuff!
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  > this is a non-issue. Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? > I think its fine in context. That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It's the only number that matters and yet you're stilling trying hard to trivialize it. > And - if your justice can be bought, Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Who are you to have the gall... Whoa, relax. ISTM GP is probably a typical human. "Gold-diggers" are not and have never been a major threat to reasonably well-adjusted people. For weirdos who temporarily possess more money than they deserve, perhaps "gold-diggers" are a spice of life. Fools and wealth are soon parted, but that's true no matter what gets published.
  - gota 5y ago
    I think you're being downvoted our of tone, rather than content. So let me respond in reverse order, as the first point seems to be the most emotional for you >Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff. I absolutely think that the core issue is that the legal system can 'be bought', i.e., it can bankrupt people even if they are right. Reforming that shouldn't be completely impossible and would by definition solve the niche problem you are describing. Btw, as a rule _any_ corporation can sue _any_ non-famously rich person and be sure that they threat of litigation costs will weight in their favor. Disclosed tax info worsens nothing from the current status quo. > That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It is opinion, yes. But all laws are someone's opinion 'deciding for other people'. And I mean absolutely all laws, even the most basic ones like the right to live or to have private property. It's all social constructs, and we decide which ones stand > Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? I must say I'm surprised this issue seems important to you (and again - completely irrelevant to me). I absolutely don't care about something that I've only ever heard about in soap operas and have never, ever, heard of an example that bothered me in real life. I'm curious what makes this a relevant issue in your view, but I understand if its personal and you don't want to explain. But if you don't have any personal biases, let me argue that the problem of gold diggers is primarily a problem for the gold-dug (?). If a rich person doesn't want to marry/have a relationship with a person that only likes them for their money... then don't. I don't care, and I think nobody should
xutopia 5y ago
Funny thing my STI results are shared with my sexual partners and their partners too. It doesn't bother me one bit.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  By you and them? Laudable and sensible. By the government? What business is it of the government to even know who my sexual partner(s) is/are (especially for a negative test result)?
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    We already know, and we knew even before you did. Two of them were sent to test your disclosure practices, and you failed. You're an absolutely terrible person. How dare you!? Good day to you, sir/madame. I said "Good day!" /s
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Communicable disease prevention. HIV infections are typically reported to the government, for example, and does not require patient consent (nor does such data sharing incur a HIPPA violation). > All 50 states require both physicians and laboratories to report to local or state health departments the names of persons newly diagnosed with Centers for Disease Control-defined AIDS [1]. However, because AIDS cases represent onset of the disease caused by HIV, HIV data is necessary to monitor the epidemic. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-law-striking-balance-between-legal-mandates-and-medical-ethics/2005-10 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-...

mlac 5y ago

I would also think that this makes neighborhoods less financially diverse. I can’t see someone with a higher than average income moving into a neighborhood knowing that their neighbors might make 1/4th as much. It puts a target on them.

lmilcin 5y ago
You obviously haven't been to Finland. In Scandinavia, the approach to other person earning couple of times more than you could be summarized by "good for you".
- anovikov 5y ago
  But earning couple of times less lol? ) I don't think anyone at all wants live in a place where most people earn a lot less than themselves.
  - gmadsen 5y ago
    maybe in extremes. like 100:1, but 2:1, 3:1 doesn't seem that bad... honestly better for social cohesion
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I can pretty much guarantee that in the semi-rural town where I live, there are households that are probably down around median US income (~$50K) and households making hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
      - Loughla 5y ago
        In my rural area, I was one of the rich people in our area (combined dual income from my spouse and I of around 80-90k/year). People used to give me shit for being Richie Rich (all in good fun). The income level around here hovers around 100-150% of the standard federal poverty level. Generally, most people are lower income, with some people making 100k plus. But, everyone sort of lives the same life; we hang out in the same places, our kids go to the same schools, that sort of thing. Then real wealth started moving in to buy property as investments. Now we have people who have gates and armed guards. They have private police to scare the locals. They harass school board members for access to school vouchers for the private schools they are starting so their kids don't have to attend the public schools. It's different around here now. It's a lot less 'community' and all it took was about a half dozen really wealthy folks to upset the apple cart. Nobody jokes about money anymore in any context, and people seem to be a lot less happy than they used to be just in general.

anovikov 5y ago

You mean that workers know incomes of other workers in the same company and role and thus there is no way to negotiate wages with people individually basically linking them to their negotiation skills?

jeffreyrogers 5y ago

Interesting. It seems to work for Finland. In some countries it would probably make you a kidnapping target.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
You become a kidnapping target by being rich, whether that's a matter of public record or just someone cruising the wealthier neighbourhoods is arbitrary. I mean over here you can't look up who makes how much, but the rough value of houses and neighbourhoods, which is used to determine property taxes, is public record. I'm sure there's some rich people / families living in otherwise underwhelming houses, but they're generally a minority.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  The solution to this is to eliminate wealth disparity.
  - faeyanpiraat 5y ago
    We tried that already. It wasn’t pretty.
    - Tostino 5y ago
      When? When did we actually try that?
  - tengbretson 5y ago
    Why stop at eliminating wealth disparity when you can eliminate wealth?
    - syshum 5y ago
      Same thing, the only way to eliminating wealth disparity is to eliminate wealth. The Authoritarian Left that goes on and on about eliminating wealth disparity has no interest in lifting everyone up to be wealthy, not they want to seize the wealth and drag anyone down they deem is "too wealthy" Which is ironically always someone more wealthy than the person advocating for wealth redistribution, for example Bernie Sanders used to talk about "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire, now like magic only billionaires are a problem for him

mistrial9 5y ago

some countries have a social "fabric" .. the USA is a geographic location with English-style law, and a lot of people who are very divided and increasingly antagonistic.. Try to build the Roman Empire, and you get Roman Empire problems in your population..

bwestergard 5y ago
While the U.S. certainly has regional, class, and other subcultures, there is very clearly a national culture and "social fabric". The easiest way to see this, if you grew up in the U.S. and have not traveled much, is to read tourist guides for your own country.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  Is this really the case? Imagine you're at a masquerade ball with 25 people from random countries around the western world, 5 of whom are Americans from various states. Everyone speaks perfect, mechanical, unaccented English, and you are not permitted to discuss dead-giveaway topics like geography, political parties/candidates, specific foods, etc. How confident are you that you could pick out the Americans?
  - doytch 5y ago
    How confident are you that you'd pick out the Spaniard? Or Belgian? Or Canadian? Generally, people overestimate the variation in their own compatriots and underestimate that in foreigners.
    - anthonygd 5y ago
      I have zero confidence I would be able to pick out the Spaniard, Belgian, Canadian or American. I'm having a hard time matching your generalization with my experience. When I started travelling I was surprised how similar people were regardless of where they were from. Sure you can dig into political views and find themes but those aren't consistent or pervasive enough to make predictions on an individual basis.

MR4D 5y ago

> everyone's taxable income is a matter of public record That's an interesting approach. I have a couple questions out of curiosity. Does that include their "offshore" income? By that, I mean income earned outside of the country, not necessarily hidden. Also, what is income? If there is a billionaire investor and he loses $10 million, do you see that as well?

koala_man 5y ago
Can't answer for Finland, but in Norway: >Does that include their "offshore" income? Yes. It counts as taxable income even if you end up paying 0% tax on it (such as via foreign tax credit). >Also, what is income? Net realized income. You can't tell the difference between earning $1M, and earning $10M and losing $9M, and earning $10M on paper but only selling $1M.
- taeric 5y ago
  So what would the public record for Musk be? The number reporting usually quotes? Or a much smaller one? (Still large, of course.)
  - mariozivic 5y ago
    $0 for income tax as his salary is $0 and he funds his lifestyle by borrowing against shares he owns: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billionaire-11588967043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billi...
    - taeric 5y ago
      That... Isn't accurate either. :(. He did actually pay some taxes, so income wouldn't be zero. This whole "loan against debt" story feels off.
- mariozivic 5y ago
  In the current low interest rate environment, I've heard that it's common for founders like Musk to borrow against their shares instead of selling shares. The difference is that they pay small interest rate but don't pay larger income tax by realizing their income. Basically, the same thing that their companies used (or maybe still use) for avoiding high tax on repatriation or their non-US earnings. Edit: Here's a proof but with different incentives (keeping control): https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billionaire-11588967043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-techs-cash-poor-billi...

ksec 5y ago

>eliminates information asymmetries between workers and employers in wage bargaining. WOW! Never heard of this as an argument. I think it is a very good one for working class.

LatteLazy 5y ago
(not OP) There is good evidence that when wages are public knowledge minorities and women get paid more too... https://time.com/5353848/salary-pay-transparency-work/ https://time.com/5353848/salary-pay-transparency-work/
- ffggvv 5y ago
  likely everyone else just gets paid less in the interest of fairness.. this already happens at tech companies like stripe. "Oh we dont care how many competing offers you have or how qualified you are. we pay everyone the same in the name of "fairness".
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    You would like to think so, but if we compare Finnish to American payrolls, you would find instead that instead top management gets less, if anybody. But there is more... Economic prosperity is always most sensitive to what the bottom quarter gets paid, because they are who are obliged to spend what they get immediately. The greater general prosperity that results benefits everybody else, in sum, more than the increased minimum wage. This was recently demonstrated in Seattle, in practice. In short: no, you are 100% wrong. You should consider this good news.
    - ffggvv 5y ago
      you didn’t actually provide any proof to disprove my claim and then said i was 100% wrong. either way i don’t think we’re aspiring to be finland.
      - ncmncm 5y ago

Hammershaft 5y ago

I am in favor of such a system.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
I'm not, it's dumb and makes classism which is already a problem in the USA an even bigger problem.

GordonS 5y ago

I wholeheartedly agree, and I'd be in favour of such a system here in the UK. That said, I'm not sure it would work in the US, where individualism has been taken to such extreme lengths - I could imagine it being used as bragging rights, rather than a source of moral embarrassment as it would be in Europe and Scandinavia.

HatchedLake721 5y ago
Moral embarrassment of what?
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  Moral embarassment of earning 5 million while everyone makes 50k. And everyone seeing this and quitting and going to a company where the boss only makes 100k if everyone else makes 50k (for example). This might be unfathomable to some people and I must admit that having all salaries public is a bit strange to me as well. I don't know if I like it. I also read elsewhere on here that it only reports net income. I wonder how many schemes of making it look like you have less net income than you really do are employed. Sort of like profitable companies making themselvesook like they are loosing money or barely scraping by to avoid taxes.

yeetman21 5y ago

makes it know who to rob

TrackerFF 5y ago

Same in Norway, but the result isn't very accurate. For one, the wealthy don't tend to have any serious income - it's mostly capital gains for one of their holding companies or similar. Second, those numbers can be seriously "massaged" by having debt - your income will show much lower if you have any significant debt (no mater how low the interest rate is). For normal / regular people, the public figure gives you a very rough estimate. Again - the rich and wealthy will almost always show up with income 0, tax 0, assets 0. You don't even need to be filthy rich to get it structured like that. edit: What it did create, though, was a cottage industry of tax snoopers. Over here, you can see who's been checking you out - and nosy people not wanting to do that, will pay a couple of bucks for some service where others will check out your information.

lolive 5y ago
I am no expert but how can you reduce your income tax with debt? I thought only companies could include their debts into their global accounting, not individuals.
- zo1 5y ago
  Interest paid on debt is seen as an expense. In some tax codes (like in SA) expenses like that offset your taxable income as a private entity. To be fair the lines get blurry because tax codes like to tax individuals differently to business entities. E.g individuals get taxed on mostly gross profit (income) whereas companies get taxed on net profit after expenses. IMHO the whole thing would probably be filled with less gaps if we just relied on one of the two or unified them.