3 ms·

The most foolish method is calculating startup valuations. While there are some so-called discounts, they are essentially negligible. You can think of it this w

The most foolish method is calculating startup valuations. While there are some so-called discounts, they are essentially negligible. You can think of it this way: if you receive $3 million in seed funding, the government considers you to have $30 million * your equity wealth. If you're one of two co-founders, owning 40% of the shares, that's $12 million in assets! Haha, the government thinks that's equivalent to owning 20 apartments in Oslo. Okay, they seem to have completely ignored the risks and mortality rates of startups. Of course, this policy wasn't initially targeted at startups; it was primarily aimed at traditional industries. The reality is that the wealthy have plenty of ways to avoid taxes or even leave the country. People who own 20 houses in Oslo are unaffected; the only problem is that there are fewer people starting businesses and fewer opportunities to raise funds. It's just that the people who formulated the policy were so stupid that they didn't understand the situation at all. These fundamental aspects won't change, because Norway's oil and sovereign wealth fund are enough to sustain them for a long time.

aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
Sweden cut the wealth tax, and got a very high startup to capital ratio; but a rapidly rising wealth gap as a consequence. That wealth came from the local economy so it's reasonable to think it should return. But in practice there does not seem to exist any good approaches to do so.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago
  Sweden is also a bit of an exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve > A 2011 study by Trabandt and Uhlig published in the Journal of Monetary Economics estimated a 70% revenue maximizing rate, and estimated that the US and most European economies were on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue). A 2005 study concluded that with the exception of Sweden, no major OECD country could increase revenue by reducing the marginal tax rate.

aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago

Sweden cut the wealth tax, and got a very high startup to capital ratio; but a rapidly rising wealth gap as a consequence. That wealth came from the local economy so it's reasonable to think it should return. But in practice there does not seem to exist any good approaches to do so.

ceejayoz 11mo ago
Sweden is also a bit of an exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve > A 2011 study by Trabandt and Uhlig published in the Journal of Monetary Economics estimated a 70% revenue maximizing rate, and estimated that the US and most European economies were on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue). A 2005 study concluded that with the exception of Sweden, no major OECD country could increase revenue by reducing the marginal tax rate.