3 ms·

The Nordic model depends on sitting on an ocean of oil. > No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. See Bernie Sanders! Also, if you die in Washingto

The Nordic model depends on sitting on an ocean of oil. > No one is talking about eviscerating the wealthy. See Bernie Sanders! Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state).

dh2022 8mo ago
Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, Walter Bright. To eviscerate means to disembowel. Nobody is pushing to physically hurt the rich. But people are upset that their standards of living are declining while every opportunity to give more money to the rich is executed. Bernie Sanders asked for taxing the rich and the corporations. Taxing someone does not mean disembowel.
- WalterBright 8mo ago
  I know what the word means, and I am sure you understand it is not meant to be taken literally. For example, do you remember when AOC proudly wore a dress with the words "Eat the rich" emblazoned on it? Nobody accused her of suggesting cannibalism. Bernie Sanders has frequently stated that billionaires should not exist. He used to excoriate millionaires, until he became one himself.
wwweston 8mo ago
The "Nordic model" refers to the socioeconomics common in Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), not just to Norway. It's about how you approach commons and common wealth. Any commons will do. It does not rely on oil resources per se. Let's say for the sake of argument it does depend on oil wealth, though. The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does (>200 billion barrels vs ~7 billion). It has already produced at least 200billion barrels since the 1850s. What if the US had treated the wealth from past oil production the way Norway has? What if it treated the next 200 billion that way? And oil is only one of many commons resources to choose from. > See Bernie Sanders! Yes, I addressed Sanders proposal in my earlier comment: "single digit taxes on hyperwealth which might not have impact beyond stabilizing it and certainly wouldn’t make anyone not-wealthy." A single digit wealth tax is unlikely to fully offset even conventional yearly returns, hence the "might not have impact beyond stabilizing" the wealth of those subject to it. Even if we assume no yearly returns though -- simply a 5% bite out of net worth -- a wealth tax will not make anyone in that economic strata unwealthy (there's a billions-floor beneath which it wouldn't apply, leaving the worst case still radically prosperous). There's no reasonable basis to characterize that as "evisceration." But repeating loaded terms like that as part of an ideological rosary is a common religious and rhetorical strategy. > Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state). My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. Having dynastic wealth flows limited over a few million dollars is also not reasonably described as "evisceration" (especially with all the other vehicles for transferring wealth). May as well complain to God that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser.
- WalterBright 8mo ago
  > The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does And 60x the population. And defends the world with defense expenditures. > simply a 5% bite out of net worth Once that door is open, there will be no end to it. Washington state enacted a 7% capital gains tax, and the next year raised it to 9.9%. Now they're close to enacting a 9.9% income tax. > My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. If your estate is $1 billion, your estate tax will be: 35% of $997,000,000 + 40% of $990,000,000 = 74.5% effective tax rate. > Sanders said many times that billionaires should not exist > that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser. You could take all the money from billionaires and it won't raise the general standard of living. You will also never have companies like SpaceX.
  - NetMageSCW 8mo ago
    Perhaps a good argument, but you shouldn’t bring in SpaceX. SpaceX was founded by a millionaire who spent half his wealth on it.
    - WalterBright 8mo ago
      $100 million. He's also founded many other companies. Jeff Bezos has invested an estimated $10 billion to over $14.6 billion into Blue Origin as of early 2025.
  - wwweston 8mo ago
    > And 60x the population. OK, let's assume that oil is the only relevant resource, and population is the other relevant factor, and there's no efficiencies of scale or exceptional American ingenuity that can be discovered. 30x the resources combined with 60 times the population would mean we should be able to provide at least half the floor that Norway does, right? Does that mean if we discover another resource the US has, or efficiencies of scale, or an exceptionally ingenious solution, we can revise that number up? What if we'd behaved differently in the past when our oil to population ratio was similar to Norway's (or better)? And when's the 2nd best time to start? Or is this more of a shrug we're nothing compared to those fortunate Scandinavians and that's why we just can't have nice things that they have no matter how nice it would be to have those things, stiff upper lip chaps, greatest country in the world situation? > And defends the world with defense expenditures. This is the "I have to wash my hair that night" of excuses -- plausibly true at some level yet studiedly ignoring such a wide latitude of optionality involved that it's clearly covering a refusal. > Once that door is open, there will be no end to it. Slippery slope fallacy. Tax rates move, but not monotonically. For average US households effective income tax rates are more or less flat for the last generation or three. For high eaners? To say that the trend is downward doesn't cover it, it's a dramatic drop compared to midcentury era rates. Wealth taxes in the countries that have them don't seem to demand an ever larger share. If your strongest example is washington state a capital gains tax rate change within the same order of magnitude (that's still well below average effective income tax rates) you don't have much of a case. Lots of unevisceratedly wealthy people live in states where the highest income tax bracket has rates over 10%. I'm sure the people with over a million a year in income will remain prosperous. > If your estate is $1 billion, your estate tax will be: Also you'll be dead and as such won't have continued control over any of your previous assets. Hence the earlier comment to the effect that one may as well complain to God about having to loosen ones grasp on them at death as rail against rendering unto caeser. The natural "tax rate" on assets at death is 100%. Any smaller number than that is an affordance from the cooperation of society. > said many times that billionaires should not exist Perhaps he's right and it's hard to draw a solid straight line between that scale of personal profit and input. Perhaps he's wrong. Still, as discussed, the most extreme concrete policy that Sanders has proposed is a wealth tax of 5%, and we've discussed why the dynamics of that are not existential threats to the wealth of anyone, much less worthy of the term "evisceration." No one is proposing taking all the money from even the billionares. Most likely outcome of a 5% tax rate is stabilization. > it won't raise the general standard of living. And yet other societies have managed to produce better general standards of living (and higher rates of entrepreneurial success) via various policies including some different tax rates. > You will also never have companies like SpaceX. Companies exist to broadly source capital to bring to bear on an enterprise. So it stands to reason that companies like Space X will exist whether the capital comes from a wide pool of investors whose upside is limited somewhere below hyperwealth, or a contribution from a narrower set of investors with a higher concentration, at least as long as there's a credible upside.

dh2022 8mo ago

Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, Walter Bright. To eviscerate means to disembowel. Nobody is pushing to physically hurt the rich. But people are upset that their standards of living are declining while every opportunity to give more money to the rich is executed. Bernie Sanders asked for taxing the rich and the corporations. Taxing someone does not mean disembowel.

WalterBright 8mo ago
I know what the word means, and I am sure you understand it is not meant to be taken literally. For example, do you remember when AOC proudly wore a dress with the words "Eat the rich" emblazoned on it? Nobody accused her of suggesting cannibalism. Bernie Sanders has frequently stated that billionaires should not exist. He used to excoriate millionaires, until he became one himself.

wwweston 8mo ago

The "Nordic model" refers to the socioeconomics common in Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), not just to Norway. It's about how you approach commons and common wealth. Any commons will do. It does not rely on oil resources per se. Let's say for the sake of argument it does depend on oil wealth, though. The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does (>200 billion barrels vs ~7 billion). It has already produced at least 200billion barrels since the 1850s. What if the US had treated the wealth from past oil production the way Norway has? What if it treated the next 200 billion that way? And oil is only one of many commons resources to choose from. > See Bernie Sanders! Yes, I addressed Sanders proposal in my earlier comment: "single digit taxes on hyperwealth which might not have impact beyond stabilizing it and certainly wouldn’t make anyone not-wealthy." A single digit wealth tax is unlikely to fully offset even conventional yearly returns, hence the "might not have impact beyond stabilizing" the wealth of those subject to it. Even if we assume no yearly returns though -- simply a 5% bite out of net worth -- a wealth tax will not make anyone in that economic strata unwealthy (there's a billions-floor beneath which it wouldn't apply, leaving the worst case still radically prosperous). There's no reasonable basis to characterize that as "evisceration." But repeating loaded terms like that as part of an ideological rosary is a common religious and rhetorical strategy. > Also, if you die in Washington State, your estate is taxed at 75% (40% federal, 35% state). My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. Having dynastic wealth flows limited over a few million dollars is also not reasonably described as "evisceration" (especially with all the other vehicles for transferring wealth). May as well complain to God that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser.

WalterBright 8mo ago
> The US currently has something like 30x the proven oil reserves that Norway does And 60x the population. And defends the world with defense expenditures. > simply a 5% bite out of net worth Once that door is open, there will be no end to it. Washington state enacted a 7% capital gains tax, and the next year raised it to 9.9%. Now they're close to enacting a 9.9% income tax. > My understanding is that estate taxes generally have thresholds that have to be met before they kick in. Federal threshold is on the order of 10million, WA is 3 million. If your estate is $1 billion, your estate tax will be: 35% of $997,000,000 + 40% of $990,000,000 = 74.5% effective tax rate. > Sanders said many times that billionaires should not exist > that you can't take it with you as that you might have to loosen your grasp at death to render unto caeser. You could take all the money from billionaires and it won't raise the general standard of living. You will also never have companies like SpaceX.
- NetMageSCW 8mo ago
  Perhaps a good argument, but you shouldn’t bring in SpaceX. SpaceX was founded by a millionaire who spent half his wealth on it.
  - WalterBright 8mo ago
    $100 million. He's also founded many other companies. Jeff Bezos has invested an estimated $10 billion to over $14.6 billion into Blue Origin as of early 2025.
- wwweston 8mo ago
  > And 60x the population. OK, let's assume that oil is the only relevant resource, and population is the other relevant factor, and there's no efficiencies of scale or exceptional American ingenuity that can be discovered. 30x the resources combined with 60 times the population would mean we should be able to provide at least half the floor that Norway does, right? Does that mean if we discover another resource the US has, or efficiencies of scale, or an exceptionally ingenious solution, we can revise that number up? What if we'd behaved differently in the past when our oil to population ratio was similar to Norway's (or better)? And when's the 2nd best time to start? Or is this more of a shrug we're nothing compared to those fortunate Scandinavians and that's why we just can't have nice things that they have no matter how nice it would be to have those things, stiff upper lip chaps, greatest country in the world situation? > And defends the world with defense expenditures. This is the "I have to wash my hair that night" of excuses -- plausibly true at some level yet studiedly ignoring such a wide latitude of optionality involved that it's clearly covering a refusal. > Once that door is open, there will be no end to it. Slippery slope fallacy. Tax rates move, but not monotonically. For average US households effective income tax rates are more or less flat for the last generation or three. For high eaners? To say that the trend is downward doesn't cover it, it's a dramatic drop compared to midcentury era rates. Wealth taxes in the countries that have them don't seem to demand an ever larger share. If your strongest example is washington state a capital gains tax rate change within the same order of magnitude (that's still well below average effective income tax rates) you don't have much of a case. Lots of unevisceratedly wealthy people live in states where the highest income tax bracket has rates over 10%. I'm sure the people with over a million a year in income will remain prosperous. > If your estate is $1 billion, your estate tax will be: Also you'll be dead and as such won't have continued control over any of your previous assets. Hence the earlier comment to the effect that one may as well complain to God about having to loosen ones grasp on them at death as rail against rendering unto caeser. The natural "tax rate" on assets at death is 100%. Any smaller number than that is an affordance from the cooperation of society. > said many times that billionaires should not exist Perhaps he's right and it's hard to draw a solid straight line between that scale of personal profit and input. Perhaps he's wrong. Still, as discussed, the most extreme concrete policy that Sanders has proposed is a wealth tax of 5%, and we've discussed why the dynamics of that are not existential threats to the wealth of anyone, much less worthy of the term "evisceration." No one is proposing taking all the money from even the billionares. Most likely outcome of a 5% tax rate is stabilization. > it won't raise the general standard of living. And yet other societies have managed to produce better general standards of living (and higher rates of entrepreneurial success) via various policies including some different tax rates. > You will also never have companies like SpaceX. Companies exist to broadly source capital to bring to bear on an enterprise. So it stands to reason that companies like Space X will exist whether the capital comes from a wide pool of investors whose upside is limited somewhere below hyperwealth, or a contribution from a narrower set of investors with a higher concentration, at least as long as there's a credible upside.