I'm applying some Kjos-like logic to my own situation: My net fortune is zero, still I pay a lot of tax on my income, therefore my wealth tax rate is infinite (divide by zero.)
This reminds of the drunken debates and conversations my European friends would have with each other at 2 a.m. during my time as an exchange student in Sweden.
The basic flaw in all economic theory is the false presumption that most extremely wealthy people "earned" their assets, and that they somehow magically "deserve" their status.
***** The statement is yours. You're saying they HAVE earned it. There's no reason to disprove this until there is something to disprove. Anyone could claim anything using the flawed logic you're applying.
***** It's not about who said what in what order, it's about what thesis you're making. A statement in the manner "I see no evidence that God exists, hence he does not exist" can only be disproven by proving that God exists. Your statement is that these people somehow have earned their wealth. Prove it. Unless you do, there is no reason for me, or anyone else, to prove otherwise.
I don't think it's fair to say that Piketty "picks on" kjos here. After all, Kjos complained about his taxation relative to his income, and Piketty's point was that Kjos wasn't rich because of his income - - which is lower than several of his most senior captains - he's rich because of his fortune, so comparing how he's taxed to how a wage-earner is taxed, is totally bogus. Good on him for being loaded by all means, but if he shouldn't have to pay for the government services that makes it possible to run an airline, he's inherently arguing that people who don't have his wealth should do it for him, and I think that's not only bad capitalism, it's morally indefensible.
Tore Sinding Bekkedal 28% of his fortune will be taken by the government when he sells his shares (capital gains tax). So there goes the whole argument of the rich in Norway not paying taxes. The wealth tax will ensure less investment and eventually foreign takeover of the companies. The socialists essentially want to kill the hen that lays the golden eggs.
karldiesen This absurd notion that the richest people run the economy and should be worshipped as demigods of the economy must be dismissed as the ideological superstition that it is. Consumer spending power - a wealthy middle class - drives the economy.
karldiesen Its isnt 28% of the fortune that will be taken, it is 28% of the capital gains, which is very different. Additionally, the good thing about shares is that they pay dividends, so no need to sell whatsoever to enjoy the riches.
Machevort In Norway you also pay 28% on dividends. For all intents and purposes 28% of your fortune is taken by government when you convert your stocks into cash (by selling).
karldiesen That doesnt make sense at all. So if I buy $1,000 worth of shares in Norway, and I sell the next week for $1000, I have to pay $280 tax? In that case only complete financial illiterates buy shares in Norway.
Piketty write a book about The Capital of the XXI century and does not appear NOTHING referred to The Capital, in his book confuses wealth with capital and also has the arrogance to say you have not read the book of Marx's Capital. Pikketty another reformist more, I hope you have sold many books with this very commercial title.
Diego He doesn't "confuse" wealth with capital. Reformist socialism/social democracy has built the most succesful societies on earth in nordic countries, while revolutionary socialism lead to greatest tragedies of human history: soviet union, china, pol pot, etc.
***** Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are one of the most succesful countries anywhere ever. Sweden is not collapsing: there's problems with lack of hot spot policing but overall, Sweden has never had it this good.
***** *"The national debt is increasing 5 times as fast as in USA"* Swedens debt to GDP ratio is much lower than USA or any big european country. Was it growing 5 times faster last year, in the last quarter or what? You can't just say "increasing 5 times faster" without using a specific time frame silly. *"a third of all retired people live in poverty, 1% of them starve to death every year."* We have lower pensions here in Finland and no pensioners starve to death. That's just bs. *"Tell me one good thing about Sweden at the time please."* It's GDP is grew faster than Germany in 2014. *"And you fucking idiot, wasn't I clear in my previous comment with that Norway is the third biggest oil exporter and that they export more oil than Saudi Arabia? Qatar and UAE have ZERO taxes, and they are succesful, is that because of their low taxes?"* What's your point? That both Norway and UAE are succesful because of oil? So? Obviously Norway has used the oil money better and is a nicer place to live. *"Denmark and Finland have a free market, they are not socialist."* Denmark and Finland are just as socialist or social democratic as Sweden and Norway.
***** *Nope, the external debt in Sweden is 187% of GDP, in USA it's 106%. And I said INCREASING, can you read? It's increasing 5 times as fast.* Nope what? I said Sweden has low level of public debt, much lower than in the US, which doesn't dispute the fact that it's loaning money and has large external debt. You didn't answer my question when I asked in what period has the debt increased five times faster than in the United States? In 2014, last quarter or what? *And yes, my point is that their political system have nothing to do with it, they have oil, that's it, it does not matter who they have in charge, they would still make ALOT of money. One nation have 0 taxes, another have very high taxes, the only thing they have in common is their wealth and their oil. But sure, thank socialism for that, hahaha.* My point is that I don't know about you, but at least I would rather live in Norway, although theres a higher tax rate partly because the political system is better. *Finland have higher pensions, Sweden have the second lowest in the EU, I'm assuming it's Romania who have lower, if you know something I don't, then please provide a source. And they are starving because they live in retirement homes, and the quality and budget of those are so low that people living there starve to death, atleast if you listen to this study conducted by a professor, but I'm sure you know more about the health concerns of the Swedish aging population than the scientists in that field.* In Finland pensioner poverty is worse, has larger share of pensioners live below 60%, 50% and 40% of the median income. (blogi.kansanelakelaitos.fi/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kangasi-kuvio-1.jpg). There's a problem with pensioner poverty, but to say 1% die every year starve to death is not accurate: their life is shortened by malnutrition which of course is a huge problem. *And no, Denmark and Finland is not as socialist, for exampel the housing market, which is free in all those countries except for Sweden, as a result, the prices are skyrocketing and there is a huge shortage, the average waiting time of getting an apartment in Oslo and Helsingfors is one week, in Sweden it's 416 weeks, in Stockholm it's 780 weeks. Thank God that we don't have a free housing market!* If you think that Danish free-market housing system is a model, you might have also wanted to mention that "Danes owe their creditors 310 percent of disposable incomes, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates. That’s almost double the level in Sweden, where the central bank has suggested imposing a 200 percent cap on debt to safeguard financial stability."(www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-14/denmark-feeds-world-s-biggest-private-debt-as-caps-rejected) and it's a "rich world record" (www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-04/world-s-most-indebted-households-break-debt-curve-nordic-credit). *The economy is more free in Denmark than in USA or England, and the economy in Finland is more free than in Sweden, according to the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom. But maybe I should once again disregard the numbers that international independent research agencies have made and instead listen to some guy on CZcams based on his anecdotal evidence and what he "thinks".* Denmark has higher tax rate than in Sweden and high tax rate is one of the traits of social-democratic societies, so saying it's less social-democratic is bit biased use of indicators. Finnish economy is doing worse than Sweden, so it's not a good case to make for why Sweden should be more like it. I don't doubt that there's housing shortage in Sweden, but to say Sweden is in crisis because of socialism but Finland and Denmark are capitalist and do better is not true. I think the biggest problem in Sweden right now is fairly simple: crime concentration in cities, which should be solved by increasing police presence on the high-crime areas which would have a significiant and immediate effect. This should be done by taking the problem areas, and using a random lottery for half of the areas to receive increased police presence or continue business-as-usual. Experiments like these have proved that crime can be reduced this way and that it's not that the crime would simply move to one place to other.
Well, you had so many good arguments. I Think you proved some really good points. But then I read your last answer and you say that the main problem in Sweden right now is crime concentration. When you talk about the hugh-crime areas I guess, and correct me if I am wrong, you talk about areas like Husby, Rinkeby, etc. I make an assumption that you are Swedish or familiar with Sweden. Then you should also know, that in Stockholm most violent crimes are comitted in Norrmalm. A wealthy part of Stockholm. Is that where you want to adress more police officer. As you emphazise these experiments that have been succesfull I would very much like to see facts of that since I have never Heard of it Before. I would like to argue against more police officer. Instead I would like to see a taxation of wealth and homes (förmögenhetsskatt, bostadsskatt) where we put the Money in a social security net. We need to provide the areas that are portrayed as problem areas with more and better teachers, better integration into the Swedish comunity (since there are alot of immigrants). We need to make sure that the next generation of 1st or 2nd generation of immigrants don't end up like their parents. Overqualifed taxidrivers, overqualifed streetcleaners etc. we have such an oppurtunity if we try, not to criminalisize areas. But to make them a greater part of Swedish society and use all those Young, maybe different, minds to something good. Don't mark me on my Spelling please, I have dyslexia.
This "supereconomist" Piketty have recieved alot of criticism. He's not an economist, he's a political activist. But yet he's highlighted as a serious economist by SVT. It's beyond me that this is on public service. This man has a feeble mind and is totally ignorant and a charlatan.
You must have an odd definition of what an economist is. The guy has an educational background in economics, achieved a PhD, served as the head of Paris School of Economics and has taught as a professor in several economics classes. lol.
Hmm, this criticism that you talk about. Is it the super rich people who criticise him? Privilegied people who wants to defend their privilegies by saying he isn't an Economist doesn't makes Piketty a charlatan, or does it? Just by saying he is a charlatan doesn't prove anything, so give me more facts that shows he is a charlatan please.
This Pikkety guy is a " supereconomist" and he doesn't understand the difference between your income and the value of your stock??? He should do his basic homework that wealth tax is of your fortune value, and a successful entrepreneur like Kjos is just another example when your income can't in any way be enough to pay your wealth tax if you own a lot of shares. Quite embarrassing the way that he tried to put Kjos on the spot!
No, Piketty is right. You don´t understand. Yes, there is a lot of talk about wealth and owning shares, which is not income. But have you ever heard of dividends?
Thomas Nygaard But if the market value of the company is high, then surely by definition they will be able to sell parts of it to raise capital to pay taxes? Conversely, if the market value is low, then it isn't subject to large taxation. It's no fun to sell stock to pay taxes for it, but other people have to give up far more immediately necessary things when they pay taxes on their income - like a single mother unable to buy nutritious food for her child, or to afford to unwind with a holiday (and thus a ticket on a Norwegian flight). Piketty's main argument - made on the basis of the largest database of wealth distribution ever collected - is that in capitalism without government redistribution, more and more wealth is inherently focused in fewer and fewer hands, Nobody would suggest that taxing the fortunes of people would have no directly negative impact on the economy; *all* taxation sucks - but there's a reason we do it - we need government services to have a working society and economy. Taxing wage earners has a far greater damaging effect on the economy. Piketty's point against Kjos was the very solid argument that when the wealthiest hold wealth in forms which don't require them to pay tax on it, then the government services will have to draw its finances by excessively taxing people who earn a living through income - paradoxically the people who must sacrifice far more than Kjos or any other owner of great wealth. We need consumer spending power to build a good economy too, and by attacking worker's rights and demanding they subsidize the government services Kjos uses, he is pursusing a strategy which is not only selfish, but inherently counterproductive in the long term.
It's the other way around. Kjos is trying to confuse the situation by saying he's paying 1000% on his income, so it's obviously that he pretends to not understand the difference between wealth and income tax. Piketty knows the difference, of course, that's the whole reason he asks how large Kjos fortune is.
Battle of the accents
Haha! Lættis!
I'm applying some Kjos-like logic to my own situation: My net fortune is zero, still I pay a lot of tax on my income, therefore my wealth tax rate is infinite (divide by zero.)
This reminds of the drunken debates and conversations my European friends would have with each other at 2 a.m. during my time as an exchange student in Sweden.
The basic flaw in all economic theory is the false presumption that most extremely wealthy people "earned" their assets, and that they somehow magically "deserve" their status.
You havent earned my explanation.
+hampe hjsjdf You're missing the point. You haven't shown why they've earned it, and so there is no reason to disprove it.
*****
Still not getting it... ;(
***** The statement is yours. You're saying they HAVE earned it. There's no reason to disprove this until there is something to disprove. Anyone could claim anything using the flawed logic you're applying.
*****
It's not about who said what in what order, it's about what thesis you're making. A statement in the manner "I see no evidence that God exists, hence he does not exist" can only be disproven by proving that God exists. Your statement is that these people somehow have earned their wealth. Prove it. Unless you do, there is no reason for me, or anyone else, to prove otherwise.
I don't think it's fair to say that Piketty "picks on" kjos here. After all, Kjos complained about his taxation relative to his income, and Piketty's point was that Kjos wasn't rich because of his income - - which is lower than several of his most senior captains - he's rich because of his fortune, so comparing how he's taxed to how a wage-earner is taxed, is totally bogus.
Good on him for being loaded by all means, but if he shouldn't have to pay for the government services that makes it possible to run an airline, he's inherently arguing that people who don't have his wealth should do it for him, and I think that's not only bad capitalism, it's morally indefensible.
Tore Sinding Bekkedal 28% of his fortune will be taken by the government when he sells his shares (capital gains tax). So there goes the whole argument of the rich in Norway not paying taxes. The wealth tax will ensure less investment and eventually foreign takeover of the companies. The socialists essentially want to kill the hen that lays the golden eggs.
karldiesen This absurd notion that the richest people run the economy and should be worshipped as demigods of the economy must be dismissed as the ideological superstition that it is. Consumer spending power - a wealthy middle class - drives the economy.
karldiesen Its isnt 28% of the fortune that will be taken, it is 28% of the capital gains, which is very different. Additionally, the good thing about shares is that they pay dividends, so no need to sell whatsoever to enjoy the riches.
Machevort In Norway you also pay 28% on dividends. For all intents and purposes 28% of your fortune is taken by government when you convert your stocks into cash (by selling).
karldiesen That doesnt make sense at all. So if I buy $1,000 worth of shares in Norway, and I sell the next week for $1000, I have to pay $280 tax? In that case only complete financial illiterates buy shares in Norway.
It gets very tense quickly when it comes to the money in your own pocket
Lol. Bjorn Kjos tried to keep it very simple "A cat.. Is it black or white?" ^^
The problem is if you measure the cat will either be both or be dead...
Live long and prosper.
Kjos är så ägd! (pun intended)
Kjos is/got so owned?
I don't see a capitalist in the room. Why? It's been written: Capitalism The Unknown Ideal - It's called "unknown" for a reason.
Goes back to Aristotle; the best polis is where you have most people of the middling sort.
What do you guys think he would say about Bernie Sanders ideas?
+Scinester I think this is what he would say about him: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders_us_56c36eb3e4b0c3c55052cbc9 ;)
Relevant info: www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
Is it just me or does Kjos seem drunk?
Kjos can't take anything above 5% alcohol or tax it doesn't matter...
@@scipioafricanus5871 lool
The Norwegian capitalist 2 minutes enough! Headache and nausea!
Piketty write a book about The Capital of the XXI century and does not appear NOTHING referred to The Capital, in his book confuses wealth with capital and also has the arrogance to say you have not read the book of Marx's Capital. Pikketty another reformist more, I hope you have sold many books with this very commercial title.
Diego
He doesn't "confuse" wealth with capital. Reformist socialism/social democracy has built the most succesful societies on earth in nordic countries, while revolutionary socialism lead to greatest tragedies of human history: soviet union, china, pol pot, etc.
***** Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are one of the most succesful countries anywhere ever. Sweden is not collapsing: there's problems with lack of hot spot policing but overall, Sweden has never had it this good.
*****
*"The national debt is increasing 5 times as fast as in USA"*
Swedens debt to GDP ratio is much lower than USA or any big european country. Was it growing 5 times faster last year, in the last quarter or what? You can't just say "increasing 5 times faster" without using a specific time frame silly.
*"a third of all retired people live in poverty, 1% of them starve to death every year."*
We have lower pensions here in Finland and no pensioners starve to death. That's just bs.
*"Tell me one good thing about Sweden at the time please."*
It's GDP is grew faster than Germany in 2014.
*"And you fucking idiot, wasn't I clear in my previous comment with that Norway is the third biggest oil exporter and that they export more oil than Saudi Arabia? Qatar and UAE have ZERO taxes, and they are succesful, is that because of their low taxes?"*
What's your point? That both Norway and UAE are succesful because of oil? So? Obviously Norway has used the oil money better and is a nicer place to live.
*"Denmark and Finland have a free market, they are not socialist."*
Denmark and Finland are just as socialist or social democratic as Sweden and Norway.
*****
*Nope, the external debt in Sweden is 187% of GDP, in USA it's 106%. And I said INCREASING, can you read? It's increasing 5 times as fast.*
Nope what? I said Sweden has low level of public debt, much lower than in the US, which doesn't dispute the fact that it's loaning money and has large external debt. You didn't answer my question when I asked in what period has the debt increased five times faster than in the United States? In 2014, last quarter or what?
*And yes, my point is that their political system have nothing to do with it, they have oil, that's it, it does not matter who they have in charge, they would still make ALOT of money. One nation have 0 taxes, another have very high taxes, the only thing they have in common is their wealth and their oil. But sure, thank socialism for that, hahaha.*
My point is that I don't know about you, but at least I would rather live in Norway, although theres a higher tax rate partly because the political system is better.
*Finland have higher pensions, Sweden have the second lowest in the EU, I'm assuming it's Romania who have lower, if you know something I don't, then please provide a source. And they are starving because they live in retirement homes, and the quality and budget of those are so low that people living there starve to death, atleast if you listen to this study conducted by a professor, but I'm sure you know more about the health concerns of the Swedish aging population than the scientists in that field.*
In Finland pensioner poverty is worse, has larger share of pensioners live below 60%, 50% and 40% of the median income. (blogi.kansanelakelaitos.fi/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kangasi-kuvio-1.jpg). There's a problem with pensioner poverty, but to say 1% die every year starve to death is not accurate: their life is shortened by malnutrition which of course is a huge problem.
*And no, Denmark and Finland is not as socialist, for exampel the housing market, which is free in all those countries except for Sweden, as a result, the prices are skyrocketing and there is a huge shortage, the average waiting time of getting an apartment in Oslo and Helsingfors is one week, in Sweden it's 416 weeks, in Stockholm it's 780 weeks. Thank God that we don't have a free housing market!*
If you think that Danish free-market housing system is a model, you might have also wanted to mention that "Danes owe their creditors 310 percent of disposable incomes, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates. That’s almost double the level in Sweden, where the central bank has suggested imposing a 200 percent cap on debt to safeguard financial stability."(www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-14/denmark-feeds-world-s-biggest-private-debt-as-caps-rejected) and it's a "rich world record" (www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-04/world-s-most-indebted-households-break-debt-curve-nordic-credit).
*The economy is more free in Denmark than in USA or England, and the economy in Finland is more free than in Sweden, according to the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom. But maybe I should once again disregard the numbers that international independent research agencies have made and instead listen to some guy on CZcams based on his anecdotal evidence and what he "thinks".*
Denmark has higher tax rate than in Sweden and high tax rate is one of the traits of social-democratic societies, so saying it's less social-democratic is bit biased use of indicators.
Finnish economy is doing worse than Sweden, so it's not a good case to make for why Sweden should be more like it.
I don't doubt that there's housing shortage in Sweden, but to say Sweden is in crisis because of socialism but Finland and Denmark are capitalist and do better is not true.
I think the biggest problem in Sweden right now is fairly simple: crime concentration in cities, which should be solved by increasing police presence on the high-crime areas which would have a significiant and immediate effect. This should be done by taking the problem areas, and using a random lottery for half of the areas to receive increased police presence or continue business-as-usual. Experiments like these have proved that crime can be reduced this way and that it's not that the crime would simply move to one place to other.
Well, you had so many good arguments. I Think you proved some really good points. But then I read your last answer and you say that the main problem in Sweden right now is crime concentration. When you talk about the hugh-crime areas I guess, and correct me if I am wrong, you talk about areas like Husby, Rinkeby, etc. I make an assumption that you are Swedish or familiar with Sweden. Then you should also know, that in Stockholm most violent crimes are comitted in Norrmalm. A wealthy part of Stockholm. Is that where you want to adress more police officer.
As you emphazise these experiments that have been succesfull I would very much like to see facts of that since I have never Heard of it Before. I would like to argue against more police officer. Instead I would like to see a taxation of wealth and homes (förmögenhetsskatt, bostadsskatt) where we put the Money in a social security net. We need to provide the areas that are portrayed as problem areas with more and better teachers, better integration into the Swedish comunity (since there are alot of immigrants). We need to make sure that the next generation of 1st or 2nd generation of immigrants don't end up like their parents. Overqualifed taxidrivers, overqualifed streetcleaners etc. we have such an oppurtunity if we try, not to criminalisize areas. But to make them a greater part of Swedish society and use all those Young, maybe different, minds to something good.
Don't mark me on my Spelling please, I have dyslexia.
This "supereconomist" Piketty have recieved alot of criticism. He's not an economist, he's a political activist. But yet he's highlighted as a serious economist by SVT. It's beyond me that this is on public service. This man has a feeble mind and is totally ignorant and a charlatan.
Wow, the commentary above is so full of strong demonstrations and deep arguments that it might have been written by Bjørn Kjos himself.
You must have an odd definition of what an economist is. The guy has an educational background in economics, achieved a PhD, served as the head of Paris School of Economics and has taught as a professor in several economics classes. lol.
"This man has a feeble mind and is totally ignorant and a charlatan."
You make a convincing argument.
Hmm, this criticism that you talk about. Is it the super rich people who criticise him? Privilegied people who wants to defend their privilegies by saying he isn't an Economist doesn't makes Piketty a charlatan, or does it? Just by saying he is a charlatan doesn't prove anything, so give me more facts that shows he is a charlatan please.
This Pikkety guy is a " supereconomist" and he doesn't understand the difference between your income and the value of your stock??? He should do his basic homework that wealth tax is of your fortune value, and a successful entrepreneur like Kjos is just another example when your income can't in any way be enough to pay your wealth tax if you own a lot of shares. Quite embarrassing the way that he tried to put Kjos on the spot!
No, Piketty is right. You don´t understand. Yes, there is a lot of talk about wealth and owning shares, which is not income. But have you ever heard of dividends?
Startups and fast growing newcomers are usually losing money in early years, dividends are then not an option!
Thomas Nygaard But if the market value of the company is high, then surely by definition they will be able to sell parts of it to raise capital to pay taxes? Conversely, if the market value is low, then it isn't subject to large taxation. It's no fun to sell stock to pay taxes for it, but other people have to give up far more immediately necessary things when they pay taxes on their income - like a single mother unable to buy nutritious food for her child, or to afford to unwind with a holiday (and thus a ticket on a Norwegian flight).
Piketty's main argument - made on the basis of the largest database of wealth distribution ever collected - is that in capitalism without government redistribution, more and more wealth is inherently focused in fewer and fewer hands,
Nobody would suggest that taxing the fortunes of people would have no directly negative impact on the economy; *all* taxation sucks - but there's a reason we do it - we need government services to have a working society and economy. Taxing wage earners has a far greater damaging effect on the economy.
Piketty's point against Kjos was the very solid argument that when the wealthiest hold wealth in forms which don't require them to pay tax on it, then the government services will have to draw its finances by excessively taxing people who earn a living through income - paradoxically the people who must sacrifice far more than Kjos or any other owner of great wealth.
We need consumer spending power to build a good economy too, and by attacking worker's rights and demanding they subsidize the government services Kjos uses, he is pursusing a strategy which is not only selfish, but inherently counterproductive in the long term.
That's a very interesting interpretation of the conversation...
It's the other way around. Kjos is trying to confuse the situation by saying he's paying 1000% on his income, so it's obviously that he pretends to not understand the difference between wealth and income tax. Piketty knows the difference, of course, that's the whole reason he asks how large Kjos fortune is.