Norway Is the Only Country with Public Tax Returns (2018)(theculturetrip.com)
theculturetrip.com
Norway Is the Only Country with Public Tax Returns (2018)
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/norway/articles/norway-country-public-tax-returns/
107 comments
In addition, you will be notified if anyone accesses your records. This defers most sane people from looking up the records of family members, friends and neighbors.
I would expect some nosy person to access everyone's records, store them and then either charge others for looking at them secretly, or pranking the country by releasing them into the wild.
Yes, right after the change (back in the day, you could view anyone without them getting notified, or being able to see who'd been checking them out), a small cottage industry of "snoopers" popped up. They charged something like $1 - $3.5 pr. query. But that seemed to have died out a bit now.
I think most people simply don't care enough to check out other people, while risking to come off as a snooper.
I think most people simply don't care enough to check out other people, while risking to come off as a snooper.
It isn't though: tax returns are public in Sweden and Finland too.
I’m Sweden at least, it requires a little bit of hoop jumping and has prompted several grey zone companies to spring up.
The companies get a publishing license, effectively giving them the same free speech protection as the press. They then request all the information from the government and offer it in a easy UI, for a nominal charge of course.
The companies get a publishing license, effectively giving them the same free speech protection as the press. They then request all the information from the government and offer it in a easy UI, for a nominal charge of course.
If it's really public in those places could you please cite the leaders of each countries tax returns with a direct link?
In Finland, to stop a free for all of 'nosy parkers' you have to physically visit a tax office to view the information. This results in a few newspaper reports of the biggest payers around the time the information is released (https://yle.fi/news/3-12181764) and then everyone looses interest.
https://www.vero.fi/en/About-us/finnish-tax-administration/d...
https://www.vero.fi/en/About-us/finnish-tax-administration/d...
This used to be exactly how it was in Norway too.
It changed when internet got popular and everything was dumped online with no restrictions for a few years until people realised how much more invasive that got than the prior system, so now you have to log in and people can see whether or not their name has been looked up if you do it online.
It changed when internet got popular and everything was dumped online with no restrictions for a few years until people realised how much more invasive that got than the prior system, so now you have to log in and people can see whether or not their name has been looked up if you do it online.
In Finland newspapers get the data and run their own search engines of the highest earners. For example:
https://verokone.hs.fi/
https://verokone.hs.fi/
How do rich people who aren't yet filthy-rich enough to have their own bodyguards deal with personal security in these places?
In the US, if you hypothetically had, say, $10M net worth, you'd be best to not let anyone know, and stay under the radar.
If you have a billion then it doesn't matter, go all out and hire your own 24/7 security team.
In the US, if you hypothetically had, say, $10M net worth, you'd be best to not let anyone know, and stay under the radar.
If you have a billion then it doesn't matter, go all out and hire your own 24/7 security team.
You make sure crime doesn't pay. Simple as that. Countries with kidnapping are ones with very porous policing. You can go into any affluent neighborhood in the USA and see people worth 10m plus walking around with no bodyguards.
Key word there is neighborhood. Even in the Midwest US there can be very 'safe' neighborhoods right next to very unsafe ones, and the difference in the police resources from one block to the next is palpable.
Forcing construction of mixed income neighborhoods (much like forced busing of students) very quickly improves schooling and policing outcomes, though sadly more affluent folks often move out soon thereafter.
Forcing construction of mixed income neighborhoods (much like forced busing of students) very quickly improves schooling and policing outcomes, though sadly more affluent folks often move out soon thereafter.
These used to be virtually crime-free countries. My sister lived in central Sweden for a year, coming from another EU country, and was genuinely shocked how crime was effectively an alien concept to the locals. And that was an university town, accepting international students for a long while. Unfortunately this seems to have badly changed over the last decade, according to my sister in law who lives in southern Sweden. The nation is also having a hard time adjusting to this new reality.
I live in Scandinavia. I refuse to believe that Scandinavia was ever virtually crime free. Anti-social behavior has always existed (also here).
"Sweden has for at least six years been struggling with a tide of gang violence that has contributed to its shift from one of the safest countries in the world to among Europe’s most violent. Last year, there were at least 342 shootings resulting in 46 deaths (up from 25 shootings in 2015), along with dozens of bombings"
-- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/arts/music/einar-sweden-r...
So a 1268% increase in "anti-social behavior" since 2015.
-- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/arts/music/einar-sweden-r...
So a 1268% increase in "anti-social behavior" since 2015.
Being one of the safest is not the same as being crime free.
Well it sounds like crime has greatly increased in Scandavia. Has that affected you at all?
Obviously there has been a massive increase in violent crime, I guess you live somewhere that you are protected from that?
Obviously there has been a massive increase in violent crime, I guess you live somewhere that you are protected from that?
I have not been personally affected, no.
[deleted]
May be localised bubbles. But both experiences are genuine. Note that what I mean by crime is "actual threat to anyone's safety", not "kids throwing a TV out of a window when moving out" (which apparently was a local student tradition and definitely an anti-social behaviour).
Especially the particular suburb of Stockholm has very quickly found itself in free-fall from "nothing bad ever happened here" to "you should not walk alone after dark".
Especially the particular suburb of Stockholm has very quickly found itself in free-fall from "nothing bad ever happened here" to "you should not walk alone after dark".
Basically, your spending behavior and the location of your house gives you away when you are that rich. People with disposable income live in nice places, drive nice cars, wear expensive clothes, and frequent expensive restaurants In the US figuring out who has money and who hasn't is not rocket science. Most ad companies are actually very good at profiling users and their incomes. Public tax information would just confirm the obvious.
Personal security in countries with low crime and murder rates like Norway and Finland is pretty easy. They are very safe countries. E.g. kidnappings are very rare there and nobody carries cash anymore because they are also modern countries. So, the opportunities for robbers and thieves are limited to non cash items.
Personal security in countries with low crime and murder rates like Norway and Finland is pretty easy. They are very safe countries. E.g. kidnappings are very rare there and nobody carries cash anymore because they are also modern countries. So, the opportunities for robbers and thieves are limited to non cash items.
> Basically, your spending behavior and the location of your house gives you away when you are that rich
It doesn't have to though. That's a choice. Heck I know people with likely >10M net worth that are still living with roommates.
> nobody carries cash anymore
But if they know you have $10M, they could kidnap your spouse on the way to work, and children on their way to school, for a $1M ransom in bitcoin?
Something that's more easily avoided if they don't have a price tag associated with your face in a publicly-viewable database.
It doesn't have to though. That's a choice. Heck I know people with likely >10M net worth that are still living with roommates.
> nobody carries cash anymore
But if they know you have $10M, they could kidnap your spouse on the way to work, and children on their way to school, for a $1M ransom in bitcoin?
Something that's more easily avoided if they don't have a price tag associated with your face in a publicly-viewable database.
There are of course exceptions but mostly finding wealthy targets to rob or kidnap is not an issue for criminals. I'd argue that the opposite is a bigger issue for criminals in the US: plenty of people pretending to be rich that are deep in debt.
Finland and Norway have plenty of rich people walking around without protection and completely unarmed. Kidnappings are not a regular thing in those countries nor are they getting robbed regularly. They might install burglar alarms on their properties though.
Finland and Norway have plenty of rich people walking around without protection and completely unarmed. Kidnappings are not a regular thing in those countries nor are they getting robbed regularly. They might install burglar alarms on their properties though.
There’s a huge observational bias there, though. Its easy to spot the ostentatious high income earners, and those living far beyond their means.
I don’t really see how this is a problem unless you hide your money in your mattress.
The emergence of modern states happened with the industrial revolution and the ascendence of the bourgeoisie. The original point of this centralization of power—although some are now a bit more egalitarian—is to protect private property and the interests of those who own it. And by that I of course mean the rich.
The emergence of modern states happened with the industrial revolution and the ascendence of the bourgeoisie. The original point of this centralization of power—although some are now a bit more egalitarian—is to protect private property and the interests of those who own it. And by that I of course mean the rich.
They start to move abroad. Seriously. Violent crime such as robbery at gunpoint in your own home, car jackings etc is an increasing problem which worry many in Sweden. It is perhaps not common but is increasing with a worrying pace.
That seems like such a middle class worry. I don’t see how people with tens of millions of USD (or equivalent of course) are more susceptible to opportunistic crimes like robberies and car jackings. If anything they are less susceptible since they can move to nicer places.
The question was, how do they act? And perhaps you have missed that discussion.
A US congresswoman was carjacked last week in Philly
You should read the article because it talks about the distinctions between those three countries very clearly.
> In Sweden and Finland, people can find out about anyone else’s tax returns just by making a phone call, but Norway is the only country where you can just look up that information on a government website.
You can also visit the closest Skatteverket and use their computers, I used to do it as a kid...
Oh and you dont have to speak to anyone or identify yourself to do it either.
You can also visit the closest Skatteverket and use their computers, I used to do it as a kid...
Oh and you dont have to speak to anyone or identify yourself to do it either.
Anyone who is a contractor - working through a personal service company - effectively makes their tax returns public in the UK as well.
And italy?
And a terrible idea.
And a terrible idea.
Why?
Because its a deeply personal piece of information for many people.
Personally, Id rather have my medical history available to the public than my personal wealth or income (and Im loath to give that up!). No one except my wife knows how much I make. In the case of my parents, my mom has never known how much money my dad makes.
They may seem strange to you, it may seem barbaric or backwards. That’s irrelevant - I’m firmly entrenched in this position and wont help you release this data (through my vote, and legal lawsuits, clearly).
You can’t dismiss me as an eccentric American behind the more enlightened Europeans - Im not American, I am and grew up in Europe, I just live in the US.
Nor am I or did I grow up rich. Growing up, my dad whenever my dad was doing the bills he joked he was feeding a blackhole (debt). We never knew how big this hole was, but we knew where it came from - even a hard working engineer has a steep financial hill when you’re from a poor country.
You really must understand ours is a deep seated difference in points of view. My mom has never asked how much my dad made, my dad has yet to tell her. My mom had a vague idea how much she could spend (her guesstimate was very good) my dad never enquired what she spent money on. He himself never spent any money except on us. The result is they never fought over money, the most common marital problem (I guarantee you this. Both my parents would rather be paupers than put money between their relationship - they are both very stoic and devoted to each other). I doubt this would have been the case had my mom ever displayed any interest in money.
So what does making my tax returns or my salary (probably the lowest among my colleagues) publicly available mean to us? It means inviting strangers into our intimate space, more intimate than the fact that I have a rare auto immune disease Ill share with a random person on the internet (anonymized, of course :P ).
You see, there are people who view this information not merely as a means to a more just society (whatever that means anymore) but as a very intimate part of their family life. Just because some cannot see that doesn’t mean it isn't real.
Personally, Id rather have my medical history available to the public than my personal wealth or income (and Im loath to give that up!). No one except my wife knows how much I make. In the case of my parents, my mom has never known how much money my dad makes.
They may seem strange to you, it may seem barbaric or backwards. That’s irrelevant - I’m firmly entrenched in this position and wont help you release this data (through my vote, and legal lawsuits, clearly).
You can’t dismiss me as an eccentric American behind the more enlightened Europeans - Im not American, I am and grew up in Europe, I just live in the US.
Nor am I or did I grow up rich. Growing up, my dad whenever my dad was doing the bills he joked he was feeding a blackhole (debt). We never knew how big this hole was, but we knew where it came from - even a hard working engineer has a steep financial hill when you’re from a poor country.
You really must understand ours is a deep seated difference in points of view. My mom has never asked how much my dad made, my dad has yet to tell her. My mom had a vague idea how much she could spend (her guesstimate was very good) my dad never enquired what she spent money on. He himself never spent any money except on us. The result is they never fought over money, the most common marital problem (I guarantee you this. Both my parents would rather be paupers than put money between their relationship - they are both very stoic and devoted to each other). I doubt this would have been the case had my mom ever displayed any interest in money.
So what does making my tax returns or my salary (probably the lowest among my colleagues) publicly available mean to us? It means inviting strangers into our intimate space, more intimate than the fact that I have a rare auto immune disease Ill share with a random person on the internet (anonymized, of course :P ).
You see, there are people who view this information not merely as a means to a more just society (whatever that means anymore) but as a very intimate part of their family life. Just because some cannot see that doesn’t mean it isn't real.
Why consider it intimate data?
Fear it will cause spousal resentment, impact future offers, being targeted by gold diggers or grifters? Wealth tied to identity?
Fear it will cause spousal resentment, impact future offers, being targeted by gold diggers or grifters? Wealth tied to identity?
To summarize my comment, because something as mundane as money is more likely to enter (and therefore effect) into my relationships with others when we know how much we make.
Its hard to be friends with someone who you know makes twice (or half) what you make. But there are many people who I think are cool and would want to have a relationship with that make a lot more/less than I.
Thats also a reason why modesty in our behavior is important - the wealthier person in a relationship shouldn't keep proposing things that are financially difficult for the other
Its hard to be friends with someone who you know makes twice (or half) what you make. But there are many people who I think are cool and would want to have a relationship with that make a lot more/less than I.
Thats also a reason why modesty in our behavior is important - the wealthier person in a relationship shouldn't keep proposing things that are financially difficult for the other
That has not been my experience. As a state employee in California, my salary is a matter of public record and has been for years. I have no idea who has looked up my salary, so I don't know what impact it's had on my friendships, etc.
Did you read the comment you are replying to? The answer to your question is literally the entire content of the comment.
Maybe I'm just dense but it wasn't clear the motivation for keeping the info secret. It seems implied that fear of spousal conflict was involved.
I see. Sorry for my snark. My understanding was that they feel money has a deeply corrupting influence on relationships, and credits the strength of their parents marriage with the fact that they both made a clear effort to avoid taking about money (while still being responsible with it). I don’t think that they are saying that making tax returns public will directly cause more spousal conflict, but it will cause more general corruption of relationships across the board.
I can certainly see that. In my experience, there are very few people who respond appropriately when they learn what someone makes. Rarely is it: “oh, good for them, anyway, moving on …” Most of the time, it’s unhelpful and toxic commentary about whether the person is overpaid/spoiled/poor with money/a sucker or whatever depending on their circumstances. I wish it wasn’t that way but that has been my experience.
I can certainly see that. In my experience, there are very few people who respond appropriately when they learn what someone makes. Rarely is it: “oh, good for them, anyway, moving on …” Most of the time, it’s unhelpful and toxic commentary about whether the person is overpaid/spoiled/poor with money/a sucker or whatever depending on their circumstances. I wish it wasn’t that way but that has been my experience.
It can give extortionists / kidnappers a nice list of potential targets.
Just the other day, there was a thread on HN about how terrible it was that employers could look at a candidate's salary history before making an offer.
Doesn't this go both ways?
Employees would have perfect visibility into their peer's (and boss's) salaries and it would be impossible for employers to covertly take advantage of people with less leverage and poor negotiation skills?
Employees would have perfect visibility into their peer's (and boss's) salaries and it would be impossible for employers to covertly take advantage of people with less leverage and poor negotiation skills?
In some cases equity and share grants could muddy the waters a bit there (salary isn't everything), but yep, I think that if salary transparency commenced, then total compensation transparency would likely follow shortly afterwards.
There's a meme I've heard that it's difficult for some people to discover that their salaries are lower than their peers. I can understand that, but equally I don't totally understand it as an argument for continuing to pay people less. (it might not be the strongest argument against, it's probably worth finding others too)
There's a meme I've heard that it's difficult for some people to discover that their salaries are lower than their peers. I can understand that, but equally I don't totally understand it as an argument for continuing to pay people less. (it might not be the strongest argument against, it's probably worth finding others too)
I'm confident that https://www.levels.fyi/ would be updated over night with that info if it became available stateside.
In Norway, this is normally asked during the interview. If the employeer would look up your tax returns, you’d be notified of it and, at least for me, it would be such a huge red flag that I would almost unconditionally decline an offer.
Couldn't they just buy the data from companies that scrape it and sell access more discretely?
You need to login with your BankID (national auth provider) which is bound to your personal id number, and which is illegal to use for machine access, so no.
I posted this yesterday exactly because of the salaries post. It didn't get lots of attention back then but it seems that the post has gotten some sponsorship from the moderators.
My personal opinion is that it might not have a busting effect on any one activity except journalism, but it might be a stop measure for some politicians and public figures.
My personal opinion is that it might not have a busting effect on any one activity except journalism, but it might be a stop measure for some politicians and public figures.
I'm torn on the subject, for one I think the transparancy is good, especially when viewed in the public sphere, but on the other hand, like HN mentioned: it's bad that the "ladder syndrom" might occur: e.g. one only hops a certain % in salary.
On the other hand, one might also view what all the collegues are earning and the "past" wouldn't be a relevant anymore, but rather the merits one might bring to a company.
In addition I find tax Returns different from salary history, though for most indeed would be the same.
and finally I find it not the same that for the Experian flavor one has to pay to get some info, where the Norway variant is free for all to see.
Yeah, that kinda sounds bad, but then again, if your salary is below what you should deserve, you just change jobs again with a higher salary request.
In the US job changes aren't trivial. Health plans impact provider networks and coverage. In some areas employers demand in office with which reduces the pool of available employers.
The candidate can also grab the business card of a few peers at the company and look at their salaries.
The visibility goes both ways.
It's not that easy, because you get the taxable income, and e.g. mortgage interest and other debt interest is a deduction in Norway, so while the taxable income gives an indication it's a very unreliable proxy on the lower end.
For a lot of state/government employees in the USA, salaries are public record. It's not really that uncommon.
I'll take a moment to mention that policies like this are something that only people in relatively secure countries with firm rule of law and reliable police would applaud. I shiver to think of fully public tax records in any nation where organized crime, kidnapping, corrupt police/prosecutors and general criminality are common.
As someone else noted, tax returns are public in Italy too, but you have to request them explicitly for a given person.
Newspapers can and do publish analysis of tax returns by politicians, for example.
Some years ago the tax authority decided to actually publish everything online for ease of access and the country exploded, so the privacy authority told them not to do that.
Newspapers can and do publish analysis of tax returns by politicians, for example.
Some years ago the tax authority decided to actually publish everything online for ease of access and the country exploded, so the privacy authority told them not to do that.
The last part is similar to what happened in Norway: For a couple of years it became a free-for-all, and then they put in place a login and notifies people if they get looked up. Doesn't stop newspapers from prying into politicians and well known people, but stops most of the casual prying into friends and family or potential hires.
This is one of the few things that people seem to take their privacy serious on and I don't get it, possibly because I'm too poor and trust the social fabric too much to worry about people using my tax return to scope kidnapping me.
The information is inevitably less detailed than what gets siphoned off to Credit card companies and their downstream data processors, less detailed than the ad tracking which monitors my everyday life and less than what people already share on social media. And the state already has your info!
The only thing that changes for me is that now you can't lie about your finances anymore, so no actings above your station and no acting humble while being rich. Naïve but serious question: what are the serious downsides aside from "my social circle would collapse in jealousy and rage", which sounds like a problem with the social circle?
The information is inevitably less detailed than what gets siphoned off to Credit card companies and their downstream data processors, less detailed than the ad tracking which monitors my everyday life and less than what people already share on social media. And the state already has your info!
The only thing that changes for me is that now you can't lie about your finances anymore, so no actings above your station and no acting humble while being rich. Naïve but serious question: what are the serious downsides aside from "my social circle would collapse in jealousy and rage", which sounds like a problem with the social circle?
It's not just about kidnapping. There's all kinds of ways for this information to be abused. It can compromise employment or consulting negotiations. Affect the dynamics of relationships with your neighbours (who you don't always get as much choice about as your circle of trusted friends). Create expectations from other members of society. And it can do so in innacurate ways, eg. when a person's income and savings aren't proportional.
Claiming it doesn't matter because your privacy is already threatened from other angles doesn't help the problem. There are ways to mitigate the examples you raised (removal requests to the data clearinghouses, not participating in social media, etc).
> no actings above your station
I don't even know where to start on that comment. The premise that wealth determines some concept of "your station" is part of the problem here. I place a great deal more weight on more meaningful qualities of a person.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where nobody cared how much money you have. Until that time I respectfully prefer to keep my financial affairs none of your business.
Claiming it doesn't matter because your privacy is already threatened from other angles doesn't help the problem. There are ways to mitigate the examples you raised (removal requests to the data clearinghouses, not participating in social media, etc).
> no actings above your station
I don't even know where to start on that comment. The premise that wealth determines some concept of "your station" is part of the problem here. I place a great deal more weight on more meaningful qualities of a person.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where nobody cared how much money you have. Until that time I respectfully prefer to keep my financial affairs none of your business.
> I don't even know where to start on that comment. The premise that wealth determines some concept of "your station" is part of the problem here.
I think you're reading things that weren't intended. My reading was that the problematic people are people who act as if they're better than others because of the amount of money they have, when in fact they're rather similar to the people they look down on. In a world where taxes are public, that's no longer possible.
Maybe you're confused because you haven't encountered such people but I assure you they exist.
I think you're reading things that weren't intended. My reading was that the problematic people are people who act as if they're better than others because of the amount of money they have, when in fact they're rather similar to the people they look down on. In a world where taxes are public, that's no longer possible.
Maybe you're confused because you haven't encountered such people but I assure you they exist.
No comment about the rest but for the last part, I specifically meant people who rent an expensive car and try to flaunt their "wealth" and act cocky without actually being wealth. Aside from the professional grifters ("i afforded this Ferrari by following the storage in my telegram group!!!"), there are also special types of people who try to do this as a means on itself. Rich cocky people are flaunting their wealth are also assholes but would be less affected by this.
One serious downside is when negotiating purchases like cars, houses, or anything else with some aspect of deal-making. It can go both ways. A more transparently high earner may get a much worse deal on a car than they otherwise would have, and a modest earner may be locked out of a house sale that they can afford because they got the money together but the seller feels it wouldn't be appropriate for the neighborhood.
The first one I'd call "system working as intended" ,the second one would be illegal in my country.
The system is working as intended if a rich person is discriminated against based on their wealth, but illegal if a poor person is discriminated against based on their wealth?
If you can afford a house you can afford it. You said "they don't fit into that neighborhood", you can't deny a sale at an advertised asking price for "not fitting into the neighborhood", that triggers discrimination laws.
In a negotiated setting where you can hide that motivation, everything is open, but we as a society have settled on price discrimination being okay (see, first class tickets), this simply evens the playing field so the rich can't hide their wealth. Also, if it really pains you, as a wealthy person you can easily get the poor person treatment by giving away your wealth, so I find these "both types of discrimination" rhetoris inconsistent anyway.
In a negotiated setting where you can hide that motivation, everything is open, but we as a society have settled on price discrimination being okay (see, first class tickets), this simply evens the playing field so the rich can't hide their wealth. Also, if it really pains you, as a wealthy person you can easily get the poor person treatment by giving away your wealth, so I find these "both types of discrimination" rhetoris inconsistent anyway.
I'm not the person who posted this example, but functionally the person who doesn't want to sell their house to a person with less wealth could simply raise the price just as the salesperson selling a car to a rich person. As the person owns that asset, it would be quite challenging to prove because the justification could be that demand justified raising the price.
I'll agree that society has normalized some price discrimination in terms of interest rates being based on credit scores and we can debate the merits in relation to loaning someone money. And there are actually a lot of laws in place around how high an interest rate can be, who can be loaned money, etc.
However, first class tickets are not price discrimination because the offered service is in fact different which means it's not comparable to coach or business. In fact, I'm not aware of a service in which they ask you for your income statement when you walk in the door and then change the price accordingly.
Lastly, I find your rhetoric that a wealthy person should just become poor if they want equal treatment to be odd. Who classifies as wealthy? Will it be up to a judge every time? How will that change as the standard of lower, middle and upper class changes within a country?
I'll agree that society has normalized some price discrimination in terms of interest rates being based on credit scores and we can debate the merits in relation to loaning someone money. And there are actually a lot of laws in place around how high an interest rate can be, who can be loaned money, etc.
However, first class tickets are not price discrimination because the offered service is in fact different which means it's not comparable to coach or business. In fact, I'm not aware of a service in which they ask you for your income statement when you walk in the door and then change the price accordingly.
Lastly, I find your rhetoric that a wealthy person should just become poor if they want equal treatment to be odd. Who classifies as wealthy? Will it be up to a judge every time? How will that change as the standard of lower, middle and upper class changes within a country?
I partially agree with the first class ticket being a bad example, but the basic idea stands, normally price discrimination just benefits the rich.
As for your last point, I'd be against fixed definitions (as you are I think), but i have seen the argument that discrimination against the rich is just as bad as discrimination against ethnicities, poor people etc., often in the context of progressive taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, discussions about billionaires.
And it's at these contexts my (flippant) rhetort flies. If you want the poor person price really badly instead of someone trying to fleece the rich guy (still mainly guys), then become poor. If you don't want to pay a high tax rate above X million income, I'm sure someone else will want to. Etc. The exact threshold is always defined by something else and will vary, and there are of course limits. But in this instance, iff the majority of people benefits from radical transparency (which I'm not 100% on, but sure enough that I'm arguing for it) by being able to negotiate wages and properly asses the financial situation of the country, as well as helping to detect tax evasion via community tipofs(controversial I know, my opinion, not universal etc.), then I'm okay with sacrificing the ability of the wealthy to get good housing deals or hide dynastic wealth. They can always give away that wealth if they want to get better deals, pay less taxes etc. something you can't do with ethnicities, upbringing etc. So discrimination based on wealth is inherently different than those other instances in my eyes and this is what this remark was about
As for your last point, I'd be against fixed definitions (as you are I think), but i have seen the argument that discrimination against the rich is just as bad as discrimination against ethnicities, poor people etc., often in the context of progressive taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, discussions about billionaires.
And it's at these contexts my (flippant) rhetort flies. If you want the poor person price really badly instead of someone trying to fleece the rich guy (still mainly guys), then become poor. If you don't want to pay a high tax rate above X million income, I'm sure someone else will want to. Etc. The exact threshold is always defined by something else and will vary, and there are of course limits. But in this instance, iff the majority of people benefits from radical transparency (which I'm not 100% on, but sure enough that I'm arguing for it) by being able to negotiate wages and properly asses the financial situation of the country, as well as helping to detect tax evasion via community tipofs(controversial I know, my opinion, not universal etc.), then I'm okay with sacrificing the ability of the wealthy to get good housing deals or hide dynastic wealth. They can always give away that wealth if they want to get better deals, pay less taxes etc. something you can't do with ethnicities, upbringing etc. So discrimination based on wealth is inherently different than those other instances in my eyes and this is what this remark was about
>>Naïve but serious question: what are the serious downsides aside from "my social circle would collapse in jealousy and rage", which sounds like a problem with the social circle?
Serious downsides include:
* making it harder to keep money making opportunities secret. If you are known as the truffles guy, who spends time hiking Mt. Cayenne, and then suddenly every one knows that your income rose 20X last year, people can deduce that Mt. Cayenne has a big stash of truffles. It reduces the incentive to spend years scouring the forests looking for sites rich in truffles, and makes it more profitable to track income tax receipt rolls to find sudden surges in income among truffle foragers.
* requires that certain people in the state inspect all of your private economic interactions, and that you allow this under pain of imprisonment, so that accurate income data can be collected. This gives massive power to those who do the inspecting, and has collateral damage for things like encrypted communication, which due to its ability to aid in evading these inspections, could become restricted.
Serious downsides include:
* making it harder to keep money making opportunities secret. If you are known as the truffles guy, who spends time hiking Mt. Cayenne, and then suddenly every one knows that your income rose 20X last year, people can deduce that Mt. Cayenne has a big stash of truffles. It reduces the incentive to spend years scouring the forests looking for sites rich in truffles, and makes it more profitable to track income tax receipt rolls to find sudden surges in income among truffle foragers.
* requires that certain people in the state inspect all of your private economic interactions, and that you allow this under pain of imprisonment, so that accurate income data can be collected. This gives massive power to those who do the inspecting, and has collateral damage for things like encrypted communication, which due to its ability to aid in evading these inspections, could become restricted.
First one I don't buy (someone will still do the things worth doing because they will make some more, they will simply have more competition...I also believe in antitrust), second one...no, aside from what we do anyway? Every developed nation has a robust taxation system, this simply makes that information public.
When the profitability of creating valuable information decreases, and copying valuable information increases, people will do more of the latter and less of the former. I don't see how it wouldn't turn out like that.
With regard to the second, yes a case can be made that since countries invade privacy any way, utilizing this information like this doesn't add to the privacy invasion. Maybe. But an admittedly speculative argument could be made that it makes more people economically dependent on income taxation (like the hypothetical tax receipt roll scourers who identify and stalk successful truffle foragers), making it harder to abolish the institution. The way I see it, the less we normalize income taxation, the better.
With regard to the second, yes a case can be made that since countries invade privacy any way, utilizing this information like this doesn't add to the privacy invasion. Maybe. But an admittedly speculative argument could be made that it makes more people economically dependent on income taxation (like the hypothetical tax receipt roll scourers who identify and stalk successful truffle foragers), making it harder to abolish the institution. The way I see it, the less we normalize income taxation, the better.
> what are the serious downsides
I'm from (somewhat) poor country, so I can list some downsides of publicizing your high income:
- Your extended family, friends and even some acquaintances start treat you as a money bag to get loans or just asking for "help" (loan without clear repayment schedule that you should not expect to be ever repayed in full) in case they have health issues.
- You attract gold diggers. Solving financial issues by getting pregnant and marrying well of partner is still quite popular here.
- Starting from some level of wealth you may be targeted by real bandits (who often work in law enforcement).
- Some people would just treat you differently. Basically what you said by "my social circle would collapse in jealousy and rage" but also small things like "oh this guy is rich anyway, so no need to offer to buy next round of drinks after they bought one" etc.
- Recruiters are very pushy in asking your current salary and expectations. You learn to push back quite quickly, but giving them ability to easily determine your current income would be bad.
Now, can you list some upsides? (besides determining how much employer that you would like to join pays for similar positions, which is better solved by levels.fyi anyway, and without downsides listed above)
I'm from (somewhat) poor country, so I can list some downsides of publicizing your high income:
- Your extended family, friends and even some acquaintances start treat you as a money bag to get loans or just asking for "help" (loan without clear repayment schedule that you should not expect to be ever repayed in full) in case they have health issues.
- You attract gold diggers. Solving financial issues by getting pregnant and marrying well of partner is still quite popular here.
- Starting from some level of wealth you may be targeted by real bandits (who often work in law enforcement).
- Some people would just treat you differently. Basically what you said by "my social circle would collapse in jealousy and rage" but also small things like "oh this guy is rich anyway, so no need to offer to buy next round of drinks after they bought one" etc.
- Recruiters are very pushy in asking your current salary and expectations. You learn to push back quite quickly, but giving them ability to easily determine your current income would be bad.
Now, can you list some upsides? (besides determining how much employer that you would like to join pays for similar positions, which is better solved by levels.fyi anyway, and without downsides listed above)
To answer the question
- unbiased Salary data, making union negotiations and expectations of new grads grounded in reality, unlike the reporting bias of levels, Glassdoor etc. This is why management hates people sharing salary info - making it easier for new founders to budget their talent costs - directly answering something you said, Making it easier to push back against recruiters (market average is this, I'm at least average, fuck you pay me) - easier time spotting tax evasion (which some might see as a downside) - exposing inequality in society in undeniable fashion, giving teeth to any arguements about them. Similarly for arguements about which data shouldn't be collected, which incentives are working or not...
The bandits/corruption thing I can't argue with, but that's a deeper and different problem than public taxes in Norway or Germany. Same for gold diggers and money bags
- unbiased Salary data, making union negotiations and expectations of new grads grounded in reality, unlike the reporting bias of levels, Glassdoor etc. This is why management hates people sharing salary info - making it easier for new founders to budget their talent costs - directly answering something you said, Making it easier to push back against recruiters (market average is this, I'm at least average, fuck you pay me) - easier time spotting tax evasion (which some might see as a downside) - exposing inequality in society in undeniable fashion, giving teeth to any arguements about them. Similarly for arguements about which data shouldn't be collected, which incentives are working or not...
The bandits/corruption thing I can't argue with, but that's a deeper and different problem than public taxes in Norway or Germany. Same for gold diggers and money bags
> unbiased Salary data, making union negotiations and expectations of new grads grounded in reality, unlike the reporting bias of levels, Glassdoor etc. This is why management hates people sharing salary info - making it easier for new founders to budget their talent costs
You can have some stats or non-PI info published on this. Or force companies to publish how much they are paying to existing employees with same title, like they starting to do in several US states. No need for nosy neighbor or potential romantic interest to have access to my income.
> Making it easier to push back against recruiters (market average is this, I'm at least average, fuck you pay me)
Or you might be below average like significant amount of people who I have interviewed and who can't reverse a string? Anyway, everyone can't get "at least average" salary, that is not how average works (note for pedants: unless everyone earns exactly the same, of course).
> easier time spotting tax evasion
What does it have to do with tax evasion? IRS already has this data. If you are worried about politicians and government employees and want visibility into their earnings (which is reasonable), you can make only their data public, which is already implemented as a law in my country. Again, no need for a random Tinder date to have this data.
> exposing inequality in society in undeniable fashion, giving teeth to any arguements about them
I won't argue with your leftist agenda, but again, you can just publish stats (e.g. senior software engineer average in location X is Y) without letting my extended family know how much I make.
> The bandits/corruption thing I can't argue with, but that's a deeper and different problem than public taxes in Norway or Germany. Same for gold diggers and money bags
Well, maybe let's not enable these people then? Especially since there are multiple other options that I presented previously.
You can have some stats or non-PI info published on this. Or force companies to publish how much they are paying to existing employees with same title, like they starting to do in several US states. No need for nosy neighbor or potential romantic interest to have access to my income.
> Making it easier to push back against recruiters (market average is this, I'm at least average, fuck you pay me)
Or you might be below average like significant amount of people who I have interviewed and who can't reverse a string? Anyway, everyone can't get "at least average" salary, that is not how average works (note for pedants: unless everyone earns exactly the same, of course).
> easier time spotting tax evasion
What does it have to do with tax evasion? IRS already has this data. If you are worried about politicians and government employees and want visibility into their earnings (which is reasonable), you can make only their data public, which is already implemented as a law in my country. Again, no need for a random Tinder date to have this data.
> exposing inequality in society in undeniable fashion, giving teeth to any arguements about them
I won't argue with your leftist agenda, but again, you can just publish stats (e.g. senior software engineer average in location X is Y) without letting my extended family know how much I make.
> The bandits/corruption thing I can't argue with, but that's a deeper and different problem than public taxes in Norway or Germany. Same for gold diggers and money bags
Well, maybe let's not enable these people then? Especially since there are multiple other options that I presented previously.
Publishing stats would be a good start yeah.
If you can justify paying less, it's negotiation time right? This just sets the starting point.
The rest I won't address because it's a boring argument to have where you call me leftist because you disagree politically instead of discussing in good faith
If you can justify paying less, it's negotiation time right? This just sets the starting point.
The rest I won't address because it's a boring argument to have where you call me leftist because you disagree politically instead of discussing in good faith
You still didn't present any arguments why you need to know specifically my income and not just aggregated data (that can be arbitrary fine-grained like per-company or even per-grade per-company), which makes it very hard for me not to consider whole discussion to be primary ideologically-motivated from your side.
BTW I assume we are both not from US, so I don't understand why you are acting offended after being called leftist as a reply to explicitly leftist statement ("exposing inequality in society in undeniable fashion...").
BTW I assume we are both not from US, so I don't understand why you are acting offended after being called leftist as a reply to explicitly leftist statement ("exposing inequality in society in undeniable fashion...").
I'm open to doing those arbitrarily fine grained stats as a workable compromise, but the ability to have journalists or citizens check for inconsistencies in tax reports or use the raw data for other research seems positive for me, as well as the ability to ask my boss why I'm being paid less than my coworker who does less than me. You might disagree whether it's worth it, but they are 2 positives already (maybe 1 if you are hard against citizen law enforcement)
The second part: it's boring because we can have a discussion about which mechanisms are beneficial for society without defaulting to political shortcuts or assuming an argument can only come from a worldview (maybe I'm a weird type of market libertarian who believes in perfect information symmetry?).
You can argue that exposing inequalities doesn't have inherent value because inequalities are good actually Yadda Yadda Yadda and we can actually exchange our views on how and why we disagree...or you can default to the label. Yes we'd be rehashing a bunch, but it would be a good faith discussion.
Edit:@Caskstrength, I can't reply to you, but I would like to highlight my first sentence in the first paragraph. Otherwise, thanks for engaging
The second part: it's boring because we can have a discussion about which mechanisms are beneficial for society without defaulting to political shortcuts or assuming an argument can only come from a worldview (maybe I'm a weird type of market libertarian who believes in perfect information symmetry?).
You can argue that exposing inequalities doesn't have inherent value because inequalities are good actually Yadda Yadda Yadda and we can actually exchange our views on how and why we disagree...or you can default to the label. Yes we'd be rehashing a bunch, but it would be a good faith discussion.
Edit:@Caskstrength, I can't reply to you, but I would like to highlight my first sentence in the first paragraph. Otherwise, thanks for engaging
> the ability to have journalists or citizens check for inconsistencies in tax reports
Journalists verifying tax reports of politicians seems reasonable. Jealous neighbor or vengeful ex snitching to IRS to audit me (random Joe-the-programmer)? Hell no.
> use the raw data for other research seems positive for me
Why does raw data for research needs to have PII?
> ability to ask my boss why I'm being paid less than my coworker who does less than me
No need to ask your boss, I can tell you straight up: Because you didn't negotiate for it.
> You can argue that exposing inequalities doesn't have inherent value because inequalities are good actually Yadda Yadda Yadda
No, I'm arguing that if you want to expose that those damn bourgeois make too much money for too little work, then you don't really need anything more than aggregate data, but you keep ignoring it.
Journalists verifying tax reports of politicians seems reasonable. Jealous neighbor or vengeful ex snitching to IRS to audit me (random Joe-the-programmer)? Hell no.
> use the raw data for other research seems positive for me
Why does raw data for research needs to have PII?
> ability to ask my boss why I'm being paid less than my coworker who does less than me
No need to ask your boss, I can tell you straight up: Because you didn't negotiate for it.
> You can argue that exposing inequalities doesn't have inherent value because inequalities are good actually Yadda Yadda Yadda
No, I'm arguing that if you want to expose that those damn bourgeois make too much money for too little work, then you don't really need anything more than aggregate data, but you keep ignoring it.
The fact you think people acting above their station justifies this invasion of privacy is incredible. This is an awful system. Listen to people who are telling you why and you might learn something about humans.
I don’t want how much money I make known by anyone I don’t want to know. How quickly people who advocate for privacy and data ownership acquiesce when it comes to salary data. The transparent-salary movement is a terrible crime against privacy.
Why? Honest question from someone with a radical-transparency conviction
Apart from other more ideological considerations, there are two obvious practical ones:
* having people know you have more money than they do can make them jealous of you; it might also motivate family members to ask you for money and to feel angry with you if you don't share it
* having people know you have a lot of money can make them interested in robbing you or in kidnapping you or your family members for ransom (especially in developing countries, but to some extent anywhere in the world)
Those seem like considerations on par with those people might bring up around other kinds of privacy interests: information that can make people feel negatively toward you, and information that can incentivize people to target you for harm.
(edit: I realized these issues are both more focused on how much money you have rather than on how high your salary is -- stocks rather than flows -- although the two are often correlated)
* having people know you have more money than they do can make them jealous of you; it might also motivate family members to ask you for money and to feel angry with you if you don't share it
* having people know you have a lot of money can make them interested in robbing you or in kidnapping you or your family members for ransom (especially in developing countries, but to some extent anywhere in the world)
Those seem like considerations on par with those people might bring up around other kinds of privacy interests: information that can make people feel negatively toward you, and information that can incentivize people to target you for harm.
(edit: I realized these issues are both more focused on how much money you have rather than on how high your salary is -- stocks rather than flows -- although the two are often correlated)
If the country has a wealth tax it will also show how much you have, regarding your edit.
I am an individualist and I think every person has various things they are good at and things they are not-so-good-at. No two people are alike.
However some say that everyone should be paid the same, when IMO no 2 people accomplish a task the same way. If no one is alike, then why should everyone be paid an equal wage? I like the idea of some super-skilled people making more than others. If we standardized all salaries it would hurt the top more than it helps the bottom.
So no, I don’t want everyone being treated like replaceable cogs, and if I’m paid more than others then why should I have to defend myself? Radical transparency is a strategy to make people feel like they owe the collective, when my goal is to make everyone feel like an individual.
However some say that everyone should be paid the same, when IMO no 2 people accomplish a task the same way. If no one is alike, then why should everyone be paid an equal wage? I like the idea of some super-skilled people making more than others. If we standardized all salaries it would hurt the top more than it helps the bottom.
So no, I don’t want everyone being treated like replaceable cogs, and if I’m paid more than others then why should I have to defend myself? Radical transparency is a strategy to make people feel like they owe the collective, when my goal is to make everyone feel like an individual.
You are arguing a straw man though, nobody is talking about standardization, we are talking about transparency.
If you as a manager can justify the difference then having the salary transparent shouldn't be a problem. If you can't, then there's a problem.
If you are the one receiving the salary, I don't see why you should have to defend yourself anymore than we have people"defending themselves" for living in a nice neighborhood. It simply doesn't come up. Just point to the manager/employer and say "ask them"
If you as a manager can justify the difference then having the salary transparent shouldn't be a problem. If you can't, then there's a problem.
If you are the one receiving the salary, I don't see why you should have to defend yourself anymore than we have people"defending themselves" for living in a nice neighborhood. It simply doesn't come up. Just point to the manager/employer and say "ask them"
It will cause employees to constantly ask why they are making less than someone else. If my decision is to keep my salary private then that should be my right. If you wanna show the world your salary be my guest, but leave me out of it.
Because it’s none of your business.
The issue with this kind of information being public is that people become targets, especially the elderly.
In Sweden you can even find out the name and address by looking up the vehicles license plate, with one notable event with a guy who were assaulted in his home after a minor traffic dispute.
In Sweden you can even find out the name and address by looking up the vehicles license plate, with one notable event with a guy who were assaulted in his home after a minor traffic dispute.
[deleted]
On a side note, I found the point interesting about policing it by publishing/logging who has searched for your tax info (and limiting people to 500 per month). Although, in today's age of data sharing, it's not like that is a great barrier against wide publication of factual info.
I had some kind of similar idea about when you share your online / phone location with friends, but are worried about someone just using it constantly to monitor you. Make it clear to everyone that every <x> times, their use of it will be logged and published to the owner, so that they know they are also being kept track of...
I had some kind of similar idea about when you share your online / phone location with friends, but are worried about someone just using it constantly to monitor you. Make it clear to everyone that every <x> times, their use of it will be logged and published to the owner, so that they know they are also being kept track of...
It used to be like you could google someone’s name and you could get their tax returns. But now you need to login to tax portal and the person will be notified that you looked up their tax returns.
Do you have to be a Norwegian tax resident to look at other people's returns, or do they honor random logins from Russia or China?
(Probably the former, but it is still an interesting thought experiment on levels of trust across the world.)
(Probably the former, but it is still an interesting thought experiment on levels of trust across the world.)
What I get paid is nobody’s business but mine. I am forced to pay tax but the least privilege rules means that info should be used for just that and no more. Yet all sorts of parasite can suck my info against my will. No, unacceptable as I can’t opt out of such BS.
Norway has a small population of only 5 million.
And shouldn't be compared to larger nations with greater populations.
Norway doesn't scale.
And shouldn't be compared to larger nations with greater populations.
Norway doesn't scale.
[deleted]
It's not. Sweden also has public tax returns. They are just either in printed form per post code or paywalled for a specific individual. I think this is by design to make it harder to pry.
Norway has many great ideas but this isn’t one of them
Please don't just throw out an opinion without explaining the reasoning behind it.
Income is very personal information. I’d rather have naked pics of me on the internet than my income.
I’ve had friendships ruined because one party earned significantly more/less than the other and this was accidentally disclosed.
For a government to make this highly valuable and personal information available to the public strikes me as utterly dystopian.
In every society, there’s a tradeoff between the individual and the collective, and I think it all works better when it’s heavily skewed towards the individual. Society has no moral right to nose around in one’s bank account.
I’ve had friendships ruined because one party earned significantly more/less than the other and this was accidentally disclosed.
For a government to make this highly valuable and personal information available to the public strikes me as utterly dystopian.
In every society, there’s a tradeoff between the individual and the collective, and I think it all works better when it’s heavily skewed towards the individual. Society has no moral right to nose around in one’s bank account.
Which individuals though? This seems to highly benefit th many poorer people, at the expense of mainly the rich elite. As a member of that elite who understands where my quality of life comes from (robust social contract enabling wealth creation through cooperation without friction)and where my place is (I'm top 30-15% of my home country but no higher, but was born into a life that could have easily launched me into the top 10% if I was a smarter/more disciplined person) , this seems fine
Why? I think it's great, salary transparency, makes tax evasion harder, less information about your life's than is sent to credit agencies for them to leak or Facebook...
But there's a big caveat: The reported figures are net numbers, so the income for example, will include capital gains, and exclude all deductibles. There are lots of deductibles here, so for a salaried worker without any capital investments, the income number will be lower than their actual income, due to deductibles. Likewise, if you have lots of appreciating investments (stock that pays dividends, sale of stock, whatever), your income will be higher than your salaried income.
Same for fortune (or net worth). If you have more debt than equity, then your net worth will show up as zero. Basically, if you own a house worth $1MM, and have $1MM in some other debt/loan, your net worth will show up as zero...even though that debt could practically be at zero rate, from a relative, or whatever.
So, all in all, it's a neat concept that was (AFAIK) designed for more transparency, as well as lowering financial crime (i.e, why is your neighbor driving a lambo, if he's on gov. benefits?) - but it's not optimal for things like checking salaries. Lots of people are very interested in salaries, in order to have some number when negotiating their own salary. Just one example.