View Full Version : Oh the woes of those poor, hunted billionares...
HoreTore
07-27-2009, 13:36
The lol-meter is going through the roof here in Norway these days, a nice substitute for our complete lack of sun...
You see, the situation is that our richest man, Stein Erik Hagen, owner of a chain of grocery stores and supermarkets, is fleeing the country. Why? The tax burden is so high that, in his own words, "there comes a time when you either have to sell everything and quit, or pack your stuff and move somewhere else". He points his chubby finger at the current socialist government, and says they're "out to get him and people like him".
So, what's the extortionate tax the government has imposed on him then? Well, this being Norway, everyone's tax information is freely available on the net, and a quick search reveals that he paid a grand total of...
10 042 360 NOK in 2007, and 7 959 357 NOK in 2006(numbers for 2008 isn't available). This is a guy with a tax value of 1,2 billion, and an estimated wealth of around 8 billion...
The standard tax rate in Norway is 28%, that's what I pay in taxes. Now, for him to pay the same tax as I do, he couldn't be making more than 30 million in 2007. A guy worth 8 billion. Making 30 million per year. Who builds palaces, has an army of servants and gives savings-advice like "don't buy new shirts every day, send them to dry cleaning in London instead"(true quote). Sounds likely? Nope. The real figure is probably some hundred million a year. So.... The tax he pays is what? 4-5%? And he's whining about that being extortionate?
The clue meter is reading zero. Good riddance.
I don't get the match, 28% that is grand total? Obama is going to hate you when he finds out, that would put you on the list of tax-havens and you aren't on it. I agree that he has nothing to complain about, and I find it rather tasteless when half the world is starving, doesn't sound like the kind of guy I would like to drink a beer with (nor champagne).
Yeah, I feel sorry for him, wherever he wants to go I expect not to let him in though(too many immigrants etc, you know what they say...), the world is really unfair... :shrug:
rory_20_uk
07-27-2009, 14:24
As dislikeable as he is the country is going to loose all of his taxes now. OK, for Norway this probably doesn't matter that much, but it does illustrate that you can't alter a system without the system reacting - hence why the 50% tax bracket in the UK might in fact reduce the amount of tax that is collected.
~:smoking:
Vladimir
07-27-2009, 15:16
:laugh4:
You mock the plight of this man and don't realize that you (all of you) will pay the price. Detroit didn't turn into a cesspool overnight. It began with poor tax policy. A similar situation is happening in Maryland. How did he make his fortune? Grocery stores and supermarkets? Hardly a villian.
I don't know the overall tax structure in Norway but I suspect the top marginal tax rate is more than 28%. Keep saying "good riddance" and you will say the same about many jobs in the future.
That's why we need the world government Vladimir, one tax for the rich and they cannot run away from it. :laugh4:
By the way, if you defend the freedom of the rich to go and live wherever they want, then why not that od the poor africans and mexicans to do the same thing?
HoreTore
07-27-2009, 15:26
:laugh4:
You mock the plight of this man and don't realize that you (all of you) will pay the price. Detroit didn't turn into a cesspool overnight. It began with poor tax policy. A similar situation is happening in Maryland. How did he make his fortune? Grocery stores and supermarkets? Hardly a villian.
I don't know the overall tax structure in Norway but I suspect the top marginal tax rate is more than 28%. Keep saying "good riddance" and you will say the same about many jobs in the future.
As he was hardly paying any taxes at all, I doubt we'll miss him. 10 million a year? Pocket money.
And the jobs he created stays in this country anyway, so....
The top taxes are more than 28%, yes. But I would've been more than happy if he just paid his 28%. That's the least you can expect, isn't it? We're all the same before the law, right? But the thing is, he didn't pay 28%, he didn't even pay anything close to it. He paid a few percent in taxes. And then whines when he has to pay a percent more. Again, good riddance.
The lol-meter is going through the roof here in Norway these days, a nice substitute for our complete lack of sun...
You see, the situation is that our richest man, Stein Erik Hagen, owner of a chain of grocery stores and supermarkets, is fleeing the country. Why? The tax burden is so high that, in his own words, "there comes a time when you either have to sell everything and quit, or pack your stuff and move somewhere else". He points his chubby finger at the current socialist government, and says they're "out to get him and people like him".
So, what's the extortionate tax the government has imposed on him then? Well, this being Norway, everyone's tax information is freely available on the net, and a quick search reveals that he paid a grand total of...
10 042 360 NOK in 2007, and 7 959 357 NOK in 2006(numbers for 2008 isn't available). This is a guy with a tax value of 1,2 billion, and an estimated wealth of around 8 billion...
The standard tax rate in Norway is 28%, that's what I pay in taxes. Now, for him to pay the same tax as I do, he couldn't be making more than 30 million in 2007. A guy worth 8 billion. Making 30 million per year. Who builds palaces, has an army of servants and gives savings-advice like "don't buy new shirts every day, send them to dry cleaning in London instead"(true quote). Sounds likely? Nope. The real figure is probably some hundred million a year. So.... The tax he pays is what? 4-5%? And he's whining about that being extortionate?
The clue meter is reading zero. Good riddance.
I'm thinking you must have an odd tax structure with high marginal rates, but generous deductions/credits (even to the very wealthy? lol)
As an accountant, I'm interested in reading more information, if available, about how he went about paying only 4-5% of his income in a country with such high rates.
Vladimir
07-27-2009, 15:45
By the way, if you defend the freedom of the rich to go and live wherever they want, then why not that od the poor africans and mexicans to do the same thing?
Oh, the historical fallacy of this statement. :book:
It's poor Africans that populated the world several times (and millennia) over. Poor Mexicans frequently travel with little restrictions to the US.
Are you saying that you think only rich people can move? :laugh4:
HoreTore
07-27-2009, 15:49
I'm thinking you must have an odd tax structure with high marginal rates, but generous deductions/credits (even to the very wealthy? lol)
As an accountant, I'm interested in reading more information, if available, about how he went about paying only 4-5% of his income in a country with such high rates.
Questionable accounting and loopholes is my best bet.
Heck, in 2006 his income was a grand total of zero...
Unfortunately, the only numbers open to the public are the total income, total amount paid in tax and the tax value of all assets, how those numbers were created are not...
Oh, the historical fallacy of this statement. :book:
It's poor Africans that populated the world several times (and millennia) over. Poor Mexicans frequently travel with little restrictions to the US.
Are you saying that you think only rich people can move? :laugh4:
No I'm not, you do make me wonder though why you have a fence and border patrols on your border to mexico and why you send mexicans who try to come over back. And why I always hear people should fix their own countries. This guy should stay and fix his own country, he's just a wuss who is running away and no country should accept him.
Rhyfelwyr
07-27-2009, 16:29
Monaco is looking good right now...
Aemilius Paulus
07-27-2009, 16:45
Whereas a "poor mexican" is actually going to be a drain on the economy, what with being illegal and all--assuming you're talking about the illegal variety.
I do dearly hope you are not saying that because of the supposed "one more immigrant=one less job for native". And I am not speaking of "Mexicans take jobs that Yanks won't". Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. That is not the point however.
What I wish to point out is the so-called "lump of labour fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy)", one that the Economist will bash in its every issue.
HoreTore
07-27-2009, 16:53
since all countries in the civilized world--the US included, accepts legal immigrants and treats them fairly--and at the same time these countries have always had restrictions on how many we will accept, and we always take the better qualified first. Nothing new here.
Actually, we don't. It's been illegal to migrate to Norway for the last decades...
Aemilius Paulus
07-27-2009, 17:10
If you'd read my post in it's entirety, instead of just quoting a small peice of it, you'd see I was referring to Illegals and actually embrace the idea of LEGAL immigration.
Nah, I read the post, and thought over, you have my word. I do not disagree with people online without reading about their position carefully. Nor did I assume you did not agree with legal immigration. Watch it, you seem to be touchy about being regarded as a xenophobe IMHO...
But anyway, you have a point on taxes, but the illegal immigrants do have to contribute to Social Security, which they get none of. But then those medical bills of course, that you mentioned... So it evens it out. That said, to say that "they take our jobs" is not accurate, and I bet a dollar for doughnut you had that in mind in your previous post. As for "shady employers" that is capitalism. Works better than anything else so far, but still with its flaws. Those blokes want higher margins, and so would you and me if we were in their position.
Although I would hardly call it a flaw. Those immigrants work for dimes and nickels, enabling the employers to lower their prices to undercut competition, to which the competition responds in like, creating much lower consumer prices. Not so bad, eh?
Whereas a "poor mexican" is actually going to be a drain on the economy, what with being illegal and all--assuming you're talking about the illegal variety.
The poor Mexican wouldn't be a drain on the economy if the rich guy used his money to create a job for him. :idea2:
Aemilius Paulus
07-27-2009, 17:21
The poor Mexican wouldn't be a drain on the economy if the rich guy used his money to create a job for him. :idea2:
Heh, how touching. Why the sarcasm? Aside from the fact that it would be a utopia.
Heh, how touching. Why the sarcasm? Aside from the fact that it would be a utopia.
I'm not the one who said rich people use their money to create jobs for the poor, it's not my utopia.
I'm the guy who says tax the rich and give it to the poor in the form of welfare but make sure that jobs pay more than welfare(which should be some kind of minimum living standard). I wouldn't even mind a universal tax no matter the income but then someone who can afford his own bureaucrat should not be able to evade half or more of it.
Does democracy mean now that we all better do what our rich overlords want or we're all screwed?
I want my egalite and fraternite back, please.
LittleGrizzly
07-27-2009, 18:01
That's why we need the world government Vladimir, one tax for the rich and they cannot run away from it.
Yep, no more tax havens to hide in, you pay your fair due...
Anyway im sure Norway will continue just fine whether or not Mr Scrooge's taxes are contributing.
It's about decency imho. You can be anything in any system. Capitalism could never exist without it, but thankfully most people happen to be decent people. That's it's succes.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-27-2009, 21:14
Yep, no more tax havens to hide in, you pay your fair due...
Define fair. The trouble with that is why I'd prefer a flat percentage tax or one as close to flat as possible.
Call me crazy (or call me Susan) but I think that if you make a large amount of money in a country, the chances are it is the tax-paid infrastructure of that country which has made it possible to become filthy rich. People seem to be under the incredible belief that privately accrued capital has no connection with government spending.
Aemilius Paulus
07-27-2009, 22:13
Those illegal immigrants work for dimes and nickels.
Sorry, I should have put that there to clarify my point, but yes, I meant to say illegal. It is just that I sort of got tired putting "illegal" in all those instances, instead letting the reader assume that.
Heh, I just noticed you are from Texas. Hehe, that explains everything perfectly about your behaviour.
Funny coincidence. I'm from Texas, been living in Oregon for a couple years.
Actually, I'm from Oregon. Been living in Texas for about a month.
Centurion1
07-28-2009, 00:46
As he was hardly paying any taxes at all, I doubt we'll miss him. 10 million a year? Pocket money.
And the jobs he created stays in this country anyway, so....
To your first point, its 30 % percent of his income. and from what you labeled it appears to be one part of his income. He probably ends up paying much more.
Secondly, that is a horrible attitude towards people who create jobs and frankly it annoys me alittle too much to respond to.
My family is almost in the top 5% of American wealth. sound wealthy? We make under 200,000 a year with two people working. I know that i sure don't feel rich. And this is before Obama taxes my family dead because he has delusions about being robin hood. i just happen to be the "evil" rich.
The top 5% of Americans pay 50% of Americas taxes. The bottom twenty percent pay none but use 83% of our public spending.
As to immigration i think you are all stupid Europeans :clown:. I am WHITE (mostly, there is a little asian) and i have multiple uncles born and raised in Mexico (pointing out being white so people know that the rest of my family wasn't born in Mexico, which would make my point moot would it not. I think that illegal immigration should be stopped because it is illegal. If you think there are no Mexicans in America go to California or Texas.
HoreTore
07-28-2009, 03:34
Define fair. The trouble with that is why I'd prefer a flat percentage tax or one as close to flat as possible.
So then, you agree with me that this guy should be paying a lot more in taxes, right?
To your first point, its 30 % percent of his income. and from what you labeled it appears to be one part of his income. He probably ends up paying much more.
Secondly, that is a horrible attitude towards people who create jobs and frankly it annoys me alittle too much to respond to.
Uhm, no, it's not 30% of his income. It's a few percent of his income. That's my entire point, ya know... And those 10 million are what he pays in taxes, period. There is no hidden tax stuff he pays.
LittleGrizzly
07-28-2009, 10:35
Define fair. The trouble with that is why I'd prefer a flat percentage tax or one as close to flat as possible.
Fair at the very least being paying the same as everyone else, the rich with thier bright accountants seem to get away with very little taxes...
Though I would also say it would be fair to charge them extra as the infrastrctucture and labour that 'this' country provides has helped him make his awesome wealth... so it won't hurt him too much to spare a little to put back into the country...
Or actually it appears it would... my heart breaks for the guy....
HoreTore
07-28-2009, 12:17
Just read the newspaper, and I've got a delightful update!
The group famous for tax evasion, whining and questionable financial acrobatics in this country, are the shipping tycoons. Now one of them, Kristian Siem, the 16th wealthiest Norwegian(fortune: 6,5 billion), has decided to move all of his operations from Switzerland, among other countries, back to Norway. The reason? The tax and financial policies of the current socialist government!
HAH!
He moved out during the years of the conservative government, now that we've got a socialist government, he decides to move back. Take that!
Again, I say good riddance to Stein Erik Hagen. He moves his pitiful taxes out of the country while leaving all the jobs, and in return, the shipping tycoons moves all their jobs back to Norway.
rory_20_uk
07-28-2009, 12:43
Switzerland would not have many jobs in shipping...
~:smoking:
Vladimir
07-28-2009, 13:29
Just read the newspaper, and I've got a delightful update!
The group famous for tax evasion, whining and questionable financial acrobatics in this country, are the shipping tycoons. Now one of them, Kristian Siem, the 16th wealthiest Norwegian(fortune: 6,5 billion), has decided to move all of his operations from Switzerland, among other countries, back to Norway. The reason? The tax and financial policies of the current socialist government!
HAH!
He moved out during the years of the conservative government, now that we've got a socialist government, he decides to move back. Take that!
Again, I say good riddance to Stein Erik Hagen. He moves his pitiful taxes out of the country while leaving all the jobs, and in return, the shipping tycoons moves all their jobs back to Norway.
Switzerland would not have many jobs in shipping...
~:smoking:
:laugh4:
Brilliant!
HoreTore
07-28-2009, 13:49
Switzerland would not have many jobs in shipping...
~:smoking:
Uhm.....
Yes they would? Switzerland has a good financial industry, why isn't that a good location for the headquarters of any large company?
And Mongolia has quite a few ships registered to them, ya know.... ~;)
Centurion1
07-28-2009, 13:52
You said his income was 30 million a year. Therefore if he pays 10 million it is 33% percent repeating in taxes. His 8 billion fortune is NOT his income. :inquisitive:
HoreTore
07-28-2009, 13:56
You said his income was 30 million a year. Therefore if he pays 10 million it is 33% percent repeating in taxes. His 8 billion fortune is NOT his income. :inquisitive:
Try reading it again ~;)
I said that if 10 million was 28% of his income, then he couldn't have made more than 30 million in 2007, and we all know he made a lot more than that. His real income is likely a few hundred million, not 30 million.
You said his income was 30 million a year. Therefore if he pays 10 million it is 33% percent repeating in taxes. His 8 billion fortune is NOT his income. :inquisitive:
What kind of clever investments did he make to arrive at 8 billion with 30 million a year? If he just had that income, it would have taken him 266 years to amass 8 billion, and that's without spending a cent or even paying the taxes. :inquisitive:
I think HoreTore's point was that he must actually earn more than those 30 million with the 30 million being only the tax-deductible part his accountants left over or something like that.
But if 8 billion is your fortune, why exactly do you care about taxes again? It's not like he will have to switch to bread and water. From what he earns in a month I could live a pretty comfortable life...
Doesn't necessarily mean he would have to pay more taxes but why would he need tax cuts?
Centurion1
07-28-2009, 14:11
It was misunderstood, my apologies. I find it hard to believe that in a socialist country he did not pay higher taxes than that. Norway must either have a plateau taxing system (and the max is ten million), which i doubt or there is some shady accounting going on (but that is a little too shady...), or the information on the website is wrong (not that i am doubting your sources just brainstorming.) Because like it or not socialist countries are usually going to have pretty high taxes for the social spending, i mean that is unavoidable.
So we owe the government extra for doing what it was designed to do?
The government is there to provide that infrastructure. And, moreover, that infrastructure is (ideally) not geared to give only those specific people the opportunity to get rich. Granted, decades of effed-upedness have given it that appearance but the idea is that the infrastructure is there to provide a level playing field. You don't then punish the people who have the talent to make it to the top just because the government thinks you owe it for the favor.
And certainly, the answer to whatever inequalities have found there way into the system is not to punish the rich, but to overhaul the system for maximum equality and level-fieldedness.
If you have made shed loads of money in a country, then the infrastructure that the citizens have paid for has been very effective. You then owe it to those citizens to pony up and pay your share. If I make $50,000 I assume I will have to pay $10-15,000 in taxes. If I make many millions, then my share of the bill should be much higher. What would I be being deprived of? One more ivory back-scratcher?
HoreTore
07-28-2009, 14:33
It was misunderstood, my apologies. I find it hard to believe that in a socialist country he did not pay higher taxes than that. Norway must either have a plateau taxing system (and the max is ten million), which i doubt or there is some shady accounting going on (but that is a little too shady...), or the information on the website is wrong (not that i am doubting your sources just brainstorming.) Because like it or not socialist countries are usually going to have pretty high taxes for the social spending, i mean that is unavoidable.
1. The "source" is definitely not wrong. The source is the official tax lists (http://www.skattelister.no/?do=more&k=0301&id=dccce8411db116e1b3a270b820c8fc1b&navn=Stein%20Erik%20Hagen) from the Norwegian government(Norway being the only country I know where such info is public), and they are accurate. Very accurate.
2. There is no maximum amount for taxes, this guy (http://www.skattelister.no/?do=more&k=301&id=552e8c722b7cd34c732fa44e7d0a28e9&navn=johan%20henrik%20andresen), for example, paid 150 million in taxes.
3. Rich people don't pay taxes, that's a well-known fact. The situation is the same in every country. Money is hidden away in shady countries, companies and hidden bank accounts, income is redefined as something else, every deduction is used to the max, etc etc. See his income for 2006, for example, it's "0". You think he was unemployed that year?
The ones paying the taxes keeping the country going are the regular people, meaning people from the working class to those making a couple of millions a year. Those making more than that hire an army of accountants to make their money disappear. But of course there are exceptions to that.
What would I be being deprived of? One more ivory back-scratcher?
I don't mind a progressive income taxation system, but this kind of attitude really annoys me.
Vladimir
07-28-2009, 15:16
I think Norway should just kill him and confiscate his wealth. He's clearly not paying his fair share.
Centurion1
07-28-2009, 21:43
I believe that it is probably something exploitave like cayman island accounts or such.
However, many top executives make "0" dollars a year. the ceo of aig in America, a humongous bank chain made more than 5 million easily. however, he soon took an income of 0 from the company after it lost business. Rich people can live off their investments easily....... There are plenty of rich people who own companies but do not take a salary from said company.
I don't mind a progressive income taxation system, but this kind of attitude really annoys me.
Really? What annoys me is multi-millionaires who pay less tax than me.
HoreTore
07-28-2009, 21:58
I believe that it is probably something exploitave like cayman island accounts or such.
However, many top executives make "0" dollars a year. the ceo of aig in America, a humongous bank chain made more than 5 million easily. however, he soon took an income of 0 from the company after it lost business. Rich people can live off their investments easily....... There are plenty of rich people who own companies but do not take a salary from said company.
If you "live off your investments", you'll have to take out profits or interest or whatever to get any cash. And that gets classified as income, because, as you say, no rich guy has a salary. Or "capital gains tax" or whatever it's called in that weird language you barbarians call English....
and no, my english isn't good when it comes to various terms like these... so I honestly can't debate that particular area any further, as I unfortunately don't know what the various things are called :shame:
Centurion1
07-28-2009, 22:51
Capital gains tax is for profits made off business. And no living off investments, stocks, bonds, etc. is not neccassarily construed as income, sometimes, but not always.
Oh and i have found your english to be fine
Really? What annoys me is multi-millionaires who pay less tax than me.
Nice to know, although this really doesn't justify your statement.
Centurion1
07-28-2009, 22:59
Originally Posted by Idaho
Really? What annoys me is multi-millionaires who pay less tax than me.
Oh are you a billionaire? :clown:
Louis VI the Fat
07-29-2009, 01:30
Ah well. It's the same everywhere in the West. The poor receive money. The rich receive or forge themselves endless benefits. And the middle clas is squeezed out to the last penny.
Norwegians invest an enormous amount of their earnings into public goods like roads, infrastructure, eduction, health, law and order. Into all those prerequisites for running a succesful billion kroner retail industry. If the guy thinks himself above paying his fair share, then nationalise his industry and sell it to those who will contribute their share to society.
'Nuff of this pandering to the whims of billionaires and multinationals. Countries serve the people, and businesses serve the people. Not the other way round.
It's been illegal to migrate to Norway for the last decades...Now don't be silly.
HoreTore
07-29-2009, 10:02
Ah well. It's the same everywhere in the West. The poor receive money. The rich receive or forge themselves endless benefits. And the middle clas is squeezed out to the last penny.
Norwegians invest an enormous amount of their earnings into public goods like roads, infrastructure, eduction, health, law and order. Into all those prerequisites for running a succesful billion kroner retail industry. If the guy thinks himself above paying his fair share, then nationalise his industry and sell it to those who will contribute their share to society.
'Nuff of this pandering to the whims of billionaires and multinationals. Countries serve the people, and businesses serve the people. Not the other way round.
My paranoid mind is beginning to think that it's no coincidence that this happens a few months before the election.... He has donated millions to the opposition these last years... If it is a political statement, it kinda blew up in his face though, as every other rich guy I've seen interviewed has called him an idiot, and then there's this thing about that shipping tycoon moving back...
Now don't be silly.
Silly? But 'tis true, my friend.
We accepted immigration in the 70's, when the pakistani's came to bump our working force. In the 80's, we closed our borders. The only people we accept now, are those we are bound to accept by international treaties, ie. a certain amount of refugees and asylum seekers.
Oh, and spouses.
Capital gains tax is for profits made off business. And no living off investments, stocks, bonds, etc. is not neccassarily construed as income, sometimes, but not always.
Oh and i have found your english to be fine
I'm not able to respond to that unfortunately, I don't know the exact technical terms in english... In norwegian, we have a term called "aksjeutbytte" which is the term for the money you gain from "living off investments, stocks, bonds, etc".... I thought that translated as "capital gains tax".... In any event, it's still an income, and should still be taxed.
Nice to know, although this really doesn't justify your statement.
I think my statement is fair enough. There is rampant poverty, disease and hardship in the world, and some billionaire gets angry because a state which has helped him earn $30 million in a year wants to claim $5 million to help pay for infrastructure.
Centurion1
07-29-2009, 14:46
I thought you said that they payed less than you. Wow you must make alot of money if they pay 5 million. (sorry couldn't resist)
HoreTore
07-29-2009, 14:50
I thought you said that they payed less than you. Wow you must make alot of money if they pay 5 million. (sorry couldn't resist)
Nah, it's the opposite; if he made a lot of money he wouldn't be paying much in tax, while if he doesn't make a lot of money, he will pay a lot in tax ~;)
Centurion1
07-29-2009, 14:54
On a serious note horetore. you realize that like all rich people pay more taxes than a poor person. They may not pay as much as their supposed to but they will probably pay more.
HoreTore
07-29-2009, 15:07
On a serious note horetore. you realize that like all rich people pay more taxes than a poor person. They may not pay as much as their supposed to but they will probably pay more.
Percentage-wise, no. And that's the real point, as a poor man is hurt way more than a rich man by the taxes.
And yet it's the rich guys who are whining most about it...
Centurion1
07-29-2009, 15:09
i know percentage they may or may not (many do though), but i meant as a raw number.
HoreTore
07-29-2009, 15:13
i know percentage they may or may not (many do though), but i meant as a raw number.
Yes, but that's quite irrelevant.
I think my statement is fair enough. There is rampant poverty, disease and hardship in the world, and some billionaire gets angry because a state which has helped him earn $30 million in a year wants to claim $5 million to help pay for infrastructure.
Idaho, you are missing my objection to your quote. I inferred that you meant that millionares have nothing better to do with their money than buy an ivory backscratcher. This is simply not true. There are many millionaries who give the extra money they made to charity or use it another useful manner. Not everyone who makes money is a greedy SOB, and I strongly dislike when people try to make that point.
Idaho, you are missing my objection to your quote. I inferred that you meant that millionares have nothing better to do with their money than buy an ivory backscratcher. This is simply not true. There are many millionaries who give the extra money they made to charity or use it another useful manner. Not everyone who makes money is a greedy SOB, and I strongly dislike when people try to make that point.
A millionaire who leaves a restaurant without paying their bill is a thief. A millionaire who leaves a country without paying their tax is also a thief.
A millionaire who leaves a restaurant without paying their bill is a thief. A millionaire who leaves a country without paying their tax is also a thief.
I'm not talking about this particular situation.
Centurion1
07-29-2009, 17:33
Just wanted to make sure
Aemilius Paulus
07-29-2009, 19:24
A millionaire who leaves a restaurant without paying their bill is a thief. A millionaire who leaves a country without paying their tax is also a thief.
That would be a simplification, and we are taught to be cautious in the face of them... Not that you are correct or incorrect, just noting that simplifying politics and economics tends to not work/ be accurate. A good rhetorical metaphor though.
Tribesman
07-30-2009, 01:22
My family is almost in the top 5% of American wealth. sound wealthy? We make under 200,000 a year with two people working.
Yeah , if they more than doubled their combined salary they would almost be in the top 5%.
Everyone has a fundamental right to pay the minimum amount of tax they can legally get away with.
Every year over here the politicians and media complain about people avoiding tax legally , especially when they put up the figures that show so many of the highest earners paying nothing at all in income tax. As far as I am concerned fair play to 'em , thats what accountants are for, if people themselves cannot be bothered with avoiding tax then that is their problem and they shouldn't moan about those that can be bothered.
Louis VI the Fat
07-30-2009, 01:29
Tax refugees are paupers who can't afford to live in a civilized country. :smug:
I do want to close the loopholes within the civilized world. Monaco, Switzerland, Ireland, all those little islands of dubious sovereignity. I say we force them closed, and force the tax refugees into the jungle. Force 'em to try Colombia and the Congo, let 'em find out how well protected their wealth is in countries without stable governments and the rule of law - you know, all that 'wasteful nonsense' that civilized people pay top tax dollars for.
Centurion1
07-30-2009, 03:53
Actually it would probably be pretty safe. a billionaire could most likely buy the congo. And therefore buy all the guns
A Terribly Harmful Name
07-30-2009, 04:03
Why do people have to assume that billionaires are inherently evil and selfish due to some weird and mysterious twist? So is everyone, the difference being that millionaires have money to indulge in their excentricities. Take Berlusconi... Who the hell wouldn't want to live that kind of morally reproachable but pleasant lifestyle? Of course, most of us don't have the money for high class whores and security guards, so we spend our nights watching porn instead or doing it with the girl next door.
This is only saber rattling by Hagen.
He is a known "right" man and there is an election soon.
What he is protesting against is our assets tax (fortune tax) which very few of our neighboring countries have.
If you have assets - that is, what you own of value minus debt is taxable. Let's say you own a house, a car, a boat and some stocks. You have a mortgage on the house but you have done well and your other assets have no debt.
If your house is worth 4 500 000 (which is not too uncommon for new houses) and you have about 2 000 000 on the mortgage. Mortgage is good to have when it comes to paying taxes
You have been working the stock marked and had some luck.
Let's say you currently have stocks worth 5 000 000
You have used profits made earlier to buy two nice cars, expensive furniture and a sail boat.
Let's see: (in NoK - 100 000 would be US$ 16 000 and € 12 000)
House - 4 500 000
Cash - (money in the bank) 100 000
Stocks - 5 000 000
Car1(Volvo V70) - 500 000
Car2(BMW M5) - 1 300 000
assets (furniture etc.) - 2 000 000
Sailboat - 3 000 000
From this the taxable amounts would be
House - 1 237 500
Cash - 97 000
Stock - 5 000 000
Car1 - 325 000
Car2 - 845 000
Assets - 320 000
Sailboat - 2 250 000
Total (gross fortune) - 10 074 500
minus debt - 2 000 000
tax assessment = 8 074 500
Tax free : 350 000
taxed by 0.9 percent : 190 000
taxed by 1.1 percent : 7 534 500
Tax = 84 590
So in addition to paying taxes on everything I earn (30%) and everything i buy (25%), I have to pay taxes for what I own.
That is OK you say since I earn like 840 000 NoK a year (before tax) and have the cash flow.
but I have to tithe annually to the state because I happen to have been lucky at the stocks. Mind you the stock value is not realized and could swing either way.
What about people like Hagen who has stock values in the billions? Do you think he can pay this stock from what he takes out in cash? Nope.. he is forced to realize stock (by selling) or take up loans to to pay this tax.
Unfair ??
What about the poor old woman in the house she and her now diseased husband have fought and payed for in a life time and finally in the last decade paid out all mortgage?
She sits on a minimum pension, but have a house worth quite a bit due to the crazy real estate marked.
She does not understand why she needs to pay half her income to a "fortune tax". She does not sit on a fortune, she thinks. She sits in the old chair that she has always sat in.
That, my dear Sigurd, shines a completely different light on the situation and is absolutely not what HoreTore was talking about (income tax). If that's the case in Norway then I can understand the guy, sounds like a horrible tax.
Thanks for clarifying this.
Horetore has been naughty :beam:
for shame :whip:
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 11:12
That, my dear Sigurd, shines a completely different light on the situation and is absolutely not what HoreTore was talking about (income tax). If that's the case in Norway then I can understand the guy, sounds like a horrible tax.
Thanks for clarifying this.
Nonsense! I wasn't talking about income tax really, but I was talking about how much he should pay according to his income(28%). As you can plainly see, even with this tax, he only pays a few percent of his income in taxes.
The asset tax is there simply because the wealthiest people do not pay income tax at all. If that tax was to go away, people like Stein Erik Hagen wouldn't pay any taxes at all.
I see no problems with the tax as applied in this case.
With regards to the pensioners Sigurd talked about though, the situation is different. But it does need some clarification; that pensioner isn't paying any rent, while a pensioner without a house does... Also, I fully support taxing real estate. Why? Because of the financial crisis. Real estate isn't taxed now.. That means that buying real estate is(was...) the most profitable thing to sink your money in. A house isn't just something you live in anymore, it's an investment. As a result, people with money started buying up tons of houses, thus driving the price of real estate through the roof, well beyond the real value of the houses, making a nice, shiny bubble.
I would also support an exception to the asset tax for businesses, allowing them to create "rainy day funds", modeled similar to the BSU-accounts. But then again, as businesses these days are based on credits and debt, it's unlikely to be that big a deal....
What about people like Hagen who has stock values in the billions? Do you think he can pay this stock from what he takes out in cash? Nope.. he is forced to realize stock (by selling) or take up loans to to pay this tax.
Unfair ??
This is nonsense, Sigurd, and you know it. He paid 10 million in total in taxes(most of it is likely asset tax). You know just as well as I do that his income is far, far greater than that. He doesn't have to realize any stock at all, all he needs to do is take out some extra "utbytte"(translation please...) from his company(ies). And as "utbytte" is his income, well, then the situation is exactly the same as for us who are paid the normal way.
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2009, 11:23
I am having a bit of trouble following the math you did there, (probably because I am staying up way too long) but if it is what it sounds like, then that's a very unfair tax and I could understand the guy's protest.
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2009, 11:25
My handy translator translates "utbytte" as dividend.
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 11:29
I am having a bit of trouble following the math you did there, (probably because I am staying up way too long) but if it is what it sounds like, then that's a very unfair tax and I could understand the guy's protest.
So you would prefer that he didn't pay tax at all? :inquisitive:
Please tell me, why on earth should a guy with billions not have to pay tax?
My handy translator translates "utbytte" as dividend.
Yeah, I think that's the term...
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2009, 11:32
So you would prefer that he didn't pay tax at all? :inquisitive:
Please tell me, why on earth should a guy with billions not have to pay tax?
Yeah, I think that's the term...
Well, first I would like to know (being serious here) why exactly he must pay more taxes because he has more money. I never got that concept.
And you are welcome. :clown:
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 11:40
Well, first I would like to know (being serious here) why exactly he must pay more taxes because he has more money. I never got that concept.
More taxes? I would be thrilled if he paid his 28%, the same I do. Why should he pay 28%? Because we are all equal before the law. He should not get special treatment from the authorities because he's rich. It's a question of morality. Why should I have to pay tax when a guy worth 8 billion doesn't have to? I have to pay my taxes, and so should he.
But you believe that the asset tax should go away, that would mean that he doesn't pay tax at all. Why do you believe that because he has more money he shouldn't pay any taxes?
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2009, 12:22
More taxes? I would be thrilled if he paid his 28%, the same I do. Why should he pay 28%? Because we are all equal before the law. He should not get special treatment from the authorities because he's rich. It's a question of morality. Why should I have to pay tax when a guy worth 8 billion doesn't have to? I have to pay my taxes, and so should he.
But you believe that the asset tax should go away, that would mean that he doesn't pay tax at all. Why do you believe that because he has more money he shouldn't pay any taxes?
Let's set the record straight here before you accuse me of saying things I didn't.
1. I didn't say I wanted him to pay no taxes. I thought you said he paid 10 million in 2007.
2. Throughout this conversation you have made the assumption that his actual income is not in the tens of millions but in the hundreds of millions. You claim it as fact although we have no way of knowing since you do not have proof of this.
Now you look at it as fair if everyone pays the same percentage of their income. I see this 28% being used throughout this conversation. However, I am looking at it this way: even when he pays 5% of his income that's 10 million going to the state. Now I don't know how much you make, and I am not going to guess but I think I can safely assume that 10 million is way, way more then you probably give to the state in even 5 years with your 28% unless I have severely misjudged your wealth.
Now morality is all well and good and here is this guy who is already doing more to prop up the state then many people ever could through their whole lives in just one year. I seem to recall that you made a post a while back complaining of a party that wanted to squander the countries savings. You claim in it that Norway has saved up about 5 national budgets. I will get back to this a little later.
Let's look at this from the eyes of the rich guy for a moment. And let us take a deep breath and realize that it does not matter how much money or power a man has, he is just that. A man. No different then you or me, just in a different circumstance.
He knows that Norway has plenty of money saved up. 5 national budgets is a lot of money in the treasury. He knows that he probably contributes in one year more then most do in their entire life. Most people in this position except the extremely ideological, would resent such tax increases because from their point of view they already do more to help with less (percentage) then those who are not so rich with higher taxes. It would seem unnecessary to him, especially if the government is continuing to grow their saving with a surplus budget every year, then it would seem even more unnecessary except solely for the ability of politicians to praise themselves on another record surplus year to gain favor with the public.
So here we have your morality question.
You think that he is not putting in his fair share because the percentages don't match up and that he is a bad person for leaving the country without paying what you believe he should pay.
I am looking deeper at the raw numbers and am judging his actions on the motivations behind his leaving the country and maybe because I don't automatically judge someone negatively due to extreme wealth I can see maybe where exactly he is coming from and I can actually sympathize with him in this case. What is the purpose of taxing him higher besides the government being able to write down a larger number of surplus money this year?
If Norway had debt or has a deficit budget running that needs to be fixed then yes, this guy has the responsibility to help the country in which he resides by contributing more. But since Norway does not seem to have debt problems and since it seems to be able to contribute more to its savings each year indicating a budget surplus then raising taxes on the guy seems just greedy and greed is not very moral.
Now I must be going to bed. I will eagerly read your (hopefully civil) reply when I wake up.
Utbytte would be profit in english.
If this guy is a billionaire then 1.1 percent (lets say 1.0 for easy calculation) of 1 biliion would be 10 million.
If he has 3 billions then he pays 30 million just in fortune tax (let's call a spade a spade).
In 2007 Stein Erik Hagen had a 24 Billion fortune. He should have paid 240 million in fortune tax alone. And that is if he did not realize any of this in hard cash (Income). When he sells stock he needs to pay tax from it (28%). But if he has huge loans - this gets greatly reduced. Note that this affects fortune tax as well.
Thanks to my mortgage and the high interest rates, I only paid 18% tax last year and didn't have to pay outstanding tax (restskatt).
You can take out some stock (by selling) one year and keep it all in stock next year. For guys like Hagen, that would be zero income that particular year. If you take out 100 million, that would last a while, even for guys like Hagen.
double post...
Just one more thing. If for example the interest rates rises to a level where it no longer profits you, and if you have assets, you could reduce your loan by paying back parts or the whole loan.
I don't think you have to pay interests on such out-of-schedule paybacks. You pay a set amount of interests once a month based on how much loan you have had the previous or current month (I forget the details).
If Hagen because of the high interests we just have had, returned much of what he had loaned, he would be in peril with regards to the fortune tax. It could be that he was much in debt in 2007, but found out he would reduce this in the economical hardships we have had. He is now irritated because he needs to fork out because of this stupid, special for Norway "fortune" tax.
I don't think you have to pay interests on such out-of-schedule paybacks. You pay a set amount of interests once a month based on how much loan you have had the previous or current month (I forget the details).
Slightly off topic, but maybe good to know.
Could be different abroad, of course, but in Belgium, paying capital back earlier (out of schedule) is considered a breach of contract and you'll generally have to pay 3 months of interest on the amount paid back earlier as compensation. The damage for the bank is that it loses part of the profit of its' investment (Yes, a loan to you is an investment for the bank, and they make profit out of it; generally, you have to pay more interest than the bank has to pay on that amount - when interest rates are low, try to get a loan on an interest rate that's fixed for the entire duration of the loan). Also in Belgium, you don't get tax benefits for the amount you pay back out-of-schedule. Before you'd consider doing such a payback, you'd first have to make some caculations to see if it's profitable or not.
Well, first I would like to know (being serious here) why exactly he must pay more taxes because he has more money. I never got that concept.
And you are welcome. :clown:
The notion that taxes are a proportion of your income/wealth is as old as taxes themselves. It's interesting to question the notion - but I think we'd live in a strange and radically different world if we did all pay a poll tax.
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 13:59
Let's set the record straight here before you accuse me of saying things I didn't.
1. I didn't say I wanted him to pay no taxes. I thought you said he paid 10 million in 2007.
2. Throughout this conversation you have made the assumption that his actual income is not in the tens of millions but in the hundreds of millions. You claim it as fact although we have no way of knowing since you do not have proof of this.
1. Those 10 million is what he paid in asset tax, as asset tax is basically all he pays. If you cut the asset tax, he pays nothing. Simple.
2. No proof? His reported income is just over 8 million in 2007. But, take a look through what he spends, and you'll soon enough find out that his real income must be in the hundreds of millions. Heck, he bought his new palace(worth over 100 mill) in 2007. And then there's that army of servants he employs... And his wife always seems to have new jewels... It should be quite obvious that the guy earns a few hundred million a year.
Utbytte would be profit in english.
If this guy is a billionaire then 1.1 percent (lets say 1.0 for easy calculation) of 1 biliion would be 10 million.
If he has 3 billions then he pays 30 million just in fortune tax (let's call a spade a spade).
In 2007 Stein Erik Hagen had a 24 Billion fortune. He should have paid 240 million in fortune tax alone. And that is if he did not realize any of this in hard cash (Income). When he sells stock he needs to pay tax from it (28%). But if he has huge loans - this gets greatly reduced. Note that this affects fortune tax as well.
Thanks to my mortgage and the high interest rates, I only paid 18% tax last year and didn't have to pay outstanding tax (restskatt).
You can take out some stock (by selling) one year and keep it all in stock next year. For guys like Hagen, that would be zero income that particular year. If you take out 100 million, that would last a while, even for guys like Hagen.
Take a look at the tax list again, Sigurd. His taxable fortune is just over a billion. Fits in quite neatly with 10 million in taxes, doesn't it?
And yes, it's the loans and tricky stock loopholes he uses to make his income disappear.
Edit: and you're sure his fortune was 24 billion? Sure that isn't his family's fortune? I thought he split it up among his kids a couple of years ago...
Slightly off topic, but maybe good to know.
Could be different abroad, of course, but in Belgium, paying capital back earlier (out of schedule) is considered a breach of contract and you'll generally have to pay 3 months of interest on the amount paid back earlier as compensation. The damage for the bank is that it loses part of the profit of its' investment (Yes, a loan to you is an investment for the bank, and they make profit out of it; generally, you have to pay more interest than the bank has to pay on that amount - when interest rates are low, try to get a loan on an interest rate that's fixed for the entire duration of the loan). Also in Belgium, you don't get tax benefits for the amount you pay back out-of-schedule. Before you'd consider doing such a payback, you'd first have to make some calculations to see if it's profitable or not.
We are sooo off topic here, but I would like to add this anyway:
I just checked the law concerning finances.
Apparently in Norway there is a slight difference between a floating interest rate loan and a fixed interest rate loan.
As a debtor to a loan with a floating interest rate, I have the right to pay back part or the whole thing before the agreed payback time.
Additionally the bank can't demand more interests than the used credit time. But they can demand a compensation in a form of a fee, which is limited to the cost of administrating the liquidation of the loan. If however you are a consumer (I guess consumer loans), the bank have no claims of compensation.
On the fixed interest loans this is different and the bank might demand compensations of lost income on interest rates.
I would not bind my loans to a fixed interest rate, because I can manage a 3-5 interest points increase just fine.
Right now my mortgage is creeping below 3 percent and the fixed interest rate, If I would have considered it is around 5-6%. I believe in the long run (20 years) you save money on the floating interest rate. I bet those that bound their interest rate at 7-8% is :wall:. They bound their interest just before the world economy crashed. I remember I was sweating too, when the interest went from 2.94% to 8 in a few months. Then the world economy collapsed and I am back where I started.
Edit: and you're sure his fortune was 24 billion? Sure that isn't his family's fortune? I thought he split it up among his kids a couple of years ago...
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stein_Erik_Hagen
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 14:28
Two rather interesting articles in Aftenposten today, Sigurd, on page 12.
The first one, translated for english speakers...
- The asset tax means nothing
NHH-professor* slaughters the arguments against the asset tax, and says Stein Erik Hagen is allergic to taxes.
- That the asset tax destroys jobs is just nonsense, says Terje Hansen, professor at NHH, who's specialty is tax questions. The professor dismisses the idea that the tax destroy the incentive to invest.
- It's pure baloney. The asset tax is so small that it really doesn't matter for the rich, he says.
He refers to a study Bergens Tidende(a newspaper) did of the 30 richest people in Hordaland.
According to the magazine kapital's estimates, these people had personal fortunes between 800 million and 8 billion NOK. The average tax was still no more than 0,2% of the real fortune.
- And that was income and asset tax combined. The super-rich pays very little tax. They spend more on their summer vacation than they pay in taxes, say Hansen.
Stein Erik Hagen has on multiple occasions said that he wants the tax on dividends to increase, while removing the asset tax.
- He only says that because he has arranged it so that he can take out tax free dividends from his companies. He's allergic to paying taxes, says Hansen.
More people than Hansen are tired of hearing about a difficult life for businesses in Norway.
- The picture of Norway as hostile to businesses is created by certain politicians and unhappy business leaders, but they should learn how it is in other countries, says professor Torger Reve at Handselshøyskolen BI/"Trade College BI".
*NHH is Norges Handelshøyskole/"Norwegian Trade College", the bastion of free trade and liberal economics... It's where the future CEO's study.
The second article of interest, is a small one about John Fredriksen. For those of you who don't know who he is, he's the most famous norwegian tax refugee. What the article is about? He's moving back to Norway, because of the socialist tax and financial policies.... :2thumbsup:
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 14:36
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stein_Erik_Hagen
Ah.
You should learn to use better sources, Sigurd. ~;) Those 24 billions are his family's fortune... And those were cut up and divided among his children.... Kapital lists the family fortune as one entry, with Stein Erik Hagen as the name, as they've always done. But the fortune is divided up now.
Ah.
You should learn to use better sources, Sigurd. ~;) Those 24 billions are his family's fortune... And those were cut up and divided among his children.... Kapital lists the family fortune as one entry, with Stein Erik Hagen as the name, as they've always done. But the fortune is divided up now.
Hey... the total is what counts right? Someone still has to pay 240 million for those assets. Combined or not, this is what the state demands.
If he divided that money equally (4 kids + wife) they would still each have to pay 40 million in fortune tax.... unless they have invested them in property. The fortune tax is calculated from 27,5% of the value on properties.
Hmm... his company is divided 10/30/30/30 with Stein Erik himself owning just the 10%. The rest is apparently divided between three of his kids.
The last kid is under 18 or something?
Nonsense! I wasn't talking about income tax really, but I was talking about how much he should pay according to his income(28%). As you can plainly see, even with this tax, he only pays a few percent of his income in taxes.
The asset tax is there simply because the wealthiest people do not pay income tax at all. If that tax was to go away, people like Stein Erik Hagen wouldn't pay any taxes at all.
Yes, but it's a very weak solution, a much better solution would be to get rid of all these things they use to get around paying those 28%, simplify the tax system and make them actually pay those 28% of their income. If he is a billionaire and pays only 10 million then obviously he isn't paying the full fortune tax either, seems ust as useless as the income tax in that case.
HoreTore
07-30-2009, 15:21
Hey... the total is what counts right? Someone still has to pay 240 million for those assets. Combined or not, this is what the state demands.
If he divided that money equally (4 kids + wife) they would still each have to pay 40 million in fortune tax.... unless they have invested them in property. The fortune tax is calculated from 27,5% of the value on properties.
Hmm... his company is divided 10/30/30/30 with Stein Erik himself owning just the 10%. The rest is apparently divided between three of his kids.
The last kid is under 18 or something?
I asked simply because I wondered about it ~;)
But instead of speculating about what his fortune is, why not just check it out? (http://www.skattelister.no/)
Stein Erik Hagen (http://www.skattelister.no/?do=more&k=0301&id=dccce8411db116e1b3a270b820c8fc1b&navn=Stein%20Erik%20Hagen) paid 10 million in taxes in 2007. His fortune(the fortune the tax is calculated from) was 1.2 billion. I don't know the name of his other son, but Carl Erik Hagen (http://www.skattelister.no/?do=more&k=0301&id=491c5ce3a70c9319e45dad2f5d4a5a6a&navn=Carl%20Erik%20Hagen) and Nina Camilla Hagen (http://www.skattelister.no/?do=more&k=301&id=75f5917b874dd68d82a40521566a15f6&navn=nina%20camilla%20hagen) (my future wife) both paid 16 million in taxes while they each had a fortune of 2.6 billion.
And his wife, Treschow, has her own fortune which has nothing to do with Hagen's, and is listed separately on Kapital's list...
Louis VI the Fat
07-30-2009, 15:34
Yes, well, such is the nature of living in a social democracy. Of course this tax isn't exclusive to Norway. That is what the poor prosecuted rich think everywhere, that only in their country they are 'punished' for doing well. In France, one pays 'Impôt de solidarité sur la fortune', or ISF. It works exactly the same as Norway's wealth tax.
And in France too, many wealthy flee to Switzerland. Johnny Hallyday is a notable example. Get rich in France, move to Monaco to avoid income tax, and move your capital to Switzerland to avoid wealth tax.
This is how the very wealthy manage to avoid paying their share. Bunch of leechers. It is taxes like this that is the difference between Brazil and Europe. It is why Norway has the world's highest social mobility, and Brazil one of the lowest. Brazil has very few self-made men. Scandinavia abounds in them. Yet, once they've made it, they cry and complain about the unfairness of it all. Losers.
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2009, 22:12
I am bowing out of this conversation because all these taxes and what the guy is paying or not paying is going over my head. I don't even understand wtf kind of tax this guy, horetore tells me its the asset tax but from sigurd I got the impression that if he is worth billions he would be taxed more then 10 million. Whatever, I am done. I am going to read a taxes for dummies book.
Louis VI the Fat
07-30-2009, 22:24
I am bowing out of this conversation because all these taxes and what the guy is paying or not paying is going over my head. I don't even understand wtf kind of tax this guy, horetore tells me its the asset tax but from sigurd I got the impression that if he is worth billions he would be taxed more then 10 million. Whatever, I am done. I am going to read a taxes for dummies book.The tax is best compared to American property tax. The difference is that the clever, at least: practical, Americans understand that if you employ a wealth tax, net tax revenue actually decreases: capital is simply moved. However, real estate can not be moved, so this is what is taxed in America.
Or, to summarize the cold hard facts of this thread: billionaires everywhere leech off the system.
a completely inoffensive name
07-30-2009, 22:38
The tax is best compared to American property tax. The difference is that the clever, at least: practical, Americans understand that if you employ a wealth tax, net tax revenue actually decreases: capital is simply moved. However, real estate can not be moved, so this is what is taxed in America.
Or, to summarize the cold hard facts of this thread: billionaires everywhere leech off the system.
Ok, that makes makes sense.
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 07:17
The tax is best compared to American property tax. The difference is that the clever, at least: practical, Americans understand that if you employ a wealth tax, net tax revenue actually decreases: capital is simply moved. However, real estate can not be moved, so this is what is taxed in America.
But hey, one can easily have both ~;)
The property tax is something we should not speak of out loud. Oh, yes the red wants to put that back on the table too.
I just read in the newspaper today that Hagen & Family are realizing 300 million from their family company to pay this capital tax. And this illustrates his point. Since the company is a investor company, this money will not be invested. Ergo - new projects and employment opportunities just lost 300 million.
They are not going to spend it all this year, but they are going to pay 90 million worth of capital tax for 2009. Also - they are devaluing their capital and avoids therefore the tax on dividends.
I just got my voters card in the mail yesterday. Haha - Just thinking about it - I soo don't want to vote the current government. This case just put the nail in the coffin on any uncertainties I had.
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 07:50
The property tax is something we should not speak of out loud. Oh, yes the red wants to put that back on the table too.
The property tax is decided locally, and quite free from party policy. They re-instituted the property in Fredrikstad this term, and which party controls that town again....?
Answer: FRP
Also, there is a lot of talk among economist about whether the property tax should be re-instated for the good of the economy, because a house is more an investment than a home these days. And do note that these guys belong in your conservative party, they're not red hippies ~;)
I just read in the newspaper today that Hagen & Family are realizing 300 million from their family company to pay this capital tax. And this illustrates his point. Since the company is a investor company, this money will not be invested. Ergo - new projects and employment opportunities just lost 300 million.
They are not going to spend it all this year, but they are going to pay 90 million worth of capital tax for 2009. Also - they are devaluing their capital and avoids therefore the tax on dividends.
Complete nonsense from DN - but then again I never expect anything more from them. This illustrates the point perfectly, but not against the fortune tax. You see, as the article plainly says(I read it too ~;) ), if not for the fortune tax, he would not be paying any taxes at all. Just how is that fair, just or whatever? He shouldn't pay tax because he can use his money to create jobs? That is quite possibly the lamest excuse ever.
Why on earth couldn't he just do without that 15th yacht to pay his taxes? I could buy quite a lot of nice stuff for the roughly 80k I paid in taxes last year, but I had to do without it to pay my taxes. Why shouldn't he have to make do with less stuff to pay his taxes? Why shouldn't we be equal before the law? Is it really OK for some people to be above the law?
I can use the money I pay in taxes to create jobs. You can too. We can all do that. The standard tax paid in Norway is 100k. Well, that's one part-time maid job created. Why should I have to pay tax at all, when i could be using that money to create a job opening for someone else?
Bah. Nonsense. And when didn't taxes create jobs? You think the cops, firemen, nurses, doctors, judges, etc etc would work for free, or what? Or do you prefer that we all pay for our own private judge? Yes, that sounds like a nice arrangement...
The property tax is decided locally, and quite free from party policy. They re-instituted the property in Fredrikstad this term, and which party controls that town again....?
Don't throw stones in a glass house. SV and AP wants this tax in Oslo.
I can use the money I pay in taxes to create jobs. You can too. We can all do that. The standard tax paid in Norway is 100k. Well, that's one part-time maid job created. Why should I have to pay tax at all, when i could be using that money to create a job opening for someone else?
Sorry M8, I am not arguing against paying income tax - or tax on stock dividends.
I am happily paying my 200k in tax (23%).
My beef is with the capital tax.
Can't you see that keeping your capital in shares make you pay 1,1% of 100% of the value? While investments in property pays only 1.1% of 0 - 27,5% of the value?
If you had 5 000 000, what would you invest in? Which is the investment which will return sure profit?
Properties will yield 0 capital tax if you loan most of you investment in property. Say you had 5 million and borrowed 20 million to buy this 25 million property. You pay 0 capital tax but selling the property 2 years later returns 60 million. Your net profit would be 18.2 million. (true story).
5 000 000 in shares requires you to pay 55k every year in capital tax
5 000 000 in property requires you to pay 0 - 15k every year in capital tax.
Selling property and shares will both take 28% of the cake.
If I had to choose between the property tax and capital tax, I would have welcomed the property tax any day. Property tax is very small - from 0.02% to 0.07% of the assessment value which in my case would probably be 30% of the market value. Hence I would pay about 8k a year.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-31-2009, 10:23
Though I would also say it would be fair to charge them extra as the infrastrctucture and labour that 'this' country provides has helped him make his awesome wealth... so it won't hurt him too much to spare a little to put back into the country...
If that was provided only for his benefit, this would be true. Since it was provided for the potential use of anyone, he should pay the same percentage as anyone else. No use punishing people for being successful.
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 15:02
Don't throw stones in a glass house. SV and AP wants this tax in Oslo.
Yes, every party wants that tax.
Sorry M8, I am not arguing against paying income tax - or tax on stock dividends.
I am happily paying my 200k in tax (23%).
My beef is with the capital tax.
Can't you see that keeping your capital in shares make you pay 1,1% of 100% of the value? While investments in property pays only 1.1% of 0 - 27,5% of the value?
If you had 5 000 000, what would you invest in? Which is the investment which will return sure profit?
Properties will yield 0 capital tax if you loan most of you investment in property. Say you had 5 million and borrowed 20 million to buy this 25 million property. You pay 0 capital tax but selling the property 2 years later returns 60 million. Your net profit would be 18.2 million. (true story).
5 000 000 in shares requires you to pay 55k every year in capital tax
5 000 000 in property requires you to pay 0 - 15k every year in capital tax.
Selling property and shares will both take 28% of the cake.
If I had to choose between the property tax and capital tax, I would have welcomed the property tax any day. Property tax is very small - from 0.02% to 0.07% of the assessment value which in my case would probably be 30% of the market value. Hence I would pay about 8k a year.
Take a look at that article in DN again. The capital tax he pays is the same as the income tax he should have paid. But he doesn't pay any income tax, because of various loopholes. Forget any other taxes, he doesn't pay them. The capital tax is the only one he pays, and if you take that one away, he does not pay taxes. Notice how he managed to get those 300 million without paying any income tax?
As for capital tax paid by others, I'd be more than happy to see the entry point raised to a couple of million. The capital tax paid by "normal people" are pennies anyway....
If that was provided only for his benefit, this would be true. Since it was provided for the potential use of anyone, he should pay the same percentage as anyone else. No use punishing people for being successful.
So then EMFM, you do agree with me that this guy should cough up a lot more tax than he's currently paying?
Let me see if I understhis correctly... Norway taxes people based on the amount of shares of stock they own?
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 15:28
Let me see if I understhis correctly... Norway taxes people based on the amount of shares of stock they own?
Yes, as stock contributes to wealth, you would pay capital tax from that.
But do note that there are a lot of tax benefits from owning stock, which is why people like Hagen hardly pay tax at all...
Do they pay tax on the value of the shares, or on the income from those shares?
In the UK we pay for income on shares (although at a lesser rate than if we actually got off our arses and worked... which says it all).
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 16:27
Do they pay tax on the value of the shares, or on the income from those shares?
In the UK we pay for income on shares (although at a lesser rate than if we actually got off our arses and worked... which says it all).
Value of the shares is one tax(capital tax).
Any income from the shares would be a different tax(income tax), though in many cases, you can make that tax go away, like mr. Hagen does.
Do they pay tax on the value of the shares, or on the income from those shares?
In the UK we pay for income on shares (although at a lesser rate than if we actually got off our arses and worked... which says it all).
Yeah its the same over here.
Value of the shares is one tax(capital tax).
:help:
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 17:54
:help:
What? Why is it bad to have several different taxes? If we only had income tax, for example, it would be easy as all hell to get around it, by redefining your money as something other than "income". With the capital tax, we ensure that everyone at least pays something.
Any income from the shares would be a different tax(income tax), though in many cases, you can make that tax go away, like mr. Hagen does.
There is one tax rule which is pretty nice here in Norway when it comes to shares, and that is the screening deduction (skjermingsfradrag). This rule states that you can realise 4% of your shares without having to pay dividend tax.
Hagen would benefit from this greatly as he has several billions invested in shares. If you have invested 5 billion you could theoretically realise 200 million without paying a single krone in tax.
You then have to pay capital tax of 55 million, but you will still keep 145 million.
I don't feel sorry for guys like him, but the result of capital tax for us normal people - when we become debt free is incriminating. It is basically a robbery.
If Norway absolutely must have capital tax, let's raise the minimum allowance to 10 million. That way it would only affect the filthy rich.
Us normal people invest long term, it would be unwise to take money out from the shares annually.
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 18:25
If Norway absolutely must have capital tax, let's raise the minimum allowance to 10 million. That way it would only affect the filthy rich.
Us normal people invest long term, it would be unwise to take money out from the shares annually.
Absolutely. I completely agree with that. The main function of the capital tax, in my opinion, should be to act as a "loophole-fixer", to ensure that everyone pays tax.
Crazed Rabbit
07-31-2009, 21:42
What? Why is it bad to have several different taxes? If we only had income tax, for example, it would be easy as all hell to get around it, by redefining your money as something other than "income". With the capital tax, we ensure that everyone at least pays something.
Does the government pay out refunds when stock values drop?
As for the whole 'Rich people owe governments money because the infrastructure allowed them to get rich' idea. As was pointed out, everybody has access to that infrastructure. The successful simply made better use of it.
And the idea that the rich can be taxed because they don't need that money- what do you think they're going to do if the tax rate is set really high? Keep on working as much as they did before?
No, they'll work less and produce less.
A final thing to consider is the application of the taxes. If you tax a rich business man, then his business is less able to higher more people and produce more goods. The rich do not simply put their money in a bank vault and not use it. Even an ivory back scratch would mean people were employed to gather ivory, ship it, manufacture it, and sell it. That means jobs. You tax a millionaire and smugly justify it by saying 'he doesn't need another yacht' and guess what - you've just screwed the working class men who make yachts over.
But I expect no thought about the economic consequences from socialists.
CR
HoreTore
07-31-2009, 21:52
A final thing to consider is the application of the taxes. If you tax a rich business man, then his business is less able to higher more people and produce more goods. The rich do not simply put their money in a bank vault and not use it. Even an ivory back scratch would mean people were employed to gather ivory, ship it, manufacture it, and sell it. That means jobs. You tax a millionaire and smugly justify it by saying 'he doesn't need another yacht' and guess what - you've just screwed the working class men who make yachts over.
Worst. Argument. Ever.
That applies to every single human being in the world with money. Any amount of money.
I pay tax. Same as everyone. If I didn't pay tax, I could be buying me a new car. That would mean new jobs at the car factory, the retailer, etc. So why should I pay tax, why should anyone pay tax? And with no tax money collected, who will pay the cops, judges, firemen, etc, who keep the laws and security that protects us from anarchy and enables us to produce anything at all going?
Rich people should not be granted any special treatment because they can create jobs - that's an ability every single human being has. They should pay the same 28% everyone else pays. If they're fair and respectable humans, that means they will take that money from their own pocket, like we others do. If they're unethical and whining little children, they will plunder their companies.
Epic fail.
But then again, did I really expect anything more from conservatives whose economic theory is greed, greed and then some more greed?
and try bringing some new ideas to the thread, there isn't much point in restarting a discussion that has already gone on for a few pages....
Crazed Rabbit
07-31-2009, 22:04
Epic fail.
But then again, did I really expect anything more from conservatives whose economic theory is greed, greed and then some more greed?
Obviously some form of government revenue is needed. The point was about the argument that rich people can be taxed more because they don't need the money. Saying 'they'll just buy another expensive thing they don't need' is an incredibly shortsighted argument.
Paying for cops and infrastructure is one thing - while most social programs are quite another.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
08-01-2009, 01:28
Oh dang, the two extremes meet! It's like Thunderdome! Except instead of two men enter one man leaves it's more like two men type vigorously, some other guy locks the thread.
HoreTore
08-01-2009, 09:16
Obviously some form of government revenue is needed. The point was about the argument that rich people can be taxed more because they don't need the money. Saying 'they'll just buy another expensive thing they don't need' is an incredibly shortsighted argument.
That wasn't the argument? The argument of this thread is that rich people should pay tax, not whether they should pay more or less, but that they should pay any tax at all.
The "argument" you're referring to was a passing comment.
Paying for cops and infrastructure is one thing - while most social programs are quite another.
Yes... Because everyone wants the same world as you do, right?
But anyway CR, you still haven't stated whether you agree with me or not - should this guy stop his whining and pay his tax, or should people like him be exempted from all taxes? Keep in mind, the tax he's whining about is below the 28% we other mortals pay.
also, I really shouldn't be scratching my jewels after I've used tiger balsam....it burrrrns....
Ironside
08-01-2009, 10:37
And the idea that the rich can be taxed because they don't need that money- what do you think they're going to do if the tax rate is set really high? Keep on working as much as they did before?
No, they'll work less and produce less.
Always found that argument funny. You know why? Because it's based on the idea of fairness and justice. Now to the funny part. Now, what economic theories use fairness and justice as a concept to consider?
It's even better with the idea that a general lowering of the taxes will make them work more. If you consider yourself paying too much in taxes, are you limiting how much the goverment takes in taxes from you by working less? Or are you trying to avoid paying the taxes in the first place?
A final thing to consider is the application of the taxes. If you tax a rich business man, then his business is less able to higher more people and produce more goods. The rich do not simply put their money in a bank vault and not use it. Even an ivory back scratch would mean people were employed to gather ivory, ship it, manufacture it, and sell it. That means jobs. You tax a millionaire and smugly justify it by saying 'he doesn't need another yacht' and guess what - you've just screwed the working class men who make yachts over.
But I expect no thought about the economic consequences from socialists.
CR
Total tax pressure in the US 28,3%, total in Norway 43,4%. GDP/capita US=46,716$, GDP/capita Norway=58,141$.
Evidently, the goverment do not simply put thier money in a bank vault and not use it. But I expect no thought about the economic consequences of taxes from capitalists. :logic:
Can add that the capital tax was abolished 2007 in Sweden, mainly due to the same reasons mentioned here. We even had one getting tax excempt due to threaning to move abroad (the boss of H&M). To be fair, he does pay his income taxes.
Oh dang, the two extremes meet! It's like Thunderdome! Except instead of two men enter one man leaves it's more like two men type vigorously, some other guy locks the thread.
Please don't decry this fruitful discussion, some people(me) are very interested in it and so far I dare say it has been relatively civil and I hope it stays that way.
Yes... Because everyone wants the same world as you do, right?
You're the right person to say that... (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2295053&postcount=68) ~D
I agree with you that rich people should pay their taxes as everybody else, I do however think it should be done via income tax, some system that does not allow for silly loopholes and where everybody pays the same percentage. Perhaps it's time to start operation enduring taxes and invade the cayman islands... :dizzy2:
Total tax pressure in the US 28,3%, total in Norway 43,4%. GDP/capita US=46,716$, GDP/capita Norway=58,141$.
Evidently, the goverment do not simply put thier money in a bank vault and not use it. But I expect no thought about the economic consequences of taxes from capitalists. :logic:
You do have a point I think but last I heard Norway is partly so rich because of it's oil, countries in arabia with oil also have a relatively high GDP per capita but it's not exactly evenly distributed.
HoreTore
08-01-2009, 18:11
You do have a point I think but last I heard Norway is partly so rich because of it's oil, countries in arabia with oil also have a relatively high GDP per capita but it's not exactly evenly distributed.
Alright, do the rest of Scandinavia then, they have no oil but are basically the same...
Alright, do the rest of Scandinavia then, they have no oil but are basically the same...
You guys must be paying them to prove that point. ~;)
No, of course, in that case, you have a bit more of a point, maybe a full, complete point even. Nice and round like this one >>.<<
Louis VI the Fat
08-02-2009, 01:12
Norway is much wealthier than its Nordic neighbours, those poor countries that have to actually work for their money.
Nørdic Europe hås over the past few decådes usually enjoyed a higher GDP per cäpita, nøminally, than the US. Höwever, by PPP, the US has the edge. Life in America is cheap. It never ceases to ämåze the European traveller how cheap many goods in Americä are. The Nördic wørld, by contrast, is a nightmare. Nordics bæth in cash like Scrooge McDuck*, but it doesn't get them very fær in their öwn cøuntries.
(How many Nordic 18 year olds have their own car? Biff the sixteen year old redneck has got a car. Whereas it takes Olaf the Red or Sven the horn-helmed years of saving, until, eventually, at the age of twenty-five they've saved enough money to answer the difficult question that each Nordic faces at this stage of his life: 'shall I spend my years of savings on my first car, or on my first beer?')
*Det er Joakim von Anka, eller von And, eller Skrue McDuck till Vikingerne.
a completely inoffensive name
08-02-2009, 01:19
Norway is much wealthier than its Nordic neighbours, those poor countries that have to actually work for their money.
Nørdic Europe hås over the past few decådes usually enjoyed a higher GDP per cäpita, nøminally, than the US. Höwever, by PPP, the US has the edge. Life in America is cheap. It never ceases to ämåze the European traveller how cheap many goods in Americä are. The Nördic wørld, by contrast, is a nightmare. Nordics bæth in cash like Scrooge McDuck*, but it doesn't get them very fær in their öwn cøuntries.
(How many Nordic 18 year olds have their own car? Biff the sixteen year old redneck has got a car. Whereas it takes Olaf the Red or Sven the horn-helmed years of saving, until, eventually, at the age of twenty-five they've saved enough money to answer the difficult question that each Nordic faces at this stage of his life: 'shall I spend my years of savings on my first car, or on my first beer?')
*Det er Joakim von Anka, eller von And, eller Skrue McDuck till Vikingerne.
Maybe things would be more affordable with less taxes?
(I know I am just stirring things up here.)
HoreTore
08-02-2009, 08:52
How many Nordic 18 year olds have their own car?
About 99%.
I bought my first car for 3000NOK. Or in other words, next to nothing.
an '86 Audi 80, btw...
And most youngsters these days have their daddy buy them their first car, so....
Ironside
08-02-2009, 10:58
You do have a point I think but last I heard Norway is partly so rich because of it's oil, countries in arabia with oil also have a relatively high GDP per capita but it's not exactly evenly distributed.
Point was more that taxes and GDP aren't well corrrelated (not sure if it is at all actually), but the nordic countries does still very well.
The nordic countries are even higher on Human Development Index, Social Mobility and wealth distribution anyway and beats the US on all.
Norway is much wealthier than its Nordic neighbours, those poor countries that have to actually work for their money.
Nørdic Europe hås over the past few decådes usually enjoyed a higher GDP per cäpita, nøminally, than the US. Höwever, by PPP, the US has the edge. Life in America is cheap. It never ceases to ämåze the European traveller how cheap many goods in Americä are. The Nördic wørld, by contrast, is a nightmare. Nordics bæth in cash like Scrooge McDuck*, but it doesn't get them very fær in their öwn cøuntries.
(How many Nordic 18 year olds have their own car? Biff the sixteen year old redneck has got a car. Whereas it takes Olaf the Red or Sven the horn-helmed years of saving, until, eventually, at the age of twenty-five they've saved enough money to answer the difficult question that each Nordic faces at this stage of his life: 'shall I spend my years of savings on my first car, or on my first beer?')
*Det er Joakim von Anka, eller von And, eller Skrue McDuck till Vikingerne.
I mainly used Norway because I only checked the PPP, that by your logic would mean that the Norweigans got easier to buy a car than the American you know :idea2:. Not sure why you expect university students to increase thier personal fortune by a vast margin anyway.
BTW pronouncing those vovels correctly make a very fun English. But you're adding multiple countries signs for the same vovel.
Maybe things would be more affordable with less taxes?
(I know I am just stirring things up here.)
All Nordic countries are among the top 20 of PPP/capita, even if Norway is the only nordic country that beats the US.
And yes it's the lack of VAT, that most countries have (including France), that makes stuff look cheap in the US.
Even so, by using Louis' rethoric, for a Norweigian, the US is one of those poor countries you feel like a millionare simply because your normal salary is so high... :smash:
(How many Nordic 18 year olds have their own car? Biff the sixteen year old redneck has got a car. Whereas it takes Olaf the Red or Sven the horn-helmed years of saving, until, eventually, at the age of twenty-five they've saved enough money to answer the difficult question that each Nordic faces at this stage of his life: 'shall I spend my years of savings on my first car, or on my first beer?')
Shame on you Louis, you haven't done your homework. What's in fact expensive, is obtaining the driver's license. You can probably buy a car at 1/4th of the cost of the driver's license. Yet it's still something 99% of the youth obtain.
Pretty much, one of the reasons I still don't have a driver's license, I'm a bit of an exception though, 99-100% of the people over 18 I know have one. :shrug:
I think cars are overrated. :juggle2:
HoreTore
08-02-2009, 18:34
Shame on you Louis, you haven't done your homework. What's in fact expensive, is obtaining the driver's license. You can probably buy a car at 1/4th of the cost of the driver's license. Yet it's still something 99% of the youth obtain.
The smart ones save the money they get from confirmation to pay for the license.... But yeah, the drivers license is bloody expensive these days, I took my license in 2005 for 13-14000, my brother will take his next year, and he will probably pay around 25000...
Due to more hours of driving and more training needed to take the license though, no because of taxes or anything... But hey, I've already got my license, let the cost go through the roof for all I care :beam:
Louis VI the Fat
08-03-2009, 02:54
Shame on you Louis, you haven't done your homework.
You are clueless, Louis
You are talking rubbish, Louis
What utter nonsense, Louis:computer:
Oh yeah!? Well how many of you Nordics have managed to buy your first beer yet? Eh? Of your own savings?
Yes, I didn't think so. :whip:
BTW pronouncing those vovels correctly make a very fun English. But you're adding multiple countries signs for the same vovel.I just wanted to spell Nørdic for comic effect.
Then I lost control of myself. ~:mecry:
HoreTore
08-03-2009, 07:27
french whining
Hah!
Monday is my buy-more-beer-day, so I just bought 24 bottles of Aass :2thumbsup:
Samurai Waki
08-03-2009, 07:57
Monday is my buy-more-beer-day, so I just bought 24 bottles of Aass :2thumbsup:
...sounds delicious :inquisitive:
...sounds delicious :inquisitive:
Yeah ... If you strike one of the a's, you know what he really bought. :2thumbsup:
Ironside
08-03-2009, 10:35
:computer:
Oh yeah!? Well how many of you Nordics have managed to buy your first beer yet? Eh? Of your own savings?
Yes, I didn't think so. :whip:
Indeed. But we're comforting ourself by buying high quality French wines cheaper than in France. :laugh4:
The lower prices on large batches is sometimes more than the increased price due to the alchohol taxes.
KukriKhan
08-03-2009, 14:08
I took my license in 2005 for 13-14000, my brother will take his next year, and he will probably pay around 25000
That works out to over 4,000 US$. For a drivers license. Wow. Does it expire anytime, or last a lifetime? And is it recognized as valid outside Norway?
-edit-
for reference: I renewed my California DL last year for $25, lasting 5 years.
That works out to over 4,000 US$. For a drivers license. Wow. Does it expire anytime, or last a lifetime? And is it recognized as valid outside Norway?
-edit-
for reference: I renewed my California DL last year for $25, lasting 5 years.
Yes, it lasts a lifetime. Mine expires in 2072.
However, if you have additions to this licence e.g. Bus or Trucks over 7,5 Tons you need to renew it every 10 years (you need a health assessment every 10 years). But that doesn't cost more than a doctor's appointment and the printout of a new card.
About it being valid outside our nation: Yes I think so. I have hired cars in UK and Australia with it. No problem. It is a EEA card which looks very much the same as the EU licences. Since you need extensive training to get it, I bet it is among the more respected licences in Europe.
HoreTore
08-03-2009, 19:21
That works out to over 4,000 US$. For a drivers license. Wow. Does it expire anytime, or last a lifetime? And is it recognized as valid outside Norway?
-edit-
for reference: I renewed my California DL last year for $25, lasting 5 years.
Anything involving hourly wages for Norwegians will cost a lot. When I took my license, an hour of driving was around 450NOK(75USD). I think you needed 9 or so of those. Then you needed a course on driving on ice, a long drive and driving at night, all of which takes a day, and costs a few thousands each, the night driving being the shortest and cheapest. That was back when I took my license. Now they've increased the basic hours you need, and added a few courses...
And yeah, it never expires...
Vladimir
08-03-2009, 20:35
Anything involving hourly wages for Norwegians will cost a lot. When I took my license, an hour of driving was around 450NOK(75USD). I think you needed 9 or so of those. Then you needed a course on driving on ice, a long drive and driving at night, all of which takes a day, and costs a few thousands each, the night driving being the shortest and cheapest. That was back when I took my license. Now they've increased the basic hours you need, and added a few courses...
And yeah, it never expires...
Bah! You Norwegians have such lackadaisical (http://www.google.com/search?q=top+gear+finland&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1GGGL_en___US334&client=firefox-a) requirements.
Getting your Norwegian drivers license is ridiculous.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.