US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland • Hacker News Board

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#171

Post by _zamorano_ » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:54 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #55

soperj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you still have plenty of homesless and destitute. Pretty sad that you can't look after the most vunerable.

Homelessness rates in the US are lower than many big European countries: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pd... Lower than France, Germany, and the UK, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. Equal to the Netherlands.

I'm European and I've been to several major cities in the US. I've also visited most european capital cities.

In both cases, as a tourist, I never go too far away from the popular places and never been there for most than 3 or 4 days.

Don't know the reasons (honestly) but the homelessness and poverty I've seen in the US is nowhere to be seen in Europe. I repeat, in "popular" places and vicinity.

How do they come out with such numbers? Is the impression of a tourist wrong? Where are the poor and destitute in Europe compared to the US?

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#172

Post by jlangenauer » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:54 AM UTC

abiro wrote: post #164

throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An important detail here is that in Switzerland it's somewhat normal to simply never pay back your mortgage, so many people will keep around a bunch of debt because it doesn't make financial sense to eliminate it. When you get a mortgage it's usually broken into two amounts: an amount that you have to pay back (~30% if I remember right) and an amount that you don't (the rest). You can simply pay back the first amount…

It’s mainly for tax reasons: “If you are a homeowner in Switzerland, you have to pay income tax on what is known as its ‘rental value’. The rental value theoretically represents what you as owner would receive if you rented the property to someone else, i.e. what that tenant would pay you in rent. At the same time, you can deduct mortgage interest payments and other costs for the upkeep of the property from your taxa…

Wait, you have to pay income tax on income you could theoretically receive? I'm fascinated to know what possible justification there is for this?

(Genuine, not rhetorical question.)

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#173

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:57 AM UTC

_zamorano_ wrote: post #171

rayiner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness rates in the US are lower than many big European countries: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pd... Lower than France, Germany, and the UK, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. Equal to the Netherlands.

I'm European and I've been to several major cities in the US. I've also visited most european capital cities. In both cases, as a tourist, I never go too far away from the popular places and never been there for most than 3 or 4 days. Don't know the reasons (honestly) but the homelessness and poverty I've seen in the US is nowhere to be seen in Europe. I repeat, in "popular" places and vicinity. How do they come out…

> How do they come out with such numbers?

Different countries define and count "homeless" in different ways.

Some places will only count rough sleepers, and they'll do that by once a year sending people out to count people who are sleeping on the streets. This obviously severely undercounts those who are homeless.

Other places will have a definition for "statutorily homeless" which will include people living in bread-and-breakfast style accommodation - emergency short term lodgings funded by the state.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#174

Post by hvidgaard » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:07 AM UTC

jlangenauer wrote: post #172

abiro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mainly for tax reasons: “If you are a homeowner in Switzerland, you have to pay income tax on what is known as its ‘rental value’. The rental value theoretically represents what you as owner would receive if you rented the property to someone else, i.e. what that tenant would pay you in rent. At the same time, you can deduct mortgage interest payments and other costs for the upkeep of the property from your taxa…

Wait, you have to pay income tax on income you could theoretically receive? I'm fascinated to know what possible justification there is for this? (Genuine, not rhetorical question.)

Think of it as a tax just like on land, but for buildings.

The reasoning is that housing represents an asset that should not be bought just for speculation, i.e. buy it and let it sit empty until the price is high enough for the investor to make a good profit. Of course they're free to do just that, but all housing which people can live in, are taxed as if you had that income.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#175

Post by abcpassword » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:07 AM UTC

jlangenauer wrote: post #172

abiro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mainly for tax reasons: “If you are a homeowner in Switzerland, you have to pay income tax on what is known as its ‘rental value’. The rental value theoretically represents what you as owner would receive if you rented the property to someone else, i.e. what that tenant would pay you in rent. At the same time, you can deduct mortgage interest payments and other costs for the upkeep of the property from your taxa…

Wait, you have to pay income tax on income you could theoretically receive? I'm fascinated to know what possible justification there is for this? (Genuine, not rhetorical question.)

[dead]

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#176

Post by nabla9 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:09 AM UTC

trymas wrote: post #169

nabla9 wrote: post #160

US has high average net wealth per capita but is not close to top in median net wealth. Switzerland is close to top in both measures. Median tells how rich the typical person is. United States ranks #22 in median wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...

> United States ranks #22 in median wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... It's off-topic, but could someone explain how is Ukraine last on that list? 40$ for median wealth and ~1.5k$ for mean wealth sounds incredibly low. I knew Ukraine is in not great economic shape, but completely last sounds insane.

Ukraine was dirt poor even before the war and their corruption index was higher than Russia's. Today Ukraine is in war and the most industrialized part of the country (eastern Ukraine) is partially occupied.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#177

Post by ptah » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:11 AM UTC

hartator wrote: post #8

anxrn wrote: post #2

I suspect using the median net assets instead of the average would lead to vastly different results.

Actually the 20% poorest in the US has it better than the average EU middle class. Ref: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-poorest-20...

> high consumption of America’s “poor”

this is actually a huge negative and flips the result on it's head if you look at it from a climate change perspective. EDIT: if they have to consume so much more, surely they are not having it better

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#178

Post by gridlockd » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:17 AM UTC

trymas wrote: post #169

nabla9 wrote: post #160

US has high average net wealth per capita but is not close to top in median net wealth. Switzerland is close to top in both measures. Median tells how rich the typical person is. United States ranks #22 in median wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...

> United States ranks #22 in median wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... It's off-topic, but could someone explain how is Ukraine last on that list? 40$ for median wealth and ~1.5k$ for mean wealth sounds incredibly low. I knew Ukraine is in not great economic shape, but completely last sounds insane.

This measures "wealth", not income. You can be in the top 1% of earners, but if you save nothing, you can still have a net worth of $0.

Apparently, the median Ukrainian has only $40 to their name, by whatever means they measure wealth. However, Ukraine has compulsory socialized retirement funds. Minimum wage is $160/month.

The median US-American supposedly has 60,000$ to their name, which must be mostly due to IRAs.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#179

Post by sincarne » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

jlangenauer wrote: post #172

abiro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mainly for tax reasons: “If you are a homeowner in Switzerland, you have to pay income tax on what is known as its ‘rental value’. The rental value theoretically represents what you as owner would receive if you rented the property to someone else, i.e. what that tenant would pay you in rent. At the same time, you can deduct mortgage interest payments and other costs for the upkeep of the property from your taxa…

Wait, you have to pay income tax on income you could theoretically receive? I'm fascinated to know what possible justification there is for this? (Genuine, not rhetorical question.)

It's just a different way of calculating property taxes. Most countries use the theoretical resale value of your property.

Re: US takes 'richest nation on earth' crown from Switzerland

#180

Post by nwellnhof » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:19 AM UTC

jlangenauer wrote: post #172

abiro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s mainly for tax reasons: “If you are a homeowner in Switzerland, you have to pay income tax on what is known as its ‘rental value’. The rental value theoretically represents what you as owner would receive if you rented the property to someone else, i.e. what that tenant would pay you in rent. At the same time, you can deduct mortgage interest payments and other costs for the upkeep of the property from your taxa…

Wait, you have to pay income tax on income you could theoretically receive? I'm fascinated to know what possible justification there is for this? (Genuine, not rhetorical question.)

It's simply a fairer way of taxation. Suppose that you own a house that you rent out and live in another house for rent. Then you obviously have to pay taxes on rental income. If you live in a house that you own, you don't have to pay taxes in most countries, although your financial situation is basically the same.