Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

theloop.ecpr.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#131

Post by TheCoelacanth »

yakubin wrote: post #127
droopyEyelids wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government defines how wealth works, what property is, and how people relate to and may benefit from it.

That’s settled by law, not by the actions of the current government. If you want to pin down the source of how the wealthy can retain their wealth, that would be the courts and broader law enforcement. So going this way the wealthy would contribute more to the justice system, while they wouldn’t pay as much for public education, health services, and social welfare? Doesn’t seem like something anyone would want.

How would law get enforced without taxes?

Clearly the wealthier you are, the more benefit you are getting from taxes because the government stops everyone else from taking your wealth.

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#132

Post by the_third_wave »

anon4242 wrote: post #74
the_third_wave wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has been going on for decades in the Netherlands, I bought a (newly built) home in 1996 when the country still used the Dutch Guilder and sold it for the same amount in €uros in 2002. One Euro translates to 2.21 Guilders, i.e. the house sold for more than double the price in 6 years time. For what I got for a relatively modest semidetached house on 220 m² of land in the Netherlands I could buy a 22 hectare farm…

Sweden is a pretty sparsely populated large country and there's quite a wide range of property prizes reflecting this. In denser areas the prizes are probably more akin to those in the Netherlands. Just took a quick look at hemnet.se and right now you could get a farm for anything between ~30,000€ to ~10,000,000€.

Sweden also has most of its population live below the Uppsala - Karlstad line, i.e. in the lower third of the country. Then there is the fact that good arable land and productive forest comes with a premium here. Our farm has both of that, lies between Vänern (the big lake) and Göteborg (the second biggest city in Sweden) in Västra Götaland, not somewhere out in Norrland. The fact stands that real estate in the Netherlands is vastly overvalued compared to most of Sweden - although prices in Stockholm and Göteborg and some other cities also have risen to questionable levels.

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#133

Post by droopyEyelids »

yakubin wrote: post #127
droopyEyelids wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government defines how wealth works, what property is, and how people relate to and may benefit from it.

That’s settled by law, not by the actions of the current government. If you want to pin down the source of how the wealthy can retain their wealth, that would be the courts and broader law enforcement. So going this way the wealthy would contribute more to the justice system, while they wouldn’t pay as much for public education, health services, and social welfare? Doesn’t seem like something anyone would want.

In your system, courts and law are not part of the government?

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#134

Post by the_third_wave »

Ekaros wrote: post #117
anon4242 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden is a pretty sparsely populated large country and there's quite a wide range of property prizes reflecting this. In denser areas the prizes are probably more akin to those in the Netherlands. Just took a quick look at hemnet.se and right now you could get a farm for anything between ~30,000€ to ~10,000,000€.

Also Sweden like Finland is quite long country. And when you go north the value of land really drops as productivity drops specially when you get to beyond artic circle.

This is true but not relevant in this case given where I live, Västra Götaland in the west of the country. Farmland and productive forest come with a premium here.

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#135

Post by bigpeopleareold »

> If we consider consumer credit, the welfare-debt theory makes sense again. While consumer credit is more the exception than the norm in Europe, and almost absent in the Nordic countries, it is common in Anglo-liberal countries (UK, US and Canada) where it is used by families as a substitute for poor welfare provision.

Hmm - in Norway here, it's common to see advertising for credit (lots for fixed unsecured loans.) Basically all the grocery store chains except one have their own loyalty credit card. I never watched an episode, but there is a show called Luksusfelle which tries to help people reform their out-of-control finances - I think more than once, credit cards were mentioned. I mean, it's not like the US and the regulatory environment is more consumer-friendly than the US, but I cannot imagine it as non-existent as it is said here.

I am not being coldly statistical here, but it really doesn't match up with a lot of the anecdotal experiences I have.

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#136

Post by bigpeopleareold »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #95
kevmo wrote: post #11

"Debt, n. An ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slavedriver." - Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary

Oh, yeah, those poor enslaved Nordics. They've got it so rough. Definitely in the bottom 200 countries in the world.

Yet, wherever you are, the worst kind of debt is a real drag once you realize you were not so smart with some spending :/

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#137

Post by yakubin »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #133
yakubin wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s settled by law, not by the actions of the current government. If you want to pin down the source of how the wealthy can retain their wealth, that would be the courts and broader law enforcement. So going this way the wealthy would contribute more to the justice system, while they wouldn’t pay as much for public education, health services, and social welfare? Doesn’t seem like something anyone would want.

In your system, courts and law are not part of the government?

No? Government is the people currently elected. Nothing to do with courts. And law was decided by previous governments. Giving money to the current/future government to create new law which you like is called lobbying, or bribing (whatever floats your boat).

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#138

Post by yakubin »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #131
yakubin wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s settled by law, not by the actions of the current government. If you want to pin down the source of how the wealthy can retain their wealth, that would be the courts and broader law enforcement. So going this way the wealthy would contribute more to the justice system, while they wouldn’t pay as much for public education, health services, and social welfare? Doesn’t seem like something anyone would want.

How would law get enforced without taxes? Clearly the wealthier you are, the more benefit you are getting from taxes because the government stops everyone else from taking your wealth.

Yeah, but they don’t benefit from public health services, since they can pay for a private insurance with a higher quality of services. They don’t benefit from social benefits, since they have much more efficient ways of making money. They don’t benefit from public schools personally, since they can send their children to private schools. So if I were to go with the reasoning that people should pay for received services proportionally to the benefit they get from them, I don’t think we’d end up with a system where the rich support the poor better. That’s all because the needs of the poor are very different from the needs of the rich.

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#139

Post by addaon »

robomartin wrote: post #104
B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you own your property it should mean ... that you pay for the necessary law enforcement, justice, defense, etc. Why do you expect those to be free?

Typically a good idea to read the entire post before commenting. I did not say anything about anything having to be free. Since you brought it up. No, they are not free. We have to pay for them. My point is that I should be able to own my paid-off home. The government should not be able to take my property away because of taxes. Payment for the services you mention should have no connection to home ownership. Everyon…

Okay, let's explore this idea.

Suppose you own a home, free and clear, no mortgage, no property taxes.

Once a quarter, you receive a tax bill (calculated in whatever equitable way you prefer) to cover your share of the upkeep of our shared society.

What action do you propose society take if you choose not to pay that bill? There's basically three routes here:

1) Take no action. The quarterly tax system becomes a voluntary system, and those who continue to choose to pay feel more and more bitter towards those who don't.

2) Debtors prison. You owe money to the government, and they are permitted and expected to imprison you until payment is made (which, if you were relying on income for that payment, might pose challenges).

3) Confiscating your real wealth. If you do not voluntarily pay your quarterly tax, the government can compel you to, by taking it in the form of assets you hold.

Our current society has recognized (3) as the least bad option of the above. With your proposed movement to quarterly tax bills, but without a change in this overarching policy… the government will still take your house if you do not pay your taxes, even if those taxes are not "property" taxes and do not scale with the value of the property. What else can they take, in the end?

Re: Why northern Europe is so indebted (2021)

#140

Post by marginalia_nu »

sohtym wrote: post #8

Seems a bit general. Sweden is very much in debt because of the housing market. 15 years ago there were little regulation. You could get a 100 year mortgage with a variable rate and no money down. At the same time the government sold large amounts of public housing at below public market rate. Interest rates went from ~4% to ~1.5%. With no wealth or property taxes, but with tax deductions for renovations and interest…

Interest is also partially tax deductible, has been for ages. It makes no sense at all and has only served to fan the flames of an already overheated housing market. It's mostly lingered because nobody wants to be the one to rip off the band-aid. It would have been a very good opportunity to do it when the interest rates were negative, but still no. And at this point, it would it's inconceivable. Tens of thousands of households would be pushed over the brink.
Post reply on HN