In 2022, Norway increased their wealth tax to 1.1%. In response, some high profile billionaires moved out of the country. According to a viral claim, this resulted in a net loss of revenue. Is this true?
No. Over the next two years, wealth tax revenue soared to all time highs.
To understand how the false claim came about, here is the original source calculation. It is reasonable enough napkin math, where it went wrong was in using the Guardian's claim that the net worth of emigrants was $54B USD
Bloomberg/Fortune cited $4.3 billion instead, and I've been able to track down the source from a Q&A with the Norwegian Minister of Finance confirming that this is the correct number:
If you do the rough math from the original post, but plug in the verified $4.3 billion number rather than the $54 billion claim, you get a net gain of about $100 million rather than a loss of $448 million. Contrary to the original claim, Norway is on the left of the laffer curve.
Source for the chart in the first tweet is this report from a free market oriented think tank in Norway. Also thanks to @BertAW_Russell for help navigating Norwegian stats civita-no.translate.goog/notat/eierbesk…
This comports with more careful academic studies of wealth taxation and migration. This paper finds that while there was some effect from a similar wealth tax in Sweden, it was statistically quite small, and thus well below the peak of the laffer curve nber.org/papers/w32153
The whole thing has been an interesting case study in how bad information spreads. A year after the original post, a company that helps people evade taxes made this nice graphic and article repeating the false claims without citing the original tweet
From there it has gone viral countless times, often without citing any sources at all. Most recently, Elon boosted it by replying to an unusual_whales post based on the same confusion
The blog post by the tax avoidance company even got indexed by google AI and served in search, providing legitimacy to the claim of lost revenue despite that specific claim never appearing in the mainstream press coverage of the issue
@ArthurBoreman Basically, it doesn’t clarify things to look at overall revenue, because it’s confounded by volatile oil prices that make up a big part of Norway’s tax base. But revenue is still higher now than before.
One response to this has been to claim overall tax revenue is down (chart 1). But this is misleading. If you zoom out (chart 2), you see that overall revenue is actually still higher now than pre-wealth tax increase. There was a peak in 2022 primarily due to oil prices (chart 3).
We will need more data to do a careful analysis of causal impacts on overall revenue. Luckily we do have the Swedish study cited up thread, which considers all taxes, not just the wealth tax, and confirms net revenue gain.
Source for previous tweet: ceicdata.com/en/indicator/n…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In general, people who think most economists are communists can be safely ignored, because they’re clearly bad at processing information about the world
Actual empirical evidence suggests that while some people do move as a result of wealth taxes, it is such a small response that it has very little impact, and typical rates are well below the peak of the laffer curve (Swedish wealth tax in 2007 was higher than Norway today)
This misleading talking point has been going around a lot lately, so here's a thread on all the issues with it: 1. It ignores a majority of taxes in the US 2. Doesn't take into account inequality in the distribution of income 3. Skewed by our use of tax credits instead of welfare
First, there are a lot of taxes in the US. The federal personal income tax (which this stat is based on) is only half of federal revenue, and then there are state income, sales taxes etc. Cherry picking the most progressive and ignoring the rest does not paint the full picture
As an aside, the original tweet got the talking point wrong. In 2019, the top 1% paid 38.8% of federal personal income taxes, not 50%. So what happens when you include all US taxes? It goes down to 24.1% itep.org/who-pays-taxes…
Scott Winship seems genuinely confused here. There is no economic opportunity cost to universal programs relative to equivalent means-tested programs. He's the one who seems to think there's a free lunch to be had by moving a tax to a different agency
One good point he makes, which despite an improving discourse still gets forgotten, is that universal programs have more options than to just replicate a tax identical to a means-test. There's no means-test equivilent to a VAT or a flat income tax that hits all incomes equally
I think there should be abundant access to bananas under socialism
It's kind of funny a lot of left discourse assumes workers in the global north would necessarily be hurt by improved labor rights in the global south. That may be true in certain cases, but in the long run I actually don't think it's the case (see: Trade Wars Are Class Wars)
And it's easy to forget that container ships are a modern miracle that are extremely low carbon. The type of food you eat matters much more than the distance it travels for carbon emissions.