is this an exaggeration

[CosmoLady]

A wide-spread exaggeration at such a scale is fearmongering and therefore never good.
The capital flight was a twelfth of the sum the Guardian had stated (50 billions instead of 600).

No, it was only an ESTIMATE of net worth, not a fact, not a measurement of capital flight.

It's not my fault that you don't know the meaning of English words.

Also the professor quoted said, "those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn."
An estimate which may be true.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly
He did not estimate the tax liability or capital flight in the Guardian article.
The professor had to clarify this for some dense reporters.
Read carefully and learn English please.

It can be difficult to correctly estimate worth/assets, and especially the arbitrary tax liability of assets not income.
Do these belong to the individual or the corporation? Are they domestic, foreign or offshore? Etc. The estimates can fluctuate a lot based on the parameters.

I own (or my business owns) some assets in high-tax environments with wealth taxes, like France and Spain,
and I can legally avoid a wealth tax through (offshore) corporate structures.

From some point on a wealth flight is likely, but this point was not reached with 1,1% of tax on assets.

But clearly the economic decline and capital flight was much larger than that, as the below graph demonstrates lost tax revenue (all taxes). You cannot escape these facts.

Who are the largest taxpayers? The wealthy.
Who are the biggest spenders? The wealthy.
Who are the biggest job creators? The wealthy.

Again: "More than 30 Norwegian billionaires and multimillionaires left Norway in 2022, according to research by the newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv. This was more than the total number of super-rich people who left the country during the previous 13 years, it added. Even more super-rich individuals are expected to leave this year because of the increase in wealth tax in November, costing the government tens of millions in lost tax receipts [overall tens of BILLIONS, not tens of millions]."

[#Oda#]

No, it was only an ESTIMATE of net worth, not a fact, not a measurement of capital flight.

I'm still waiting for examples of "tons of wrong facts".

Holy shit, Cosmo.

Yes, I knew it was an ESTIMATE - a very wrong estimate you helped spreading, like often, and as to your question: Just take every second source you post. Or third.

If I read more, I'll answer and this won't come to an end. We are running in a circle anyway already - you repeated yourself and I did after it, if you have noticed that.

Maybe you overlooked what I wrote yesterday and I was serious about it: „It's not the thread theme and not a main interest of me, so Iet's agree on disagree (as always). “

[CosmoLady]

Holy shit, Cosmo.

Yes, I knew it was an ESTIMATE - a very wrong estimate you helped spreading, like often

I did not quote "a wrong estimate", you did.

The Guardian never predicted how much the state of Norway would lose, except from 1 taxpayer. Learn to read.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly

Again, do not discuss if you are unable to read English or use a translator.

And stop using profanities, it's toxic and abusive. The 2nd time in a discussion about economics, lol.

In fact, despite increasing taxes, Norway's leftist policies have cost the state tens of BILLIONS not millions in lost tax revenue.

[#Oda#]

I did not quote "a wrong estimate", you did.

Hä?
You gave the Guardian source.
I corrected the Guardian source, respectively its improper numbers.

The Guardian never predicted how much the state of Norway would lose, except from 1 taxpayer. Learn to read.

I already posted this. I give it again since it‘s seemingly YOU being illiterate:

„The Guardian’s calculations are based on incorrect figures. In fact, some billionaires moved out of Norway after the increase, accompanied by a lot of publicity. Researchers and advocates of the tax also expected this beforehand. In forecasts about taxes on movable assets, a certain amount of tax refusal is usually taken into account.
But the Guardian asked a Norwegian lawyer and professor of tax law to assess the assets being taken away. He had estimated the affected assets at 600 billion crowns. As it turned out, that was many times too high - in the end it was less than 50 billion crowns. The Guardian has adopted its figures."

I‘m starting to ask myself: Are you sometimes really stupid and/or do not read correctly, or do you pretend it in order to create the opportunities to become offending?

[CosmoLady]

Hä?
You gave the Guardian source.
I corrected the Guardian source, respectively its improper numbers.




I already posted this. I give it again since it‘s seemingly YOU being illiterate:

„The Guardian’s calculations are based on incorrect figures. In fact, some billionaires moved out of Norway after the increase, accompanied by a lot of publicity. Researchers and advocates of the tax also expected this beforehand. In forecasts about taxes on movable assets, a certain amount of tax refusal is usually taken into account.
But the Guardian asked a Norwegian lawyer and professor of tax law to assess the assets being taken away. He had estimated the affected assets at 600 billion crowns. As it turned out, that was many times too high - in the end it was less than 50 billion crowns. The Guardian has adopted its figures."

I‘m starting to ask myself: Are you sometimes really stupid and/or do not read correctly, or do you pretend it in order to create the opportunities to become offending?

Everything you quoted was not in my Guardian article.

600 billion is merely an estimate of net worth, NOT "assets being taken away" or "affected assets" or "losses".

Learn to read.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly

Where does it say in my article that "the state would have a loss of 540 million?" Or 50 million? I'm waiting.

The Guardian predicted that the State of Norway would have a loss of 540 millions due to the flight of the superrich, resulting from that increased wealth tax, instead of the expected 130 millions of additional income.

From some point of tax increase on a wealth flight is likely, but that point was apparently not reached with 1,1%.
The fiscal revenues by wealth tax have grown by 0,86 billions Euro during the years of 2022 and 2023 taken together, which is a growth of 55%.

The number of superrich that would flee the country was estimated too high and thus the assumed loss of a fortune of 600 billions. In the end it were not quite 50 billions leaving the country.

Capital gains tax and other taxes and their effects, you wrote about, were not my topic.

[#Oda#]

Everything you quoted was not in my Guardian article. Show me where it says "540 million" in my article. I'm waiting.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly


Maybe you are referring to a different Guardian article that I did not quote?

directly pasted from YOUR Guardian article:
"Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, said he estimated that those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn."

which is what I stated (600) besides the other number (540).

[CosmoLady]

directly pasted from YOUR Guardian article:
"Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, said he estimated that those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn."

which is what I stated (600) besides the other number (540).

Yes, combined fortune, net worth as I said. Where are capital flight and tax liability estimated in my article? I'm waiting.
(And I'm not sure where you got 540 from)

Tax liability is NOT estimated, except for 1 individual (175 million), who has a net worth of 1.5 billion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly

Where does it say "assets being taken away" or "affected assets" in my article?
Are those assets local/national, or global? Are they owned as part of a foreign corporate structure?
We don't know if the assets are affected. And we don't know how the net worth was calculated.

Hä?
You gave the Guardian source.
I corrected the Guardian source, respectively its improper numbers.




I already posted this. I give it again since it‘s seemingly YOU being illiterate:

„The Guardian’s calculations are based on incorrect figures. In fact, some billionaires moved out of Norway after the increase, accompanied by a lot of publicity. Researchers and advocates of the tax also expected this beforehand. In forecasts about taxes on movable assets, a certain amount of tax refusal is usually taken into account.
But the Guardian asked a Norwegian lawyer and professor of tax law to assess the assets being taken away. He had estimated the affected assets at 600 billion crowns. As it turned out, that was many times too high - in the end it was less than 50 billion crowns. The Guardian has adopted its figures."

I‘m starting to ask myself: Are you sometimes really stupid and/or do not read correctly, or do you pretend it in order to create the opportunities to become offending?

[#Oda#]

Yes, combined fortune, net worth as I said. Where are capital flight and tax liability estimated in my article? I'm waiting.

My crucial point was not what but how much, in other words, the difference between the real sum and the sum claimed in the Guardian, superseded by reality. The difference is 1:12, which is huge.
A subitem was that the loss caused by moved out billionaires did not result in a net loss of the measure leading to the move out (the wealth tax) as the Guardian predicted respectively other sources concluded due to the Guardian content.

(And I'm not sure where you got 540 from)

The 540 millions can only be the 600 billions NOK converted in EURO and rounded.

Where does it say "assets being taken away" or "affected assets" in my article?
Are those assets local/national, or global? Are they owned as part of a foreign corporate structure?
We don't know if the assets are affected. And we don't know how the net worth was calculated.

The phrase my source used when referring to the 600 billions was „removed assets“. The German linguistic context allows two interpretations, leaving open if the sum referred to the combined fortune of future moved out billionaires, or the moved out fortune, which is what I chose after first reading since making more sense linguistically.

I hope the circumstance is clarified now after pages.

[CosmoLady]

My crucial point was not what but how much, in other words, the difference between the real sum and the sum claimed in the Guardian, superseded by reality. The difference is 1:12, which is huge.
A subitem was that the loss caused by moved out billionaires did not result in a net loss of the measure leading to the move out (the wealth tax) as the Guardian predicted respectively other sources concluded due to the Guardian content.

You totally misunderstood and misread the article.

The Guardian never made an estimate on the amount of capital flight or the amount of lost tax revenue.
Except for 1 individual. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly

The Guardian only estimated net worth.

You failed at reading comprehension, comically, because you were eagerly searching for something to fact check.

The phrase my source used when referring to the 600 billions was „removed assets“. The German linguistic context allows two interpretations, leaving open if the sum referred to the combined fortune of future moved out billionaires, or the moved out fortune, which is what I chose after first reading since making more sense linguistically.

I hope the circumstance is clarified now after pages.

The article is in English. The dumbest debates on TA are with people who do not understand English.

Stick to reading and debating German material only please.

The 540 millions can only be the 600 billions NOK converted in EURO and rounded.

No, 1 EUR = 11.79 NOK currently. The NOK has also lost value since 2022.

You are confusing billions and millions, adding even more to your economic confusion, and there is no 540 quoted in the Guardian article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rises-slightly

This is not in the article,
but we can see that the net loss in tax revenue was tens of billions though, from economic decline and capital flight.

[#Oda#]

You totally misunderstood and misread the article.
The Guardian never made an estimate on the amount of capital flight or the amount of lost tax revenue.

Guardian: „… those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn.“
= equivalent to
#Oda#: „… the sum referred to the combined fortune of ... moved out billionaires, or the moved out fortune ...“

"tax revenue": This is why I wrote: "... other sources concluded due to the Guardian content."

You are confusing billions and millions...

As to the 540 millions I wasn‘t sure if this was related to the assets or to the wealth tax since confusing because of different currencies as well as in text. After a quick conversion I related it to the assets, but yes, EURO 540 millions aren‘t NOK 600 billions, but 6 billions rounded down; this was an oversight, meaning that the number of 540 millions, given in other sources based on the Guardian research, referred indeed to the wealth tax loss, that didn‘t come true, in opposite.