The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence.
“It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount.”
That’s their argument high taxes don’t drive people elsewhere?
Indeed, unlike say, California whose high taxes have helped create a robust electrical infrastructure which hasn’t randomly started fires destroying entire towns (and killing dozens) and doesn’t have rolling blackouts each summer.
Texas has other even more terrifying fragilities that I'm not going to get specific on, because they're that scary and I don't want to give crazy people ideas.
Texas property taxes are insanely high, I would would consider moving to be closer to family, but I am pretty averse to the annual taxes at the properties that would appeal to me there (10k - 20k annual taxes).
No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country of residence because absurd tax rates. I'm a productive member of society and high earner but I'm starting to loose faith in my institutions. If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, that's what they do. Only the people that don't have the means to leave stay creating a particular nasty downward spiral of people without jobs and home ownership dependent on government subsidies.
> If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave,
Well sure. But that's probably true of "fail your responsibilities" regardless of tax rate. Nobody wants to live in a state without a well-functioning government.
N=1 isn't an argument either. I'm simply saying what a lot of people in my situation also thinks. It's just sensible that you don't stay because you like paying taxes. You stay where you are because of family and friends. To say that it doesn't influence people decision is deceiving.
Where is your country of residence? What is your effective tax rate? (Please don't tell me about your top marginal rate -- that is nonsense unless you have a enormous taxable income.) What do you think is the "correct" tax rate for your income level?
Sweden, the way I think we should look at it is the discrepancy between what my employer is paying me and what I receive in my bank account.
That's 51.8% of what I make. That is the government is taking just slightly more than half of everything I earn.
In order to answer what I think is reasonable to pay in tax, we need to look at what the Swedish government spends it's money on. Core infrastructure, health care, school, police etc. This is about 30% of the current government spending. That is frightening to me. I'd be happy to pay less in tax, frankly I want to pay as little as possible but Sweden has this huge government apparatus and it's growing by the day with all kinds of more or less non-essential government arms. I could go into details but I won't right now. I just don't want to finance a lot of this with my money.
It won't be possible any time soon but I'd love to see my tax rate cut in half and given the spending of our governments it should be possible but only if we make it a priority.
Are you a Swedish national or a high income foreigner? If #2, I strongly encourage you to stop complaining and leave soon. Sweden is a highly advanced democracy. This tax rate has been confirmed by numerous, fairly elected governments. The result of this policy is very low income equality and very strong social safety net.
I can assure you that an effective tax rate of 25% would result in much higher income inequality, and much weaker social safety net. Is this the society that you want?
It's sounds like you'd be interested to live in my country (born and raised here, I'm almost 40 now and have two kids, happily married etc) but I don't think you know all too much about Sweden. And if you really want to know, ask away, I will answer as truthfully as I can.
The tax rate hasn't always been this high. It's basically the result of government overreach over the past 100 years. I don't think you need to take more than 25% to provide essential services but I also expect people to pay more for the services that they use. I want people to allocate capital more so that the government.
Right now, Sweden has a serious immigration problem. 2 million new people over that past 20 years, a lot of them from radically different cultures. Our social welfare is being used to support these people and they aren't able to contribute back. This is a net drain on our economy and I'm not super happy about that. The studies we have show that these people don't integrate and don't generate tax revenue. And I'm not paying these taxes for their benefit, I'm paying these taxes to build a better future for my kids.
For the longest time, the lie that was being told was that it be a huge asset and opportunity for Sweden and it could have turned out this way, Sweden has had successful immigration in the past but it didn't turn out this way this time.
You talk about progressive taxation and income inequality but people forget that you need a healthy economy as well. You can't just tax everybody and expect equality.
Despite everything you think you may know about Sweden, we have the most gun violence and the most rape in Europe. The Swedish police can't be bothered with solving all the rape because of all the killings.
We have an energy crisis because environmentalists wants to shut down our nuclear reactors (50% of our energy production) and replace it with wind whit cannot work short term or during winter.
I will stop here. At some point Sweden did deserve it's reputation but this country is living on old merits. There's so much crap going on right now that I will take my chances. At least in a free and open society I'd be able to make a bigger impact myself.
Zero trolling: Did you ever consider relocation? Nothing radical: How about Norway, Denmark, or Finland? I've heard there is lots of language overlap with Norway and Denmark. And Finland has lots of respect for Swedish speakers given their special minority status (Hello Linus Torvalds!). Maybe the taxes might not be a /lot/ lower, but the social issues might be /different/. Another good point about those three nations: They are all close to home, if you need/want to visit relatives often (in a low carbon manner!).
If you want something radical, I would recommend:
(1) Australia -- very rich (they avoided the 2008 global financial crisis), much less fair than Sweden (but not stupidly so like US/HK/SG), and crazy high quality of life.
(2) New Zealand -- still rich, more fair than AUS, and insanely good nature / food.
Yes, we're spending the summer in Denmark. If we like what we see this is the best option. It all hinges on how this year's election goes. I don't know why I believe we can change but I hope we bring about something new and start fixing problems.
Taxes in the Scandinavian countries are similar but it wouldn't be as frustrating to pay them if everything else was working as intended.
My situation is foobar and I rather go to some place where you as an individual have more freedom and responsibilities. New Zealand sounds nice and warm though.
Texas is 32rd in terms of tax burden, you will prefer it.
>Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am.
That’s an enforcement problem. If you think this doesn’t happen in dense cities, with way more sports carts and way more bars, idk what to tell you.
I’ve literally moved to suburbia to escape the city noise. In my case it was fire engines passing by literally every 10 minutes. That’s normal in a dense “human-scale” city centre, but very rare in the suburbs.
Yes and California where I am just announced a 90 billion dollar tax surplus and I see road and bridges getting fixed all the time. Maybe the rest of the country is falling apart. I don't really know.
- All ponzis look good, until growth stops and the whole thing collapses.
- The towns are being bailed out by the state.
- The fact that you are seeing roads and bridges getting fixed does not mean that poorer cities are. And Strong Towns also shows that the suburbs (even if richer) get subsidized by the city centers.
> The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence.
Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as books:
> Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities.
Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it.
Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative:
> Urban3 is a consulting company that helps cities better understand the economic impact of development. They have worked with many American cities to better understand and visualize the costs of development, and uncover which properties are productive, and which are not. Some municipalities have been willing to share that information, and it has provided a fascinating glimpse into the financial problems caused by sprawling car-centric suburban development.
>Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative
I have no interest in living in shoeboxes.
> This is an accounting and ROI issue.
Nope. Some just think quality of life isn’t about accounting and ROI. Do enjoy your shoebox though.
If you aren’t willing to look at the data, and are admitting you’re closed off to even considering the idea (“I have no interest”), how do you know your head isn’t fully in the sand, or that you’re not part of the problem?
> Some just think quality of life isn’t about accounting and ROI
By disregarding the ROI, the implication is that other people need to live in the "shoeboxes" generating a surplus in order to fund your life choices.
If you want to avoid being a freeloader feel free to calculate the long-term cost of your suburban lifestyle and donate it to your municipality, or move to a rural area on well-water, septic, solar, and dirt roads.
High(er) density does not mean Manhattan and Hong Kong levels of density. 50-100 people per hectare (Hamburg, Paris, Stockholm, London, Brussels) is not crazy high:
Or if taxes need to be raised over and over to keep things in a state of good repair and other services suffer. A growing portion of your income could end up going to taxes with less left over to discretionary spending because the place you're living in made bad financial decisions.
Of course it's a typical growing infestation of mostly single-family-homes, but at least it has some urban core as opposed to the suburbs around it. And when Austin can't grow anymore those suburb-only municipalities will, and the prediction is that their finances will continue to worsen as upkeep costs start to dominate.
NYC public transportation has all the usual problems, but it moves a lot of people who otherwise would not be able to move. (this is basically why it's so "full of crazy people, but it's not a cause it's an effect of the efficiency of NYC)
This is just another piece of luddite alarmism.
Always Remember: the situation is SO DIRE, we had to exempt private jets from the fuel tax. Even billionaires simply can't afford to pay gas taxes, this is how bad things are /s: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j...
Meanwhile the city of Austin debt service is 5% of its budget, and Austin's debt per capita is $1,287.
Some Ponzi.