Item — HN Reader

Yeah, bad example. But it really doesn't change the point. Companies skirt out of the US for tax reasons too. Did innovation happen in Sweden? Yes. Is Sweden suffering from the loss of rich people who don't want high taxes. Not at all. It's a richer country than America, for starters, the range of social services is amazing, you can walk home at 2am and not be afraid, etc.

And I disagree about the article. Think about it: most people are roughly the same. If they really have similar starting points, they'll generally have similar ending points. Again, Slovakia doesn't "soak the rich". It's about providing the mechanisms to avoid the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. It's about providing the tools for true economic and social mobility. That used to be the American dream; now it's only a dream since the reality is quite different.

2 comments

It doesn't change your claim, but it now means you're down from 1 to 0 pieces of evidence for it. If people start lots of startups in Sweden despite the high taxes, what are they?

I don't think most people are the same. And that is a topic I know a lot about, since I am in the business of trying to identify the exceptional ones. I think the distribution of ambition follows a power law, like the distribution of any talent. So if you give people equal opportunity, you'll have a power law distribution of wealth.

Ah, but in a way it was a great example, because while the innovation still happened in Sweden (regardless of the tax base now), it was real innovation, disruptive and tectonic shifting. Whereas 99% of the stuff that comes out of the valley is cotton candy that wouldn't be missed if it went away tomorrow. There it's about "make something people want," not "make something people need."

In fact, it's a bit like the film industry. Yes, most films in the cinemas of the world are American films. And most of these are fun amusement despite being idiotic. But I wouldn't make the statement that the fact that "Angels & Demons" is an American film is an indicator that America is on the right track, and that's exactly what you seem to be saying: Twitter and Facebook are American companies, so America is on the right track. I know you're a Web 2.0 VC, and you see the world through such goggles, but I don't think it's a standard indicator of a functional, healthy society.

As for your second statement, sure, Bratislava has its millionaires. Wealth distribution is always power law to some extent (but not because of people, but because certain talent aspects are always more heavily rewarded depending on the culture, time period, etc). What I'm talking about is exacerbating that. A good example is the Ivy League system, which takes very bright kids and very rich kids and mixes them up and gives them both the same degree. Again, it's about mechanisms that make the rich richer and poor poorer and eliminating those to whatever degree possible.

I'm curious. What "disruptive and tectonic shifting" developments have come out of Sweden?

Skype

IKEA.

And if you don't think it was disruptive and tectonic shifting, you're kidding yourself.

> you can walk home at 2am and not be afraid, etc.

As can the vast majority of Americans.

And, you're ignoring the parts of sweden where "certain folks" can't even visit.

> Again, Slovakia doesn't "soak the rich".

The US equality advocates argue against flat taxes like Slovakia's. They argue for "soak the rich".

Perhaps their efforts are actually contributing to inequality....

There are no "bad" parts of Bratislava. There are massive "bad" parts of the Bay Area. There are even larger "bad" parts of Rio. The more bifurcated the wealth, the more you have the gated communities and the unwashed masses.

About the flat tax, that is definitely interesting. I think most tax systems are horribly broken. Buffet recently complained that he paid less in taxes than his housecleaner. I think he's a great man for saying that, and it's truly atrocious. Something has to be done.

> There are massive "bad" parts of the Bay Area.

Actually, they're not as big as you might think. The problem is that outsiders can't tell the difference between bad and poor.

There's a rather interesting "crime map" of Chicago that shows that violent crime is incredibly concentrated. (An interesting fraction of the total murders occurred within the equivalent of a couple of blocks) In other words, "bad areas" are mostly just poor.

Buffet lobbies for a tax that puts money in his pocket. He's arranged so his estate will not pay that tax.

He also lobbies for accounting changes that make companies that rely on stock options seem less attractive to investors.

No one is stopping him from paying more tax....

Buffet strikes me as a pull-up-the-rope-behind-him kind of guy.

Outsiders? I'm from northern California and lived and worked for years in Oakland. Maybe it wasn't as bad as we thought, but there were definitely areas that you "knew" not be in after dark.

And there are no such places in Bratislava. There is essentially no violent crime. There's no fear. It's a big difference, and every American I know who has moved to Europe talks about the difference.

> Outsiders? I'm from northern California and lived and worked for years in Oakland. Maybe it wasn't as bad as we thought, but there were definitely areas that you "knew" not be in after dark.

Yes, outsiders. Let me guess, you lived in a nice area of Oakland. What makes you think that you know anything useful about the poor areas of Oakland? (I lived in them when I was a kid.)

There's also "bad for whom?"

The basic problem in Rio is that the lower classes reproduce at a far greater rate than the middle class. Every year, the Favelas grow larger and larger, and the habitable areas shrink ever smaller. What kind of policy would you recommend to fix this? Is it the responsibility of the middle and upper classes to support the fertility of the lower classes?

As for Buffet, who do you think will spend $50 billion in a more socially productive way: United States Government or the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation?

What are the bad parts of the bay area? It's probably the biggest metro area with the fewest and smallest bad parts in the country.

There's Richmond, Hunter's Point / Bayview, West Oakland, parts of Hayward and... ?