Hacker News Reader

Comment by dustintrex | Hacker News Reader

It isn't though: tax returns are public in Sweden and Finland too.

I’m Sweden at least, it requires a little bit of hoop jumping and has prompted several grey zone companies to spring up.

The companies get a publishing license, effectively giving them the same free speech protection as the press. They then request all the information from the government and offer it in a easy UI, for a nominal charge of course.

If it's really public in those places could you please cite the leaders of each countries tax returns with a direct link?

In Finland newspapers get the data and run their own search engines of the highest earners. For example:

https://verokone.hs.fi/

In Finland, to stop a free for all of 'nosy parkers' you have to physically visit a tax office to view the information. This results in a few newspaper reports of the biggest payers around the time the information is released (https://yle.fi/news/3-12181764) and then everyone looses interest.

https://www.vero.fi/en/About-us/finnish-tax-administration/d...

This used to be exactly how it was in Norway too.

It changed when internet got popular and everything was dumped online with no restrictions for a few years until people realised how much more invasive that got than the prior system, so now you have to log in and people can see whether or not their name has been looked up if you do it online.

How do rich people who aren't yet filthy-rich enough to have their own bodyguards deal with personal security in these places?

In the US, if you hypothetically had, say, $10M net worth, you'd be best to not let anyone know, and stay under the radar.

If you have a billion then it doesn't matter, go all out and hire your own 24/7 security team.

They start to move abroad. Seriously. Violent crime such as robbery at gunpoint in your own home, car jackings etc is an increasing problem which worry many in Sweden. It is perhaps not common but is increasing with a worrying pace.

That seems like such a middle class worry. I don’t see how people with tens of millions of USD (or equivalent of course) are more susceptible to opportunistic crimes like robberies and car jackings. If anything they are less susceptible since they can move to nicer places.

The question was, how do they act? And perhaps you have missed that discussion.

A US congresswoman was carjacked last week in Philly

Wouldn't even need to be that much, some people have been amazed that my 401k is a bit over the recommended amount for my age and income.

I mean to be fair 400k is pretty squarely middle class for a developed country. Not exactly a big target.

You make sure crime doesn't pay. Simple as that. Countries with kidnapping are ones with very porous policing. You can go into any affluent neighborhood in the USA and see people worth 10m plus walking around with no bodyguards.

Key word there is neighborhood. Even in the Midwest US there can be very 'safe' neighborhoods right next to very unsafe ones, and the difference in the police resources from one block to the next is palpable.

Forcing construction of mixed income neighborhoods (much like forced busing of students) very quickly improves schooling and policing outcomes, though sadly more affluent folks often move out soon thereafter.

These used to be virtually crime-free countries. My sister lived in central Sweden for a year, coming from another EU country, and was genuinely shocked how crime was effectively an alien concept to the locals. And that was an university town, accepting international students for a long while. Unfortunately this seems to have badly changed over the last decade, according to my sister in law who lives in southern Sweden. The nation is also having a hard time adjusting to this new reality.

I live in Scandinavia. I refuse to believe that Scandinavia was ever virtually crime free. Anti-social behavior has always existed (also here).

May be localised bubbles. But both experiences are genuine. Note that what I mean by crime is "actual threat to anyone's safety", not "kids throwing a TV out of a window when moving out" (which apparently was a local student tradition and definitely an anti-social behaviour).

Especially the particular suburb of Stockholm has very quickly found itself in free-fall from "nothing bad ever happened here" to "you should not walk alone after dark".

"Sweden has for at least six years been struggling with a tide of gang violence that has contributed to its shift from one of the safest countries in the world to among Europe’s most violent. Last year, there were at least 342 shootings resulting in 46 deaths (up from 25 shootings in 2015), along with dozens of bombings"

-- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/arts/music/einar-sweden-r...

So a 1268% increase in "anti-social behavior" since 2015.

Being one of the safest is not the same as being crime free.

Well it sounds like crime has greatly increased in Scandavia. Has that affected you at all?

Obviously there has been a massive increase in violent crime, I guess you live somewhere that you are protected from that?

I have not been personally affected, no.

Basically, your spending behavior and the location of your house gives you away when you are that rich. People with disposable income live in nice places, drive nice cars, wear expensive clothes, and frequent expensive restaurants In the US figuring out who has money and who hasn't is not rocket science. Most ad companies are actually very good at profiling users and their incomes. Public tax information would just confirm the obvious.

Personal security in countries with low crime and murder rates like Norway and Finland is pretty easy. They are very safe countries. E.g. kidnappings are very rare there and nobody carries cash anymore because they are also modern countries. So, the opportunities for robbers and thieves are limited to non cash items.

> Basically, your spending behavior and the location of your house gives you away when you are that rich

It doesn't have to though. That's a choice. Heck I know people with likely >10M net worth that are still living with roommates.

> nobody carries cash anymore

But if they know you have $10M, they could kidnap your spouse on the way to work, and children on their way to school, for a $1M ransom in bitcoin?

Something that's more easily avoided if they don't have a price tag associated with your face in a publicly-viewable database.

There are of course exceptions but mostly finding wealthy targets to rob or kidnap is not an issue for criminals. I'd argue that the opposite is a bigger issue for criminals in the US: plenty of people pretending to be rich that are deep in debt.

Finland and Norway have plenty of rich people walking around without protection and completely unarmed. Kidnappings are not a regular thing in those countries nor are they getting robbed regularly. They might install burglar alarms on their properties though.

There’s a huge observational bias there, though. Its easy to spot the ostentatious high income earners, and those living far beyond their means.

I don’t really see how this is a problem unless you hide your money in your mattress.

The emergence of modern states happened with the industrial revolution and the ascendence of the bourgeoisie. The original point of this centralization of power—although some are now a bit more egalitarian—is to protect private property and the interests of those who own it. And by that I of course mean the rich.

You should read the article because it talks about the distinctions between those three countries very clearly.

> In Sweden and Finland, people can find out about anyone else’s tax returns just by making a phone call, but Norway is the only country where you can just look up that information on a government website.

You can also visit the closest Skatteverket and use their computers, I used to do it as a kid...

Oh and you dont have to speak to anyone or identify yourself to do it either.

Anyone who is a contractor - working through a personal service company - effectively makes their tax returns public in the UK as well.

And italy?

And a terrible idea.

Why?

Just the other day, there was a thread on HN about how terrible it was that employers could look at a candidate's salary history before making an offer.

For a lot of state/government employees in the USA, salaries are public record. It's not really that uncommon.

Yeah, that kinda sounds bad, but then again, if your salary is below what you should deserve, you just change jobs again with a higher salary request.

In the US job changes aren't trivial. Health plans impact provider networks and coverage. In some areas employers demand in office with which reduces the pool of available employers.

In Norway, this is normally asked during the interview. If the employeer would look up your tax returns, you’d be notified of it and, at least for me, it would be such a huge red flag that I would almost unconditionally decline an offer.

Couldn't they just buy the data from companies that scrape it and sell access more discretely?

You need to login with your BankID (national auth provider) which is bound to your personal id number, and which is illegal to use for machine access, so no.

I'm torn on the subject, for one I think the transparancy is good, especially when viewed in the public sphere, but on the other hand, like HN mentioned: it's bad that the "ladder syndrom" might occur: e.g. one only hops a certain % in salary. On the other hand, one might also view what all the collegues are earning and the "past" wouldn't be a relevant anymore, but rather the merits one might bring to a company. In addition I find tax Returns different from salary history, though for most indeed would be the same. and finally I find it not the same that for the Experian flavor one has to pay to get some info, where the Norway variant is free for all to see.

Doesn't this go both ways?

Employees would have perfect visibility into their peer's (and boss's) salaries and it would be impossible for employers to covertly take advantage of people with less leverage and poor negotiation skills?

I'm confident that https://www.levels.fyi/ would be updated over night with that info if it became available stateside.

In some cases equity and share grants could muddy the waters a bit there (salary isn't everything), but yep, I think that if salary transparency commenced, then total compensation transparency would likely follow shortly afterwards.

There's a meme I've heard that it's difficult for some people to discover that their salaries are lower than their peers. I can understand that, but equally I don't totally understand it as an argument for continuing to pay people less. (it might not be the strongest argument against, it's probably worth finding others too)

The candidate can also grab the business card of a few peers at the company and look at their salaries. The visibility goes both ways.

It's not that easy, because you get the taxable income, and e.g. mortgage interest and other debt interest is a deduction in Norway, so while the taxable income gives an indication it's a very unreliable proxy on the lower end.

I posted this yesterday exactly because of the salaries post. It didn't get lots of attention back then but it seems that the post has gotten some sponsorship from the moderators.

My personal opinion is that it might not have a busting effect on any one activity except journalism, but it might be a stop measure for some politicians and public figures.

Because its a deeply personal piece of information for many people.

Personally, Id rather have my medical history available to the public than my personal wealth or income (and Im loath to give that up!). No one except my wife knows how much I make. In the case of my parents, my mom has never known how much money my dad makes.

They may seem strange to you, it may seem barbaric or backwards. That’s irrelevant - I’m firmly entrenched in this position and wont help you release this data (through my vote, and legal lawsuits, clearly).

You can’t dismiss me as an eccentric American behind the more enlightened Europeans - Im not American, I am and grew up in Europe, I just live in the US.

Nor am I or did I grow up rich. Growing up, my dad whenever my dad was doing the bills he joked he was feeding a blackhole (debt). We never knew how big this hole was, but we knew where it came from - even a hard working engineer has a steep financial hill when you’re from a poor country.

You really must understand ours is a deep seated difference in points of view. My mom has never asked how much my dad made, my dad has yet to tell her. My mom had a vague idea how much she could spend (her guesstimate was very good) my dad never enquired what she spent money on. He himself never spent any money except on us. The result is they never fought over money, the most common marital problem (I guarantee you this. Both my parents would rather be paupers than put money between their relationship - they are both very stoic and devoted to each other). I doubt this would have been the case had my mom ever displayed any interest in money.

So what does making my tax returns or my salary (probably the lowest among my colleagues) publicly available mean to us? It means inviting strangers into our intimate space, more intimate than the fact that I have a rare auto immune disease Ill share with a random person on the internet (anonymized, of course :P ).

You see, there are people who view this information not merely as a means to a more just society (whatever that means anymore) but as a very intimate part of their family life. Just because some cannot see that doesn’t mean it isn't real.

Why consider it intimate data?

Fear it will cause spousal resentment, impact future offers, being targeted by gold diggers or grifters? Wealth tied to identity?

Did you read the comment you are replying to? The answer to your question is literally the entire content of the comment.

Maybe I'm just dense but it wasn't clear the motivation for keeping the info secret. It seems implied that fear of spousal conflict was involved.

I see. Sorry for my snark. My understanding was that they feel money has a deeply corrupting influence on relationships, and credits the strength of their parents marriage with the fact that they both made a clear effort to avoid taking about money (while still being responsible with it). I don’t think that they are saying that making tax returns public will directly cause more spousal conflict, but it will cause more general corruption of relationships across the board.

I can certainly see that. In my experience, there are very few people who respond appropriately when they learn what someone makes. Rarely is it: “oh, good for them, anyway, moving on …” Most of the time, it’s unhelpful and toxic commentary about whether the person is overpaid/spoiled/poor with money/a sucker or whatever depending on their circumstances. I wish it wasn’t that way but that has been my experience.

To summarize my comment, because something as mundane as money is more likely to enter (and therefore effect) into my relationships with others when we know how much we make.

Its hard to be friends with someone who you know makes twice (or half) what you make. But there are many people who I think are cool and would want to have a relationship with that make a lot more/less than I.

Thats also a reason why modesty in our behavior is important - the wealthier person in a relationship shouldn't keep proposing things that are financially difficult for the other

That has not been my experience. As a state employee in California, my salary is a matter of public record and has been for years. I have no idea who has looked up my salary, so I don't know what impact it's had on my friendships, etc.

It can give extortionists / kidnappers a nice list of potential targets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com