Two videos on similar subjects showed up in my feed.
What happened when Norway raised taxes on the wealthy?
Money & Macro
June 23, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJttqFCWtQM
Socialists Never Learn
Jacob Rees-Mogg
July 3, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1z-cUMqpk
The taxes imposed by Norway appeared to be a personal property tax on
the properties of its wealthiest citizens, whereas Rees-Mogg is
criticizing Andy Burnham for considering a capital gains tax rate
increase. Both have similar prooblems, even though one is on unrealized
gains and the other is on realized gains.
Norway's wealth tax was in existence for a century. A small business's capital and a new business were not taxed due to unknown market value.
IP and "good will" were not valued for tax purpose. Interestingly,
buildings in business use and single-family homes were exempt, but they
did tax the value of securities and bank accounts. A small rate hike was imposed in 2022.
Norway billionaires are simply off-shoring both their assets and their persons to escape EXIT taxation, in which wealth is taxed at 38% and companies are valued based on the valuation of share transactions i both private and public. They eliminated the rule that shares not sold for 5
years after leaving were not taxed. This is what caused the exodus. The government didn't realize any if the assyne gains in tax revenue.
Rees-Mogg offers an interesting statistic that tax collection levels out
at 38% of GDP because raising taxes so heavily influences behavior.
Again, the higher rate of tax collection won't work.
He drives me crazy and, while I like him very much, I disagree about his politics. I absolutely agree with the description of the problems he
stated for the first 8 minutes, but in proposing his solution --
draatically reduce government spending on social welfare because it's "profitable" to live on the dole gets it very very wrong. He completely ignores his own problem statement that one serious result of raising
taxes on business, and raising capital gains taxes so high that new
business startups are actively discourraged, has the anticipated
consequence of reducing employment and economic activity generally.
If one could eeasily find employment that pays a living wage and support
a family, one would not be on the dole.
On 2026-07-05 1:42 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Two videos on similar subjects showed up in my feed.
What happened when Norway raised taxes on the wealthy?
Money & Macro
June 23, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJttqFCWtQM
Socialists Never Learn
Jacob Rees-Mogg
July 3, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1z-cUMqpk
The taxes imposed by Norway appeared to be a personal property tax on
the properties of its wealthiest citizens, whereas Rees-Mogg is
criticizing Andy Burnham for considering a capital gains tax rate
increase. Both have similar prooblems, even though one is on unrealized >>gains and the other is on realized gains.
Norway's wealth tax was in existence for a century. A small business's >>capital and a new business were not taxed due to unknown market value.
IP and "good will" were not valued for tax purpose. Interestingly, >>buildings in business use and single-family homes were exempt, but they
did tax the value of securities and bank accounts. A small rate hike was >>imposed in 2022.
Norway billionaires are simply off-shoring both their assets and their >>persons to escape EXIT taxation, in which wealth is taxed at 38% and >>companies are valued based on the valuation of share transactions i both >>private and public. They eliminated the rule that shares not sold for 5 >>years after leaving were not taxed. This is what caused the exodus. The >>government didn't realize any if the assyne gains in tax revenue.
Rees-Mogg offers an interesting statistic that tax collection levels out
at 38% of GDP because raising taxes so heavily influences behavior.
Again, the higher rate of tax collection won't work.
He drives me crazy and, while I like him very much, I disagree about his >>politics. I absolutely agree with the description of the problems he
stated for the first 8 minutes, but in proposing his solution -- >>draatically reduce government spending on social welfare because it's >>"profitable" to live on the dole gets it very very wrong. He completely >>ignores his own problem statement that one serious result of raising
taxes on business, and raising capital gains taxes so high that new >>business startups are actively discourraged, has the anticipated >>consequence of reducing employment and economic activity generally.
If one could eeasily find employment that pays a living wage and support
a family, one would not be on the dole.
Rees-Mogg does short (under 10 minute) videos almost every day of the
week and regularly appears in longer ones. He also does a "Moggologue"
on GBNews every weeknight. I watch the former every day and occasionally >dabble in the latter so it's clear to me from things Rees-Mogg says -
and that I've seen asserted by at least one other observer that I
respect - that there is a proportion of people living in the UK, both >native-born and migrant, that is perfectly content to live on the dole
and have no desire whatever to work. The dole offers enough that they
can pursue a life that doesn't involve working and allows them to eat
and indulge some of their vices, supplemented by criminal income in some >cases.
Rees-Mogg also makes clear that Britain has been de-industrializing for >decades, largely as a result of the elites insistence on combatting
climate change, which largely means exporting all the manufacturing (and >associated jobs) to China. Getting a job simply isn't easy because so
many jobs have already left. The government has so many regulations that >operating any sort of business is onerous. Mass migration isn't helping
the situation with thousands of new people with minimal skills showing
up every week and having to be housed, fed, and have their medical needs >met. Britain's GDP has been shrinking for many years and is now much
smaller than it was vis-a-vis the US. Its military is in an increasingly >dire state, particularly the once mighty British Navy. Their energy
prices are among the very highest in the world. Their debt load is >staggering and its increasingly difficult for them to borrow money.
That's why Rees-Mogg says the ONLY way forward is to reduce welfare
benefits so that the economy has a chance to grow.
But the interest on the national debt cannot be wished away. All you can
do is stop piling on massive debt next year and then grdually reduce it
over time.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-05 1:42 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Two videos on similar subjects showed up in my feed.
What happened when Norway raised taxes on the wealthy?
Money & Macro
June 23, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJttqFCWtQM
Socialists Never Learn
Jacob Rees-Mogg
July 3, 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1z-cUMqpk
The taxes imposed by Norway appeared to be a personal property tax on
the properties of its wealthiest citizens, whereas Rees-Mogg is
criticizing Andy Burnham for considering a capital gains tax rate
increase. Both have similar prooblems, even though one is on unrealized
gains and the other is on realized gains.
Norway's wealth tax was in existence for a century. A small business's
capital and a new business were not taxed due to unknown market value.
IP and "good will" were not valued for tax purpose. Interestingly,
buildings in business use and single-family homes were exempt, but they
did tax the value of securities and bank accounts. A small rate hike was >>> imposed in 2022.
Norway billionaires are simply off-shoring both their assets and their
persons to escape EXIT taxation, in which wealth is taxed at 38% and
companies are valued based on the valuation of share transactions i both >>> private and public. They eliminated the rule that shares not sold for 5
years after leaving were not taxed. This is what caused the exodus. The
government didn't realize any if the assyne gains in tax revenue.
Rees-Mogg offers an interesting statistic that tax collection levels out >>> at 38% of GDP because raising taxes so heavily influences behavior.
Again, the higher rate of tax collection won't work.
He drives me crazy and, while I like him very much, I disagree about his >>> politics. I absolutely agree with the description of the problems he
stated for the first 8 minutes, but in proposing his solution --
draatically reduce government spending on social welfare because it's
"profitable" to live on the dole gets it very very wrong. He completely
ignores his own problem statement that one serious result of raising
taxes on business, and raising capital gains taxes so high that new
business startups are actively discourraged, has the anticipated
consequence of reducing employment and economic activity generally.
If one could eeasily find employment that pays a living wage and support >>> a family, one would not be on the dole.
Rees-Mogg does short (under 10 minute) videos almost every day of the
week and regularly appears in longer ones. He also does a "Moggologue"
on GBNews every weeknight. I watch the former every day and occasionally
dabble in the latter so it's clear to me from things Rees-Mogg says -
and that I've seen asserted by at least one other observer that I
respect - that there is a proportion of people living in the UK, both
native-born and migrant, that is perfectly content to live on the dole
and have no desire whatever to work. The dole offers enough that they
can pursue a life that doesn't involve working and allows them to eat
and indulge some of their vices, supplemented by criminal income in some
cases.
Rees-Mogg also makes clear that Britain has been de-industrializing for
decades, largely as a result of the elites insistence on combatting
climate change, which largely means exporting all the manufacturing (and
associated jobs) to China. Getting a job simply isn't easy because so
many jobs have already left. The government has so many regulations that
operating any sort of business is onerous. Mass migration isn't helping
the situation with thousands of new people with minimal skills showing
up every week and having to be housed, fed, and have their medical needs
met. Britain's GDP has been shrinking for many years and is now much
smaller than it was vis-a-vis the US. Its military is in an increasingly
dire state, particularly the once mighty British Navy. Their energy
prices are among the very highest in the world. Their debt load is
staggering and its increasingly difficult for them to borrow money.
That's why Rees-Mogg says the ONLY way forward is to reduce welfare
benefits so that the economy has a chance to grow.
Climate change activism is too recent to account for
de-industrialization. I think it's fair to say that the UK never fully recovered fom the devastation, disruption, and population loss from
WWII. They had a series of post-war Labour governments that didn't help
and, I think it''s fair to say that the Tories lost their way and the Liberals (classical) pretty much vanished from their national politics.
They also stopped producing coal, which they largely depleted.
He's getting the economics wrong. His conclusion is that the only area
of government spending ro cut is social welfare spending. That's absurd.
One has to look at every single government program to ask if it's
intended or unintended consequences are causing more harm than the
supposed good they are doing.
He believes that lowering government spending without taking that hard
look will indirectly lead to lowering cost for business which will in
turn lead to greater economic activity and hiring.
Therefore, cut off the social spending first.
Well, it doesn't work like that. He's deliberately ignoring that he's
not offering the middle step in his three-part plan.
Social welfare programs are typically incompetantly administered with ass-backwards incentives. Here's the problem that even Milton Friedman
got wrong with his Negative Income Tax proposal, which actually got implemented as Earned Income Tax Credit. With income taxes, even with a progressive tax structure, there are huge steps that will trip people
up. The transition offf welfare, even if gradual, makes accepting
lower-paid work the trigger for a very high marginal tax given the loss
of welfare benefits.
Who would accept a job under that circumstance?
Also, getting off welfare and into the work force is no guarantee that
one will have a job paying a living wage to support one's family.
His proposal is every bit as ass-backwards as welfare itself.
You cannot state that we'll eventually get around to fixing
overly-burdensome economic costs by reducing government spending. It's
too late. Government spending is perverse if payment on the national
debt exceeeds 100% of GDP, something he already noted. Social welfare spending is part of it but something far worse has happened.
If you want the economy to recover fully, you don't say that we'll do
all these things up front to just reduce government spending. Parliament doesn't have the guts and, sorry, can't annul the interest payments.
But there are plenty of othe ways to reduce burdensome costs and peverse incentives. DO THOSE FIRST.
If there is economic expansion and more jobs being offered, then social welfare spending will gradally reduce as a positive effect of the
improved economy.
But the interest on the national debt cannot be wished away. All you can
do is stop piling on massive debt next year and then grdually reduce it
over time.
He doesn't appear to have either the will or creativity to reduce
economic burdens up front in a practical way that will work, any more
than Let's address the very high unwelcome cost of living can be solved
with ever higher social welfare spending.
Resurrect the Liberal Party from the dustbin of history would help.
. . .
But I'm afraid I've done a massive disservice to Rees-Mogg by greatly >oversimplifying his message and now you're taking issue with my
statement of his views as opposed to his. You really ought to watch
several of his videos that lay it all out *much* better than I did.
. . .--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:I suppose that depends on how you define conservatism....
. . .
But I'm afraid I've done a massive disservice to Rees-Mogg by greatly
oversimplifying his message and now you're taking issue with my
statement of his views as opposed to his. You really ought to watch
several of his videos that lay it all out *much* better than I did.
These are my comments on the cited videos of his that I watched, written
in folllowup to you. You did not give me the wrong impression.
If I'm missing something that he has made a clear policy statement that
the social welfare spending won't lead to an increase in poverty, if you encounter such a video, please provide a citation. I'm not even buying
that his policies would provide imediate relief in production costs to
the business sector.
He's not a Georgist and it's not entirely clear to me that he has fully embraced the lessons of classical economics since I've yet to see such a video. His problem statements are spot on, as I would expect from the
loyal opposition.
I think I would take that I was in Liz's government off my resume. It's
bad enough he was in Jojnston's government. The two of them went out of
their way to set back conservatism.
. . .
| Sysop: | Scott Duensing |
|---|---|
| Location: | Freeburg, IL, USA, Earth |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 495479:51:49 |
| Calls: | 5 |
| Messages: | 23,642 |