

In Norway, personal income is a matter of public record - cjlars
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-10-23/news/17186807_1_tax-records-norway-tax-list

======
hugh3
While I accept that it might not be _so_ bad once you get used to it, I really
can't imagine any reason that it could be a _good_ thing.

The government could also compulsorily publish photos of everybody's genitals
every year. Again, you'd probably get used to it, and it probably wouldn't be
as bad as it sounds, but I can't see any upside to it.

~~~
kragen
> I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing.

It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company can look up
what everyone else at the company makes, so they don't have to waste time
interviewing with companies that pay too little, and it gives them better
negotiating leverage.

In general, it pushes the labor market toward being an ideal liberal market.
Marx thought that would result in the wages of labor falling to just above its
cost of production, i.e. just enough to feed and clothe you. It looks like he
was wrong.

~~~
dantheman
Marx had a labor theory of value, just like adam smith which is entirely
wrong. The cost of a good is determined by the value it provides to the
consumer. The consumer will not pay more than the value it provides the to
them. In Marx's view the cost of a good is determined by how much it cost to
produce.

~~~
kragen
I have the impression that the standard economic doctrine was that the cost of
a good was determined by where the supply curve intersects the demand curve —
which is to say, the point at which the amount it costs to produce it _is
equal to_ how much value it provides to the consumer.

This in itself doesn't contradict Marx's point (and what Marx thought the real
value of things was is irrelevant). The point where he got it wrong was
apparently in equating the cost of keeping a laborer alive with the cost of
their labor.

To elaborate, if you're not familiar with these ideas of supply and demand
curves, the idea is that as you produce more and more of something, the cost
to produce it eventually starts to go up forever.

For example, working 20 hours a week might have a negative cost, working 40
hours a week means you don't have a lot of socializing time, working 80 hours
a week means you have no leisure time unless you have someone else to cook and
clean for you, working 100 hours a week means you're sleep-deprived and have
time for neither leisure nor cooking and cleaning, working 168 hours a week is
invariably fatal within a few months, and working more than that is
impossible.

On the other side, the incremental value to the consumer diminishes after some
point, ultimately reaching zero. A single fork per person is useful every day,
six forks per person is useful only when they invite friends over or want to
postpone doing the dishes, thirty forks per person is useful only if you're
doing funky art projects by bending forks, and 300 forks per person would be
valuable only as scrap metal, i.e. the labor that went into making them
produced zero or even negative value.

The theory is that these two curves must intersect in at least one point, and
that's the market equilibrium. It's commonly assumed that they intersect in
only one point because they're monotonic, but that's probably not true.

~~~
dantheman
Yes, of course supply and demand factor into the cost. Your argument above is
using the theory of marginal utility
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility>) the labor theory of value
was replaced by that <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value>

------
guylhem
Wouldn't that be a deterrent for anyone who wants to establish a business in
Norway?

Look at the quotes : "Actress and director Liv Ullmann, for instance, earned
$17k ... Pioneering women's long-distance runner Grete Waitz, a nine-time New
York City Marathon champion, earned $13k"

Either their best and brightest are dirt poor or they prefer earning and
keeping their money abroad.

If that was the objective of the law, it's a success.

~~~
martey
The article states, "Income earned or kept abroad, or otherwise in some sort
of tax shelter, is not included."

I would assume that both Ullmann and Waitz earned most of their income outside
of Norway.

~~~
anghyflawn
Yes. Actually, the public information is not the income or value of property,
but the amount of tax paid on these, which means that the numbers splashed all
over the internet are estimates (for instance, people with zero-income
dependants are taxed at a lower rate).

------
Schmidt
As mentioned in the article, this is not uncommon. The same is true for
Sweden.

~~~
lucasr
Same thing in Finland. If I remember correctly, there's even a number you
could text the full name of any tax payer and get his income in the previous
year.

------
benmichael
Well, news from 2009. Not surprising as this has been well known for years.
You can also look up anyones name from a phone number, and anyones address
from a name ;)

------
diegob
"The children of people with low wages are being teased about it in the
schools,"

Of course, the problem is that the information was made available, not that
parents don't teach their kids not to tease ...

------
aloha_account
Isn't public income considered to be the cause of inflating CEO pay?

------
scotty79
Do you know how to find out how much given person (in Sweden, Finland or
Norway) earned last year?

~~~
thirdusername
Sweden: <http://ratsit.se/>

------
breck
Does anyone know where I can download this dataset?

~~~
anghyflawn
I don't think you can do it. Technically, the lists are available (for a short
time if I am not mistaken) for perusal at a tax office; in practice, they are
released to the media (e.g. major news outlets), who give you access to search
by name plus league tables and aggregated statistics by year of birth,
postcode etc.

------
mashmac2
(2009)

------
markklarich
Great point. In contrast look at what we generate in this country -
[http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matt-taibbi-asks-why-fed-
ga...](http://www.zerohedge.com/article/matt-taibbi-asks-why-fed-
gave-220-million-bailout-money-wives-two-morgan-stanley-bigwigs)

~~~
kragen
I think you may have posted this comment on the wrong article?

~~~
markklarich
Actually, the article is a "contrast and compare" statement. Norway is
relatively open in its treatment of money and government, witness their
handling of taxes. Alternatively, the US is relatively opaque, witness the
article. I am not sure that I support either over the other. I had hoped to
spur a conversation on the issue. I failed. It isn't the first time. Probably
won't be the last. Perhaps because I am new to this process of posting and
commenting, I failed to understand that it is necessary to draw the line. My
apologies.

~~~
kragen
It would help a lot if you had described in your original comment why you
thought the other article was relevant, as you did to some extent here.

~~~
markklarich
That I did get. Not only did I not get a discussion going,(not for the points
--but for the discussion) but at least two people were honestly confused by
the post. What I have yet to learn is how deeply to comment if I should
comment at all. I'd really like to contribute. But its clear that I would do
well to stick to the reading unless its really, really in my field.

Thanks for your help.

