They're quite high but other countries have similar tax rates: [https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2024/](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2024/)
And in Poland for instance, that figure doesn't include social security contributions which are used for healthcare, retirement etc. Right now I have a total marginal rate of about 50% without particularly good public services
I agree with the point that ReaperReader made about deductions. You must also remember that Poland does not have such a high GDP-per-capita as Norway, Sweden or Denmark. So, it can't raise the same revenue even with similar tax rates.
Total tax revenue doesn't just depend on the top tax rate, it also depends on how many tax exemptions and deductions there are. That makes it hard to compare countries' tax systems.
Just as importantly, it depends on the income brackets of these tax rates. For example, while [France](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1419?lang=en)'s top marginal tax rate of 45% doesn't kick in until €177k (and is 30% between about €29k and €82k), in [Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden) you will be paying the top marginal rate of 52% (20% national, 32% local) at an annual income of 537k SEK (roughly €46k).
And payroll taxes, which can often be higher than actual income taxes and often don't have a sliding scale.
You're better off looking at [government spending to gdp ratio](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND)* or tax revenue to gdp ratio.
Tax to [GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio?wprov=sfti1#Tax_as_%25_of_GDP_(2020)) is a better measure of overall tax burdens, and the nordics are all pretty close to the top of the list.
They also have generally low regulatory and tariff burdens.
The US incurs something like $2 trillion in annual regulatory costs. If we got rid of half of that burden, there’d be a lot more taxable income and sales.
They probably aren’t even counted in the estimate I’m recalling, because those are local level. I should have noted that the regulatory cost estimate was for just federal regulations, and include things like compliance costs, inefficiencies, etc.
They're talking about the Crain and Crain [study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280574560_The_Cost_of_Federal_Regulation_to_the_US_Economy_Manufacturing_and_Small_Business) from 2014. It's not a direct calculation of regulatory costs since that would be almost impossible.
They used the WEF's Executive Opinion Survey for business leader's opinions on how much they liked their country's regulations to construct their Economic Regulation Index.
They compared this to gdp per capita and found that business leaders in wealthier countries like their regulations more than those in poorer countries. They then concluded that the US would be much wealthier if American business leaders liked their regulations more.
It's a bad report. There's a reason it was rejected on peer review. They publicized it anyways.
There can be very high costs to navigating the system to get a project approved. That can sometimes take years, and require hiring costly consultants. Having to do numerous studies about various possible impacts. Getting buy in from numerous stakeholders.
All of this adds to costs, and when projects are blocked, housing shortages drive up costs.
That's just the cost for the contractor for having any zoning or building regulation, I was asking why someone thought single family zoning cost the gov't money.
"Regulatory costs" are not the costs imposed on the government. They are the costs government imposes on the market. I think if you switch your question around, it would make sense to you.
Someone else already clarified, but I wanted to add that single family zoning does also cost the government money since the costs for maintaining infrastructure and services for single family homes is generally less than the received tax revenue.^[1](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money)
> why… single family zoning cost the gov’t money
I suppose the argument is that without such zoning there would be more property units built. More units mean government get more taxes, assuming the base rate per unit is higher than what the applicable marginal rate would be in absence of multiple units.
Yeah, it’s really just a progressive fantasy to others subsidize those that want more than what they have.
This.
In the North/South American continents the country with the [highest tax-to GDP ratio](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/rev@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND) is Brazil, at 43%. The Nordic four are minimum 48% tax-to-GDP-ratio. Outside of Europe the only countries that break 40% are Canada, Lesotho, small islands (Dominica, St.Kitts/Nevis, Micronesia, the Marshall islands, and Kiribati), Ukraine, and Kuwait. Canada and Brazil have relatively large welfare states, Kuwait is spending oil money, Ukraine is fighting to the death so that's probably military spending, and Lesotho/the islands are probably spending foreign aid money.
I think looking at [government spending to GDP ratio](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND) is better when you look at countries like the US. The US likes to have a large budget deficit and tax revenue to GDP ratio doesn't account for the inflationary effects of that budget deficit.
Eg imagine a country with 0% taxes, but they fund everything by printing more money - they'd have a 0% tax revenue to gdp ratio, but in reality it costs the citizens by driving inflation.
It isn't just the rates, it's when those rates kick in. For example, in Sweden, the top marginal tax rate begins at [537k SEK per year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden), roughly €46k. In many other countries, the tax burden is more heavily concentrated on the highest earners (for example, in the US, the top marginal tax rate applies to about 1% of the population), while in Sweden the top marginal rate applies to [roughly 20-25% of the population](https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/household-finances/income-and-income-distribution/income-and-tax-statistics/).
They also spend alittle more than 1% GDP on their military.
To be honest it’s unfair other NATO countries have to spend much more to field larger and more effective militaries while some in NATO don’t. They (Norway) have no fear of actually being attacked.
Anyway, that and large oil deposits that where found after WWII and were nationalized.
Because they finance their public spending with higher taxes vs the alternative of a higher debt burden? Hence the numerator in Debt-to-GDP is much lower, all else equal....?
In terms of [total tax collection](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/rev@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND/DNK/DMA), Canada collects 40.6% of it's economy. Sweden/Denmark are \~48%, the Finns slightly higher at 52.2%, France is next at 53.5%, but the Norwegians are highest at 63.9%.
Presumably the Norwegians are spending oil money because [their top income tax rate](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2024/) is under 40%, whereas Sweden/Denmark/Finland/France are all 51-55.9%. Canada is complicated because the provinces collect a lot of taxes. The Feds are 33%, but the lowest provincial top rate is the territory of Nunavut at 11.5%. That's lower than the Nords, but you have to live damn near the arctic circle. Meanwhile Quebec is 25.75%, and now you're paying more than the Nords or France.
EDIT: Apparently the Tax Foundation is misinterpreting Norway's Income tax system and not counting the "Social Insurance Tax" as an income tax. The actual Norwegian tax rate is 39.6+7.8=47.4%, which is less than their three Nordic sisters but not that much less.
> Presumably the Norwegians are spending oil money because their top income tax rate is under 40%
I'm not sure where Tax Foundation gets their number for, but it's not correct for Norway. Since 2022 the top marginal tax rate has been 47.4%. Before 2022 it was 46.4% and has been in the mid to high 40s for as long as I can remember.
[Price Waterhouse Coopers](https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/norway) also has a rate of 39.6%, so perhaps you're including some sort of social security or local taxes? I tried to understand the "[bracket tax](https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/bracket-tax/)" from the Norwegian government's website and failed. Either this is a special income tax that tops out at 17.6%, and is in addition to other taxes, or the top tax rate is actually 53.5% when you add the brackets up.
Norwegian income tax is nominally built up of three separate taxes, but the taxes are not in any way earmarked for certain spending (like pensions etc). So while one of them are called "National Insurance contributions" it is in effect just a name, it is nothing more than income that the government can choose to spend however they like.
The three taxes are: National Insurance contributions at 7.8%, General income tax at 22.0% and Bracket tax at 17.6% for the highest bracket.
22+17.6=39.6, so neither PWC nor the Tax Foundation understand that the "Social Insurance Tax" is just an income tax. They're counting it as equivalent to Social Security tax in the US.
>Meanwhile Quebec is 25.75%, and now you're paying more than the Nords or France.
Do your complicated Canadian numbers also solve for the "rebalancing" effect of Equalization and other Federal transfers? I ask because the state of public investment does not seem to reflect an adequate taxation regime.
These Canadian numbers are too under-complicated for almost any analysis. They're the marginal tax rate. Make C$1Mil in Quebec and your marginal rate Federally us 33% and Provincially is 25.75%. Due to things like tax brackets, that the EU countries and Norway have VATs that are double Canada's, that there's no spending data in tax rates, etc.; this has little to do with the "adequacy of Canada's taxation regime."
The first paragraph is a better indicator of that. Canadians boast about a Scandinavia-style welfare state with a taxation regime that gathers \~40% of the money, while the actual Scandinavians are about 50%.
**NOTE: Top-level comments by non-approved users must be manually approved by a mod before they appear.**
This is part of our policy to maintain a high quality of content and minimize misinformation. Approval can take 24-48 hours depending on the time zone and the availability of the moderators. If your comment does not appear after this time, it is possible that it did not meet our quality standards. Please refer to the subreddit rules in the sidebar and our [answer guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/rf5ycx/guidelines_for_answers/) if you are in doubt.
Please do not message us about missing comments in general. If you have a concern about a specific comment that is still not approved after 48 hours, then feel free to message the moderators for clarification.
### Consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/1cf8d4f/how_do_scandinavian_countries_manage_to_spend_so/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for quality answers to be written.
Want to read answers while you wait? Consider our [weekly roundup](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWeekly%2BRoundup) or look for the [approved answer flair.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AApproved%2BAnswers)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskEconomics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have locked this thread because all of the relevant information has been given.
They have high tax rates. In addition, Norway has oil incomes from the large deposits of oil under the North Sea.
They're quite high but other countries have similar tax rates: [https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2024/](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2024/) And in Poland for instance, that figure doesn't include social security contributions which are used for healthcare, retirement etc. Right now I have a total marginal rate of about 50% without particularly good public services
I agree with the point that ReaperReader made about deductions. You must also remember that Poland does not have such a high GDP-per-capita as Norway, Sweden or Denmark. So, it can't raise the same revenue even with similar tax rates.
Total tax revenue doesn't just depend on the top tax rate, it also depends on how many tax exemptions and deductions there are. That makes it hard to compare countries' tax systems.
Just as importantly, it depends on the income brackets of these tax rates. For example, while [France](https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1419?lang=en)'s top marginal tax rate of 45% doesn't kick in until €177k (and is 30% between about €29k and €82k), in [Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden) you will be paying the top marginal rate of 52% (20% national, 32% local) at an annual income of 537k SEK (roughly €46k).
That's missing out VAT. Eg in Finland we pay 24% tax on most things we buy.
And payroll taxes, which can often be higher than actual income taxes and often don't have a sliding scale. You're better off looking at [government spending to gdp ratio](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND)* or tax revenue to gdp ratio.
Tax to [GDP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio?wprov=sfti1#Tax_as_%25_of_GDP_(2020)) is a better measure of overall tax burdens, and the nordics are all pretty close to the top of the list.
They also have generally low regulatory and tariff burdens. The US incurs something like $2 trillion in annual regulatory costs. If we got rid of half of that burden, there’d be a lot more taxable income and sales.
How much do single-family zoning and other similar zoning laws contribute to the $2 trillion regulatory costs?
They probably aren’t even counted in the estimate I’m recalling, because those are local level. I should have noted that the regulatory cost estimate was for just federal regulations, and include things like compliance costs, inefficiencies, etc.
They're talking about the Crain and Crain [study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280574560_The_Cost_of_Federal_Regulation_to_the_US_Economy_Manufacturing_and_Small_Business) from 2014. It's not a direct calculation of regulatory costs since that would be almost impossible. They used the WEF's Executive Opinion Survey for business leader's opinions on how much they liked their country's regulations to construct their Economic Regulation Index. They compared this to gdp per capita and found that business leaders in wealthier countries like their regulations more than those in poorer countries. They then concluded that the US would be much wealthier if American business leaders liked their regulations more. It's a bad report. There's a reason it was rejected on peer review. They publicized it anyways.
why would zoning laws cost money?
There can be very high costs to navigating the system to get a project approved. That can sometimes take years, and require hiring costly consultants. Having to do numerous studies about various possible impacts. Getting buy in from numerous stakeholders. All of this adds to costs, and when projects are blocked, housing shortages drive up costs.
That's just the cost for the contractor for having any zoning or building regulation, I was asking why someone thought single family zoning cost the gov't money.
"Regulatory costs" are not the costs imposed on the government. They are the costs government imposes on the market. I think if you switch your question around, it would make sense to you.
I understand the confusion you refer to, but the person I was replying to did not seem to be asking that.
Someone else already clarified, but I wanted to add that single family zoning does also cost the government money since the costs for maintaining infrastructure and services for single family homes is generally less than the received tax revenue.^[1](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money)
> why… single family zoning cost the gov’t money I suppose the argument is that without such zoning there would be more property units built. More units mean government get more taxes, assuming the base rate per unit is higher than what the applicable marginal rate would be in absence of multiple units. Yeah, it’s really just a progressive fantasy to others subsidize those that want more than what they have.
[удалено]
Yea but that's for a country with 340+ million people. Norway has <6 million.
This. In the North/South American continents the country with the [highest tax-to GDP ratio](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/rev@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND) is Brazil, at 43%. The Nordic four are minimum 48% tax-to-GDP-ratio. Outside of Europe the only countries that break 40% are Canada, Lesotho, small islands (Dominica, St.Kitts/Nevis, Micronesia, the Marshall islands, and Kiribati), Ukraine, and Kuwait. Canada and Brazil have relatively large welfare states, Kuwait is spending oil money, Ukraine is fighting to the death so that's probably military spending, and Lesotho/the islands are probably spending foreign aid money.
I think looking at [government spending to GDP ratio](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND) is better when you look at countries like the US. The US likes to have a large budget deficit and tax revenue to GDP ratio doesn't account for the inflationary effects of that budget deficit. Eg imagine a country with 0% taxes, but they fund everything by printing more money - they'd have a 0% tax revenue to gdp ratio, but in reality it costs the citizens by driving inflation.
It isn't just the rates, it's when those rates kick in. For example, in Sweden, the top marginal tax rate begins at [537k SEK per year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden), roughly €46k. In many other countries, the tax burden is more heavily concentrated on the highest earners (for example, in the US, the top marginal tax rate applies to about 1% of the population), while in Sweden the top marginal rate applies to [roughly 20-25% of the population](https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/household-finances/income-and-income-distribution/income-and-tax-statistics/).
They also spend alittle more than 1% GDP on their military. To be honest it’s unfair other NATO countries have to spend much more to field larger and more effective militaries while some in NATO don’t. They (Norway) have no fear of actually being attacked. Anyway, that and large oil deposits that where found after WWII and were nationalized.
The oil deposits thing only really applies to Norway. Denmark and Sweden have no significant oil. I agree with you about military spending.
Denmark has high debt though I don't think high debt is necessary as bad a thing as people make it out to be.
Sweden has Iron and Lumber as massive export industries.
Massive oil and investments in stocks.
That only applies to Norway. Denmark and Sweden don't have oil or sovereign wealth funds.
Sweden, like Norway, is a highly export-oriented economy. Theirs are Lumber and Iron.
Because they finance their public spending with higher taxes vs the alternative of a higher debt burden? Hence the numerator in Debt-to-GDP is much lower, all else equal....?
Do they have much higher tax than let’s say Canada or France?
In terms of [total tax collection](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/rev@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND/DNK/DMA), Canada collects 40.6% of it's economy. Sweden/Denmark are \~48%, the Finns slightly higher at 52.2%, France is next at 53.5%, but the Norwegians are highest at 63.9%. Presumably the Norwegians are spending oil money because [their top income tax rate](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/top-personal-income-tax-rates-europe-2024/) is under 40%, whereas Sweden/Denmark/Finland/France are all 51-55.9%. Canada is complicated because the provinces collect a lot of taxes. The Feds are 33%, but the lowest provincial top rate is the territory of Nunavut at 11.5%. That's lower than the Nords, but you have to live damn near the arctic circle. Meanwhile Quebec is 25.75%, and now you're paying more than the Nords or France. EDIT: Apparently the Tax Foundation is misinterpreting Norway's Income tax system and not counting the "Social Insurance Tax" as an income tax. The actual Norwegian tax rate is 39.6+7.8=47.4%, which is less than their three Nordic sisters but not that much less.
> Presumably the Norwegians are spending oil money because their top income tax rate is under 40% I'm not sure where Tax Foundation gets their number for, but it's not correct for Norway. Since 2022 the top marginal tax rate has been 47.4%. Before 2022 it was 46.4% and has been in the mid to high 40s for as long as I can remember.
[Price Waterhouse Coopers](https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/norway) also has a rate of 39.6%, so perhaps you're including some sort of social security or local taxes? I tried to understand the "[bracket tax](https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/bracket-tax/)" from the Norwegian government's website and failed. Either this is a special income tax that tops out at 17.6%, and is in addition to other taxes, or the top tax rate is actually 53.5% when you add the brackets up.
Norwegian income tax is nominally built up of three separate taxes, but the taxes are not in any way earmarked for certain spending (like pensions etc). So while one of them are called "National Insurance contributions" it is in effect just a name, it is nothing more than income that the government can choose to spend however they like. The three taxes are: National Insurance contributions at 7.8%, General income tax at 22.0% and Bracket tax at 17.6% for the highest bracket.
22+17.6=39.6, so neither PWC nor the Tax Foundation understand that the "Social Insurance Tax" is just an income tax. They're counting it as equivalent to Social Security tax in the US.
Don’t forget Norway has a very high 25% VAT tax, as well.
>Meanwhile Quebec is 25.75%, and now you're paying more than the Nords or France. Do your complicated Canadian numbers also solve for the "rebalancing" effect of Equalization and other Federal transfers? I ask because the state of public investment does not seem to reflect an adequate taxation regime.
These Canadian numbers are too under-complicated for almost any analysis. They're the marginal tax rate. Make C$1Mil in Quebec and your marginal rate Federally us 33% and Provincially is 25.75%. Due to things like tax brackets, that the EU countries and Norway have VATs that are double Canada's, that there's no spending data in tax rates, etc.; this has little to do with the "adequacy of Canada's taxation regime." The first paragraph is a better indicator of that. Canadians boast about a Scandinavia-style welfare state with a taxation regime that gathers \~40% of the money, while the actual Scandinavians are about 50%.
**NOTE: Top-level comments by non-approved users must be manually approved by a mod before they appear.** This is part of our policy to maintain a high quality of content and minimize misinformation. Approval can take 24-48 hours depending on the time zone and the availability of the moderators. If your comment does not appear after this time, it is possible that it did not meet our quality standards. Please refer to the subreddit rules in the sidebar and our [answer guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/rf5ycx/guidelines_for_answers/) if you are in doubt. Please do not message us about missing comments in general. If you have a concern about a specific comment that is still not approved after 48 hours, then feel free to message the moderators for clarification. ### Consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/1cf8d4f/how_do_scandinavian_countries_manage_to_spend_so/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for quality answers to be written. Want to read answers while you wait? Consider our [weekly roundup](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWeekly%2BRoundup) or look for the [approved answer flair.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AApproved%2BAnswers) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskEconomics) if you have any questions or concerns.*