[jahnu]

> That's no way to treat your productive population.

Seeing a single number and coming to that conclusion is very reductive, imo. What I believe matters is if the population feels like they are getting value for money. Income tax is higher than that here in Austria but we are broadly satisfied with what is done with that tax. Very much so in Vienna. Income tax is lower than that in Ireland, where I originally come from, and people are broadly unhappy with how tax is spent and don’t trust the government to tax more to implement the services they say they want.

[FredPret]

You’re right about Vienna - it’s clean and wonderful.

Some governments do offer much better value for money than others.

But I think high taxes are a very risky bet on the idea that the government will stay competent long-term: bureaucracies are almost never cut down when they grow too large; thus taxes almost never come down significantly over the long term.

[jahnu]

That’s certainly a more nuanced take than “48% tax rate on income over well above median is wrong”.

I too prefer public policy debates that focus on competency and efficiency instead of a variable parameter that doesn’t capture much information.

[Radim]

> Seeing a single number and coming to that conclusion is very reductive, imo.

That's not what the parent post was about, at all. Or did you only read its footnote?

Whether the Portuguese population "feels like they are getting value" is best observed in how they vote. Both during elections (Chega), and most directly and loudly, in how they vote with their feet. Opinions of Irishmen in Vienna notwithstanding.

[jahnu]

I only objected to the fixation on taxation levels and assumption that a particular rate is morally bad as if they capture much about anything. If I wasn’t clear enough I hope I am now.

[Radim]

> If I wasn’t clear enough I hope I am now.

I'm afraid "much about anything." is still too vague to tell :)

No need to bring out the "immoral" card – yes, there definitely exist gvt policies (incl. tax) that tip a critical number of that country's skilled workers over into emigration. We're not talking Depardieu or "laptop tourists", we're talking local construction workers FFS.

Observing the tug-of-war HN votes on my post, some people must have taken that footnote as a cue for their ideological warfare du jour. Poor-vs-rich! Pitchforks now!

- "Fixation on taxation levels"… from my "whether [tax is] 20% or 48% cannot be the answer"? How?

- "loves to see low income taxes fore them as an universal band aid for the entire economy"… from my "Clearly Portugal's problems are much deeper than that, going back to 1974 […] Portugal's bureaucracy is legendary"? How?

With all due respect I think the fixation is yours. I have lived in Austria (my sister still lives there) and I have lived in Portugal. There are a lot of issues under the surface in both. Different histories, different trajectories. No need to attack strawmen.

If you have specific insights on the situation in Portugal (beyond Rinzler89's "just create jobs and spend existing taxes more wisely" :eyeroll:), I'd love to hear them. This is a topic close to my heart, I still love Portugal.

[Rinzler89]

>we're talking local construction workers FFS.

But you don't fix that by offering tax breaks to well off laptop tourists from abroad. You fix that by investing in those construction workers and giving them tax breaks.

>Observing the tug-of-war HN votes on my post, some people must have taken that footnote as a cue for their ideological warfare du jour. Poor-vs-rich! Pitchforks now!

You seem to be victimizing yourself over nothing as people are allowed to have diverging options. It's not due to poor vs rich ideology as you imagine, is that those rich people you root for and the ones Portugal attracts don't contribute much to Portugal's economy or success but on the contrary help cause gentrification.

Investing in those construction workers that left might be better than investing in some foreign web devs who are here just for the partying and tax breaks.