Nuance? A Norwegian Tale

Nuance was described in a past essay. The word comes from “nubes” the Latin word for cloud but then the French got involved and romanticized it into their own word for “shade” or “slight variation”, per Ai. My Ai goes on to add in the lovely English accent I selected: “Think of it as those little, delicate distinctions that can make a big difference.”

There is a beautiful illustration of nuance across the ocean in Norway. Norway has been ranked the happiest nation in the world for nine consecutive years, according to The World Happiness Report.* But happiness does not inoculate anyone from misunderstanding an idea because of a lack of knowledge about nuance. Norway recently raised their country’s Wealth Tax rate despite the argument that raising a tax on the wealthy would make the rich leave Norway for lower tax countries. After the new tax passed, many wealthy Norwegians left the country.

Showing true confirmation bias, many news outlets reported it as a “tax exodus” and determined The New Wealth Tax is too much of a burden for the rich. The new Wealth Tax is 1% to 1.1% depending on rich you are. Kind of high, right?

From: Money & Macro 28m 9-24-2026 Norway raised taxes on the wealthy and millionaires started leaving – the headlines missed the biggest part of the story “Norway’s decision to increase its wealth tax was followed by a noticeable wave of wealthy business owners moving abroad, (and) produced headlines that portrayed the policy as a failure. But the transcript argues that the amount of taxable wealth leaving was relatively small and that higher wealth-tax revenue more than offset the departures. Its analysis instead points toward Norway’s capital-gains exit-tax rules as a major reason entrepreneurs had an incentive to move when they did. The broader lesson presented is that modest wealth taxes and aggressive exit taxes can create very different economic incentives.”

For a good, sleepy read, look at “The High Cost of Wealth Taxes”, by Christine Enache for the Tax Foundation Europe, dated June 6, 2024. It makes the case that taxing rich people doesn’t generate any new revenue, is illegal, and only four countries in the world still use the tax. Norway and Switzerland are two of those countries and both are in the Top Ten of Happy Countries. Coincidence?

WTF. Taxing rich people is illegal?** Or is it taxing them more than once that is illegal? Why would it not generate revenue? Or does it just not generate enough?

The whole issue is one big, bag of nuance. But it appears a lot of that “nuance” is “chatter”, “fluff”, even misinformation meant to make sure governments know NOT to tax the rich any differently than other citizens.

If you are rich or hope to be you want low taxes or none at all. Why? There appears to be a rich mindset that says this: “just because I’ve figured out a way to make more money than you, don’t make me pay more for the privilege.” Nuance? Yes. The few rich people I know have a very nuanced view of the non-rich. It’s not just the poor. It is an ambivalent belief about how the rest of us are not smart enough and greedy enough to take what anyone will give us.

The actual impetus for Norway’s Tax Exodus wasn’t related to the new HIGHER 1% tax. It was related to a previous law that was about to take effect, about what wealth is and how it gets “counted.” Just like in America and other rich countries, the tax code used to tax us, the citizens, is riddled with holes where nuance used to be, or strangled by layers of nuance when a simple sentence may have been enough.*** Even better, all of this is understood by tax attorneys, and advisors whose sole purpose is to use nuance, create nuance, or eliminate nuance so their clients can make, keep, and do whatever they want with money.

Holy crap there isn’t enough space for this subject. Stop reading.

But remember nuance. The lack of seeing it, recognizing it, and understanding it is ruining our world’s discourse and civility. Nuance is the opposite of opinion and is always present. Think of it before you speak. To paraphrase Dr. Wright: “A conclusion (opinion) is the place where you got tired of thinking.”

*Google It.

**I have anew appreciation for Robin Hood.

***Damn lawyers. We’re almost to the point where “simple sentences” are extinct.

Why? Because.

After writing the last essay, I overheard a RadioLab podcast about the world’s population.

That essay’s lamely supported assertion about not much changing in the world suddenly became a lame, unsupported truth: massive changes are already underway and will forever change the world.

Don’t puff your chest out and think you knew all along climate change would be the major problem because it’s not. At least not yet. The “other” problem is already changing things in parts of the world and soon, its full effect will be felt in America.

The real, immediate problem: Population Growth. Specifically, the lack of population growth. In the late 1900’s, population growth was exponential and hit 3.7 billion in 1970. Experts labeled the high level of growth a “Population Bomb”. It threatened to outpace societies, systems, and the earth’s ability to supply food. My own personal world views are often shaped by the concept of constant growth since more people means more financial expansion, more building, more manufacturing, and a large population needing a centralized government for health, safety, and happiness. I often called America a big, stable, seaworthy ship capable of floating and lasting for centuries.

There are many different data points that could be mashed-up in this essay. Some sites, for example, “estimate” population growth to continue and we are already over 8.3 billion. With immigration and emigration issues, the total population figures can confuse population comparisons, but simply comparing birth to deaths tells the story we’re discussing. Checking births versus deaths reveals America’s changing growth rates. In 1960 there were 4.2 million births and 2.43 million deaths. Do the math. In 2026 there were 3.60 million births and 3.10 million deaths. Births declined while the general population increased.* 2027 figures may show more deaths than births!

Notably, China and other Asian countries responded to the 1972 Population Bomb by severely restricting new births in their societies. All those countries have recently reversed those restrictions and put in place new programs to generate more births.

America is already seeing the results of a population that may be “downsizing”. When Social Security began paying Old Age benefits in 1940, the system used taxes from over 150 younger workers to support a payment to one, old retiree. Our current 2026 system is using three (3!) younger workers. Is the difference caused by inflation or population loss or something else?

 Another problem is the “Population Bomb” caused the building of new schools to handle the new students. Due to America’s fragmented public and private school systems, getting accurate data is a crap shoot, but there is a consensus among the experts that grades 9-12 have had steady enrollment for the last 20 years, but total pre-school, elementary, and middle school enrollments appear to be declining. There are 3 closed schools in my town, right now.

The South Korea Ministry of Education, for comparison, has closed “4,000 schools and 17 regional offices” as the country’s student population shrinks.”**

America’s consumer driven, capitalist economy depends on new workers who become new consumers and generate regular growth in economic activity. *** So do other counties, even Socialist and Communist based countries.

Looks like regular growth is over. What will happen?

Ha. What do I care? I’m outta here, and–for the sake of my grandchildren–I hope someone in power notices this essay.

But first: Economists have predicted 10 out of the last two recessions. Ba dum dum.****

*The website, “Worldometer.com” shows a consistent 1-3% growth in the world’s population since 1972. Since 2020, that growth rate has never been more than 0.88% and has been declining every one of those 7 recent years. And that is with high levels of immigration.

**The Korea Times, December 28, 2025.

***An important complication in our current immigration crisis. We need workers.

****Am I aging myself by continuing to use the old “rim shot” comedy signal?

Tariffs? We Don’t Need No Stinking Tariffs Do We?

 The Trump Administration recently announced they have collected hundreds of billions of dollars in “tariff fees”. The specific number is close to $300 billion and climbing. Wow. Look at all that revenue. For America. We’ll pay down the $38 trillion National Debt in approximately 120 years. Yay. Imagine a lazy, waving, small American Flag. But wait, maybe the Trump Administration will send $2000 checks to every American. Yay? Why would he do that? And why hasn’t he?

Tariffs—and their effects—are hard to understand. Most people tell me tariffs are a “tax” on foreign countries and assume foreign countries are paying that tax. It is closer to the truth, however, to say no “countries” ever pay any Tariff Tax. For example, the United States of America, doesn’t pay other countries for their “unfair” tariffs, even as other countries are “ripping us off”, per Mr. Trump.

Wait. China is not paying massive tariffs for all the goods they import? No. They are not. How about Mexico and Canada? No. They are not. And America is not paying tariffs to other countries?* No. So what is going on? Who IS paying?

Again, it’s complicated but here is a simple example: A pair of Chinese sneakers retails at Walmart in the US for $10 in 2024 with the cost being $5 per pair under the 2024 Tariff Plan. China is then “punished” with a new Tariff Plan of 50% the fall of 2025. That Chinese sneaker pair will be charged an additional 50% tariff when it lands on American soil, making the cost of the sneakers in 2025 $7.50. Think a retailer like Walmart will sell the sneaker in 2025 at the same price as the 2024 sneaker? The tariff is really a “tax” meant to make the Chinese sneaker as expensive as an American made sneaker. Does it work? It will if some American Sneaker Manufacturer can sell his sneakers for under $15. The purpose is to support American Manufacturing and give them an economic reason to make sneakers by raising the Chinese Imports price. If you watch any sports events you probably think there are no sneaker-makers in the US, but there are. Why aren’t they being used by professional and amateur sports teams, now? See, complicated.

But the best or worst part of the whole process is who is actually paying, shelling out the dough, for the tariff “tax”? In our example, it ain’t China and it ain’t the US. In this example, it is Walmart. And probably you when you buy the sneaker at the new 2025 price. What will that price be?

Let’s circle back to the billions in tariff revenue touted by Trump. Where did the actual money come from? China? No, it is American money from American retailers, wholesalers, and importers. It’s a neat way to “tax” without calling it a tax. (Can you say One Big Beautiful Bill Tax Cuts?) And….drum roll…Walmart’s initial payments go to the Treasury and Trump can (almost) do whatever he wants with the dollars, without congressional approval. More ICE Agents? A Ballroom? Tax rebates to Americans? What great ideas.

But nothing has happened, yet, not even hyper-inflation. Why?  Read below from The Peterson Institute for International Economics, by Gary Clyde Hufbauer (PIIE) and Ye Zhang(China)September 16, 2025:  “If the Supreme Court affirms the lower courts’ decisions, the federal government could have to refund much of the tariff revenue collected this year. But if the Supreme Court reverses the lower courts and affirms IEEPA tariffs, US firms may start passing the added costs to households. While the tariffs have so far had a modest effect on inflation, eventually consumers could see higher prices.”

The Supreme Court will decide in November 2025 if the Tariffs are even legal. We might have to refund all money to the payers. So Walmart is waiting to see if it gets its money back. Even badder(sic),  imagine if Trump sent out “rebate” checks to Americans he then had to ask them to return. Walmart pricing may rise drastically after the November Supreme Court ruling. Or we all get $2000 checks for Christmas. In the meantime, uncertainty and chaos, the operational mode of our current government.

I am not an economist or politician and researched this post at my own expense (Yes, humor.) If anyone knows the Tariff situation is any different than described in this post, please comment and correct. All I really know for sure is most people think foreign governments are making tariff payments to us, America. Wonder why they think that?

*Subsidies, and other financial “arrangements” (Kickbacks?) can complicate the situation even further, and make it impossible to follow the money.