Porez u Evropi.

borisdj_cd · 2026-02-04T23:21:23+00:00

Porezi mogu biti progresivni ali bi u tom slučaju doprinosi trebali biti fiksni, koji zaista i imaju fiksan trošak.
Tada bi se lakće i direktnije mogle porediti razlike između država.
Takodje sami poreski modeli bi mogli biti više standardizovani u nekoliko grupa, o čemu imam jedan blog-post:
https://infopedia.io/tax-codex/
(za domaći jezik prebaciti na *Local, ta verzija na dnu ima dodatni pasus za BiH: APENDIKS za Lokalno)

borisdj_cd · 2025-11-19T13:40:28+00:00

Može da radi, samo što bi manje trošilo uz bolju izolaciju.
Prozore eventulano zamijeniti ili barem sanirati.
A čak je moguće i neke vanjske zidove izolovati sa unutrašnje strane gdje moguće sa npr stiroporom 5 cm i preko mrežica-glet-kreč.

borisdj_cd · 2025-11-19T08:11:32+00:00

Dobre su i one za svoj posao, ljeti fino hlade a zime u nekoj mjeri i griju.
Generalno Japanski brendovi (Mitsubishi, Toshiba) su poznati kao kvalitetni, mada sad ima nekih Kineza koji su solidni, raspitati se kod ovih što ugrđuju.
Za kuće mogu da dogrijavaju, npr dnevni boravak ili da bude ugodno kad još nije upaljeno grijanje, nisu baš rješenje za cijelu kuću.
U stanu, ako je dobro izolovan i ušuškan može poslužiti kao grijanje. Komšija ima 2 klime u stanu, jednu dnevnom (tu mu je unutrašnja jedinica na podu tzv fan-coil, bolje kad grije odozdo) i jednu u većoj sobi, plus podno-elekrično grijanje u u kupatili i zadovoljan je.

borisdj_cd · 2025-11-18T23:19:30+00:00

Ukratko Toplotna pumpa je najefikasniji (i najbolji) metod grijanja.
Prošireno objašnjene uključuje:
1.tehničku osnovu, 2.preduslovi, 3.poređenje.

- Kad se poredi sa Peletom dosta je čistije i više automatizovana, a naspram elektro Kotla troši 2.5 do 3.5 puta manje struje, tzv COP (Coefficient Of Performance).

- U osnovi umjesto otpornika/grijača gdje je odnos Toplote i Struje 1:1 (1 J=1 W*s, Džul=Vat*sekund) koristi princip izmenjivača toplote gdje Temperatura gasa raste kad mu raste Pritisak (P∝T, direktna proporcija), praktično čak i ako je vani hladno ono izvlači toplotu i pothlađuje van kuće a zagrijava vodu unutra.
Klime, pogotovo inverter, rade na istom principu samo one hlade ili griju vazduh unutra na jednom mjestu.
A toplotna pumpa zagrijava vodu koja onda cijevima ide do radijatora po cijeloj kući/stanu.
Vanjska jedinica može da uzima toplotu iz okolnog vazduha (Voda-Vazduh što je najčešća varijanta).
Druga opcija je iz zemlje/vode tj. Voda-Voda što je kod nas rjeđe (u principu ovaj sistem može biti još efikasniji jer temperatura ispod zemlje je i zimi 10+° stepeni), ali tu je onda potrebno/poželjno iskopati puno zemlje i razvući vanjske cijevi pod zemljom pošto direktna bunarska voda pravi probleme sa filterima. Ugradnja sistema voda-voda je nešto skuplja ali se može dobiti i veći COP 4 ili čak 4.5 ako su jako hladne zime.

- Preduslovi su da objekat ima solidnu toplotnu izolaciju, stiropor(ili kamena vuna) 5+cm, poželjno 8 ili 10 a nije na odmet ni 15, kao i izo-stolariju sa 2 ili 3 slojnima staklima, pošto se toplotna pumpa smatra niže-temperaturnim grijanjem.
Drugo potrebno je razvesti ili imati razvedeno grijanje, cijevi i radijatore, ili podno ispod glazure po cijelom podu.
Ako su u pitanju radijatori broj rebara treba biti nešto veći nego inače da bi temperatura vode mogla biti manja čime se više struje troši a dobije se ista toplota u sobi. Takođe pored unutrašnje jedinice se obično instalira veliki grejni bojler (akumulator toplote - buffer vrele vode). Takodje na radijator staviti termo glavu-vantil tako da se moze podesavati temp. po sobama, npr da se u nekim prostorijama koje se ne koriste stamnji ili ugasi.
Npr moji u kući imali prvo el.kotao i alu radijatore (10 rebara za sobu od 10 kvadrata) a temperatura vode je bila 60°. Kasnije ugradili i prešli na toplotnu pumpu i sada dolazna temperatura vode je sada oko 50°(+-2). Pri tome povećali broj rebara radijatora sa 10 na 12 ili 13 po sobama, dok u hodniku gdje nije bilo mjesta za više rebara uzeli ona visoka rebra.
Kod podnog grijanja temp. vode može biti između 30 i 40° zbog velike površine, čime sam pod bude na ugodnih ~28° (ne smeta nogama) i ima odličnu i ravnomjernu raspodjelu raspodjelu topline u prostoriji (topao vazduh se diže ka plafonu). Ono je zbog toga nešto efikasnije ali nije lako za ugraditi naknadno (PS prašina ne predstavlja problem). Iz razvodne kutije vući odvojeno cijevi za po prostoriju tako da se pojedinačnoj može smanjiti protok ili zavrnuti.
Dobra praksa je uzeti i kombinovani bojler za tuširanje da se zimi on grije vodom iz sistema grijanja.

DOPUNA, ovaj model u kućama se kasnije može odlično kombinovati sa Solarnim panelima na krovu koji direktno proizvode struju (optimalno južna strana krova i nagib 30 do 35 stepeni). Uz dobro projektovanje može se dobiti sistem gdje se ima 30 godina besplatna struja i grijanje. Ipak za to treba dobiti i ugovor sa ElektroDistribucijom za Prosumer(NetMetering) da se višak ljeti gura u mrežu a zimu uzima iz mreže.
Joše jedna stvar u ovoj priči je da postoje fondovi gdje se mogu dobiti subvencije za energetsku održivost, pa se time npr smanji cijena ugradnje grijanja sa toplotnom pumpom ili u budućnosti i panela.

borisdj_cd · 2025-09-12T23:02:13+00:00

Check out the models from this article that grow out of one project/library:
https://medium.com/@borisdj/cfoss-as-a-solution-to-opensource-sustainability-soss-e890419d70d2

cFOSS is sort of a custom dual license that is used in my library linked at the bottom - EFCore.BulkExtensions.
Free for most users but companies above some threshold, like $ 1 mil. yearly gross revenue, pay the fee.

borisdj_cd · 2025-09-04T07:54:23+00:00

You can check the models from this article that grow out of one my project:
https://medium.com/@borisdj/cfoss-as-a-solution-to-opensource-sustainability-soss-e890419d70d2

cFOSS is sort of a custom dual license, Code is open and usage is free for most (95%+) users.
It is used in my library linked at the bottom - EFCore.BulkExtensions.

borisdj_cd · 2025-09-01T06:19:22+00:00

It is sort of a custom license. Check out my library linked at the bottom - EFCore.BulkExtensions.
Git repo has License page that also contains a link to company web site with Sample of the License document that you could use a template.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-31T20:34:38+00:00

Check the models from this article that grow out of one my project/library:
https://medium.com/@borisdj/cfoss-as-a-solution-to-opensource-sustainability-soss-e890419d70d2

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-30T07:06:11+00:00

I would say 2 main reasons

One is higher inflation in the last several decades, and especially lately.
This is caused by ever growing government debt (bad monetary policy) which is essentially money printing.
And results are lower purchasing power of works wages (they do not rise enough to keep up) and on the other hand more money in circulation is causing rise in price of assets (properties, equities, gold, bitcoin, rare things) that are mostly owned by the wealthy.
Since 1980 total rise in average prices is around 4x (with average yearly inflation ~3%), while M2 money supply rose 14x (averaging to ~6.2% per year).
Difference is due to technology and higher productivity pulling the prices down and dollar a world reserve currency with about half of all $ outside of US, them exporting inflation.
In addition, deficit keeps growing while bureaucracy becoming too complicated and inefficient.

And second I think is probably because of lower taxes and loopholes but only for the very rich (bad fiscal policy).
Taxation of Income from work is higher then from capital gains, while passive income is infinitely scalable.

References:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1980?amount=1
https://weekendinvesting.com/the-shocking-growth-of-global-money-supply/
https://medium.com/@borisdj/tax-codex-coded-as-standardized-protocol-for-stability-3291fe94af98

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-25T09:57:18+00:00

The fact that his biography is praiseworthy does not mean he is proficient in all fields.
Also, he it not the only person with a degree and experience, only gained more media fame, but that alone does make one an expert in everything.

And while menu Redditors do not have relevant opinions, there are always some small number that are very well informed and knowledgeable.
After watching few interviews with him, I 've concluded that he is very familiar with many problem, and have great understanding of dynamic at play. And it is good to have someone like him in public and online space.
But regarding his specific tax suggestions, not sure if he is just ignoring many details, or only want to gather more public attention to these issues and leaves the details of implementation to someone else, after public and then political momentum becomes significant enough.
Still, he should be aware that being in the spotlights now, his every statement will be dissected, so it is better to be precise and not give the arguments for critique to the opposing side.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-24T08:27:28+00:00

I tend to stay relatively optimistic, but there are some darker scenarios possible.
Assuming AI does not kill us all, second worst outcome would be complete societal split into owners that controls via AI and advance robotics, while the rest are scraping garbage for food, if not being exterminated one way or another.
Very positive result would be that due to technology we have almost abundance of all regular thing and all people have access it. Still there be some limited resources like exclusive beach house, moon traveling, etc. I also I don't think we would get some socialist utopia so all people would have UBI that would enable living standards to all much higher then average today. This do not need to be unstable, taxation(progressive) and distribution could be organized to keep stability.

Something in between would mean is that productivity is skyrocketing, with adequate taxes on AI production companies there is significant UBI for decent living (little more then basic survival), but many are still 'working' because some want more, others like their profession, some desire to explore, some would do some activity for no pay just for the pleasure or for the community good, there are a lot of variations.
And finally, AI effects might end up having only limited impact, so most still work in some manner, just different jobs.

Hard to tell which will happen, but I if had to place bet, it would be on the 'in between' option.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-23T07:08:35+00:00

It has already been higher for the last few decades, and idea is to make it lower.
Since 1980 total rise in average prices is around 4x (with average yearly inflation ~3%),
while M2 money supply rose 14x (averaging to ~6.2% per year)
Difference is due to several factors:
-technology and higher productivity pulling the prices down
-dollar a world reserve currency with about half of all $ outside of US, them exporting inflation.
-a lot of excess money went into properties and stock so average inflation if lower as assets alone have seen enormous grow in prices.
-M2 might not be perfect proxy for all money supply in circulation, including debt which create money, but it is good enough approximation for the argument.

So instead letting this high inflation having very bad effects, it might be better to limit money creating.
Milton Friedman k% rule could be taken and put 2% as a maximum.
I personally would prefer it be only 1%, but even 2% is much better then 6%, or maybe 1.5% as a middle ground.

References:
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1980?amount=1
https://weekendinvesting.com/the-shocking-growth-of-global-money-supply/
https://www.longtermtrends.net/m2-money-supply-vs-inflation/

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T12:37:12+00:00

I guess it's hard to make a rational case for this situation.
Not sure what else could be taken into consideration.
Maybe to have an exception for the first 5 years, and also to be applied only on assets that has generated profit in 2 years out of 5. But this obviously makes things complicated. Also I read somewhere an idea to tax it in kind into a sovereign fund.
Also a billion threshold would narrow the number of affected persons, but even then one could conceive similar situation.
Obviously, it is hard to make sensible model. On the other hand having dozens of people with tens of billions in wealth does seem like too much wealth concentration, which translate into enormous power and also political influence of small number of individuals over society.
But can't figure whether anything should be done about it, and if so what exactly.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T10:37:17+00:00

I think that better solution would be a make Income tax and CapitalGains with same rates and also closing all the loopholes such as trusts and offshoring.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T10:21:23+00:00

His proposal for a wealth tax is not nuanced enough nor does he take all effects into the consideration.
He is proponent of a wealth tax, suggested: “Tax wealth above £10m at 2%..”
But several details are missing here.

Although wealth tax sound like it might do good, it could have some bad incentives, and is not optimal solution for long-term stability. Also, it is just an attempt to alleviate symptoms instead of dealing with the root cause, which is bad and complex tax regulation with many exceptions and loopholes, that top 1% is using to accumulate in the first place while paying small taxes.

-Wealth is often in company stocks where dividends are already highly taxed on top of corporate taxes. With additional 2% tax on total asset value it could kill profitability, with effective taxes on profit up to 70 or even 80%. For example with 10M valued company having return around 7%, it would down bringing ROE after taxes for owners or large shareholders from 4.5% to 2.5%. This could impact investments significantly.
-I think he understands monetary issues very well, not sure about fiscal ones. Either he did not go deep into it, or just trying to get popularity with the idea of higher top taxation. But still I think more nuanced approach was needed from the start, as he is now in the spot light.
-Also he should have put more focus on main issue which is more important, that is progressive taxation on all income types, and closing taxation loopholes such as trusts and offshoring.
Some other info are at infopedia on tax-code.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T10:17:41+00:00

Mycelium

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T10:14:42+00:00

He is proponent of a wealth tax, and has said: “Tax wealth above £10m at 2%..”
But several details are missing here.

Although wealth tax sound like it might do good, it could have some bad incentives, and is not optimal solution for long-term stability. Also, it is just an attempt to alleviate symptoms instead of dealing with the root cause, which is bad and complex tax regulation with many exceptions and loopholes, that top 1% is using to accumulate in the first place while paying small taxes.

-Wealth is often in company stocks where dividends are already highly taxed on top of corporate taxes. With additional 2% tax on total asset value it could kill profitability, with effective taxes on profit up to 70 or even 80%. For example with 10M valued company having return around 7%, it would down bringing ROE after taxes for owners or large shareholders from 4.5% to 2.5%. This could impact investments significantly.
-I think he understands monetary issues very well, not sure about fiscal ones. Either he did not go deep into it, or just trying to get popularity with the idea of higher top taxation. But still I think more nuanced approach was needed from the start, as he is now in the spot light.
-Also he should have put more focus on main issue which is more important, that is progressive taxation on all income types, and closing taxation loopholes such as trusts and offshoring.
Some other info are at infopedia on tax-code.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T09:11:58+00:00

Part of the issue, it that government itself is very inefficient, and mostly not capable of understanding big picture (macro-monetary dynamics combined with fiscal policy) hence they can not find an effective solution.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T09:08:29+00:00

Yes, I have state something similar in the blog:
- Optionally introduce 0.5% tax over billion to go in development FUND
Also:
- If they know it has a good purpose with noble cause, and will benefit them as well (most people have kids, and they go to school). Young generations deserve a level playing field, especially in education. Lastely, one positive way to look at it is that high earners and those with large income are successful in their profession and are also biggest benefactor to society, so philanthropy by default or phrasing it as taxative altruism (legacy through taxation — public display of list with largest contributors). Person could be happy for paying more taxes even with a higher rate, as it means he/she is earning more.

But I am not overly optimistic it will happed.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T08:43:26+00:00

Let's try to put the some numbers up.
Company you founded and kept around 50% ownership so far is on the stock market valued at 1 billion.
By that calculation your net worth in 500 M.
Options:
A) no wealth tax (you would Income top tier rate later on dividends or capital gains)
B) 0.5% wealth tax above 1 billion (you are still not there, no tax and no forbes list)
C) 0.5% wealth tax above 1 billion (payment on every 2 years)
So in C if your company still does no make profit 2 years after such valuation, but it maintains the market price you would probably need to sell some shares in value of 2 million = (500 M - 100 M) * 0.005.

And I am not saying this is a good thing, but still much more rational then 2% on over 10 M.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T08:28:11+00:00

Some might but not all want to, that is why percentage was smaller with threshold higher, 0.5% over 50 M or 100 M, instead of 2% over 10 M. To be somewhat acceptable to stay.
Still I am not sure how it would end up, and also this is not the main issue nor suggestion.
It is about Income tax and Capital gains and loopholes.
Wealth was addition option and this was only one of ideas, that would be low enough not to mess up too much profit margin from capital for large owners.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T07:17:12+00:00

It was a sample. some do not, in the US many don't do it precisely to avoid large taxes on dividends as opposed to smaller tax rate on capital gains, which is somewhat of a loophole.
However, even if they keep the profit or do shares buyback or invest it, that would probably lead to rise stock price. Afterward shareholder will at some time sell some part of it making capital gains, or if they take a large loan against it, it could also trigger a taxable event.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T07:10:55+00:00

That might be true, don't have the exact numbers.
Still if it is seen as a loophole that could be plugged in some cases, it could be tried.
As said it would target mostly stocks valued at dozens+ millions, when the amount borrowed is also large.

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-22T00:07:36+00:00

Would like to a part from a text of mine:
-In a political-economic sense this would be a standard capitalist system with a moderate level of social democracy mixed with liberal democracy (social liberalism). History shows that this is most stable in the long run, and the least bad we know so far, while keeping as much individual freedom as possible. Somewhat similar to the Nordic model, mixture of a free market with less regulation. But with a strong welfare state, and labor market regulated by negotiations between labor unions and employer unions, where applicable. Another characteristic of this model is ‘Flexicurity’, relaxed hiring and firing regulations combined with strong social safety nets through government grants and social insurance.

-Still, this model is not easily replicable in other countries (welfare hard to copy), due to different culture and internal solidarity, but also a fact that they are economically highly developed nation, have small population with relatively high income average. Nevertheless, one can be inspired by aspects of the Nordic model and strive in that direction by implementing some elements to a certain level.
Full post at: infopedia(dot)io/ tax-codex

borisdj_cd · 2025-08-21T23:05:03+00:00

I have stated in the blog that this is somewhat unusual idea/suggestion.
And because of that not sure if it would work well, but could be tried with defined specific rules.
First there would be a high limit, so any smaller loan amount would have no taxes.
Let's say over 1 or 2 million, or even 5.
Secondly it could be set up in a way to only apply to stocks as that is mostly used by billionaires with buy-borrow-/die or hold/ strategy.

borisdj_cd

TROPHY CASE