upworthy
More

These 5 hilariously ridiculous rules are why our tax system favors the rich.

Since the first federal progressive income tax was introduced in 1913, most Americans have fairly assumed that, come mid-April, the more money you earn, the more money you pay.

Rage! Photo via iStock.

But, oh boy, does it ever not work that way.


Examples of stupendously wealthy people paying hilariously low percentages of their income in taxes aren't hard to track down. See, for example, Warren Buffet paying a lower tax rate than his secretary or Donald Trump paying an effective tax rate of 25% in 2005 — far lower than the top marginal rate that  year of 35% — despite earning $150 million.

If the tax code had been designed by, say, a coalition of teachers, construction workers, and fry cooks, things might be different. Unfortunately, the laws determining who pays what and why are written by members of Congress, who, as of 2012, had a median net worth of just a wee bit over $1 million. From their perspective, it's not hard to see that "How can I structure the tax code to make buying gas and going to the doctor a little more affordable?" might be a less pressing question than, say, "Should solid gold busts of Ayn Rand be deductible?"

To be sure, many rich people do pay more in taxes than middle- or working-class Americans, just less more than they might otherwise. And it's hard to blame the wealthy for taking full advantage of a system designed to benefit them. Don't hate the player, the saying goes, hate the game.

The Game probably pays a lower effective tax rate than you. Photo by Eva Rinaldi/Flickr (cropped).

But the game, such as it is, is rigged (SAD!).

So while most of us prepare to part with around a third of our hard-earned cash trying to decide if it's legal to write off as a business expense the $13.79 in tissues we bought to wipe away our tears, here are some of the rules that make it easier for the wealthy to play.

1. There's a tax break for vacation homes.

Let's say you live in a tiny apartment in a major American city, paying your landlord hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a month to sleep in a glorified coat closet. You typically don't get to write off your rent on your federal taxes.

Your rent. Photo via iStock.

But if you were among those privileged enough to have the means to buy a house or condo or downtown triplex with a sweet view, you would get to deduct the interest you'd pay on your mortgage.

"OK sure," you might be thinking, "People who can buy houses are generally doing better financially than those who can't, but there are a lot of homeowners in America, and I hope to be one someday." And that's true, so far as it goes.

If you're really doing well, however, one house might not be enough. Sometimes you just have to spring for that little fixer-upper in the Poconos or that sprawling beach compound in the Outer Banks or that $90-million condo on 5th Avenue.

So close to the Apple Store! Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images.

In that case, you get to deduct the interest on the mortgage for your second house too!

As far as tax breaks that favor the already-pretty-damn-favored are concerned, the second home deduction is, alas, one of the more egalitarian, as it advantages both the only-sort-of-rich and the ridiculously rich — and you can only write off a total of $1.1 million in debt. Furthermore, the rule doesn't apply if you're so rich you just buy the house outright, nor does it apply to the third, fourth, ninth, and 12th homes owned by your average Gates, Bloombergs, and Zuckerbergs.

But the fact remains that taking out mortgages on more than one house gets you federal tax relief, while renting a studio apartment, mobile home, or infuriatingly twee tiny house doesn't.

Thanks to the U.S. tax code, it owns to own.

2. If you're rich enough to buy a yacht, you can probably write off a big chunk of it.

What makes a house a home? A cozy reading nook by the fire? Happy memories? The love and affection of all those you hold near and dear?

According to the U.S. tax code, if you can eat, sleep, and pee in it, it's a home — which means that this:

...counts as a home, making it eligible for the mortgage interest tax break.

Some politicians have tried to exempt yachts from the second home deduction in recent years. It hasn't happened yet, partly because there are an absurd number of ways to get out of paying your full share of taxes on your yacht. Some states go out of their way to make superboats more affordable to your average Koch brother, DeVos sibling, or Soros quintuplet by capping the amount of sales tax you have to pay on them.

(L-R) George, Brad, Benghazi, Obamaphone, and #HillaryDid9/11 Soros. Photos by VCG/Getty Image, Spencer Platt/Getty Images, Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images, Sean Gallup/Getty Images.

Even better, if you rent out your yacht to slightly less wealthy people some of the time, you can usually deduct the whole purchase price and some of the insurance and maintenance fees as a business expense.

Pretty sweet! You should probably get a yacht!

3. While people who earn high salaries pay more in income tax, many wealthy people make a lot of non-salary income, and that's taxed at a lower rate.

If you're a single person making $1 million in salary, you're paying the top federal income tax rate — which for 2016 means 39.6% on every dollar over $415,050. That's way lower than it was in 1944, when the top rate was a whopping 94%. It's even lower than just over 30 years ago during the early years of the Reagan administration, when the top earners were paying 50%. Still, it's a solid chunk of change. Mercifully, for many super wealthy Americans, only a small portion of their annual income comes from working at an actual salaried job.

Enter capital gains!

"Money?" "Money." "Money money." "Money?" "MONEY!" Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

The best part about already having a buttload of money is that your money can make you even more money. If you're rich, you can take the cash you already have and invest it — in stock, or real estate, or apps called Moob that deliver fish bones to elderly Methodists, or what have you. And the best part? The cash you make when your assets post a gain is taxed at a mere 15-20%. That means if your trust fund does well, or if your 15th home increases in value, you might pay a lower tax rate on that gain than a nurse's aide pays on her $18/hour salary.

If that tax rate seems unfair, then you obviously haven't heard about the Newtian Pository. It's a philosophical concept I just made up that means "hahahahaha screw you and your 'job' that pays you a 'barely living wage.' If you want to get ahead in life, stop crying and own a landfill, or a Monet, or a bunch of Google, you dingbat!"

4. Rich people who own a lot of stock don't have to pay taxes on it if it increases in value — as long as they die before selling it.

Teddy is survived by his son Teddy Jr., his fifth wife Polankia, and a $75 million portfolio. Photo via iStock.

This is called "step-up in basis," one of those purposely complicated phrases used to obscure a pretty simple concept that would send poor people in the direction of the nearest flaming pitchfork store if anyone ever decided to, you know, actually explain it clearly.

So I'm gonna try to do that, by way of a totally hypothetical example.

Imagine you're a hard-charging New York City real estate billionaire type — "Ronald Bump," let's say. You buy 100,000 shares of stock at $1/share. To do this, you lay out $100,000 — an entire life savings for some, but chump change to a member of the Bump dynasty.

Let's say you, Ronald Bump, get lucky, and over the next 30 years, the stock increases in value to $100/share. Your $100,000 has magically become $10 million! If you sell it, you'd net a cool $9.9 million — but you'd pay taxes on it (albeit at the previously mentioned, already ludicrously low capital gains rate), leaving you with a mere $7.4 million or thereabouts.

But let's say you don't sell, and one day, when you're out grabbing a caviar bagel with gold leaf cream cheese, you get hit by a bus.

The Bus of Tragedy. Photo by Adam E. Moreira/Wikimedia Commons.

The bus really does a number on you, flattening your legs, rib cage, and most of your vital organs. Then, trying to determine the cause of the light whump that momentarily inconvenienced its passengers, the bus backs up, pancaking your head. Finally, seeing no cause for special concern, it speeds away, running you over a third time, knocking your body into a ditch to be eaten by crows.

How horrible. You're dead now.

Because you're dead, your son — let's call him Ronald Bump Jr. — inherits your giant portfolio. ​When he sells it​, he only has to pay taxes on any gains the investment makes beyond the $9.9 million — regardless that the stock was originally purchased for just $100,000. He can go his merry way a full almost-$10 million richer, convinced of his own singular brilliance, free to hunt endangered mammals and approvingly reply to racists on Twitter with the comfort of a nest egg to make his economic anxiety disappear.

And the meritocracy triumphantly soldiers on.

The bottom line, if you hold stock until you die and pass it on to your kids, spouse, or golden retriever, neither you, nor they ever have to pay taxes on the value it accrued in your lifetime. Pretty sweet!

5. A lot of rich families don't have to pay taxes on the money they pass on to their heirs, even though there's a tax theoretically designed to make that happen.

"We repossess about 379 of these bad boys a day. Mwa-ha-ha-ha!" — the government, probably. Image via iStock.

To hear anti-tax advocates tell it, millions of hardworking Americans are subject to an evil "death tax," whereupon soulless government brownshirts descend en masse to rip the family farm away from Junior not nine seconds after Ma and Pa's untimely death in a freakish tumbleweed accident. It's the sort of thing that gets decent people riled up, demanding answers and installing electric fencing around their property. How could Uncle Sam be so heartless? So cruel? So greedy?

The thing is, most Americans aren't wealthy enough to be subjected to the "death tax" — more properly known as the estate tax. If you leave a small retirement account, family home, or a couple of used toasters and $50 to your kids when you pass away, the IRS won't send you an invoice.

The tax only applies to estates being passed down that are worth over $5.4 million. So unless Ma and Pa's farmhouse looks like this:

You're probably not going to see a tax on it.

Yes, super rich people — your aforementioned Gates, Bloomberg and Zuckerberg dynasties  — do have to pay estate taxes, and thank Zod. And, yes, it's good that middle class families don't have to pay it. Meanwhile, lots of pretty rich people (albeit not Gates, Bloomberg, or Zuckerberg rich) are making out great under the current system, even as activists try to do away with the tax altogether, because the net worth limit for when the tax kicks in is so high that those families don't have to pay anything at all either — which allows dynastic wealth to keep on piling up.

As recently as 2004, the estate tax kicked in at $1.5 million. The current limit of $5.4 million is, frankly, a crap-ton of money to be able to pass down tax-free.

Even without such a high estate tax threshold, kids would be able to keep using the heirloom kitchen appliances long after their parents are gone.

Unfortunately, with the limit currently in the stratosphere, it also means that Junior can keep up the Kobe beef farm as he rides his platinum-hulled tractor into the sunset.

Considering all the deductions, loopholes, and advantages already in place, it's sort of weird that Congress' next priority is to reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans even more.

After Republicans wrap up their will-they-or-won't-they dance with the American Health Care Act, Congress plans to tackle "tax reform," so-called because it "reforms" more money into the pockets of rich people. Among the proposed changes to the tax code: lowering the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, lowering the corporate tax rate to 20%, and completely eliminating the estate tax.

Someday son, much of this will be yours, tax free! Photo via iStock.

But as we've seen numerous times these past few months, America doesn't have to let it happen!

Calling your representatives worked to scuttle the first go-around of the AHCA, and it can work to put the kibosh on the current tax reform plan too.

It won't be easy. But after helping kill a suspect federal law, and finishing and filing your taxes, you'll definitely have earned a nice vacation.

May I suggest buying a yacht?"

A map of the United States post land-ice melt.

Land ice: We got a lot of it. Considering the two largest ice sheets on earth — the one on Antarctica and the one on Greenland — extend more than 6 million square miles combined ... yeah, we're talkin' a lot of ice. But what if it was all just ... gone? Not like gone gone, but melted?

If all of earth's land ice melted, it would be nothing short of disastrous. And that's putting it lightly. This video by Business Insider Science (seen below) depicts exactly what our coastlines would look like if all the land ice melted. And spoiler alert: It isn't great. Lots of European cities like, Brussels and Venice, would be basically underwater.

I bring up the topic not just for funsies, of course, but because the maps are real possibilities.

How? Climate change.

As we continue to burn fossil fuels for energy and emit carbon into our atmosphere, the planet gets warmer and warmer. And that, ladies and gentlemen, means melted ice.

A study published this past September by researchers in the U.S., U.K., and Germany found that if we don't change our ways, there's definitely enough fossil fuel resources available for us to completely melt the Antarctic ice sheet.

Basically, the self-inflicted disaster you see above is certainly within the realm of possibility.


assets.rebelmouse.io


In Africa and the Middle East? Dakar, Accra, Jeddah — gone.



assets.rebelmouse.io


Millions of people in Asia, in cities like Mumbai, Beijing, and Tokyo, would be uprooted and have to move inland.



assets.rebelmouse.io


South America would say goodbye to cities like Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires.


assets.rebelmouse.io


And in the U.S., we'd watch places like Houston, San Francisco, and New York City — not to mention the entire state of Florida — slowly disappear into the sea.


assets.rebelmouse.io

All GIFs via Business Insider Science/YouTube.

Business Insider based these visuals off National Geographic's estimation that sea levels will rise 216 feet (!) if all of earth's land ice melted into our oceans.

There's even a tool where you can take a detailed look at how your community could be affected by rising seas, for better or worse.

Although ... looking at these maps, it's hard to imagine "for better" is a likely outcome for many of us.

Much of America's most populated regions would be severely affected by rising sea levels, as you'll notice exploring the map, created by Alex Tingle using data provided by NASA.

Take, for instance, the West Coast. (Goodbye, San Fran!)



assets.rebelmouse.io


Or the East Coast. (See ya, Philly!)


assets.rebelmouse.io


And the Gulf Coast. (RIP, Bourbon Street!)

"This would not happen overnight, but the mind-boggling point is that our actions today are changing the face of planet Earth as we know it and will continue to do so for tens of thousands of years to come," said lead author of the study Ricarda Winkelmann, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

If we want to stop this from happening," she says, "we need to keep coal, gas, and oil in the ground."

The good news? Most of our coastlines are still intact! And they can stay that way, too — if we act now.

World leaders are finallystarting to treat climate change like the global crisis that it is — and you can help get the point across to them, too.

Check out Business Insider's video below:


- YouTubewww.youtube.com


This article originally appeared eleven years ago.

Health

Science confirms ‘Move in Silence’ trend might be the smartest way to achieve your goals

“I promise you things always work out better when you keep them to yourself.”

Science confirms ‘Move in Silence’ trend might be the smartest way to achieve your goals.

TikTok's latest viral wisdom is backed by hard data—and it's making people rethink their communication habits. We live in a world of chronic oversharing. We post everything, from the routes we run (including screenshots as proof of all that hard work), to the pale-green iced matcha latte sitting at our desks or a present from a boyfriend (who will be tagged prominently, not secretly off screen). Who knows when, but our brains became wired for sharing: to record, to curate, and to post every second of our lives, then consume that of others to a disturbing degree. So, here's a radical idea: when it comes to goals and plans, try keeping them to yourself. It could be the key to making them a reality.

That's the message behind TikTok's massively popular "Move in Silence" trend, where creators like @noemoneyyy have cracked the contradictory code to success: Instead of broadcasting every big idea or project that runs through your head, if you actually want it to come to fruition, keep your plans to yourself until they're executed. And it's not just a trend; surprisingly, science also supports this muted approach.


"As a former oversharer who used to tell every single friend, every single family member, or a partner everything I was doing, I promise you things always work out better when you keep them to yourself," explains creator @noemoneyyy in a video that's garnered millions of views.

On a different video by @mandanazarfhami, she says, “I don’t care what you’ve got going on in your life: that dream job, that city that you want to move to, that dream person, that dream life, that dream anything. Literally keep it to yourself until it’s done.”

Commentors were quick to agree, with one person writing: “From a young age, I never told anyone my next steps. I also taught my husband and son to keep our private matters to themselves and just do things 💯Not many people like it, but who cares🌝🙌🏼🫶🏼”

Another chimed in, “This concept has changed my life for the better.” Others replied, “100 agree 💕” and “100%🙌🏼people can’t ruin what is silent, show results.”


@mandanazarghami monitoring spirits are a real thing - move in silence and watch how much your life changes #fypシ ♬ Jacob and the Stone - Emile Mosseri


What's going on here

In a study done by New York University, researchers found that people who kept their goals private worked on tasks for an average of 45 minutes, compared to the 33 minutes of work completed by those who announced their plans in advance. The twist? The people who shared their goals expressed feeling closer to finishing, despite doing approximately 25% less work.

NYU psychologist Peter Gollwitzer, who led the research, concluded that "once you've told other people your intentions, it gives you a 'premature sense of completeness.'" He also found that the brain is made up of "identity symbols," which create one's self-image. Interestingly, both action and talking about action create symbols in your brain, so simply speaking about a future plan or something you want to do satisfies that part of your brain. When we make our goals public, especially ones that matter to us and deal with our identity, our ability to achieve said goal is significantly reduced. As the old adage goes, "actions speak louder than words."

Stranger still, in his paper "Does Social Reality Widen the Intention-Behavior Gap," Gollwitzer notes that in order for this phenomenon to happen, one must truly care about their goals. "Ironically, this effect was only found for participants who are very committed to their goal!" PsychologyToday notes. "The lesson learned is that the more passionate you are about your goals, the more secretive you should be about them."

Quiet, silence, peace, shhh, no speaking, secret The more passionate you are about your goals, the more secretive you should be. Photo credit: Canva

Another reason to keep quiet: If you're a beginner trying something new, sharing your plans could potentially open you up to criticism and negative feedback, which could deter you from even starting. At the University of Chicago, professor Ayelet Fishbach conducted studies to determine how positive and negative feedback affects the pursuit of one's goal. According to Atlassian, she and her team found:

  • When positive feedback signals commitment to a goal, it increases motivation.
  • When positive feedback signals progress, it actually decreases motivation.
"One example the researchers give is a math student who gets a good grade on a test. If she perceives it to mean she likes math, she will study harder. If, however, she sees the high score as a sign she is making progress in the class, she may ease up and study less." - Atlassian


@_alliechen I used to be such an open book but now im a lot more reserved on my goals and plans so ppl dont judge #moveinsilence #relateablecontent #girlies #viral #success ♬ suara asli - astrooo🪐

We've all been there: excitedly telling everyone about your grand plans to backpack through Europe, the year you'll finally learn Spanish, or joining the group lesson at the tennis courts you always pass by… only to mysteriously lose all motivation a week later. Turns out, those lovely dopamine bursts that accompany every enthusiastic "That sounds great!" or "You should totally do it!" response might be precisely what's holding you back.

The good news? You don't need to become closed-off and secretive, a hermit on the top of a mountain who's afraid to share any part of themselves with the world. Research suggests that sharing your goals with one or two selected friends who can be trusted to provide meaningful support is still a good idea. Just hold off on the Instagram Live announcement until you've actually accomplished something substantial.

So, the next time you sit down to write your goals, whether they be a new year's resolution, the day's to-do list, or a five-year plan, think twice about sharing it with others. Give it time and you might have something better to share soon: the results.

Community

Inside a Dutch 'dementia village,' where the whole neighborhood is designed for memory loss

The Hogeweyk provides a sense of "normalcy" for people living with dementia.

People with dementia can roam freely in a dementia village.

Living with dementia is not easy, nor is living with someone living with dementia. No matter how much caregivers may want to keep a loved one with dementia in their home, it's not always feasible. But moving them into a traditional care facility isn't always ideal, either.

That's where a "dementia village" comes in as an alternative. Instead of trying to fit a person with dementia into a living situation that either isn't designed for them or is overly focused on their limitations, a dementia village is an environment designed specifically to help people with severe dementia feel safe and free and live as normal a life as possible.

dementia, dementia care, alzheimer's disease, dementia village, memory carePeople with dementia tend to remember distant memories and forget recent ones.Photo credit: Canva

The Hogeweyk was the world's first dementia village, founded in 2009. Since then, the idea has been replicated in dozens of locations all over the world. The concept is quite simple: A full, self-contained neighborhood where people with dementia can walk around freely without fear of getting lost, where everyone from shopkeepers to restaurant servers to salon workers are trained in dementia care, and where people who are losing their memory to dementia diseases are treated as people who still have aspirations.

Eloy van Hal, one of the founders of the Hogeweyk, explained to Vox how the guiding principle of the village is "normalcy." Traditional nursing homes keep all residents under one roof, and they are subject to whatever program the institution provides for them. In the Hogeweyk, people live in small groups of six or seven in apartments with furnishings like they'd have at home. Distinct landmarks in the public space help residents know where they are, and putting a theater, grocery store, barber shop, etc. in separate buildings encourage movement through the neighborhood.

"It's about choice, choice, choice, where you want to be during the whole day and with whom," said van Hal. The idea is to balance safe design with controlled risk, allowing for as much of a normal life as possible.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The one downside to the village concept, of course, is cost. Without adequate funding assistance from governments, living in a dementia village can be prohibitively expensive.

Does it really make a difference for residents, though? Has it been proven that outcomes are better than traditional care models? With dozens of villages now being used around the world, research is ongoing but the data from the Hogeweyk is promising. People in the comments of Vox's by Design video shared how such facilities have been life-changing for their loved ones and how traditional care doesn't always meet the needs of people with dementia.

"My grandmother had dementia and when her caretaker who was my grandfather (her husband) passed unexpectedly we had to scramble to get her into a memory care facility in the US. The first place she was in temporarily was so sad, I could see her spirit drain but after about a year we were able to get her into a "village" and the quality of life difference is nothing short of ASTOUNDING! She could function in a way that was familiar and comfortable to her and not be in a foreign hospital setting. The abrupt change from a home where they are familiar, to a clinical setting must be very disorienting and upsetting to these people. That side of my family had mental health issues and memory loss starts early, so I know it will happen to me to some extent and I only hope I can have people take care of me as well as in this Hogeweyk."

"I've worked in a nursing home through high school and college. While I can't say it was the worst place for dementia patients, it certainly did not work well for all of them. One patient once tried to wedge herself through the door begging to go outside with me and I even had patients confide in me that they hated being institutionalized, they missed being able to live a normal life, being part of a real community, and being able to come and go as they pleased. This concept is probably the closest thing possible to a normal life a dementia patient could ever have."

dementia, dementia care, alzheimer's disease, dementia village, memory careAll the workers in a dementia village are trained in memory care.Photo credit: Canva

"A relative of mine used to get aggressive, violent and angry when she would encounter a locked door in the institution she was in. She couldn't understand why there would be a locked room in what she understood to be 'her home', this would take a lot of calming down and management, only for her to discover another locked door, and kick off again. I love these village based models as they allow autonomy for residents, and have an individual experience. Just because someone has a brain disease doesn't mean they aren't entitled to the very best care. I hope the govt spends far more on these establishments in the future."

"As he said at the end, people with dementia are still people—even if there is proven to be no benefits to this model over a care home, I would much prefer to have dignity in my final days than live in a clinical trap. Love all the incredible ideas the Netherlands come up with."

Dementia care is something Americans are going to have to look at closely. According to The Alzheimer's Association, the number of people living with Alzheimer's is set to nearly double from seven million to 13 million by the year 2050. As more of our elders require full-time care, the more we'll have to consider prioritizing putting resources into things like dementia villages.

Everyone deserves safety and a good quality of life. The Hogeweyk is a great example of what it looks like to view people with dementia as people first and to care for them accordingly.

Anyone can transform their relationship with waste.

In Japan, one of the first things you notice is how intense they are about recycling. Bins are guarded by two to three uniformed protectors who are quick to tell you if you’re doing things wrong. For a novice—especially one from America—that seems to be almost everything. The plastic plate wasn’t washed clean enough, you’re headed to the wrong bin (there are many, all with varying purposes), etc.. It can feel quite exhausting until you realize that Japan is a global leader in plastic bottle and e-waste recycling, with an impressive 86% and 70%, respectively. Compare that to the global recycling numbers: according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, about 30% of plastic water bottles (PET) are recycled globally and only 22% of all e-waste is formally recycled globally.

However, nestled in the lush mountains of Shikoku Island—the smallest of Japan’s four islands—is a tiny town that’s revolutionizing the trash and recycling industry. Welcome to Kamikatsu. All 1,400 residents here are so committed to zero-waste, they sort their garbage into 45 different categories and don’t even use garbage trucks. And their efforts have paid off: Kamikatsu received a remarkable 81% recycling rate—the highest in the world, thus far.

Recyling, reusing, environment, Japan, environmentKamikatusu's recycling techniques are well worth the effort. Kamikatsu Zero Waste Center

For perspective, Japan’s national average (for overall solid waste recycling) is only 20%. Germany is considered as the global leader in recycling household and municipal waste, with a recycling rate of 67%. Following Germany are Austria (58%), South Korea (59%) Slovenia (58%), and Belgium (54%). The United States rests at 32%, although it aims for 50% by 2030. In short, Kamikatsu isn’t just lapping the world’s global leaders: it’s redefining what’s possible.

Which wasn’t always the case. In the 1970s, there was nothing exceptional about Kamikatsu, in terms of recycling. According to ReasonsToBeCheerful: “The roots of Kamikatsu’s reuse revolution go back decades. During Japan’s postwar economic boom, the expansion of mass industry created huge amounts of waste, which increased from 6.2 million tons in 1955 to 43.9 million tons in 1980. In response, municipalities across Japan, including Kamikatsu, began to build incinerators to dispose of it all. But over time, concern grew about the pollution being created.”

Recycling, Japan, zero-waste, trash, environmentThe inside of Kamikatsu's Zero Waste Center. KAMIKATSU ZERO WASTE CENTER

The town’s transformation took years, beginning in 1991, when officials first tackled food waste by providing composters to every household. By 1997, they’d created nine categories for recycling:

  1. Newspapers
  2. Magazines and flyers
  3. Cardboard
  4. Milk cartons
  5. Other paper
  6. Aluminum cans
  7. Steel cans
  8. Glass bottles
  9. PET bottles

This was the moment that changed everything for Kamikatsu, a significant cultural and logistical shift that laid the foundation for years to come. "It was tough because it changed their day-to-day duties," admits Akira Sakano, founder and director of Zero Waste Japan, "but people got used to it."


Recycling, Japan, zero-waste, trash, environmentHow to recycle boxes and other cardboard goods. KAMIKATSU ZERO WASTE CENTER

Today, Kamikatsu continues its goal to become fully zero-waste. The town closed down their incinerators, removed all garbage trucks, and now boasts a radical 45 categories for recycling.

But do you really need a 45-category system to cut back on waste? Of course not. Here are five practices anyone can adopt at home:

  1. Compost your food waste. According to Kamikatsu’s garbage guide (which was helpfully translated by Core77), “Compost food scraps [is] the only resource you can recycle yourself.” By using compost bins, electric composters, and bamboo composters, residents are able to transform food scraps into valuable fertilizer.
  2. Embrace second-hand. The town has a “Kuru-kuru” shop, which translates to “come and go,” and offers free second-hand items to anyone who wants them. Each product is weighed and tracked, to account for exactly how much waste is avoided. To do this locally, try joining your neighborhood’s Buy Nothing group, or donate to a Tiny Free Library.
  3. Get creative with upcycling. Local artisans in Kamikatsu transform old clothes, like kimonos, and koinobori (fish-shaped streamers) into bags, jackets, and toys. So, ask yourself: Do I really need to throw away that jar, or could it become a treasured container? Old t-shirts could become lovely, braided rugs. Egg cartons make wonderful painted art projects or storage bins.
  4. Reuse your own containers. Places like The Refill Shoppe, Common Good, and Clean Cult offer green alternatives to single-use cleaning solutions and soaps. Their wide variety of refillable products also use less packaging and contain non-toxic ingredients.
  5. Question consumption. The Kamikatsu Zero Waste Center is shaped in a giant question mark, urging people to ask why they must spend money on something. Their website reads: “Why do you buy it? Why do you throw it away?” It’s a reset, an invitation to rethink your relationship with constant consumption.

As we face mounting environmental challenges, Kamikatsu offers a powerful reminder: with community commitment and creative thinking, we can transform our relationship with waste. Are you ready to try?

Recycling, Japan, zero-waste, trash, environmentGive radical recycling a try. KAMIKATSU ZERO WASTE CENTER