3 ms·
As if any institution would remain in a jurisdiction that levied 90% tax.
by retube 10y ago
As if any institution would remain in a jurisdiction that levied 90% tax.
- extra88 10y agoWe're talking about personal income tax, not corporate tax. Other countries have high rates and most of the rich stay, the U.S. used to have rates that high for the wealthiest [0] and they stayed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...
- charlesdm 10y agoThey would take out a few hundred million in earnings before the tax is introduced, so they would never have to take money out again. France introduced a 75% tax in 2012 (or 2013) on income above €1m, and it drove away significant amounts of wealthy residents.
- whatok 10y agoYou mean rich people decided to stay in the US during wartime instead of chancing it somewhere else.
- extra88 10y agoLook again, the top bracket was 91% from 1946 until it was lowered to 77% in 1964, after WWII. I'm not declaring what the best top tax bracket should be, I'm countering the dismissal of much higher tax brackets as fantasy with facts that they have existed. Today, many countries in Europe have a top income tax bracket at or above 50% plus a VAT of 20-25%.
- charlesdm 10y agoYes, for people who earn their income through labour. Not for people who earn it through capital, i.e. hedge fund managers.
- retube 10y agoBritain tried something similar in the 1960s. It was a disaster. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-22/the-beatles-v-the-taxman-a-former-manager-recalls-yesterday- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-22/the-beatle...
- cmdrfred 10y ago90 is a little high but we have plenty of leverage. They can enjoy the Chinese markets, or maybe they can invest in Greece.