>Some states like CA are pretty aggressive in suing people who attempt to leave their jurisdiction before realizing capital gains to avoid taxation. And that j

>Some states like CA are pretty aggressive in suing people who attempt to leave their jurisdiction before realizing capital gains to avoid taxation. And that just lengthens the timeline on when the state starts suffering from its high tax policy. Now on top of high taxes, enterprising individuals also have to worry about financial penalties for leaving the state. The wealthy already in the state will be less inclined to leave, while the wealthy outside the state will be less inclined to come. The delayed effect of hikes to national taxes on the residency of the wealthy is actually a disadvantage, because it results in people not taking it into account when voting on policies. On the other hand, when the effect of something is immediate, voters take it into consideration. So I view the high mobility between states as an advantage, because it results in state policies being better structured to avoid economic harm. >The ability to hide wealth/earnings in general is a bigger deal, and that can be dealt with through treaties without requiring world government. There's no solution to the wealthy simply getting up and leaving the high tax jurisdiction for good, in order to avoid incurring future tax debts. What's collected on an exit tax is nothing compared to what that individual would have contributed had they stayed. Tax treaties and the like will not prevent this, because when you live in a country with a lower income tax rate, your tax obligations are lower. This makes it financially advantageous for any highly productive individual to leave a high tax jurisdiction.