4 ms·

Be prepared to see your top tax contributors move to another country.

ilovetux 8y ago
Let them go, we don't need them. Even though I don't really believe in the parent comment, I do not believe that we should ever be afraid of anyone leaving if we make decisions that they don't like. This way of thinking is the premise of many abusive relationships. If someone wants to leave, let them. Appeasement never helps.
- flyingfences 8y ago
  > Let them go, we don't need them. People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives. Economic activity is not driven by the government; destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability. > if we make decisions Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? "We" are right and "they" are wrong. No. Stop trying to weasel together some illusion of unity. The vast majority of Americans want no part in your delusions. > If someone wants to leave, let them. Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave? Speaking of "abusive relationships"...
  - ilovetux 8y ago
    > Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? Yes, through democracy. Sure we can disagree with our government as well as with our governments structure, but the fact is that "we" make decisions. In short, "we" are in this together. > People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives. I agree, but I would argue that there is no person or company which would totally and permanently cripple the US economy by leaving. There are some examples which would cause a very difficult adjustment period, but we would overcome. > Economic activity is not driven by the government No, the government does not drive the economy but in the best scenario can act as a reliable GPS guidance system or in the worst an annoying backseat driver. The trick is to walk a thin line between the two. > destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability. Probably, but who wants to destroy the private sector? > Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave? I actually don't agree with the parent comment and would never suggest creating laws just to make people leave...there's enough of that going on now. I just think that _fear_ of someone leaving is unhealthy at best.
- defertoreptar 8y ago
  If we don't need them, why increase taxes on them in the first place? I'm talking about people who, out of all people, have the means to easily move to another country. Your suggestion is akin to telling them, "I will give you millions of dollars to move to another country." Instead of addressing my central point, you're trying to flip it into some abusive relationship metaphor.
  - ilovetux 8y ago
    That was not me posting the suggestion of hyper-taxation. I am merely commenting on being aware of the decisions which are being made and for what reasons. If we make decisions based on fear, we are probably not making the right choice. After re-reading your comment, you actually didn't use that argument like I normally hear it. You said "be prepared" and did not add on some vague warning like "then what would happen." Stating it the way you did, I hesitantly agree. To clarify my point while trying to sound less preachy and without the sensationalist metaphor (sorry about that by the way): If there was some new law or tax code being proposed which would have the effect of people choosing to leave (not being forced), then that should be one valid point of discussion. That discussion point should be discussed, hopefully quantified and chosen based on pros, cons and rational discussion, but never on fear.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  > This way of thinking is the premise of many abusive relationships. Or the flipside of the metaphor, powerful governments "doing something that would make them leave" is making the decision to be an abuser. The parent comment is suggesting perhaps abusing capital/entrepreneurs is a bad idea.
  - ilovetux 8y ago
    Yes, it is almost an opposite form of abuse and definately worth consideration. I do not think abuse is a good idea in any form. Another form of abuse is exploitation which is closer IMO to our current economic situation. Less powerful earners do not usually have an opportunity to negotiate terms, they are take-it-or-leave it options which is not necessarily the case with more powerful earners. I routinely negotiate contracts to get the best possible terms for everyone, I wish I had that option earlier in life. This is earily similar to Terms of Use and other agreements between consumers and large tech companies. I wonder when this trend started.

Let them go, we don't need them. Even though I don't really believe in the parent comment, I do not believe that we should ever be afraid of anyone leaving if we make decisions that they don't like. This way of thinking is the premise of many abusive relationships. If someone wants to leave, let them. Appeasement never helps.

flyingfences 8y ago
> Let them go, we don't need them. People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives. Economic activity is not driven by the government; destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability. > if we make decisions Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? "We" are right and "they" are wrong. No. Stop trying to weasel together some illusion of unity. The vast majority of Americans want no part in your delusions. > If someone wants to leave, let them. Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave? Speaking of "abusive relationships"...
- ilovetux 8y ago
  > Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? Yes, through democracy. Sure we can disagree with our government as well as with our governments structure, but the fact is that "we" make decisions. In short, "we" are in this together. > People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives. I agree, but I would argue that there is no person or company which would totally and permanently cripple the US economy by leaving. There are some examples which would cause a very difficult adjustment period, but we would overcome. > Economic activity is not driven by the government No, the government does not drive the economy but in the best scenario can act as a reliable GPS guidance system or in the worst an annoying backseat driver. The trick is to walk a thin line between the two. > destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability. Probably, but who wants to destroy the private sector? > Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave? I actually don't agree with the parent comment and would never suggest creating laws just to make people leave...there's enough of that going on now. I just think that _fear_ of someone leaving is unhealthy at best.
defertoreptar 8y ago
If we don't need them, why increase taxes on them in the first place? I'm talking about people who, out of all people, have the means to easily move to another country. Your suggestion is akin to telling them, "I will give you millions of dollars to move to another country." Instead of addressing my central point, you're trying to flip it into some abusive relationship metaphor.
- ilovetux 8y ago
  That was not me posting the suggestion of hyper-taxation. I am merely commenting on being aware of the decisions which are being made and for what reasons. If we make decisions based on fear, we are probably not making the right choice. After re-reading your comment, you actually didn't use that argument like I normally hear it. You said "be prepared" and did not add on some vague warning like "then what would happen." Stating it the way you did, I hesitantly agree. To clarify my point while trying to sound less preachy and without the sensationalist metaphor (sorry about that by the way): If there was some new law or tax code being proposed which would have the effect of people choosing to leave (not being forced), then that should be one valid point of discussion. That discussion point should be discussed, hopefully quantified and chosen based on pros, cons and rational discussion, but never on fear.
simonsarris 8y ago
> This way of thinking is the premise of many abusive relationships. Or the flipside of the metaphor, powerful governments "doing something that would make them leave" is making the decision to be an abuser. The parent comment is suggesting perhaps abusing capital/entrepreneurs is a bad idea.
- ilovetux 8y ago
  Yes, it is almost an opposite form of abuse and definately worth consideration. I do not think abuse is a good idea in any form. Another form of abuse is exploitation which is closer IMO to our current economic situation. Less powerful earners do not usually have an opportunity to negotiate terms, they are take-it-or-leave it options which is not necessarily the case with more powerful earners. I routinely negotiate contracts to get the best possible terms for everyone, I wish I had that option earlier in life. This is earily similar to Terms of Use and other agreements between consumers and large tech companies. I wonder when this trend started.