4 ms·

The other critical point is that "the rich" are not passive targets but highly mobile. Swing at them too hard and too repeatedly and they will just leave. If yo

The other critical point is that "the rich" are not passive targets but highly mobile. Swing at them too hard and too repeatedly and they will just leave. If your life is on your laptop this really isn't that hard. Unless they then make it hard. After all, the state paid for your (compulsory) education, so to some you owe them all future success. And so you can't leave to escape a regime which is broke and desperate. The end game of this process is East Germany or North Korea, where the state taxes 100% and literally shoots you if you try to leave. In the US, of course, we don't shoot you if you emigrate...but in 2008 the US did, for the first time, implement a massive ~50% exit tax for those over 200k in net worth who renounce citizenship. It was remarked upon as a radical shift, as a desirable/wealthy place makes it hard to immigrate while an undesirable/destitute country usually makes it hard to emigrate. A harbinger of things to come?

rapind 16y ago
Depends on how rich you mean. Why would the very rich leave a plutocracy many of them have worked very hard to create? The US is a pretty sweet place to live if you have a lot of money. You not only get to live in luxury, you also have a disproportionate affect on public policies that allow you to grow your wealth. Maybe the 2th would be happy to leave though.
jshen 16y ago
I'm really uncomfortable with the implicit metaphor that this is a fight between the rich and the non-rich. I don't think that is an accurate representation of the situation. Also, many of the rich would not be rich if they were born in some other country. To a large degree they are the product of the opportunities of the environment they are in. That environment requires investment and good management. Our current situation has people like Warren Buffet paying a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than you and I, yet the rich use government services to a far greater extent than the rest of us. The US military isn't protecting oil fields I own in nigeria because I don't own any oil fields. The fire dept. isn't protecting the factories I own throughout the US because I don't own any. I think it only makes sense that those who benefit the most from our government, and who can afford it, invest in it accordingly. For starters they shouldn't have a significantly lower percentage of income taxed than the rest of us.
- Jach 16y ago
  I'm not so sure that the rich vs. non-rich fight is so inaccurate; throughout history it's always been a fight between those with power and those without, and until money no longer correlates so strongly with power (we're getting there) there will always be some "class warfare". Apart from that, I agree with you.

rapind 16y ago

Depends on how rich you mean. Why would the very rich leave a plutocracy many of them have worked very hard to create? The US is a pretty sweet place to live if you have a lot of money. You not only get to live in luxury, you also have a disproportionate affect on public policies that allow you to grow your wealth. Maybe the 2th would be happy to leave though.

jshen 16y ago

I'm really uncomfortable with the implicit metaphor that this is a fight between the rich and the non-rich. I don't think that is an accurate representation of the situation. Also, many of the rich would not be rich if they were born in some other country. To a large degree they are the product of the opportunities of the environment they are in. That environment requires investment and good management. Our current situation has people like Warren Buffet paying a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than you and I, yet the rich use government services to a far greater extent than the rest of us. The US military isn't protecting oil fields I own in nigeria because I don't own any oil fields. The fire dept. isn't protecting the factories I own throughout the US because I don't own any. I think it only makes sense that those who benefit the most from our government, and who can afford it, invest in it accordingly. For starters they shouldn't have a significantly lower percentage of income taxed than the rest of us.

Jach 16y ago
I'm not so sure that the rich vs. non-rich fight is so inaccurate; throughout history it's always been a fight between those with power and those without, and until money no longer correlates so strongly with power (we're getting there) there will always be some "class warfare". Apart from that, I agree with you.