7 ms·
My guess: because they hope to be wealthy some day.
by muststopmyths 6y ago
My guess: because they hope to be wealthy some day.
- throwaways885 6y agoDoesn't everyone? Plus, there's other reasons to be skeptical of wealth taxes, capital flight is a real thing.
- pmiller2 6y agoThat's why you pair them with capital controls, to keep that from happening. This, unfortunately, requires significant cooperation from the international community, and ought to be done before any wealth tax is imposed. BTW, have you seen how expensive it is for high net worth individuals to renounce US citizenship?
- marricks 6y agoIsn't that just another myth peddled by wealthy groups? This was a pretty good study and didn't find that effect[1]. Just on the face of it, sure if you're wealthier you have greater ability to move but that also means you probably like where you are because you chose to be there. Most of my high school friends dispersed around the country solely for job opportunities, not because they wanted to be somewhere. [1] https://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2011/02/documents/millionaire-migration.pdf https://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2011/02/documents... > The New Jersey millionaire tax experiment offers a potent testing ground, given the magnitude of the policy change and the relative ease of relocating to a different state tax regime without leaving the New York or Philadelphia metropolitan areas. Using a difference-in-difference estimator, we find minimal effect of the new tax on the migration of millionaires.
- beardedetim 6y ago> Doesn't everyone? God I hope not. How empty would we all be if we all wanted to have more money than the next guy.
- mcphage 6y ago> capital flight is a real thing Yep, that's why all of the rich people have left New York and California.
- throwaways885 6y agoYou think rich people are paying those kind of taxes? Why wouldn't they leave if this wealth tax were suddenly imposed upon them?
- mcphage 6y ago> You think rich people are paying those kind of taxes? Judging by the amount of wealth in New York and California: obviously yes. > Why wouldn't they leave if this wealth tax were suddenly imposed upon them? Because they want what the taxes get them.
- Spare_account 6y ago>capital flight is a real thing. Can anyone provide some examples of it happening in an economy like ours?
- topicseed 6y agoNot sure if "France" is an "economy like yours" but they have definitely suffered from capital flight following a wealth tax hike[0][1]. [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1268381 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1268381 [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/02/02/frances-75-supertax-failure-a-blow-to-pikettys-economics/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/02/02/frances-7...
- mikepurvis 6y agoA famous formulation of that is: "John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
- newfriend 6y agoSo tired of reading this quote every time taxes come up like it's some profound statement. I see it so often to ridicule "silly poor people voting for lower taxes". It's possible for someone to think that it's unfair for some people to pay a huge amount of taxes unfairly, without they themselves thinking "one day I'll be rich".
- mikepurvis 6y agoI think it's more than just "one day I'll be rich"; it's part of the mythos of where wealth comes from. If your starting point is the American Dream, that wealth comes purely from a combination of ingenuity, luck, and hard work, either from the individual or one or more previous generations, then it's easy to see being asked to pay away a share of it as unfair. But if you see wealth as something that arises at least in part from the opportunities afforded by the structures and services within a society, then it's reasonable to expect that the society is owed back a portion of it, in part to maintain those services for the benefit of others coming later. And fairness aside, there's the purely pragmatic concern that multi-generational wealth concentration is bad for almost everything— bad for democracy, bad for fairness in media, bad for civil unrest, etc etc. Is taxing wealth an effective way to manage this? Maybe, maybe not. But anyone who wants to critique it should probably be willing to support _some_ plan for controlling wealth inequality over the long term.
- davrosthedalek 6y agoIt's a fallacy to believe that making the rich less rich makes the poor less poor. There are a lot of things in between which must go right.
- coliveira 6y ago
- BitwiseFool 6y agoThat's very reductive. You should know that the Federal Income Tax that was first collected in 1913 had a top bracket of 7%. Today, the minimum bracket is 10% and the average middle class citizen pays around 12-18% of their income to the IRS. So sure, the wealth tax would only be on "the rich" when it first starts out but I guarantee you the middle class will be hit by it eventually.
- mewmewblobcat 6y agoMost people are already hit by "wealth taxes", except they are regressive - it's called "property tax".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mikepurvis 6y agoSurely property tax is trivially easy to justify? It usually is collected by the municipality and pays for things that have ongoing operating costs— roads, fire department, schools, etc. How else should those things be paid for?
- davrosthedalek 6y agoFrom the other taxes? Germany has vanishing property taxes compared to the US. Better roads and schools, no question.
- mikepurvis 6y agoI don't know how it works in Germany, but here in Canada, one of the big issues with that is that income taxes are only collected at the provincial and federal level. Now, a chunk of that money gets sent down to lower levels of government— Waterloo region where I live recently received $600M from upper levels of government for a light rail system that is now built and operating, and the current budget shows 27% of revenue coming from "provincial and federal grants". The thing is, that money which comes from the upper levels is extremely subject to the whims of those governments; it can fluctuate wildly depending who comes into power and what their priorities are. So without some guarantees around it, I can understand the municipalities wanting a stable source of income over which they have some agency, and out of which they can reap immediate benefit from growing the local economy. Anyway, I'd love to hear from someone in Germany how this is resolved there; but I'd assume there'd need to be some pretty structured, long-term agreements around minimum amounts, percentages of new growth, and so on.
- Dylan16807 6y agoSo what? I hope to be wealthy and not pull up the ladder behind me.
- JamesBarney 6y agoThere are other reasons to oppose them like they historically bring in very little money, they're a pain in the ass to administer, capital flight. Some evidence for this are parts of Europe is abandoning their wealth taxes. If you want to raise money or reduce inequality there are better ways to do it. Income tax, capital gains, inheritance, etc...
- jahaja 6y ago> Some evidence for this are parts of Europe is abandoning their wealth taxes. That's not evidence. We have right-wing parties in Europe too. They introduce right-wing policies when they have power, such as the above.
- JamesBarney 6y agoDo you think that successful policies are as likely to be rolled back as unsuccessful ones?
- jahaja 6y agoWhat kind of strange reasoning is that? Policies are enacted for multiple reasons, very often without any concrete evidence that it's better or worse.
- coliveira 6y agoAlso called "American dream".
- OminousWeapons 6y agoEqually as valid to say you are in support because you believe you will derive additional benefits financed by taxes you will never have to pay.