2 ms·
> Pretty much every country that tried to tax wealth had to back up exactly because of wealthy and capital flight. No, mainly because of the risk of capital fl
by naasking 4y ago
> Pretty much every country that tried to tax wealth had to back up exactly because of wealthy and capital flight.
No, mainly because of the risk of capital flight.
> It's exactly this kind of people that you will alienate and drive away with these of wealth-hostile policies.
I disagree. If a good or service is truly valuable, someone will provide it. The value of an unmet need will increase until it becomes attractive, and if it never meets that bar, then by definition it wasn't valuable enough.
The only exceptions are goods or services that capitalism isn't effective at solving anyway, either because they are common goods that capitalism would exploit to exhaustion, or because they would yield only natural monopolies that are rife with abuse. A state-run corporation is a good option here, and wealth flight isn't an issue.
- nickpp 4y agoI lived in a country lacking capital (first because it was robbed by communists and then due to the risk of the transition managed by a deeply corrupt political elite) and I can tell you existing demand was only met through imports. It sucked for everybody - without local capital the entrepreneurship was very limited, jobs remained scarce, specialists emigrated and the trade deficit became unmanageable. In the end multinational corporations slowly entered and bought various state-granted monopolies (the only real monopoly entrepreneurship can't solve) on the cheap. But that tiny capital started a snowball effect that eventually raised the living standard to unhoped-for levels. Now we have both billionaires and a wealthy middle-class. It took a long time though. Careful what you wish for - a country without successful entrepreneurs and local capital(ists) is an easy prey on the international markets.