4 ms·

Tax the rich and they go somewhere else (see recent discussions about the wealth tax in France)

by prox 4y ago

pydry 4y ago
The wealthy in the UK are largely landed gentry. They can't flee with their property and if they sell it off at firesale prices to ordinary folk to avoid being taxed that would largely solve the housing crisis. The problem wouldn't be that they would leave. The problem would be that they would stay and become violent.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list Eyeballing this, only 11 of the top 50 richest people in the UK have property as their source of wealth.
  - ambicapter 4y ago
    "only"? That's >20%.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Not really sure I'd call the "Hinduja" family wealth "British" although what small % of their wealth they do have in the UK is undoubtedly in property. There's quite a number of very rich foreigners who economically have very little effect on the UK apart from monopolizing scarce inner city property.
- pg_1234 4y ago
  Or, for a really simple solution, tax the land. Not the structure built on it (well ... not much ... and you can often just tax that through the resources it consumes). Not only are you taxing the asset that can't flee the country, and which the poor typically don't own, you also incentivise efficient land usage (it becomes too expensive to be a NIMBY).
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >The problem would be that they would stay and become violen So? Let them be violent. What are they gonna do? They don't have guns like in 'Merica. They're dangerous not because they'll be violent (they won't be), but because they hold missive political leverage.
ezst 4y ago
> Tax the rich and they go somewhere else (see recent discussions about the wealth tax in France) Let them go, then, the earlier the better and threat them as pariah. What good do you expect to gain from them at that rate?
- mcntsh 4y ago
  In NYC for example, 40% of the tax revenue comes from 1% of the tax payers[1]. High taxes are causing high earners to leave the city. What's going to fill that gap in revenue? I'm not sure how it is in France though. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/new-york-risks-losing-wealthiest-residents-if-taxes-keep-rising?leadSource=uverify%20wall#:~:text=The%20top%201%25%20of%20taxpayers%20are%20responsible%20for%2040%25%20of%20the%20state%20personal%20income%20tax%20revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/new-york-...
  - pydry 4y ago
    Cristobal Young and Charles Varner did a study “Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes” and found that when taxes were jacked up on New Jersey residents they tended to stay despite low tax states (e.g. Connecticut) being quite close. If people are reluctant to move to a nearby state to save on taxes theyre gonna be even more reluctant to move to a whole other country.
isaacremuant 4y ago
And what's good of having high GDP like Ireland (neighbour to UK) if then there's no housing and prices are insane and people who don't already have a secure situation are screwed and have to leave anyway? Why do tax reliefs and strategies always benefit the big companies with lots of lawyers. Lower the taxes of the common folk. Their interests are not being met, but those of the lobbyists.
ambicapter 4y ago
What is the negative outcome of this?
- prewett 4y ago
  Have you ever been employed by someone poor? (And I don't mean a middle manager spending someone else' money) The rich have historically funded the arts (e.g. patronage), public buildings, public institutions (e.g. Carnegie's libraries). Useful businesses that require high capital are difficult to get going if no one has any capital.
  - amrocha 4y ago
    Government has funded those things way more, but when a rich person runs a museum it's "philanthropy", when the government does it it's a "waste of taxpayer money". There's no reason the government couldn't fully fund those things instead. In fact, "businesses that require high capital" are almost always funded by the government. It's called infrastructure spending.
  - ambicapter 4y ago
    Rich people moving to Bermuda doesn't mean they move their company incorporation there, just means they have a house there and fly in and out.
amrocha 4y ago
They can leave if they want, as long as they pay an exit tax. But personally I think that's bullshit, they'd rather be less rich in France than more rich in Romania. And if you're talking about companies leaving France, then that's flimsy too. French citizens are among the richest in the world. International companies will pay higher taxes to access that market, and if they don't that's fine, a domestic company can step in or the government can snap up the productive capacity to invest in infrastructure.
jodrellblank 4y ago
Good? It's not like they're using that money to enrich the country they live in or the other people or society, they're not building hospitals and funding schools anymore or employing people or raising wages. They're buying assets and becoming landlords and lobbying politicians and making things worse. Not just 'let them go', get rid of them, let them be somewhere else's problem.

Tax the rich and they go somewhere else (see recent discussions about the wealth tax in France)

by prox 4y ago

Tax the rich and they go somewhere else (see recent discussions about the wealth tax in France)

The wealthy in the UK are largely landed gentry. They can't flee with their property and if they sell it off at firesale prices to ordinary folk to avoid being taxed that would largely solve the housing crisis. The problem wouldn't be that they would leave. The problem would be that they would stay and become violent.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list Eyeballing this, only 11 of the top 50 richest people in the UK have property as their source of wealth.
- ambicapter 4y ago
  "only"? That's >20%.
- pydry 4y ago
  Not really sure I'd call the "Hinduja" family wealth "British" although what small % of their wealth they do have in the UK is undoubtedly in property. There's quite a number of very rich foreigners who economically have very little effect on the UK apart from monopolizing scarce inner city property.
pg_1234 4y ago
Or, for a really simple solution, tax the land. Not the structure built on it (well ... not much ... and you can often just tax that through the resources it consumes). Not only are you taxing the asset that can't flee the country, and which the poor typically don't own, you also incentivise efficient land usage (it becomes too expensive to be a NIMBY).
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>The problem would be that they would stay and become violen So? Let them be violent. What are they gonna do? They don't have guns like in 'Merica. They're dangerous not because they'll be violent (they won't be), but because they hold missive political leverage.

ezst 4y ago

> Tax the rich and they go somewhere else (see recent discussions about the wealth tax in France) Let them go, then, the earlier the better and threat them as pariah. What good do you expect to gain from them at that rate?

mcntsh 4y ago
In NYC for example, 40% of the tax revenue comes from 1% of the tax payers[1]. High taxes are causing high earners to leave the city. What's going to fill that gap in revenue? I'm not sure how it is in France though. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/new-york-risks-losing-wealthiest-residents-if-taxes-keep-rising?leadSource=uverify%20wall#:~:text=The%20top%201%25%20of%20taxpayers%20are%20responsible%20for%2040%25%20of%20the%20state%20personal%20income%20tax%20revenue https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/new-york-...
- pydry 4y ago
  Cristobal Young and Charles Varner did a study “Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes” and found that when taxes were jacked up on New Jersey residents they tended to stay despite low tax states (e.g. Connecticut) being quite close. If people are reluctant to move to a nearby state to save on taxes theyre gonna be even more reluctant to move to a whole other country.

isaacremuant 4y ago

And what's good of having high GDP like Ireland (neighbour to UK) if then there's no housing and prices are insane and people who don't already have a secure situation are screwed and have to leave anyway? Why do tax reliefs and strategies always benefit the big companies with lots of lawyers. Lower the taxes of the common folk. Their interests are not being met, but those of the lobbyists.

ambicapter 4y ago

What is the negative outcome of this?

prewett 4y ago
Have you ever been employed by someone poor? (And I don't mean a middle manager spending someone else' money) The rich have historically funded the arts (e.g. patronage), public buildings, public institutions (e.g. Carnegie's libraries). Useful businesses that require high capital are difficult to get going if no one has any capital.
- amrocha 4y ago
  Government has funded those things way more, but when a rich person runs a museum it's "philanthropy", when the government does it it's a "waste of taxpayer money". There's no reason the government couldn't fully fund those things instead. In fact, "businesses that require high capital" are almost always funded by the government. It's called infrastructure spending.
- ambicapter 4y ago
  Rich people moving to Bermuda doesn't mean they move their company incorporation there, just means they have a house there and fly in and out.

amrocha 4y ago

They can leave if they want, as long as they pay an exit tax. But personally I think that's bullshit, they'd rather be less rich in France than more rich in Romania. And if you're talking about companies leaving France, then that's flimsy too. French citizens are among the richest in the world. International companies will pay higher taxes to access that market, and if they don't that's fine, a domestic company can step in or the government can snap up the productive capacity to invest in infrastructure.

jodrellblank 4y ago

Good? It's not like they're using that money to enrich the country they live in or the other people or society, they're not building hospitals and funding schools anymore or employing people or raising wages. They're buying assets and becoming landlords and lobbying politicians and making things worse. Not just 'let them go', get rid of them, let them be somewhere else's problem.