Tomfoolery. >According to many people in favor of higher taxes, quantitative easing has no ill effects. Why don't they just ease $5B into existence? It increa

Tomfoolery. >According to many people in favor of higher taxes, quantitative easing has no ill effects. Why don't they just ease $5B into existence? It increases inflation. Right now, it's better to have more people employed/have the economy growing than it is to have inflation below 2%. QE isn't exactly a progressive tool of choice, and I'm only minimally informed, but iirc that's the broad keynesian view as to why in theory it's at least better than doing nothing at all. >And why don't people concerned with "unfair" taxes call for Gaga's rate to be lowered rather than Zuck's to be raised? Because I'm not worried about Gaga's overall income. In fact, she probably ought to be taxed at a higher rate, because people like her comprise of almost zero per cent of the population. Cry me a river, in other words; it's not at her income range we're concerned with inequality. >A tax like this would push growing startups to grow outside the US a few years before IPO. Serious question time. Is this even reasonable? If Zuck could have saved a cool billion in taxes, what's stopping him from doing just that? If I'm say a Canadian citizen and I live in Canada but I own a fuckload of Facebook stock that qualifies as a salary, where do I file income taxes? >This kind of foolish proposal would just drive more US businesses overseas. These kind of astronomical windfall events are extremely rare and as I've denoted above, what you describe is already currently possible. So… why don't we already see this? Other than the fact that you there are many advantages to having lots of engineering staff located in the United States/North America.