4 ms·

This gets brought up alot, and a few things always tend to spoil it. 1) the world is global, if the US did this then alot of billionaires would suddenly move t

This gets brought up alot, and a few things always tend to spoil it. 1) the world is global, if the US did this then alot of billionaires would suddenly move to Canada. Until the tax code is unified people will chose where to live partially based on taxes. Look at how many people move from Silicon valley to Texas or Washington just before their companies IPO. People will just move to avoid the tax. THere are plenty of countries worth living in that don't have a wealth tax. France found out the hard way. https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-history-france-s-wealth-tax-did-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/le... 2) Wealth is not as easily measured as people want it to be. And most wealthy put assets inside corporations so not much wealth is held in their name. Can you tax a person for wealth held in a corporation outside of the US? Tax treaties tend to distinguish between hard asset held in a country, factories and real estate and less tangible assets, like stocks, dividends, etc. 3) Right now alot of people complain about being taxed on stock options for illiquid options to begin with. We've all heard horror stories about tech employees having to exercise their options and pay tax on that when they can't actually cash out the shares to help pay the tax burden. How do we tax an employee who holds millions of dollars in illiquid options that are well in the money? And how is that different than taxing someone on the price of a Picasso painting that a billionaire owns but has very little liquidity? If you claim that the billionaire can just sell the painting for what people will pay for it even if its pennies on the dollar, then you can argue so can the tech employee. Someone will always buy your shares for pennies on the dollar if you don't want ot pay the wealth tax.

gavanwilhite 3y ago
The US is pretty keen to enforce its tax law internationally. If we did a wealth tax, there would be a number of options to limit using movement or citizenship renouncement as an easy out.
godelski 3y ago
> the world is global, if the US did this then alot of billionaires would suddenly move to Canada. Yeah, just like how there are no companies in states with high taxes because raising the corporate tax rate will just cause companies to move and only leave small companies like Google who can't afford to move stuck with the bill. We have a long historical trend of observing people moving to avoid taxes. Just ask Europe with its 0 billionaires.
- chollida1 3y ago
  > Yeah, just like how there are no companies in states with high taxes because raising the corporate tax rate will just cause companies to move and only leave small companies like Google who can't afford to move stuck with the bill. This is false, though you are correct that companies do often leave jurisdictions with high taxes to move to low tax areas. > We have a long historical trend of observing people moving to avoid taxes. Fully in agreement here. > Just ask Europe with its 0 billionaires. Europe doesn't have 0 billionaires. They have a few, but to your point they are very underrepresented, so you are directionaly right here.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I guess the /sarcasm tag was indeed necessary. I didn't feel the need because I thought what I said was trivially verifiably false and was clearly making a mockery of your prior comment. To my point about Europe, I'm not under the impression that there are few billionaires in Europe because either: 1) entrepreneurs move from Europe to the US to start a company from the ground up or 2) begin in Europe and then move headquarters to the US (more likely Ireland), or 3) personally move residency regardless of their company location. I'll note that the US taxes you wherever you are. In fact, one of only 2 countries to tax based on citizenship. So Americans moving to Canada wouldn't do anything without them renouncing their citizenship. So that would really make it unlikely that billionaires are moving residence just for tax avoidance. I mean we don't even see a lot of that with states. California and New York both have the greatest number of billionaires AND have some of (if not) the highest tax rates in the entire country. I'm just saying (as I was using satire to express) that we don't see your claim of "people will move." This has been a long cried claim that has never proven to be reasonable, despite being claimed for decades (and truthfully, even longer). I'll stick with my observable correlations over old Tea Party propaganda. Idk, I'll drop a source or something in case that one stat isn't convincing enough (or recognizing that 4 of the top 10 global companies are in CA and only 1 of those 10 companies moved (Tesla)). https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-taxes-have-a-minimal-impact-on-peoples-interstate-moves https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-tax...
    - 3y ago
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Because it is hard does not mean it should not be done. If they leave, they leave. One would expect tax regime iteration as loopholes are detected, closing them. Perfection is unattainable, but also unnecessary. Wealth is simply rows in a database (public securities) or paperwork at custodians (whether private equity, real estate, art, etc). The same systems that would defend your ability to own can tax what you own. You can't own without government enabling it. "Oh no the billionaires might leave." And? The world existed before such wealth accumulation, and it will be fine without them.
- chollida1 3y ago
  > Wealth is simply rows in a database (public securities) or paperwork at custodians (whether private equity, real estate, art, etc). The same systems that would defend your ability to own can tax what you own. You can't own without government enabling it. I'd argue alot of wealth isn't tracked like this. How would you query for who owns all the Picassos in the world? How would you track off shore money? What specific database are you suggesting we query? You get to a point very quickly where you realize that wealth is even more of a black box than income and is even harder to track and record.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > Picassos Transaction and insurance reporting. > How would you track off shore money? What specific database are you suggesting we query? FinCEN (https://www.fincen.gov/ https://www.fincen.gov/) and other related entities. Plug into any institution with a license to hold value. Propose the asset class and I will tell you how to find it and suss out who owns it in a way trivial for government to implement. Here is a recent example of FinCEN closing a reporting gap: https://www.fincen.gov/boi https://www.fincen.gov/boi ("Beginning on January 1, 2024, many companies in the United States will have to report information about their beneficial owners, i.e., the individuals who ultimately own or control the company. They will have to report the information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.") As future gaps appear, close them. (a component of work has been at asset custodians and I am familiar with reporting requirements to government regulators; if you can own it, it can be tracked)
mrobins 3y ago
I find the ultra wealthy moving to avoid taxes pretty hilarious. It’s basically saying I have enough money to do whatever anything, except live/be where I’d like to. Even within the US I know many wannabe New Yorkers who count their days and have to pick and choose what they come “home” for. Obviously to each their own but feels like optimizing for the wrong thing.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // Obviously to each their own but feels like optimizing for the wrong thing. Depends on a percentage, isn't it? Few people are quibbling about paying +/- 1% here. On the flip side, I heard of a guy who sold a business for 10M. He moved to Florida for a bit to avoid paying New York 10% - 1 million. When we're talking about 10%+ of your income, it begins to matter.
mvncleaninst 3y ago
> People will just move to avoid the tax. THere are plenty of countries worth living in that don't have a wealth tax. France found out the hard way. And why are we assuming here that this is a bad thing? If the tax disproportionately affects the 1% and the 1% leaves, was anything of value lost? Or better yet, did we lose something of negative value? Here's an alternative take: if the 1% leaves it would be analogous to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_the_Gerasene_demoniac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_the_Gerasene_demon...
robocat 3y ago
> Look at how many people move from Silicon valley to Texas or Washington just before their companies IPO. Any VC funded company is aiming for huge returns. Should founders be rewarded for their risks? The tax system is saying fuck-you to every person who wins the startup lottery - forcing founders to move to keep their winnings is fucked up. Even worse is 2% wealth tax. Win your moneys, then have it taken over the next 50 years at 2%. Worse outcomes the younger you are. Aaaand did they even mention CPI in the article? The incentive structure is completely anti-startup. There are a lot of VC funded companies: if we didn't have startups/VC I wonder how our personal lives would look now? Not saying VC is good, and definitely lots of waste (but maybe less than government LOL)

gavanwilhite 3y ago

The US is pretty keen to enforce its tax law internationally. If we did a wealth tax, there would be a number of options to limit using movement or citizenship renouncement as an easy out.

godelski 3y ago

> the world is global, if the US did this then alot of billionaires would suddenly move to Canada. Yeah, just like how there are no companies in states with high taxes because raising the corporate tax rate will just cause companies to move and only leave small companies like Google who can't afford to move stuck with the bill. We have a long historical trend of observing people moving to avoid taxes. Just ask Europe with its 0 billionaires.

chollida1 3y ago
> Yeah, just like how there are no companies in states with high taxes because raising the corporate tax rate will just cause companies to move and only leave small companies like Google who can't afford to move stuck with the bill. This is false, though you are correct that companies do often leave jurisdictions with high taxes to move to low tax areas. > We have a long historical trend of observing people moving to avoid taxes. Fully in agreement here. > Just ask Europe with its 0 billionaires. Europe doesn't have 0 billionaires. They have a few, but to your point they are very underrepresented, so you are directionaly right here.
- godelski 3y ago
  I guess the /sarcasm tag was indeed necessary. I didn't feel the need because I thought what I said was trivially verifiably false and was clearly making a mockery of your prior comment. To my point about Europe, I'm not under the impression that there are few billionaires in Europe because either: 1) entrepreneurs move from Europe to the US to start a company from the ground up or 2) begin in Europe and then move headquarters to the US (more likely Ireland), or 3) personally move residency regardless of their company location. I'll note that the US taxes you wherever you are. In fact, one of only 2 countries to tax based on citizenship. So Americans moving to Canada wouldn't do anything without them renouncing their citizenship. So that would really make it unlikely that billionaires are moving residence just for tax avoidance. I mean we don't even see a lot of that with states. California and New York both have the greatest number of billionaires AND have some of (if not) the highest tax rates in the entire country. I'm just saying (as I was using satire to express) that we don't see your claim of "people will move." This has been a long cried claim that has never proven to be reasonable, despite being claimed for decades (and truthfully, even longer). I'll stick with my observable correlations over old Tea Party propaganda. Idk, I'll drop a source or something in case that one stat isn't convincing enough (or recognizing that 4 of the top 10 global companies are in CA and only 1 of those 10 companies moved (Tesla)). https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-taxes-have-a-minimal-impact-on-peoples-interstate-moves https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-tax...
  - 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Because it is hard does not mean it should not be done. If they leave, they leave. One would expect tax regime iteration as loopholes are detected, closing them. Perfection is unattainable, but also unnecessary. Wealth is simply rows in a database (public securities) or paperwork at custodians (whether private equity, real estate, art, etc). The same systems that would defend your ability to own can tax what you own. You can't own without government enabling it. "Oh no the billionaires might leave." And? The world existed before such wealth accumulation, and it will be fine without them.

chollida1 3y ago
> Wealth is simply rows in a database (public securities) or paperwork at custodians (whether private equity, real estate, art, etc). The same systems that would defend your ability to own can tax what you own. You can't own without government enabling it. I'd argue alot of wealth isn't tracked like this. How would you query for who owns all the Picassos in the world? How would you track off shore money? What specific database are you suggesting we query? You get to a point very quickly where you realize that wealth is even more of a black box than income and is even harder to track and record.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  > Picassos Transaction and insurance reporting. > How would you track off shore money? What specific database are you suggesting we query? FinCEN (https://www.fincen.gov/ https://www.fincen.gov/) and other related entities. Plug into any institution with a license to hold value. Propose the asset class and I will tell you how to find it and suss out who owns it in a way trivial for government to implement. Here is a recent example of FinCEN closing a reporting gap: https://www.fincen.gov/boi https://www.fincen.gov/boi ("Beginning on January 1, 2024, many companies in the United States will have to report information about their beneficial owners, i.e., the individuals who ultimately own or control the company. They will have to report the information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.") As future gaps appear, close them. (a component of work has been at asset custodians and I am familiar with reporting requirements to government regulators; if you can own it, it can be tracked)

mrobins 3y ago

I find the ultra wealthy moving to avoid taxes pretty hilarious. It’s basically saying I have enough money to do whatever anything, except live/be where I’d like to. Even within the US I know many wannabe New Yorkers who count their days and have to pick and choose what they come “home” for. Obviously to each their own but feels like optimizing for the wrong thing.

xyzelement 3y ago
// Obviously to each their own but feels like optimizing for the wrong thing. Depends on a percentage, isn't it? Few people are quibbling about paying +/- 1% here. On the flip side, I heard of a guy who sold a business for 10M. He moved to Florida for a bit to avoid paying New York 10% - 1 million. When we're talking about 10%+ of your income, it begins to matter.

mvncleaninst 3y ago

> People will just move to avoid the tax. THere are plenty of countries worth living in that don't have a wealth tax. France found out the hard way. And why are we assuming here that this is a bad thing? If the tax disproportionately affects the 1% and the 1% leaves, was anything of value lost? Or better yet, did we lose something of negative value? Here's an alternative take: if the 1% leaves it would be analogous to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_the_Gerasene_demoniac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_the_Gerasene_demon...

robocat 3y ago

> Look at how many people move from Silicon valley to Texas or Washington just before their companies IPO. Any VC funded company is aiming for huge returns. Should founders be rewarded for their risks? The tax system is saying fuck-you to every person who wins the startup lottery - forcing founders to move to keep their winnings is fucked up. Even worse is 2% wealth tax. Win your moneys, then have it taken over the next 50 years at 2%. Worse outcomes the younger you are. Aaaand did they even mention CPI in the article? The incentive structure is completely anti-startup. There are a lot of VC funded companies: if we didn't have startups/VC I wonder how our personal lives would look now? Not saying VC is good, and definitely lots of waste (but maybe less than government LOL)