3 ms·

Under totalitarian systems like communism or nazism, citizens are assets (or at least the well-behaved ones are). That's why they were prevented from leaving t

Under totalitarian systems like communism or nazism, citizens are assets (or at least the well-behaved ones are). That's why they were prevented from leaving the old soviet bloc, and why things like this happen in China.

londons_explore 3y ago
If 30% of the US population wanted to migrate away all of a sudden, I think the US government would restrict it too. No government wants to lose all its people - since without people, there is nobody to tax. In fact, giving up US citizenship is already made rather difficult - you typically have a huge tax bill to pay, and many people cannot afford to pay it, so cannot leave.
- harporoeder 3y ago
  I'm not sure what large tax bill you are referring to assuming you have been correctly filing? Googling it looks like there is a flat fee of $2,350. There is an exit tax if you have a net worth above 2 million, or a high income, and this appears to be a capital gains tax on assets.
- mcswell 3y ago
  If you move overseas, it's pretty hard for the IRS to collect on you.
  - fooker 3y ago
    Most banks in the world would refuse to do any business with you in this situation. This is already somewhat of an issue for American immigrants moving to Europe. Some banks just refuse to open accounts for them.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Fair. But that's just the government. As powerful as they are, they don't have 100% of the total power in the whole US. Voters get a big say, and so do owners of capital. If anybody in such a society wants to get anything done, they have to build a coalition and sell others on the thing they want to do. This is a very, very good thing.
- wredue 3y ago
  The market demands growth and the market often has troubles growing when people leave. Aside from “privatizing profits socialize losses”, why would the government care about fewer people paying the same percentage of their taxes? That makes no sense. Their budgets would contract with the demands.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  If 30% of your population wants to emigrate then it's time to remove the people in power. Making the situation more tyrannical by imposing restrictions on leaving the country is the kind of idiotic policy that despots favor and which inevitably leads to governmental collapse.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Perhaps because the country is on the losing side of a war? Or the country has no economic output anymore (oil wells ran dry, drought has made farming impossible, etc). Plenty of reasons people might want to leave a country en-mass, and some of them can't be fixed with a new government.
- unholythree 3y ago
  I don’t think that’s true at all! How would that go over in the next congressional election? How would that go over with the greater than one out of two US households that own a firearm? How would that go over with the rank and file of whatever agency was supposed to enforce this spectacularly illiberal and probably unconstitutional mandate? Trying to restrict the free movement of citizens here would throw the country into hellish anarchy, why would any “power that be” attempt that? The cost would wildly exceed any benefit.
orf 3y ago
Citizens (aka labour) are not assets under a capitalist system?
- FredPret 3y ago
  No, they are the owners of the system, or at least most of then have a stake.
  - xtian 3y ago
    [dead]
  - orf 3y ago
    Can you quantify “most” please? Specifically what do you mean that “most” labour has a stake in the system? Which companies have a labour majority stake, stocks or otherwise? Isn’t labour having most of a stake a more communist leaning system?
    - FredPret 3y ago
      I didn't say "majority stake". Most people have a stake, period. Everyone with a pension, everyone who owns even one share, everyone who owns their house or any land. These are people with real power in the system, and even if it's not a majority, it's really almost impossible to be a tyrant when there's lots of minor centers of power spread very wide throughout society. Even for "the rich" who own the majority of assets - there are millions upon millions of such rich people in the US. They will never all agree on everything.
      - orf 3y ago
        You said most people have a stake, and I asked you to be specific about that. And you didn’t. When you say most people have a stake, are you saying 51% or above of people have a stake? Can you quantify that to clarify your point? 40% of Americans rent. Do they have a stake?
        3y ago
thriftwy 3y ago
The issue with communism/nazism is that they depend on years or decades of political conditioning of populace, so they're even more afraid of accepting new people than they are of the existing ones leaving. Moving in to USSR was even harder than moving out, and they would only do that if you're a good showcase.

londons_explore 3y ago

If 30% of the US population wanted to migrate away all of a sudden, I think the US government would restrict it too. No government wants to lose all its people - since without people, there is nobody to tax. In fact, giving up US citizenship is already made rather difficult - you typically have a huge tax bill to pay, and many people cannot afford to pay it, so cannot leave.

harporoeder 3y ago
I'm not sure what large tax bill you are referring to assuming you have been correctly filing? Googling it looks like there is a flat fee of $2,350. There is an exit tax if you have a net worth above 2 million, or a high income, and this appears to be a capital gains tax on assets.
mcswell 3y ago
If you move overseas, it's pretty hard for the IRS to collect on you.
- fooker 3y ago
  Most banks in the world would refuse to do any business with you in this situation. This is already somewhat of an issue for American immigrants moving to Europe. Some banks just refuse to open accounts for them.
FredPret 3y ago
Fair. But that's just the government. As powerful as they are, they don't have 100% of the total power in the whole US. Voters get a big say, and so do owners of capital. If anybody in such a society wants to get anything done, they have to build a coalition and sell others on the thing they want to do. This is a very, very good thing.
wredue 3y ago
The market demands growth and the market often has troubles growing when people leave. Aside from “privatizing profits socialize losses”, why would the government care about fewer people paying the same percentage of their taxes? That makes no sense. Their budgets would contract with the demands.
throwaway4aday 3y ago
If 30% of your population wants to emigrate then it's time to remove the people in power. Making the situation more tyrannical by imposing restrictions on leaving the country is the kind of idiotic policy that despots favor and which inevitably leads to governmental collapse.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Perhaps because the country is on the losing side of a war? Or the country has no economic output anymore (oil wells ran dry, drought has made farming impossible, etc). Plenty of reasons people might want to leave a country en-mass, and some of them can't be fixed with a new government.
unholythree 3y ago
I don’t think that’s true at all! How would that go over in the next congressional election? How would that go over with the greater than one out of two US households that own a firearm? How would that go over with the rank and file of whatever agency was supposed to enforce this spectacularly illiberal and probably unconstitutional mandate? Trying to restrict the free movement of citizens here would throw the country into hellish anarchy, why would any “power that be” attempt that? The cost would wildly exceed any benefit.

orf 3y ago

Citizens (aka labour) are not assets under a capitalist system?

FredPret 3y ago
No, they are the owners of the system, or at least most of then have a stake.
- xtian 3y ago
  [dead]
- orf 3y ago
  Can you quantify “most” please? Specifically what do you mean that “most” labour has a stake in the system? Which companies have a labour majority stake, stocks or otherwise? Isn’t labour having most of a stake a more communist leaning system?
  - FredPret 3y ago
    I didn't say "majority stake". Most people have a stake, period. Everyone with a pension, everyone who owns even one share, everyone who owns their house or any land. These are people with real power in the system, and even if it's not a majority, it's really almost impossible to be a tyrant when there's lots of minor centers of power spread very wide throughout society. Even for "the rich" who own the majority of assets - there are millions upon millions of such rich people in the US. They will never all agree on everything.
    - orf 3y ago
      You said most people have a stake, and I asked you to be specific about that. And you didn’t. When you say most people have a stake, are you saying 51% or above of people have a stake? Can you quantify that to clarify your point? 40% of Americans rent. Do they have a stake?
      - 3y ago

thriftwy 3y ago

The issue with communism/nazism is that they depend on years or decades of political conditioning of populace, so they're even more afraid of accepting new people than they are of the existing ones leaving. Moving in to USSR was even harder than moving out, and they would only do that if you're a good showcase.