4 ms·

Those who don't learn from the past... <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/07/16/old-money-new-money-flee-france-and-its-wealth-tax/49ac2ec7-c

by tmtvl 2y ago

Those who don't learn from the past... <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/07/16/old-money-new-money-flee-france-and-its-wealth-tax/49ac2ec7-c1b2-423e-a89b-699750275cd4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/07/16/o...>

JadoJodo 2y ago
https://archive.is/Q0ETI https://archive.is/Q0ETI
wesselbindt 2y ago
Don't threaten me with a good time.
lostlogin 2y ago
There is a flip side though. How long do the working poor tolerate billionaires?
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  I think it’s coming and it makes sense.
- Detrytus 2y ago
  With the advent of AI, robotics and killing drones the question becomes: "How long do billionaires tolerate the poor?".
  - dexwiz 2y ago
    That is my question for all those prognosticating an upcoming violent uprising. The disparity in power has only risen in the last 100 years. A single well armed solider could kill tens to hundreds of civilians in minutes given the right conditions. How do you rise up in the face of such disparate conditions?
    - Teever 2y ago
      You seem to have missed the last twenty five years where the people of Afghanistan and Iraq beat the world's most powerful military and unlimited budget. Asymmetric warfare is only going to get easier for the underdog with the advent of cheap drones.
      - Gud 2y ago
        They didn’t though. This is just the same old tiresome revisionism. The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. What failed was remaking Afghanistan into a modern democracy. Money and patience ran out. But militarily, it was a total victory.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        If I was calling my campaign a victory, I’d be able to walk in my new territory without fear of being attacked and killed. It might be a military success by some sort of conventional military definition. But it was a complete failure and utter waste by pretty much every other measure.
        Gud 2y ago
        But that’s not how this works. It takes decades to subjugate the local population by the invading force and some local resistance will remain for a long, long time.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        What you are describing does not sound like a victory to me. If victory means "we are now bogged down in some decades-long occupation against guerrillas that drains resources and has no meaningful benefit".
        Gud 2y ago
        The person I originally responded to claimed that "the people of Afghanistan"(Actually the Taliban) defeated the "worlds most powerful military". This is objectively false. Eventually, occupation became politically hard to motivate for an American public that was tired of war. But to claim the Taliban beat the US military is ridiculous. FWIW I was there.
  - Teever 2y ago
    There are far more poor people than rich people, and in a world where even the homeless have smartphones the poor will also have drones. The question then becomes "A rich man may be able to dodge taxes, but can he dodge drones?"
    - 1659447091 2y ago
      A "rich man" can afford jammers and more sophisticated jam resistant drones that track down the nuisance
      - Teever 2y ago
        It's not so simple. Technology is a race between offense and defense and right now we're seeing offense leapfrog defense. The status quo that we've known our whole lives has meant that anyone trying to assassinate a powerful figure will only get one shot at it before they're caught which does not allow them to learn from their mistakes and sends a chilling message to others who would do the same. With remote controlled or autonomous drones the dynamic changes because people can operate from a distance -- perhaps even in an entirely different country that doesn't extradite. What's the defense against that? At the end of the day the attacker only has to succeed once whereas the defender has to succeed every single time. There may come a time where the ultra-wealthy and powerful decide that it isn't viable for them to be out in public due to the security risks so they will retire to a gilded cage -- which is still a cage -- and what's worse it reduces the search space for attackers to find them. This doesn't even get into the near future advancements in biotechnology that will allow small groups of dedicated people to develop biological weapons that selectively target a wealthy person's family -- how can they defend themselves against that other than going into a fully sealed environment? At the end of the day it'll end up being easier and better for these people to just make decisions that benefit the world at large instead of decisions that benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. If you piss less people off less people want to kill you and in fact more people will want to defend you.
  - black_13 2y ago
    [dead]
Swizec 2y ago
[flagged]
lelandbatey 2y ago
That's from 2006 and yet, France still roars along even without the rich who were apparently so un-attached to where they lived that they'd rather ditch the country than pay their taxes. What exactly is the argument made by all these alarmist "who will think of the the wealthy"? Tax the rich and many leave, so you don't get as much tax revenue. Don't tax the rich and you just don't get the revenue. The implication in all these seems to be "well then why not just lower taxes so then the wealthy will grace us with their presence?" Um, because they're not paying their fair share, and the few who leave don't lead to a net loss in tax revenue/economic prosperity, that's why. Everything in that article seems quite twisted in its presentation. Quotes like the following: > Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998. The implication in that quote is "$2.6 gained but $125 lost, wow what a bad tax scheme", which is horribly irresponsible presentation. That's $2.6B/year in increased yearly tax revenues, but a loss of $125B/8 years (1998-2006) in capital, e.g. assets of some kind in the country. In most real-world cases where most of that flight happened early in those 8 years and the year-over-year capital flight goes down as folks acclimate to a tax regime, that's a totally acceptable trade off! In fact, that trade off might be a HUGE boon to France in the near term, let alone the long term. To actually know though, we need tons more information, information that isn't presented at all. In short, bad article quotes rich guys who don't want to pay taxes saying "our life is so hard now that we've left a country that we liked but not enough to pay taxes on our insanely valuable assets, and that's actually hurting you more than us, so you should totally lower the tax rates on us."
- woleium 2y ago
  i think the cost is seen more in opportunity losses. “if the rich investor leaves then who will pay. for the hermitage!”, as if investment is not entirely globalized at this point.
deeg 2y ago
I think the US would be better off if a number of certain billionaires fled the country due to taxes.
r00fus 2y ago
Nearly 20 years and France is doing fine. So maybe this is a good position to double down on?
chairmansteve 2y ago
We're not getting any money from them now, so who cares if they leave.
antifa 2y ago
What are they going to do, pack up all the factories they own into a suitcase and fly away with them? Oh wait, they already gave them all away to China? So what's suppose to be the downside? Where's the threat?
surgical_fire 2y ago
So what? If they eminently do not pay taxes, they are leeching off everyone else. At least they will leech elsewhere.

by tmtvl 2y ago

JadoJodo 2y ago

https://archive.is/Q0ETI https://archive.is/Q0ETI

wesselbindt 2y ago

Don't threaten me with a good time.

lostlogin 2y ago

There is a flip side though. How long do the working poor tolerate billionaires?

onemoresoop 2y ago
I think it’s coming and it makes sense.
Detrytus 2y ago
With the advent of AI, robotics and killing drones the question becomes: "How long do billionaires tolerate the poor?".
- dexwiz 2y ago
  That is my question for all those prognosticating an upcoming violent uprising. The disparity in power has only risen in the last 100 years. A single well armed solider could kill tens to hundreds of civilians in minutes given the right conditions. How do you rise up in the face of such disparate conditions?
  - Teever 2y ago
    You seem to have missed the last twenty five years where the people of Afghanistan and Iraq beat the world's most powerful military and unlimited budget. Asymmetric warfare is only going to get easier for the underdog with the advent of cheap drones.
    - Gud 2y ago
      They didn’t though. This is just the same old tiresome revisionism. The US and allies defeated the taliban within weeks. What failed was remaking Afghanistan into a modern democracy. Money and patience ran out. But militarily, it was a total victory.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        If I was calling my campaign a victory, I’d be able to walk in my new territory without fear of being attacked and killed. It might be a military success by some sort of conventional military definition. But it was a complete failure and utter waste by pretty much every other measure.
        Gud 2y ago
        But that’s not how this works. It takes decades to subjugate the local population by the invading force and some local resistance will remain for a long, long time.
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        What you are describing does not sound like a victory to me. If victory means "we are now bogged down in some decades-long occupation against guerrillas that drains resources and has no meaningful benefit".
        Gud 2y ago
        The person I originally responded to claimed that "the people of Afghanistan"(Actually the Taliban) defeated the "worlds most powerful military". This is objectively false. Eventually, occupation became politically hard to motivate for an American public that was tired of war. But to claim the Taliban beat the US military is ridiculous. FWIW I was there.
- Teever 2y ago
  There are far more poor people than rich people, and in a world where even the homeless have smartphones the poor will also have drones. The question then becomes "A rich man may be able to dodge taxes, but can he dodge drones?"
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    A "rich man" can afford jammers and more sophisticated jam resistant drones that track down the nuisance
    - Teever 2y ago
      It's not so simple. Technology is a race between offense and defense and right now we're seeing offense leapfrog defense. The status quo that we've known our whole lives has meant that anyone trying to assassinate a powerful figure will only get one shot at it before they're caught which does not allow them to learn from their mistakes and sends a chilling message to others who would do the same. With remote controlled or autonomous drones the dynamic changes because people can operate from a distance -- perhaps even in an entirely different country that doesn't extradite. What's the defense against that? At the end of the day the attacker only has to succeed once whereas the defender has to succeed every single time. There may come a time where the ultra-wealthy and powerful decide that it isn't viable for them to be out in public due to the security risks so they will retire to a gilded cage -- which is still a cage -- and what's worse it reduces the search space for attackers to find them. This doesn't even get into the near future advancements in biotechnology that will allow small groups of dedicated people to develop biological weapons that selectively target a wealthy person's family -- how can they defend themselves against that other than going into a fully sealed environment? At the end of the day it'll end up being easier and better for these people to just make decisions that benefit the world at large instead of decisions that benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. If you piss less people off less people want to kill you and in fact more people will want to defend you.
- black_13 2y ago
  [dead]

Swizec 2y ago

[flagged]

lelandbatey 2y ago

That's from 2006 and yet, France still roars along even without the rich who were apparently so un-attached to where they lived that they'd rather ditch the country than pay their taxes. What exactly is the argument made by all these alarmist "who will think of the the wealthy"? Tax the rich and many leave, so you don't get as much tax revenue. Don't tax the rich and you just don't get the revenue. The implication in all these seems to be "well then why not just lower taxes so then the wealthy will grace us with their presence?" Um, because they're not paying their fair share, and the few who leave don't lead to a net loss in tax revenue/economic prosperity, that's why. Everything in that article seems quite twisted in its presentation. Quotes like the following: > Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998. The implication in that quote is "$2.6 gained but $125 lost, wow what a bad tax scheme", which is horribly irresponsible presentation. That's $2.6B/year in increased yearly tax revenues, but a loss of $125B/8 years (1998-2006) in capital, e.g. assets of some kind in the country. In most real-world cases where most of that flight happened early in those 8 years and the year-over-year capital flight goes down as folks acclimate to a tax regime, that's a totally acceptable trade off! In fact, that trade off might be a HUGE boon to France in the near term, let alone the long term. To actually know though, we need tons more information, information that isn't presented at all. In short, bad article quotes rich guys who don't want to pay taxes saying "our life is so hard now that we've left a country that we liked but not enough to pay taxes on our insanely valuable assets, and that's actually hurting you more than us, so you should totally lower the tax rates on us."

woleium 2y ago
i think the cost is seen more in opportunity losses. “if the rich investor leaves then who will pay. for the hermitage!”, as if investment is not entirely globalized at this point.

deeg 2y ago

I think the US would be better off if a number of certain billionaires fled the country due to taxes.

r00fus 2y ago

Nearly 20 years and France is doing fine. So maybe this is a good position to double down on?

chairmansteve 2y ago

We're not getting any money from them now, so who cares if they leave.

antifa 2y ago

What are they going to do, pack up all the factories they own into a suitcase and fly away with them? Oh wait, they already gave them all away to China? So what's suppose to be the downside? Where's the threat?

surgical_fire 2y ago

So what? If they eminently do not pay taxes, they are leeching off everyone else. At least they will leech elsewhere.