4 ms·

The super-rich leaving really breaks my heart.

onemoresoop 2y ago
If they liquidate their assets it’s gonna be a lot more affordable to buy homes. I think that alone will warm your heart
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The super-rich do not have enough houses to make a dent in the supply of homes.
WalterBright 2y ago
When they leave, they take their investments, spending, and created jobs with them. Many countries have confiscated everything from the rich, driven them out, and even mass murdered them. None resulted in the poor being better off - things just got worse for the poor.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  Yeah? So, they are going to take their factories? They are leaving the biggest consumer markets to sell their trinkets in the giant Costa Rican market?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    In Washington State, a tax on capital gains over $250,000 was recently instituted. Jeff Bezos, presumably the target of the tax, left the state just before it went into effect. Friends in the area have told me that many Microsoft wealthy people have left as well. Seattle has instituted a number of punitive taxes on businesses in the city. There has been a corresponding boom in business across the lake in Bellevue. The state has benefited a lot by being a low tax state in the past. It is no longer a low tax state. We'll see how that goes. Musk is one of the more famous industrialists who left California over taxes.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  In another level: How many software developers are forgoing job offers in California due to it being a state with income tax?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The sensible ones will figure in the cost of living and tax level to see if the California high salaries are better. NYC has also seen an exodus of wealthy taxpayers to Florida.
  - alvah 2y ago
    That's the wrong question. The correct question is, "If California increased income tax, how many software developers would leave for another jurisdiction that did not increase income tax, and would the total tax taken from all software developers in California be higher or lower after?". There are also moral questions.
- sapphicsnail 2y ago
  There are plenty of examples of people redistributing wealth, whether through taxes or less palatable means that worked out well for the poor. There are also plenty of places that do nothing that are a disaster.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The improvement of the poor correlates with free'er markets, not taxes.
    - antifa 2y ago
      If you mean free from billionaires and oligarchs, then yes.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Cuba doesn't have any. A fun place.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    "Redistribution" at some point becomes blatant theft from productive people to give to unproductive people. I guess taxes need to scale up with wealth to some extent but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't encourage freeloading and doesn't encourage envy.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  No they don't. That's just an ideological cliche.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Have you seen the stuff that has been outsourced from all of the West? They DO leave for cheaper places, whether that be because of taxes or wages. And if you really leave them no other choice, they might just go out of business.
    - antifa 2y ago
      Good, then less greedy people will start new businesses.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        You don't have to be greedy to not want to be robbed. You do have to be kind of tight with money, aka greedy, to run a competitive business. How often are you paying much more than you absolutely have to for anything? Our greed forces businesses to be run in a greedy way. It's called efficiency.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      They outsourced industry, because the logic of industrial production is that all costs should be driven as low as possible and much human labor is fungible. The claim here is that high taxes on earnings will cause capitalists to leave and take the jerbs with them. A different context, and a scenario that fails to consider the existence of domestic competition, capitalists' desire to sell into the most profitable market, preferences about where to live etc.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        Yes it is slightly different but we are talking about people who start and run businesses, typically. Unless living here comes with some tremendous benefits that transcend money, they will leave. They generally have little loyalty to their homeland. I wouldn't either, if my homeland wanted to take me for all I'm worth in taxes. Not only would I consider leaving if I had more money, but I know of people who specialize in helping moderately wealthy leave. They cater to people who have a few million dollars and up. >They outsourced industry, because the logic of industrial production is that all costs should be driven as low as possible and much human labor is fungible. It's not just industrial production, it's the top jobs that people on this site need. Jobs in software and other kinds of engineering are increasingly under threat. There is some merit to seeking lower costs, and we benefit from that, but it's also possible to paint yourself into a corner from a national security standpoint. My point remains: the same cost-saving motive that drives wealthy people to preserve money in life and business is likely to push them out of the country if we oppress them. There are many real-life examples of people fleeing for economic reasons. Why is it so easy to believe that day laborers or doctors would flee for greener pastures, but hard to believe that many wealthy business owners wouldn't?
- Teever 2y ago
  Well, it seems to me that the current situation of ever increasing wealth inequality is unsustainable. Can you suggest some sort of middle ground?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    There's no limit to people's ability to create wealth. Creating wealth made the US the richest country in the world. Why would you want to stop that?
    - Teever 2y ago
      Would you support a return to the top marginal tax rate of 91% on the ultra-wealthy, like it was during the 1950s and 60s, when the U.S. economy was booming, infrastructure was being built, and income inequality was much lower?
      - alvah 2y ago
        Correlation != causation. The US economy in the 1950s and 1960s was a very different beast - Europe (the main industrial competitor) was in ruins, wealth was very much more tied up in factories and plant, and less in equities and other soft assets. The currency was still tied to the gold price. It may as well have been another planet compared to today.
        Teever 2y ago
        What do you feel that the top marginal tax rate should be in western countries today?
        alvah 2y ago
        It depends - Western countries exist in a fiat currency world without a gold price tether, so governments that are sovereign in their own currency do not depend on tax receipts to provide services (the Eurozone is a different kettle of fish due to the common currency and lack of defined horizontal stabilisation). Generally, if governments foresee the need to encourage economic activity, they should reduce tax rates. If they predict their economy is or will become overheated, they should increase tax rates. If they wish to buy votes from people who don't understand how money and tax work in an untethered fiat currency world, they should increase tax rates into the 90%+ range; however, this will cause economic disruption with some time delay, which those responsible will hope they can blame on the party in power at the time of the disruption. Yes, I am more cynical now than I was 20 years ago.
- gizajob 2y ago
  They also sit in the Bahamas for 6 months before becoming very bored and realising their friends and socio-cultural life in London isn’t easily replicated elsewhere.
roenxi 2y ago
If they were necessary for funding the country's defence, it is likely that it will also break the borders. France can't tax them to raise money to re-arm if they aren't there. Peace through poverty in Europe would be an interesting development I suppose.

If they liquidate their assets it’s gonna be a lot more affordable to buy homes. I think that alone will warm your heart

WalterBright 2y ago
The super-rich do not have enough houses to make a dent in the supply of homes.

WalterBright 2y ago

When they leave, they take their investments, spending, and created jobs with them. Many countries have confiscated everything from the rich, driven them out, and even mass murdered them. None resulted in the poor being better off - things just got worse for the poor.

elzbardico 2y ago
Yeah? So, they are going to take their factories? They are leaving the biggest consumer markets to sell their trinkets in the giant Costa Rican market?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  In Washington State, a tax on capital gains over $250,000 was recently instituted. Jeff Bezos, presumably the target of the tax, left the state just before it went into effect. Friends in the area have told me that many Microsoft wealthy people have left as well. Seattle has instituted a number of punitive taxes on businesses in the city. There has been a corresponding boom in business across the lake in Bellevue. The state has benefited a lot by being a low tax state in the past. It is no longer a low tax state. We'll see how that goes. Musk is one of the more famous industrialists who left California over taxes.
elzbardico 2y ago
In another level: How many software developers are forgoing job offers in California due to it being a state with income tax?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The sensible ones will figure in the cost of living and tax level to see if the California high salaries are better. NYC has also seen an exodus of wealthy taxpayers to Florida.
- alvah 2y ago
  That's the wrong question. The correct question is, "If California increased income tax, how many software developers would leave for another jurisdiction that did not increase income tax, and would the total tax taken from all software developers in California be higher or lower after?". There are also moral questions.
sapphicsnail 2y ago
There are plenty of examples of people redistributing wealth, whether through taxes or less palatable means that worked out well for the poor. There are also plenty of places that do nothing that are a disaster.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The improvement of the poor correlates with free'er markets, not taxes.
  - antifa 2y ago
    If you mean free from billionaires and oligarchs, then yes.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Cuba doesn't have any. A fun place.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  "Redistribution" at some point becomes blatant theft from productive people to give to unproductive people. I guess taxes need to scale up with wealth to some extent but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't encourage freeloading and doesn't encourage envy.
anigbrowl 2y ago
No they don't. That's just an ideological cliche.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Have you seen the stuff that has been outsourced from all of the West? They DO leave for cheaper places, whether that be because of taxes or wages. And if you really leave them no other choice, they might just go out of business.
  - antifa 2y ago
    Good, then less greedy people will start new businesses.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      You don't have to be greedy to not want to be robbed. You do have to be kind of tight with money, aka greedy, to run a competitive business. How often are you paying much more than you absolutely have to for anything? Our greed forces businesses to be run in a greedy way. It's called efficiency.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    They outsourced industry, because the logic of industrial production is that all costs should be driven as low as possible and much human labor is fungible. The claim here is that high taxes on earnings will cause capitalists to leave and take the jerbs with them. A different context, and a scenario that fails to consider the existence of domestic competition, capitalists' desire to sell into the most profitable market, preferences about where to live etc.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Yes it is slightly different but we are talking about people who start and run businesses, typically. Unless living here comes with some tremendous benefits that transcend money, they will leave. They generally have little loyalty to their homeland. I wouldn't either, if my homeland wanted to take me for all I'm worth in taxes. Not only would I consider leaving if I had more money, but I know of people who specialize in helping moderately wealthy leave. They cater to people who have a few million dollars and up. >They outsourced industry, because the logic of industrial production is that all costs should be driven as low as possible and much human labor is fungible. It's not just industrial production, it's the top jobs that people on this site need. Jobs in software and other kinds of engineering are increasingly under threat. There is some merit to seeking lower costs, and we benefit from that, but it's also possible to paint yourself into a corner from a national security standpoint. My point remains: the same cost-saving motive that drives wealthy people to preserve money in life and business is likely to push them out of the country if we oppress them. There are many real-life examples of people fleeing for economic reasons. Why is it so easy to believe that day laborers or doctors would flee for greener pastures, but hard to believe that many wealthy business owners wouldn't?
Teever 2y ago
Well, it seems to me that the current situation of ever increasing wealth inequality is unsustainable. Can you suggest some sort of middle ground?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  There's no limit to people's ability to create wealth. Creating wealth made the US the richest country in the world. Why would you want to stop that?
  - Teever 2y ago
    Would you support a return to the top marginal tax rate of 91% on the ultra-wealthy, like it was during the 1950s and 60s, when the U.S. economy was booming, infrastructure was being built, and income inequality was much lower?
    - alvah 2y ago
      Correlation != causation. The US economy in the 1950s and 1960s was a very different beast - Europe (the main industrial competitor) was in ruins, wealth was very much more tied up in factories and plant, and less in equities and other soft assets. The currency was still tied to the gold price. It may as well have been another planet compared to today.
      - Teever 2y ago
        What do you feel that the top marginal tax rate should be in western countries today?
        alvah 2y ago
        It depends - Western countries exist in a fiat currency world without a gold price tether, so governments that are sovereign in their own currency do not depend on tax receipts to provide services (the Eurozone is a different kettle of fish due to the common currency and lack of defined horizontal stabilisation). Generally, if governments foresee the need to encourage economic activity, they should reduce tax rates. If they predict their economy is or will become overheated, they should increase tax rates. If they wish to buy votes from people who don't understand how money and tax work in an untethered fiat currency world, they should increase tax rates into the 90%+ range; however, this will cause economic disruption with some time delay, which those responsible will hope they can blame on the party in power at the time of the disruption. Yes, I am more cynical now than I was 20 years ago.
gizajob 2y ago
They also sit in the Bahamas for 6 months before becoming very bored and realising their friends and socio-cultural life in London isn’t easily replicated elsewhere.

roenxi 2y ago

If they were necessary for funding the country's defence, it is likely that it will also break the borders. France can't tax them to raise money to re-arm if they aren't there. Peace through poverty in Europe would be an interesting development I suppose.