4 ms·

You know what? Let them leave. If they have business here, are they going to close shop and forego this market? No, they aren't. Can we still tax them for what

You know what? Let them leave. If they have business here, are they going to close shop and forego this market? No, they aren't. Can we still tax them for what they remmit to whatever the place they are? Yes, we can. And where they will go? Once a major developed nation starts being serious on taxing the billionaires, the others will follow soon, or more probably, they will even coordinate among themselves to harmonize their rates. Yeah, they could go to some third world hellhole where they could bribe the authorities and live in a Pablo Escobar's style compound. Will they do it? Will they subject themselves to the judicial insecurity that abunds in those places? To politician that manage the incredible feat of being orders of magnitude even more corrupt than the ones we have in washington? All western nations used to have far higher top marginal rates for income and inheritance taxes. Far less loopholes, and yet here we are.

opo 2y ago
>...All western nations used to have far higher top marginal rates for income and inheritance taxes. Far less loopholes, and yet here we are. When western nations had far higher top marginal rates for income there were far MORE loopholes, not less. Those high rates did not bring in much revenue. For example: >...Of the $517 billion the Treasury collected in 1980, only $3 billion to $5 billion came from the 70 percent bracket — less than 1 percent of total tax revenue. https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-70-percent-tax-rate-000879/ https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-7... (This is one reason that democrats suggested lowering the top rate in 1981.) Those high marginal rates encouraged all kinds of unproductive investments to take advantage of loopholes built into the law. Where people couldn't get around such high rates, there were deadweight losses from economic activity that didn't occur. Even if someone thinks it is morally ok to take that much of someone's income, those kinds of high rates simply hurt the economy.

opo 2y ago

>...All western nations used to have far higher top marginal rates for income and inheritance taxes. Far less loopholes, and yet here we are. When western nations had far higher top marginal rates for income there were far MORE loopholes, not less. Those high rates did not bring in much revenue. For example: >...Of the $517 billion the Treasury collected in 1980, only $3 billion to $5 billion came from the 70 percent bracket — less than 1 percent of total tax revenue. https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-70-percent-tax-rate-000879/ https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-7... (This is one reason that democrats suggested lowering the top rate in 1981.) Those high marginal rates encouraged all kinds of unproductive investments to take advantage of loopholes built into the law. Where people couldn't get around such high rates, there were deadweight losses from economic activity that didn't occur. Even if someone thinks it is morally ok to take that much of someone's income, those kinds of high rates simply hurt the economy.