4 ms·
> intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people woul
by jppope 5mo ago
> intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
I consider this fine, because proponents of a wealth tax consistently omit that it will ultimately be the middle class who pays the tax... the ultra-wealthy and wealthy can afford sophisticated strategies to render a wealth tax ineffective against them, and if that doesn't work they can just move somewhere else. Income tax was the same.
- armitron 5mo agoAs has happened in nearly every European state with wealth taxes. But the elephant in the room is that these policies give the same ineffective, corrupt and entirely worthless politicians even more money to "manage". The very definition of delusional wishful thinking.
- jppope 5mo agothis is the key fact. If a wealth tax were enacted and a responsible group were endowed with the money we might reap some value from a wealth tax. Giving American Politicians more tax money is like giving a heroine addict more heroine.
- harimau777 5mo agoThem moving somewhere else is an easy fix. Just put an exit tax on the ultra wealthy.
- servo_sausage 5mo agoEven that is subject to shenanigans... above a certain level of wealth the overhead of establishing companies, tax residencies, and complex debt arrangements become a rounding error. Some of the mechanisms are loopholes, that might be closed l. But many start to interact with international business regulations that exist for considered reasons, and are harder to change even if it is serving as a loophole. You end up with only the small wealth (one lifetime as a skilled professional) group getting caught
- cherry_tree 5mo agoSanction them and their companies. Sanction countries that accept these anti-society misanthropes. Bar them from the US and any territories, encourage our allies to bar them as well. Investigate those companies for crimes to the full extent of the law. Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing something millions want to do and their monopolistic success is preventing others from succeeding; knocking these giants down makes rooms for new businesses and products. This is the entire thrust of a capitalistic economy.
- JuniperMesos 5mo agoI don't have any more to fear from politically-influential private-sector billionaires than I do from the government enforcing a sanctions regime.
- dh2022 5mo agoIf the ultra wealthy move out a few people will lose their jobs (their family office, some accountants, some property managers will work the same job for someone else). But overall people will not be worse off. We have been doing this exact experiment in Seattle sine 2024 when Bozos moved out. And last month Howard Schultz moved out as well. The sky did not fall. Another example- did the average Londoner get better off when Russian oligarch parked their money in London in early 2000s? And likewise - was the average Londoner worse off when that money was frozen in Jan 2022 when Ukrainian war started? Not really…
- WalterBright 5mo agoStarbucks is moving its headquarters from Seattle to Tennessee. Many other businesses that are not large enough to interest the newspaper are moving out as well.
- dh2022 5mo agoLike I said: the sky is not falling.
- lambdaphagy 5mo agoI don’t think I understand your argument. If a wealth tax causes the wealthy to leave then you have even less tax revenue than before, right?
- WalterBright 5mo agoYou also lose the jobs the wealthy were paying for, and the taxes those employees would have paid, and the sales tax the wealthy are no longer paying, and so on.
- dh2022 5mo agoThere was no tax revenue to begin with-nobody paid income taxes in WA before the millionaire tax. The jobs the rich will take with are few and very specialized: tax accountants, security people, some administrative assistants. When billionaires leave whoever mowed their lawn or cleaned their pool will do the same job - for the next owner. What the politicians will do with these taxes does not matter to me. The only thing I dispute is this sense of doom because, of my god, Bill Gates and Andy Jassy and Howard Schultz and Ballmer will pick up their toys and leave.
- BosunoB 5mo agoIf you paid attention to proponents of a wealth tax in the US, you would be aware that they only ever suggest it for vast wealths of like $10 million+.
- pfannkuchen 5mo agoThat’s like 2 pretty good houses in the bay area. Hardly “vast wealth”, and these sorts of things are rarely inflation adjusted over time.
- acdha 5mo agoThe Bay Area is one of the most expensive parts of the United States and $10M still means you own half a dozen houses. I’d say that’s reasonably “wealthy” from the perspective of the majority of the population who struggle to afford even one. https://vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/indicators/home-values https://vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/indicators/home-values
- pfannkuchen 5mo agoSure, I’d agree with “reasonably wealthy”, just not “vast” wealth.
- mathgeek 5mo agoAnyone who owns two $500k houses is wealthy in 2026. I used to own two worth less than that and didn’t consider myself wealthy, but I was by the statistics.