4 ms·

Actually, the gold reserves and and immigrant thing had way bigger campaigns for them than against them. If anything, the vote was for whoever had the least mon

by pilif 12y ago

Actually, the gold reserves and and immigrant thing had way bigger campaigns for them than against them. If anything, the vote was for whoever had the least money behind their campaign. The tax thing is annoying. I would have hoped for a yes vote (and I have voted yes), but I think this is still a few years off before we'll see a change there.

rtpg 12y ago
I heard something on the news just today about how Geneva got rid of these tax advantages and basically half of the affected people moved out of Geneva right after. Maybe people think the same would happen on a national level? I don't necessarily think this would be the result, but I can see a lot of people thinking that.
- charlesdm 12y ago
  What's the advantage of a ton of wealthy people moving away from Geneva?
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    Better parking !
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    The not so wealthy that stay there get to start business on a level playing field, instead of having unfair competition from the wealthy ones.
  - Matumio 12y ago
    It was Zurich, not Geneva, and the (now regular, and thus higher) taxes paid by those who stayed did compensate those who left. The advantage is that ordinary people may be more willing to pay their regular taxes if the rich are paying theirs, too.
    - charlesdm 12y ago
      I guess it depends on how you look at it. Taxes levied do not always equal the complete value to the economy of a country. While they might have been paying lower taxes, who says they weren't consuming/spending more? The cars they bought, the restaurants they visited, or the expensive suits they had tailored/made - those all add to the local economy. And those 'profits' are then also taxed, either at the corporate level (i.e. the restaurant) or at the personal level (i.e. someone employed at the restaurant). Also, this said, there is only so much one can consume. A wealthy person might have 1000 or 10,000 times more wealth than an average person, but he doesn't have 1000 cars. Or suits. I would expect it to be better to have more wealthy people in an area, rather than less, even if the tax income is the same, because as a group they consume and invest more.
      - lmm 12y ago
        > While they might have been paying lower taxes, who says they weren't consuming/spending more? Economists do measure the "velocity of money". And it really is higher among the poor, for common-sense reasons; someone who's living paycheck to paycheck is (almost by definition) spending all of their income, putting it straight back into circulation, whereas the wealthy are more likely to save some (which yes does recirculate as investment to an extent, but the investor as rentier takes their cut, and investment income is often undertaxed), spend some abroad, or spend in less efficient industries (e.g. high-end handcrafted anything, where you're paying a master craftsman who won't actually spend a lot of their time producing things, and won't be pulling back anywhere near as much through the productive economy (e.g. buying materials) compared to the same amount of money spent on mass-produced goods).
- dho 12y ago
  I think you mean Zurich, not Geneva, see http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/cantons-weigh-up-value-of-lump-sum-tax/40810248 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/cantons-weigh-up-value-of-lump-s...
  - jarek 12y ago
    The article is well written but I'll pull out probably the most important stat: of the canton’s 201 former lump sum beneficiaries, 97 left, amounting to loss of CHF 12.2 million in cantonal tax receipts (avg CHF 126k per person).
    - jkn 12y ago
      What about the stat found in the next paragraph: This left over 100 wealthy foreigners remaining in the canton. Depending on how much wealth they had and how it was distributed, 55 ended up paying more tax and 47 less. Their total cantonal tax bill of CHF13.8 million more than made up for the losses, so the canton did better than break even.
      - jarek 12y ago
        Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zurich was particularly hurting for losing the CHF 12 million in the first place. It's not that much money for a jurisdiction of rather affluent 1.4 million people. That they made more is bonus.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I assume there are real inertia issues with moving, probably where with step functions at certain levels of wealth. Moving at all has inertia, moving to a new city in the same country has a lot more but I suspect moving internationally has the greatest. And the Swiss are a rarity in that they are one of few countries where native speakers can go to nearby countries and still be (mostly) understood. So it's worth discounting the "if we raise taxes they will all leave" theory for my money
  - rmc 12y ago
    Rich people can often find ways to officially move for tax purposes.
Matumio 12y ago
I don't think this is correct. More than 90% of the advertisements in newspapers were against, for each of the three proposals. Source: http://www.50plus1.ch/?p=547 http://www.50plus1.ch/?p=547 (German, French version at bottom)

by pilif 12y ago

rtpg 12y ago

I heard something on the news just today about how Geneva got rid of these tax advantages and basically half of the affected people moved out of Geneva right after. Maybe people think the same would happen on a national level? I don't necessarily think this would be the result, but I can see a lot of people thinking that.

charlesdm 12y ago
What's the advantage of a ton of wealthy people moving away from Geneva?
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Better parking !
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  The not so wealthy that stay there get to start business on a level playing field, instead of having unfair competition from the wealthy ones.
- Matumio 12y ago
  It was Zurich, not Geneva, and the (now regular, and thus higher) taxes paid by those who stayed did compensate those who left. The advantage is that ordinary people may be more willing to pay their regular taxes if the rich are paying theirs, too.
  - charlesdm 12y ago
    I guess it depends on how you look at it. Taxes levied do not always equal the complete value to the economy of a country. While they might have been paying lower taxes, who says they weren't consuming/spending more? The cars they bought, the restaurants they visited, or the expensive suits they had tailored/made - those all add to the local economy. And those 'profits' are then also taxed, either at the corporate level (i.e. the restaurant) or at the personal level (i.e. someone employed at the restaurant). Also, this said, there is only so much one can consume. A wealthy person might have 1000 or 10,000 times more wealth than an average person, but he doesn't have 1000 cars. Or suits. I would expect it to be better to have more wealthy people in an area, rather than less, even if the tax income is the same, because as a group they consume and invest more.
    - lmm 12y ago
      > While they might have been paying lower taxes, who says they weren't consuming/spending more? Economists do measure the "velocity of money". And it really is higher among the poor, for common-sense reasons; someone who's living paycheck to paycheck is (almost by definition) spending all of their income, putting it straight back into circulation, whereas the wealthy are more likely to save some (which yes does recirculate as investment to an extent, but the investor as rentier takes their cut, and investment income is often undertaxed), spend some abroad, or spend in less efficient industries (e.g. high-end handcrafted anything, where you're paying a master craftsman who won't actually spend a lot of their time producing things, and won't be pulling back anywhere near as much through the productive economy (e.g. buying materials) compared to the same amount of money spent on mass-produced goods).
dho 12y ago
I think you mean Zurich, not Geneva, see http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/cantons-weigh-up-value-of-lump-sum-tax/40810248 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/cantons-weigh-up-value-of-lump-s...
- jarek 12y ago
  The article is well written but I'll pull out probably the most important stat: of the canton’s 201 former lump sum beneficiaries, 97 left, amounting to loss of CHF 12.2 million in cantonal tax receipts (avg CHF 126k per person).
  - jkn 12y ago
    What about the stat found in the next paragraph: This left over 100 wealthy foreigners remaining in the canton. Depending on how much wealth they had and how it was distributed, 55 ended up paying more tax and 47 less. Their total cantonal tax bill of CHF13.8 million more than made up for the losses, so the canton did better than break even.
    - jarek 12y ago
      Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zurich was particularly hurting for losing the CHF 12 million in the first place. It's not that much money for a jurisdiction of rather affluent 1.4 million people. That they made more is bonus.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I assume there are real inertia issues with moving, probably where with step functions at certain levels of wealth. Moving at all has inertia, moving to a new city in the same country has a lot more but I suspect moving internationally has the greatest. And the Swiss are a rarity in that they are one of few countries where native speakers can go to nearby countries and still be (mostly) understood. So it's worth discounting the "if we raise taxes they will all leave" theory for my money
- rmc 12y ago
  Rich people can often find ways to officially move for tax purposes.

Matumio 12y ago

I don't think this is correct. More than 90% of the advertisements in newspapers were against, for each of the three proposals. Source: http://www.50plus1.ch/?p=547 http://www.50plus1.ch/?p=547 (German, French version at bottom)