"We can't tax rich people because they might leave instead of paying higher taxes"

Bro they're not paying taxes NOW, so what the fuck's the difference?

Tax the rich. They'll either pay their fair share in tax, or they'll leave and stop being a drain on the system. Both options are a win.

"But they'll take the jobs with them"

A) No they won't. It's expensive as shit to uproot your entire operation, rehire, retrain, and reorganize entire production lines from the ground up, not to mention a gigantic pain in the ass.

B) Even if they do, that will leave a hole in the economy which can be filled by small business and entrepreneurs.

C) Even if it doesn't, trickle down economics is a filthy lie sold to you to keep you complacent. You can do better than a below minimum wage gig economy sidehustle. Demand better from employers.

@Lana not to mention employees often don’t want to move just because their employer wants to. Company I used to work for got taken private, then a year later the owner decided to relocate the company and select employees to Colorado. Only thing is, most of those “select employees” declined to move and got other jobs. They basically lost most of their senior people. They even called me up, being a former employee at the time, because they were struggling to get people to move.
@mwyman @Lana And there is the potential that a bunch of them form a new company that eats the original companies lunch. Particularly when the old company gets a reputation from abandoning the country (less relevant for interstate moves of companies with a national (or wider) market. But very relevant to the domestic market when a company moves internationally) there are a lot of customers wanting a new option that is patriotic.

@LovesTha Or maybe not "patriotic" but "local". Close by. Easy to reach for support. Short transport distance for goods. etc.

@mwyman @Lana

@wonka @mwyman @Lana yes, there are many good motivations for supporting local.
@mwyman D) also "rich" does not necessarily mean "employer". Many rich people are simply living off of generational wealth and employ zero people.
@Lana all the more reason to tax the hell out of them. Nobody should be inheriting billions.
@Lana : also, if we raise taxes everywhere, there's nowhere to go !
@Lana
Also jobs that can be moved have already been outsourced
@Lana
D) They already moved it to China/Indua/South America/Eastern Europe where people get paid next to nothing.
@Lana besides, which country is willing to accept tons of rich people that use your infrastructure without paying (taxes) for it?. Every decent government of every single country should rise the taxes for the rich people at the same time. Tomorrow is a good day to do it. Today too.
@Lana Also: If the rich countries finally start to take high taxes, this also opens the opportunity for less fortunate countries to also take considerable taxes. Currently, they almost *have* to be tax havens and welcome companies and individuals to exploit them.

@Lana I think the claim is not so much that they'll take the jobs, it's that they'll stop investing in things that create new jobs. There are a bunch of problems with this argument:

  • Capital is a lot more mobile than investors. It's easy to live in one country and invest in another and most rich people will do exactly that if there are higher returns to be made elsewhere.
  • A country is a good place to invest if skilled workers not super-rich people want to live there. The most important thing for any modern business is 'can you hire the people who will add significant value to the business here?' High-quality public services make that easier.

@Lana don't forget

D) they have been moving jobs abroad for decades anyway so it makes no frigging difference.

@Lana

When Washington State and I think mass Massachusetts imposed sur taxes on income above $1 million and elevated the capital gains taxes. They didn’t lose any wealthy because it turns out they are more tied to their locations than most other people that’s where all their social connections are for instance, and for starters.

There are very few high paid professions that are incredibly mobile.

..

@Lana

But on top of that, the threat to move out of country and go somewhere else, also skips over the subtle point that most of these people make their money in a particular country.

So for instance, a real estate mogul can’t simply pick up all of his property and move it to the grand Caymans. It’s not the way it works.

The same goes for companies that have sales in specific location. Your business makes money in the countries it does business in, not fantasy Island

@Lana AIUI, Americans keep paying certain taxes even after they migrated.
That could be a solution to copy, and otherwise: please pay at the border when migrating.

@janneke @Lana Please do not consider expanding one of the most oppressive aspects of the US tax code.

We should just close all of the unfair loopholes, without hurting regular people.

@janneke @Lana No. This is what exit taxes are for. A tax authority with global reach is a bad thing.

Not sure how other countries handle this, but in Canada all of your unrealized gains get taxes when you leave. Basically the same as dying. This is the closest thing we have to taxing wealth, and it's fantastic.

@janneke @Lana please, no!

FATCA is the reason why a non-US-citizen, who's never been to the US, who has no relation with the US, when creating an account at a non-US bank, in a country which is not the US, must check a box saying "I am not a US person".

So on top of the *severe* harms FATCA causes to US citizens all over the world, it also intrudes on everyone else's business. It's high time the US stops getting special treatment, now more than ever.

@janneke @Lana that is *not* a thing to copy. It massively impacts retirement savings and is a huge problem. There's a reason other countries don't do this.

Its not fair to punish people for moving someplace else. Everything that was put in place to impact companies and the ultra rich has instead been used to punish all migrants.

@Lana Rich people should pay the same amount as the middle class, then there wouldn't be a deficit for them to screw over the elderly or disabled.

@mooseandriosmom @Lana They should, but they're rich enough to pick where to call home, while the sycophants and business they drum up makes nations want to draw them in.

They literally shop for the cheapest tax bill, and as things stand, they are free to do so.

@janisf @mooseandriosmom @Lana Why is it not a law that says if your corporate headquarters is here, you pay our taxes? You wanna use a tax haven? GO right ahead, but your corporate HQ and primary operations need to bbe there, so now you're not a U.S. corporation, you're whatever the suffix is for Swiss ones or whatever. And now you have to deal with currency conversion.

@x0 @mooseandriosmom @Lana Well, The Right, specifically the commercial sector, has ALEC writing legislation for lawmakers to take to the floor. They get paid for that. The Left doesn't have that equivalent. You've got some great ideas. It sounds to me it would be worth looking into how you & yours could do that & submit something that fits well-enough into the legislative landscape that it would pass.

FWIW, I can't carry your ball forward--I just don't have the chops, creds, or connections.

@Lana but the trickle down economics!
@Sonikku it's ridiculous how many people actually believe this exists! @Lana

@Lana

Also, there is such a thing as an exit tax.

@Lana

And the tax? It’s often something like 4% on income earned over 1 million dollars (taking MA’s “wealth tax” as an example). It’s not like the government is coming to take their first-born child or something. IIRC, there was no exodus afterwards in MA. They can afford it and they know it.

That is still an income tax, not a "wealth tax". Taxing "wealth" is more difficult, because wealth is harder to measure precisely. Wealth also does tend to flee confiscation.

@leathekd @Lana

@Lana Plus, the vast majority of rich people's fortunes rest on political contacts and clientelism networks that are rarely global.

They are not going anywhere. Even with higher taxes, they are better at home.

@Lana but what about the wealth trickling down? /s

@Lana we can't tax the rich because they are rich enough to split their empire in 1000 parts and impersonate a thousand self-employed peasants, and we don't want to tax those.

I don't really know if under capitalism we can really tax them in any meaningful way...

@qwazix Lets give it a try.
@qwazix @Lana the nice thing about taxing the rich is that you could hire multiple dedicated IRS auditors per billionaire and wind up net revenue positive. Simplifying the tax code would also help by removing the need to have special cases for working class people that are exploitable by the rich.

@tedmielczarek @qwazix @Lana

You could hire lots of auditors per billionaire, but you're not necessarily going to find stuff. Because they can hire (and may have hired) just as many accountants to ensure compliance.

And being a billionaire doesn't actually mean that you have a billion dollars that can be taxed. Nor does it mean you have more income than say a professional athlete. Those tax dollars may not be there.

More taxes on rich people requires a real shift in how we do taxes.

@gatesvp @qwazix @Lana I am in favor of wealth taxes, yes.

@tedmielczarek let's speak to @qwazix's point for a second.

How do you actually roll out a wealth tax that is fair and meets your target goals for tax collection? There is not such a thing as A wealth tax. There are a dozen different forms of wealth that could be taxed in three or four different ways.

If you think there are too many people with a billion dollars in cash and property and yacht money, that's a different tax scheme from billion dollar business owners or from billionaire athletes

@tedmielczarek @qwazix

And these differences are relevant. If you look at the centi-millionaire athletes in North America, they're mostly union members. They clearly earned this with labor. And they've absolutely paid a ton of taxes already.

Likewise a lot of centi-millionaire business owners have most of that value tied up in shares of a business they own and operate. And so taxing that wealth technically means forcing them to give up ownership of their own company bit by bit...

@tedmielczarek @qwazix and I'm not saying that we cannot do any of these things.

I actually think there's a case to be made that we can and should enact some form of wealth taxes.

But we're not 140 characters away from solving this. And we kind of look like simpletons if that's the extent of our discussion.

@Lana Also, taxes are applied on the running year. Their relocation won't exempt them.

Wealth tax their assets to smithereens now.

And tax their future gains in ways that discourage the exploitation of environment and workers.

@Lana I believe the rationale is that they might take their companies, and the jobs they represent in the local economy, elsewhere.

@biplanepilot @Lana What jobs? China does all our manufacturing; India and The Philippines are popular for offshoring tech work. Unless you're working for a major tech giant (good luck) or in an Amazon warehouse where people will literally step over your dead body to try to keep their own impossible numbers up, the rich largely circulate money between themselves.

The actual economy relies on much smaller fortunes and they're not going to all just up and leave.

@biplanepilot what they do either way. @Lana
𝐿𝒶𝓃𝒶 "not yet begun to fight" (@Lana@beige.party)

"But they'll take the jobs with them" A) No they won't. It's expensive as shit to uproot your entire operation, rehire, retrain, and reorganize entire production lines from the ground up, not to mention a gigantic pain in the ass. B) Even if they do, that will leave a hole in the economy which can be filled by small business and entrepreneurs. C) Even if it doesn't, trickle down economics is a filthy lie sold to you to keep you complacent. You can do better than a below minimum wage gig economy sidehustle. Demand better from employers.

beige.party
@Lana How do I say this? Taxing the rich is, like, the compromise. We used to just kill them and take their stuff, and I genuinely think that was a more elegant & fair system.
@Lana @quixoticgeek Nothing like taking a thought to it's logical conclusion
@Lana Another consideration: if they're not Sponsored By Daddy, rich people often become rich by taking big risks and getting lucky. It's not that they are uniquely talented. People already suggested an exit tax for any of them who decide to leave. There will always be risk takers. Of those, there will always be some that are lucky. They will fill the gap and "generate wealth" if that's what the capitalist angst is all about.
@rozeboosje @Lana it's not that rich people are particularly bigger risk takers, it's just that they can afford to fail so many more times before they succeed.
@msb @Lana That is certainly true of the "Sponsored By Daddy" brigade

@Lana

i prefer beheading, for the historic nod and expediency. eating is a more infamous solution. yeeting via trebuchet into a canyon is a new favorite.

@Lana "But then they won't create jobs" - look, even assuming they do, which they often don't, either they'll leave but keep their businesses open, preserving those jobs, or they'll shut down, leaving a hole in the market for others to open businesses & hire people.

Rich people are utterly expendable; we can absolutely do without them but they can't do without us. Anything else is a myth created by them & the people who want to be like them.