• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1111 months ago

    It did happen to New Jersey, Norway and France. Rich people leave when you tax them. I’m not arguing against the law, but to prevent “flight of the rich”, the law has to be applied universally. Or if that can’t happen, do what Norway did, tax wealth flight.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      I’ve read studies that indicate the tax flight from NJ wasn’t as bad as people made it out to be as net tax revenue still increased and that some of the migration can be attributed to factors other than the tax increase. Still, I agree a blanket tax on the rich is ideal.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      011 months ago

      It’s how you tax. Some Norwegians left because not the income but the fortune was taxed. And by fortune also the value of stocks and such. The issue for some was they needed to sell off stocks to pay the tax. Also Norway established a new tax that tax the fortune if you leave. I am ALL for taxing the wealthy, but if the money has already been taxed…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        It’s already been taxed, yes, but it’s also passively generating income by investing it. You tax that income with a capital gains tax.

        You can further impose a let’s say 1-2% tax on wealth above let’s say 5 million, so you only have to pay 1% on 2M if you are worth 7M.

        That should be easily covered by your investing gains if you play at that level. So, in essence, no harm done to personal wealth. You just get richer less fast while urgent social and infrastructure projects receive better funding.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        I mean, if the point is to stop people from stockpiling wealth and increasing wealth disparity, then it sounds pretty effective.