935
5. just put a tax on leaving, duh (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://sfba.social/@drahardja/115841080357294931

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

Because of what it fundamentally means. If we accept that it's OK to take away the rights (in this case the right to leave the country) of the ultra wealthy and powerful, it's only a matter of time until the argument is turned around to target those who have less power. Precedents are a thing, after all.

The point is, let's not take anyone's rights. Let's start by ensuring that tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy are eliminated, then increase the taxes on top earners if the financial situation is still dire. If they stay, more for everyone. If they leave, less corruption (which also means more for everyone). So you win either way, and we haven't set any potentially dangerous precedents.

EDIT: and to come back to the US example: those laws were actually introduced in that very vain, to target the very rich. Except that once the idea was seen as acceptable, it was turned into law that applied to everybody.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Increasing the tax rate at the upper income and wealth range would be ideal, I agree. I especially like the simplicity of it. But I don't understand why you think that's acceptable while an exit tax isn't. What is it that makes one a slippery slope but not the other? Tax rates/laws have been eroding to favour the wealthy while screwing over the poor. So the solution should be to fight to get it back to a good state, right? Shouldn't it be the same for anything else?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The problem is that it relies on a different principle. With income tax, you earn money above what (at least in theory) you need to survive, you contribute a part of that to society. With sales tax, you spend money on things that aren't strictly necessary to survive, you contribute a part of that to society. With an exit tax, you leave the country or renounce your citizenship, something that is your fundamental right, you get penalized - so you get penalized for using a fundamental right. That's the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I guess that kind of makes sense. I think to me, migration falls very low on rankings of needs, let alone giving it status as a human right. It isn't necessary for survival unless you're already deprived of food/clothing/shelter, which I do consider to be human rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I mean as with most rights, if things are going well, you don't really directly need them, but when shit hits the fan, things are different. When you're healthy, it's tempting to not care about healthcare. Get sick and that can change quickly. Have a government that you agree with and (at least for many people) it's tempting to not care about free speech. Get a government you disagree with and the tables turn. Similarly, if you're doing decently there's not much of a need to migrate. If you are deprived of food, clothing or shelter, then mobility can be a way out. And not just that - spatial mobility can be one of the most important factors for social mobility. And finally, if you have a fascist government that in the worst case has a target on your back, then you'll want to make every use of your mobility (mind you, there's a reason why authoritarian governments like to clamp down on spacial mobility).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent