top 61 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 139 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They will buy the media, undermine your democracy and institute fascism if you tax them.

They will also do that if you don't tax them.

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

    My country (Norway) saw a lot of rich people moving to Switzerland because of more advantageous tax rules, so we actually did implement an “exit tax”!

    To the surprise of no one, the rich people will not stop whining about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago

    We’ve, as most of the world, been drifting right for a few decades unfortunately. The tax I mentioned was one of the main issues in last year’s election even though it affects nearly no one. That’s a sign of a small group gaining control of public discourse, which is not great…

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago

    “Billionaires will leave if you tax them.”

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    They aren’t paying enough to begin with as an overall percentage of the state’s tax, so what’s the difference if they leave?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I think the underlying threat is that they'll bring their industry with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Then... Outlaw that? Like, the government can simply say "no, and if you so much as make a move, your entire company gets nationalized"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It's simpler than that. There's other rich people who'd gladly buy a ready to roll production facility, there'd be no real loss. But in reality they won't leave, there's still money to be made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Outlaw a company shutting down operations in a country?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Literally yes, outlaw a company moving to another country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    If you tax them enough they won’t be billionaires anymore, so billionaires really wouldn’t leave.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago

    They don't pay their share and they don't keep their money where they live anyway, so leave and hopefully die on the way to Dubai or whatever tax haven you decide to go, billionaire piece of shit

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    What is the downside?

    Option 1) Billionaires and no tax revenue from billionaires.

    Option 2) Lower housing prices because no billionaires and no tax revenues from billionaires.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    They'll leave, but still own their property. 

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly if they’re not paying for anything in the community anyway why do we care whether or not they stay?

    I’m tired of 0.1% courting and worshipping that people do.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Massachusetts implemented a 4% millionaire tax in 2022 and a small capital gains tax. The results?

    • extra $3b in tax revenue, extra $1.3b with the capital gains changed.
    • passed a $2.5 billion infrastructure & education bill
    • millionaires in Massachusetts actually grew because of the economic expansion
    • collective wealth of the people in the state went up by 40% two years after it passed

    It's proven that it works. We just need policies that benefit people and not just the rich.

    Some of the sources:

    https://www.axios.com/local/boston/2025/04/29/millionaires-massachusetts-income-surtax-increase

    https://www.nbcboston.com/news/politics/data-shows-mass-is-home-to-more-millionaires-despite-new-surtax-according-to-advocates/3698430/

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago
    1. Billionaires and millionaires want to live in safe places. Guess where it is safe? Where the general public has a good relative wealth. Guess what taxes causes...
  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    I already bought it, you don't need to keep selling it to me.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    Worth remembering: the “they’ll leave” line gets used for any reform—so it’s healthier to ask for data and design policy around outcomes, not threats.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Why would they leave? This system has made them billionaires. Even if it costs them a little bit more, this system STILL generates billions in revenue. They won't find a friendlier attitude anywhere else on the planet. If they could, they'd be there.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    They never leave. China won't let them get that rich because they're not part of the party, Europe is many smaller markets with various regulations that make it less profitable. South America and Africa are both risky and difficult.

    Tax em till all kids have enough to eat and get great educations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Good riddance. The perfect analogy is removing a brain cancer.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I think it's a terrible idea to put a tax on leaving the country, however I think forcing people who leave to revoke their own citizenship permanently would work even better

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    5 - You’re running cover for pedophiles when you say this.

  • source
  • [+] -8 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Yeah except don't put a tax on them leaving. That amounts to holding them hostage, and will eventually be used as an excuse to apply the tax to everyday people, limiting their mobility (and also their ability to leave the country if it goes rogue). Just let them leave if they really want to.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    why would the tax be applied to everyday people, that's a logical leap

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    It's already the case in the US. Expatriation costs a couple thousand, and for all practical intents and purposes even more since the IRS then checks every last detail of the last five years of your tax returns looking for any reason to fine you (sometimes "accidentally" making mistakes themselves and hoping you pay the fine anyway), so you're going to want to hire an accountant and/or a tax lawyer to ensure you don't get fucked. This applies to anyone renouncing their citizenship regardless of wealth (or, that is, until a certain level of wealth, after which you're thoroughly fucked if you want to leave the US - and we're not talking billionaire level wealth here, far from it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I don't understand the argument here. We have a version of this rule that we don't like, so let's not implement a different version that we do like?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I am curious antiyanks, since you mention this a lot. Can you actually go into detail about what happened?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    To avoid accusations of some kind of class war, I expect.

    Difference being, of course, that this would likely be a progressive tax, like the mansion tax or income, so as to impact the "big fish" and allow movement of others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    That would be unconstitutional. Violation of freedom of movement.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)