[yellow sitting, at a presidential desk] I’ve been thinking… if we tax the rich more fairly, they might just leave the country!
[blue, angsty, sitting in a chair next to the desk] Mr. President… I’m afraid you’re right, we can’t take that risk, we need them
[a rich character smoking a cigar next to a “0% LOANS” luggage] I hate spending and my wealth is unrealized gains, I contribute nothing to the economy
[another rich character is lounging in a deck chair on a beach, cocktail in hand, luggage on the sand] I’ve already left the country a long time ago
[another rich character leans against a stack of cash with a smug grin] My money is all in holdings, I barely pay any taxes
It has never been demonstrated by anyone who holds this bullshit “the rich might leave” argument how any value to the working class average Joe would be lost.
Even if we pretended they would all leave, they aren’t gonna shut down their businesses in the US, they and their shareholders make too much money in the US market.
Ironically, the greatest threat to the US market collapsing and losing all value is these rich cunts getting their way.
Rich people spend lavishly on luxurious homes, services, food, clothing, artisanal items, and such. They usually also pay for some art and culture they enjoy, keeping venues for performances and events open.
The rich leaving a city means lots of small businesses and artisans need to close or downsize. Service jobs get lost as well. The fancy bakery has to close. Restaurants close.
My cousin has a small restaurant. He makes the bulk of his money with catering for parties of rich folks. Without that business, the restaurant wouldn’t be profitable.
Luxury priced goods and services can be a bigger or smaller part of a local economy.
However rich people can also afford to pay a lot for stuff. Not all of them want to live in Dubai or Bali. They want to live where quality of life is high, exclusive, interesting, and high quality experiences are to be had, and where the other elite, interesting, rich, famous, and powerful people are. New Yorck City doesn’t need to worry one bit about getting less attractive to the rich.
Rich people and their capital move independently from each other around the world. For capital most of it will go to places where profits are to be expected. A smaller part will go to places the capital owners just prefer for their personal reasons.
That’s the capital owning class. It’s a little different for the professional class with high or very high income like some doctors, engineers, elite artists, elite athletes, and other specialists. They have actual income that can be taxed directly. These are also internationally mobile and can be attracted by high incomes elsewhere.
Talk about „the rich“ often confuses these two or doesn’t differentiate. A specialist doctor with a dozen employees, two homes, and two nice cars is certainly well off. Does he count as rich or not though?
The way „tax the rich“ is often implemented targets the upper middle class harder than the far richer upper capital owning class.
The more money you have the easier it is to circumvent taxes by setting up a series of companies that buy from each other.
Having been around actually rich people, what I found most surprising was that they often didn’t need to pay for stuff directly at all. I‘ve been taken on expensive vacations, where my host didn’t have to pay for the lavish villa we stayed at, or the boat, or the driver and car that shuttled us around. A lot of it is informal favors, vouchers, points, miles, and so on. That‘s also a way to obfuscate their real income.
That said. A strong middle class and well paid working class creates a far better economy and provides enough opportunities for artisans, and some quality luxury services.
To be fair, those “holdings” are investment accounts, where the money gets to be used by a different rich person to exploit labor, because the billionaire can’t even be bothered to do that themselves.
Not really, though. Maybe that money does something the day the holding is bought, but then it just becomes dead weight or even debt since the company might be eyeing it for a buyback. If I buy a stock for $1k today and in 10 years it’s now worth $50k, that $50k isn’t being used by the company to produce. It doesn’t even exist at all until I decide to sell, at which point I keep the money for myself.
You’re missing the point.
If I buy a stock for $1000 today, some other rich person gets to use that $1000 to exploit labor on my behalf, and if they are ruthless enough, the stock value will go up.
Then I can sell it to someone else, take the proceeds to live off of and buy more exploitation certificates.
No, because then the gains become realized and you’d need to pay taxes. Better to take a low-interest loan out against the assets and pay no taxes, like the meme says.
Elon didn’t sell $50B of stock to buy Twitter. He took loans from foreign nationals using stock as collateral.
This. No need to realize any gains at all. The same trick also works for any other expenses.
Of course. I was simplifying.
Taxes are deflationary and the rich avoid that from happening. Price gouging and price hikes are inflationary… and the wealthy do that as much as possible.
So there’s a real case to say wealthy people cause inflation.
Deflation is terrible for an economy, because it would mean people would stop spending money. Money changing hands is what keeps an economy going.
Of course wages should at least increase with inflation, better overall productivity.
I said deflationary meaning less inflation.
But also, deflation doesn’t stop people spending, it just means the dollar is “worth” more goods, and can stretch further. Can buy more stuff. Inflation means goods cost more, and the dollar is worth less. Can buy less stuff.
These are measures of price. Prices go up = inflation. Prices go down = deflation.
Japan has been in a deflationary economy for 30 years or so, and people were buying and selling stuff the whole time.
These people still have to eat. They have to live somewhere. They still buy things. Often gaudy, awful things and other disgusting displays of wealth, but things nonetheless.
That’s where you get them.
Oh, what’s that? They moved out of the country? Well then, they’re not there to stop the country from nationalising their stake in whatever part of that company exists in that country, are they?
Anyone acting on their behalf to stop that should be taxed on their behalf. They won’t pay their human sock puppets? Don’t be a sock puppet then.
If they want their stake back, they need to live in the company’s host country (because there’s always a main HQ) for one full tax year.
They own multiple stakes in multiple companies in multiple countries? Sucks to be them, I guess. Shouldn’t have been so greedy.
The rich love to spend on luxury services. Gardeners, drivers, cooks, artists, nannies, cleaners, accountants, personal trainers, beauticians, therapists, guides, teachers, coaches, sex workers, planners, assistants, etc.
I’ve met rich people who spend thousands of dollars per day on this.
That’s taxable. In Britain at least, we have the VAT system where businesses must include it in their prices. There are two or three tiers with the highest tier of 20% applying to goods and services absolutely not necessary for day-to-day living.
Businesses are supposed to keep records of what they’ve charged and to whom, and they can use that proof to claim all or part of VAT back, so that the tax falls mostly on the consumer.
Businesses that don’t do this generally get in trouble sooner rather than later.
(Now, I’m not going to claim VAT is perfect, nor that the stratification of it is done correctly as it stands, but it’s proof a system like that can and does exist.)
