As to whether rich people will move, https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/cuomo-wealthy-residents-should... .
Modeling a Wealth Tax
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#992Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please note that we have weekends/8h work day/ban on child labour and also still have the super rich. They never left. Some didn't leave. There's a reason why Singapore has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world, and it's not because of their school system. I'm not saying that all will leave, or even that most will, but some will.
Money laundering. Singapore exists at the behest of the United States. Its sovereign wealth fund is heavily invested in the United States and its geopolitical precariousness on the straits of malacca is predicated upon the implicit protection of the United States Navy. It's a political choice to let millionaires flee there, just as it's a political choice not to tax them at home. A snap of the US's fingers will chang…
I can show an example otherwise - the PM of Singapore saying no to Bill Clinton when he asked the Singapore authorities to not impose corporal punishment on an American citizen (caught for vandalizing cars).
Singapore is not just dependent on the US. It depends heavily on China too. Defense wise, Singapore has one of the strongest forces in the region.
And most millionaires in Singapore are Singapore citizens.
Singapore's status is not just some offshore tax haven, as seen by many in the west. It has a diversified economy.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#993Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great illustration that the wealth tax is not about rational policy. It's based on nothing but emotion and ideology. We're not debating here the need for taxes, or labor protections. You don't get to justify bad policies by pointing that there are places where government regulation is called for. Wealth tax is bad policy. Justify it on its own merits.
Your absolutist statements ("based on nothing but emotion and ideology") do nothing but betray your own ignorance. As an American living in Switzerland, a "good policy" (whatever that means) here has resulted in: 1) no capital gains tax, nor any capital losses and certainly no carryover loss shenanigans but 2) using a wealth tax in lieu of capital gains tax to collect any sort of tax on those who have presumably been…
Capital is there because foreigners who park their money are not subject to a wealth tax
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#994After being one of the top-rated commenters on HN for some years, I have not commented in a long while. For what it is worth, here is my two cents on a topic - a wealth tax - that may seem on the surface to be benign but that is in fact just the opposite. Silicon Valley was founded in a spirit of freedom and flexibility but that spirit is clearly and dangerously on the wane insofar as the political environment surrou…
I want to meet you.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#995After being one of the top-rated commenters on HN for some years, I have not commented in a long while. For what it is worth, here is my two cents on a topic - a wealth tax - that may seem on the surface to be benign but that is in fact just the opposite. Silicon Valley was founded in a spirit of freedom and flexibility but that spirit is clearly and dangerously on the wane insofar as the political environment surrou…
I really appreciate this voice of reason and would further like to add a few points. As a tax paying citizen in my country i think that taxes are needed for the upheaval of the country as a whole in an "aggregate fashion". So my question is that even if a country implements wealth tax how is that money going to benefit or trickle down to the lower strata of the society? Do we just add more social benefits which i am against as if you just take money from people and redistribute you are essentially becoming a socialist economy.
Another question that arises here is if the discussion is happening because the tax collected is not sufficient currently? If that is the case then a proper solution would be to and i hate to say this increase the tax rates for everyone. The number of billionaires the people want to tax are essentially pretty low and in a country based economy where there are pretty large numbers haggling away their 1 percent wont really make a difference to a big country.
The issue with wealth tax is that it focusses on a particular well off section of society and that particular section of society is actually just being targeted because they are wealthy. The thing people take for granted is the number of jobs and employment they generate and the services they provide. They actually are so well off that i worry if someone would be able to stop them if they just decide to leave?
Its rather mundane to say that the wealth is not trickling down. These people are generating wealth. Why do you think US is the biggest world economy? Hint: its because of these billionaires we love to hate.
just my 2 cents.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is somewhat misleading, especially the "30% of your wealth bit". What the expatriation tax does is tax you as if you had sold all your property for cash on the day you renounce your citizenship, though it does apply a $600k+ exclusion to the proceeds of the "sale". Put another way, it's the US saying "you don't get to accumulate wealth in the US and then leave without paying taxes on it." It's not great (I'm an…
I appreciate the details here. You're right that it is more complicated. I had to refresh my understanding. Apparently, the income requirement rises with inflation and the last number the IRS states is 160k. The 2 million net worth does not appear to rise with inflation. Leaving the US with these amounts creates the assumption of expatriation being for tax avoidance in the US. With respect to your comment, though, al…
I saw some stories on r/IWantOut similar to what you said about a visa to come back, but about other countries. So it's not US only.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#997There's a lot of confusion about taxes and wealth in this thread.
Suppose that I'm paying someone $100/week to get my iguanas polished. If my taxes go up by $100/week, the obvious place for me to make it up is to stop paying to have said iguanas polished.
Is society better off? It depends. That said, the person who got that $100 from the govt is happier, but the iguana polisher is less happy.
As far as wealth taxes go, there's a similar effect.
Suppose that I have my wealth in a bank. I owe $100 in wealth tax so I withdraw it and pay the govt, which then spends it. Someone is happy because they got that $100.
But, what about that $100 I withdrew? That's at least $100 that the bank can't loan. The person who doesn't get that loan is less well off.
Okay. So we don't tax bank deposits. We'll tax stock.
Okay, so I sell $100 worth of stock to pay my stock wealth tax. In other words, someone gives me $100 for said stock and I give $100 to the govt.
Where did that $100 come from? Yup, someone decided to buy stock instead of paying her iguana polisher. Again, the iguana polisher is worse off.
You may think that no one should have shiny iguanas. My point is that taxes don't create wealth. They merely change where it is spent.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Please note that we have weekends/8h work day/ban on child labour and also still have the super rich. They never left. The fact that are still super-rich people doesn't imply that such interventions did not have a negative on the number of people who are super-rich in the US. High taxes have a well-established negative effect on capital formation, and investment in-flows. This isn't some conspiracy theory promoted…
> High taxes have a well-established negative effect on capital formation, and investment That's interesting because in absolute numbers countries with a very high taxation are among the first for number of millionaires. Japan is 3rd, UK is 4th, Germany is 5th, France is 6th, Italy is 7th Compared to the population, Switzerland and Honk Kong are 1st and 2nd In Switzerland taxes are usually low compared to the rest of…
>>That's interesting because in absolute numbers countries with a very high taxation are among the first for number of millionaires.
>>Japan is 3rd, UK is 4th, Germany is 5th, France is 6th, Italy is 7th
Nearly the entirety of the developed world has high taxes, and the developed world has the most wealthy individuals.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#999After being one of the top-rated commenters on HN for some years, I have not commented in a long while. For what it is worth, here is my two cents on a topic - a wealth tax - that may seem on the surface to be benign but that is in fact just the opposite. Silicon Valley was founded in a spirit of freedom and flexibility but that spirit is clearly and dangerously on the wane insofar as the political environment surrou…
I think you are forgetting the major difference between now and 70s - massive wealth concentration, and the complete destruction of sustainable middle class jobs. Look at the pandemic. 40 mn people were unemployed, but billionaire wealth continued to grow. Most people in the US are one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Poverty rates among minority population have soared, and the impact is starkly reflected in COVID rela…
Your answer reminds me of the book I am currently reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Growing-New-Economy-Environmental-Des...
It reflects on free markets and the failure of trickle down economics.
Sadly, it was flagged as too controversial, and was taken down from Amazon for a limited period, but it's now available again.
Re: Modeling a Wealth Tax
#1000Graham does the classic magician's trick of showing you something shiny so you don't see what he's doing with his other hand. In this case, the shiny is the scary 45% figure. What he draws your attention away from is the bizarre hypothetical: > Suppose you start a successful startup in your twenties, and then live for another 60 years. How much of your stock will a wealth tax consume? Who is this hypothetical 20 year…
It's easy to dream up scenarios that prove your point. How about this one: Company has a bad year. Dividends are cut to zero. Founder reduces salary to bare minimum required for her expenses. On paper, she still has $50 million net worth of illiquid non-public stock. Government demands $200,000 wealth tax. How does that play out?
If you can't sell it, it isn't worth $50 million.