And what would happen if we did?

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Why that would be huge:

      It would incentize the rich to hold stocks long term, this would lead to corporations thinking more than what profits are in 3 months.

      Which translates to greater stability for other investors and job security for the people who work there.

      But it’s never going to happen as long as Smaug Pelosi and people like her who’s main priority is personal wealth is running the Dem party. Because we all know Republicans will never support it.

      But if we don’t purge the Dem party of neo liberals, and fast, we’re all fucked. We can’t keep walking down the path of “the rich always get richer” like nothing is wrong.

      Wealth is finite. And without taxes and regulations the people who already have a lot will always accumulate more faster than they can spend it.

      With them hoarding all that wealth, no one else has any.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 month ago

        Meanwhile down on earth, you’ve just caused an entirely new class of derrivatives traded on sketchy and unregulated markets, increasing the risk of fraud to all, including small individual investors.

        Wealth is finite

        The size of the observable universe is ~93 billion light-years. So, you’re technically right, but…

          • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Well, a lot of stock trading isn’t as simple as just stock picking, buying and selling individual stocks.

            Much of the market is made up of derivatives trading, such as options, where you aren’t trading the stock itself, instead you are trading the option to buy the stock.

            The value of the option is derived from the value of the underlying asset, but it is not absolutely coupled to it (this is how a lot of the money is made, by finding market inefficiencies and capitalizing on things like slippage, where there is a mismatch in the value of the derivative and it’s underlying)

            What the person above is saying is that, when it becomes no longer profitable to trade underlying assets directly, new derivative markets will be invented that trade around other underlying assets.

            Think about unregulated Bitcoin trading for example, while contrived, imagine a crypto currency that is coupled with the price of another asset (these exist, like USDcoin) such as a stock, future, option, or something else.

            I should add, typically the derivative kind of collapse into the underlying at some point, but in the case of an option, it might be traded 100 times before that happens, during each of those trades the actual asset (e.g. the underlying stock) doesn’t actually change possession, and a given side of the contract may or may not be changing possession. If you write a call option for a 100 shares of Ford you own, you aren’t selling the stock unless the actual call gets assigned and you are required to fulfill the contract, but the ‘buyer’ side of the contract could have been sold 100 times in the meantime.

            All this to say, it’s complicated and there are lots of opportunities for shady shit to happen.

            • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah, and this should showcase just how bullshit the system is. IMO every one of those 100 trades in the middle should be taxed, this removes bullshit from the system, you can’t buy a contract saying you’ll buy the stock, because that would be buying something of that value and would be taxed. We need to start seeing those 100 trades, as what they are, i.e. a way to try to rig the system.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      Even a 1 or 2% per trade would bring massive amounts of money, not even trying to make it progressive or anything.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 month ago

        Years ago they tried to pass a minimum amount of time you had to hold a stock before selling…

        It was a fraction of a second and neoliberals and Republicans immediately united to tell everyone how antithetical to America that was.

        For some reason, that wasn’t enough to show people that both groups have the same priorities and we can’t fight an oligarchy with fucking oligarchs.

        We’ll never win if only a handful of politicians are actually on our side.

        But it’s almost impossible to compete against dark money in a primary, and the people running the DNC know that. So they’ll never agree to get dark money out of primaries. It’s the only reason they’re still holding back progressives.

      • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not even that; 0.1% per trade would bring in a huge windfall. Even something negligible like 0.01% would bring in nontrivial amounts of revenue.

        The problem is that being above paying tax has become part of the identity of being rich, and the very idea of even a negligible amount of one’s wealth being taken away to be given to your inferiors is unacceptable, and the rich will defend every fluctuating cent of their wealth as a non-negotiable matter of honour, even if it means burning down the world.

  • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s possible, but usually harder because what makes the uber wealthy uber wealthy is that they own assets rather than have huge income.

    So when they say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Bezos or whoever has “X” billions, they’re talking about the value of assets they own (usually large stakes in successful companies) which has more of a parallel with how the middle class talk about their house (an asset) now being worth (whatever). It’s not liquid cash.

    Taxes on assets are typically realised when those assets are sold or transferred because their value goes up and down and all over the place. And the uber wealthy do pay tax whenever they sell stock because they’re buying this mansion or that yacht. It’s just usually comparatively small to their full fortune which remains in stock.

    So the difficult thing about taxing stock while it’s owned is, like I said, the value goes up and down quite dramatically at times. Should the government collect taxes on the buoyant times but then refund them during market downturns? That would be a nightmare. No government wants to be on the hook for refunds during a downturn.

    And it can’t (I don’t think) just collect taxes when super valuable stocks are on the way up because that’s not actually cash. It’s just the market value if that stock were to be sold. So the most a government could do would be either to receive some of the stock as a tax payment (not much use to a government that wants to spend it) or force the owners of companies to sell stock and make a cash payment just because they’re successful.

    Which sounds fine on the surface, but this messes up how ownership of companies works. Let’s say some good guy CEO (they do exist) has managed the growth of a multi billion business and to do so has brought in investors which now own 49% of the company, and he - the founder - owns 51%. If the company’s value on the market rose 20% you’d get news articles about how the founder now has “XX billion” since last year and that they “earn” so many hundreds of thousands a day compared to your average working class person. If the government forced the owner to part with 3% of their ownership of the company in order to pay this “growth tax” then the founder no longer has overall control of the company. It would be 48% founder owner, 49% investors and 3% whoever the government sell the taxed stock to in order to realise a cash value.

    So it erodes ownership. Again I’m sure there are plenty reading this who think “so what?”. But I can tell you that much of the market value of stock, the reason it has the value it does, is in many cases because the market trusts the management of the ownership of the companies to continue to make profit. If you force the erosion of that just because the company did well then you destroy the way the market trusts and ascribes value to things. Which is why the way governments tax company is via profits and stock sales, where the value is already realised or where the decision to sell is not forced in the same way.

    So what to do about this?

    Well you can just increase the taxes on stock sale, or on dividend income. But what happens there is you snare the wealthy middle class with the same rope you were aiming at the uber wealthy. Again some might not think that a bad thing, but it’s unlikely to be as effective as people would like it to be. You’d generally be raising dividend tax by a percentage point or two on people receiving low six figure sums. Which would get some extra from the Elon Musks, but also would get the same amount from, say, a consultant surgeon, or a recent tech startup founder etc. My point being, there are not huge numbers of these people, compared to the rest of the population that government spending is spread over. The amount you end up raising is not huge compared to what seemed to be on offer when you look at Meta’s total net worth or something like that.

    The ultimate answer is about ownership. But it has to be organic (personal opinion) so that it doesn’t cause disruption to the markets that end up hurting the most vulnerable (via job losses).

    And the best way this is done is to simply suck it up and pay a little more for a non mega corp solution to something. Want Bezos to have less of the pie? Stop buying through Amazon just because it’s cheaper. Want Gates fortune to be more wide spread? Save yourself a ton of cash by using Linux instead of windows + office licences. Don’t like Elon musk? Stop using twitter, don’t buy a Tesla.

    If you’ve done all these things I personally think it’s as much as you can do. You should put your efforts into making these boycots as easy for others to follow as possible (support your favourite FOSS project) etc. Pay for the online services you like so they don’t feel the need to resort to Google ads and on. Unfortunately in a free market such as the ones many of us live in (thinking Western world) the uber wealthy are mainly that because of the millions and millions of micro choices by consumers who are free to go elsewhere but just often don’t choose to.

      • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Should. They should be taxed extremely heavily to try and stop that loop hole and abuse of power.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why? Are any loans ever taxed?

        There were tax evasion schemes in the UK where wealthy people could take loans from an offshore entity they contributed to and never pay the loans back. But this was shutdown fairly quickly by HMRC (British IRS) and a bunch of people were fined / went to jail. Don’t know if the same is true in America?

        • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          If a loan is acting as income (like it does for the ultra wealthy) then it should be treated like income and taxed accordingly.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                My mortgage was many times my yearly income.

                So then you just have frequency, which is easily gamed by getting fewer larger loans. Maybe one every three to five years? At that point it really is just a mortgage with stock as collateral rather than a house.

                Like, you’re not wrong in your intuition that the system is problematic. Mine (and others) point is that the devil is in the details, and they’re not trivial.

                • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  But then the value goes WAAY up. Let’s assume you live in a very good house, and mortgage it you’re able to get 5 million out of it. Do you think someone like Jeff Bezos could live for 5 years with that?. You can do it fairly straightforward, everytime you take a loan, the full amount of that loan gets added, after a period of 5 years that value disappears, if at any point that value goes above 10 million, you start paying taxes on it. And the higher it goes the more tax you pay on it, just like how income tax has brackets, and just like how up to certain values are exempt.

                  For you or me if we were ever loan 10 million over 5 years we wouldn’t have a way to pay it back. For an Uber wealthy they do that fairly quickly, Bezos mention costs 600k a month, so he’ll get into the first bracket from just that in a year and a half.

                  People need to realize just how big the gap is, there are plenty of ways to tax extremely rich people without affecting the middle class by just putting the bracket so high up that it’s impossible for a middle class to reach it.

    • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      so, going back to your analogy of thinking of stock like homes, we pay property tax on our homes if we own them. Not much, comparatively, but we pay tax on it nonetheless. If stocks are an asset like a home, they should be taxed based on the value of those stocks.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Companies do pay other taxes roughly comparable to their size, I was just simplifying for the sake of explanation. Employee tax is one example. Don’t know how it works in the US but in the UK all businesses will pay a “national insurance” tax contribution for every employee they have. This is a level that can be turned by the treasury. But increasing any tax burden discourages the activity that leads to it. Taxes on employees, although paid by companies, are seen as “anti job” taxes. Taxes on profits are seen as “punishment” for honestly raising a profit in the home country (rather than various offshore licensing schemes). The raw market value of a company could be taxed, but that sort of perversely encourages a company to downplay its value.

        Ultimately we want companies to be successful, the only issue with it is when the ownership is concentrated in the hands of the very few. Unfortunately that appears to be what drives success in many cases. Small ownership = focussed quick decision making. Sometimes that really is what’s led to an American company seeing the success it does rather than some Chinese competitor gaining the edge.

        That’s why I throw a lot of this back on consumers. We’re the democratic force in all this, and we have a lot of power when we act en masse. Why is there one Amazon instead of two? Because people also choose cheapest and they fail to properly value the fact they can have all sorts next day (even same day) when that service never existed ten plus years ago. If they valued that properly then they’d be more able to see competitor B at $10 is still providing them good value service even if Amazon is selling the same at $7.

        I’m not sure that’s it’s healthy to stop people having free choice of where to shop. People being able to vote with their money is what makes capitalist countries the innovation experts of the world.

        The issue is what happens when that capital concentrated into a small number of hands starts to wield anti-choice power and / or political power. So I think people building successful companies and being wildly rich (on paper) is fine, but legislation should stop them hoovering up smaller competitors (anti trust laws). And money should certainly be capped and prevented from undue influence in political processes.

        The US and UK are quite different in that regard. Our anti trust laws could be better, but at least our political processes are relatively short and the use of money in them held to a reasonably high level of disclosure. Both could be improved.

        And I think they will when the population elects a social-good minded government that’s pro business. Typically in the past I’d personally say this mostly lines up with what used to be called New Labour. They certainly did some social good but they made some appalling mistakes trying to partner with business.

        I don’t know that the equivalent hope in the US is. I see the democrats gets criticised a lot of not being well connected to working class people and too cosy with big business. But campaign finance laws would need to change before the way in which money and politics interacts could ever reasonably change.

        Which all feels a bit far off, which is why I come back to what small actions individuals can do… Buy local, from small businesses, be prepared to spend more to spread wealth a little more evenly, buy domestic, not foreign, avoid the services of megacorps wherever you can, enable others to do the same. Who knows? Can you imagine a community run Amazon that cost a bit more but funneled profits back into the local community? Things like this can be tackled by a relatively small band of motivated individuals regardless of what’s going on in the halls of power.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Except your argument on small ownership is quick decision making has a counter arguement… shareholders… they appoint a small group for daily operations and decisionmaking. But the real power is with the shareholder meeting and a large group of possibly anonymous owners.

          • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes that’s true, I was trying to make the point that the ownership of the company is usually directly responsible for its success, whatever form that takes. And forcing the dilution of ownership (by taxing a company on its overall market cap rather than its profits) is only going to be disruptive to whatever arrangement made it successful in the first place (be that forcing control out of the hands of a good founder or diluting the control of a group of investors that approved a good board). Don’t get me wrong, that might sometimes be a good thing. It’s just that the logic “you’ve made this company is so successful you’re going to have less control over it” is unlikely to work out well in the long run. Better to take more taxes from profits if anything (as long as that’s internationally competitive) or have stronger laws preventing companies with huge value from muscling in and taking over competitors or whole industries (eg Musk etc)

            • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              That would be true if companies did not create elaborate constructions and park money in tax havens.

              I’d almost say that companies should be taxed (a different rate) not on profits but on revenue. If they make the revenue in your country, it should be taxed in your country.

              • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yes, tax havens are a problem

                I’d almost say that companies should be taxed not on profits but on revenue

                This is what sales tax is though. Tax collected at the point of sale (ie revenue). You can collect it direct from companies instead but all you’d see is the ‘sales tax’ line of your shopping cart go higher.

                Profit is taxed instead of revenue (in general) because companies operate on wildly different margins (the difference between revenue and profit). So let’s ignore the fact it would get passed directly onto consumers and assume a revenue tax is borne by the companies… Say your revenue tax was 2% you might have a negligible effect on Apple, they have a large gap between their revenue and costs so they just absorb this as a tiny dent on profits, Tesla might be hit moderately hard (the amount of profit they turn compared to revenue is smaller so a revenue tax makes a much larger impact on profit), and it may have a catastrophic impact on Starbucks (very small gap between revenue and expenses so decreasing revenue via a 2% tax almost completely eradicates profits).

                I’m making up which company’s which just to illustrate that a revenue tax doesn’t land equally across companies. Some industries are low margin some are high margin and a revenue tax disproportionally clobbers low margin industries. Which might not be the effect we wanted. So it’s better to tax profit.

                This does create issues where companies deliberately don’t turn a profit because they aggressively reinvest in expansion and acquisition.

                • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Except in this case the tax is levied across the entire value chain. But yes, this would favor high margin business over low margin ones. But isn’t the current system doing that too? Investors throw money at high margin companies while not so much at low margin ones.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      There’s also the very important concept of a capital gains tax. Why does their income from stock sales get to be taxed at a special low rate, as if it weren’t income? That’s ridiculous

      We’d go a long way toward evening it out just by deciding

      • income is income. No special categories of income for the wealthy
      • when your company or trust spends money on your personal life, that’s also income
      • tax brackets keep going. They don’t even have to be specially high, but why does it top out so early? Why is my doctor’s income taxed at the same rate as the richest man in the world’s income?
    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Assets are taxed all the time (real estate tax, car tax… ). So taxing the value of a share portfolio at the 31st of December each year is perfectly doable. And if it has depreciated since last year, you get a tax deduction… which is capped by the income tax to maximally reach 0… No carrying over till next year… or maybe 1 year… whatever, that’s implementation details.

      How much do you tax these assets is the point that needs consideration… it’s not fully income… But a percentage is only fair. And if this means people need to realize gains to pay for it… that’s fine… Why would it not be?

      And borrowing against an asset portfolio should mean that it counts as realizing gains of the asset portfolio and the amount is seen as income and thus taxed. (You loan 10 million against your shares, that’s income) And to avoid fallout for the normal people you can build in a threshold and exclusions for example for the first million in your lifetime… or for the mortgage on your primary residence with a cap at the median house price or … something. So for these people borrowing against assets means they can keep the assets… but pay interest on the loan. Alternatively they can actually realize the gains and pay cash.

      It’s not hard at all, it’s a matter of political will, and writing proper laws that state your objective and exceptions.

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      How dare you come up with a nuanced take on this topic instead of screaming “eat the rich”!

    • czech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      If we disallowed margin loans from brokerage accounts then the uber wealthy would be forced to pay more taxes. We can easily avoid impacting the middle class with marginal tax brackets.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      In point of fact, mark to market taxation already does exist for various individuals and certainly for large numbers of businesses. Your long comment suggests that you don’t know what that is, and if you’re interested you could read up on it.

      The short story is that depending on the situation, a person or a business might pay taxes each year on the value of their assets, assuming said assets had been purchased on January 1st and sold on December 31st, even though in reality nothing was bought or sold. This system is already in place in various ways. It exists. There’s no theoretical problem with expanding it.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Thanks. Yes will certainly read up on it. I’ve come to finance somewhat backwards, having to learn very specific technical things for working in IT and I’m now working backwards to some generalities I might have totally missed.

        Is this a tax on the market cap of the company though? Or is it a tax on assets it holds?

        I believe the general sentiment is “Bezos / Amazon is worth XX billion why can’t the state have a slice of that for social good?” But I think various existing taxes are smaller and too far removed from the headline value of the market cap of the business. And there isn’t anything that would enrich the public purse to that degree short of having a comparable stake in the ownership of the business.

        I think Germany actually does something like this but I don’t know much about it.

        Ultimately I think it’s right that something feels a bit ‘wrong’ about one man like Musk, Bezos, Gates having control over such huge wealth, but as I was saying above those complaints generally ignore that this is a value of an asset not cash and it’s not like the government could do something with Amazon shares if it has them other than just sell them. The complaints also generally ignore that these uber wealthy are paying tax whenever they sell stock to have more cash on hand, and that one day whenever they cash out of the company entirely, that’ll be a windfall tax take for the government too.

        I get that the inequality feels wrong. But it’s hard not to feel like it’s “we the people” that make Amazon (or whatever) so valuable by continually choosing to trade with it. Same way professional footballers have an absurd amount of money. But then millions of people are all willing to spend $x to watch them specifically play. If we don’t like it we have other choices, but we don’t want to.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Should the government collect taxes on the buoyant times but then refund them during market downturns? That would be a nightmare. No government wants to be on the hook for refunds during a downturn.

      AFAIK Danish tax on stock gains/losses works like this. Stock gains are heavily taxed while stock losses give you a tax rebate.

  • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 month ago

    Most of the rich cannot just move to a tax haven. Sure someone who inherited multi-generational wealth can hide it in the Caiman island.

    But if you own a canned tomato factory, or even if you’re a business consultant, you get rich because of very local things, and can’t easily move-it away.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 month ago
    1. Yes.

    2. They would fight back, buy all our media sources, and buy our governments to make sure 1 didn’t happen.

  • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    In Finland fines are based on percentage of yearly income.

    We’re still waiting for Bezos to come here and get a massive speeding ticket to fix our budget for the next decade

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Has that been tried since 1790 when the french decided to behead all the rich people?

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Certainly. Most of the 20th century, the top tier tax rate was set at a level that can only be described as “punitive”. It was higher than 90% to kill off the robber barons.

      While I am not morally opposed to beheading rich people, we really need to go back to the tax rates we had in the 50’s. And add a securities tax, payable in shares of that security, that the IRS can liquidate slowly over time.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    they would threaten to move all operations to somewhere like the Cayman Islands which makes no fucking sense

    • meowgenau@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      They can threaten all they want, it’s simply not possible. If it actually was possible, they’d have done that a long time ago.

      • gerbler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Like it or not they have assets here. If they move their operations overseas and evade taxes they can enjoy having their assets seized and their IP confiscated.

    • petersr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The newly elected government is actually quite cost efficient in this regard. Since they already are all crooked business men, they don’t need to pay anyone to get those tax laws passed.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    In theory - sure. In practice - all countries in the world have to agree to raise taxes, even though individually they are better off betraying this agreement and lowering them, thereby attracting the rich and ending up with more, not less, money.

    And if all countries agree to tax the rich the way they should, we might as well go and build socialism everywhere, because not having everyone onboard is a main issue there too.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Why are you arguing against reality? In the world today, some states and countries tax the rich at higher or lower rates than other states and countries, and it’s certainly not true that the rich all leave the high tax rate places. The data doesn’t lie. You can argue about why they don’t all leave, but the facts are there for you to see.

      You don’t need uniformity around the United States or the world in order to tax the rich effectively. But people like to say what you said, so that you don’t even try to tax them.

      But I think it would be fun to run an experiment. Why don’t we jack up taxes on the ultra-rich across the United States. If the ultra rich move to Venezuela, then all of the savings they have in the US stock market will be taxed at an even higher rate and we will actually get more money from them. And if they were working any cushy CEO jobs, those jobs will now be open for other American citizens, and I’m sure there were plenty of people willing to apply… Of course it doesn’t have to be the US. Pick any country, try the same experiment, and get back to us.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yes, because at the same time they offer a better business environment. US, for example, can do pretty much anything, being de facto commercial center of the world, with highest scale operations historically based there and interconnected to the point they can’t just “leave”.

        Should you run this “experiment” in aforementioned Venezuela instead, you’re unlikely to enjoy the result. Although it wouldn’t benefit the US in the long run either.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    In my limited understanding, yes, it’s possible. But it would require significant international effort to get the super rich, the ones that can pay fabulous amounts of money to money launderers legal tax experts that know just the right loophole to ensure that mr. billionaire will pay only 500k in taxes rather than 10 million, because tax havens only exist thanks to certain countries’ very lax rules on banking.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      There are already large numbers of treaties in place for countries to cooperate in tracking down tax evasion. It might not be as expensive as you think. If you think of it from a practical standpoint, we have lists of the richest people in the world. That’s an excellent starting point, isn’t it?

      If some billionaire is claiming that they actually aren’t a billionaire, and that the lists are wrong, when some government is trying to tax them at an exorbitant rate, it’s likely that they will give all of their banking details to said government to prove it. Or they will hide those banking details, and they’ll be forced to pay the taxes.

  • JohnyRocket@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Every country would have to do it. A party here in Switzerland wanted to drastically increase inheritance tax for certain large inheritances, and the rich people threatened so hard to leave the country that everyone believed them and now nobody supports it anymore. (They said their children would not be able to pay the tax because most of their wealth is supposedly in company shares, so if they died their children would have to sell off the companies to Cineese companies which nobody in Switzerland liked to hear)

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Of course that’s not true. We have data from around the world showing it’s not true. It’s not even true within the United States if you look at state taxes.