
A Warren supporter took wealth tax idea to supermarkets of Palo Alto, California - NN88
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/6/8/21282130/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-palo-alto-tech-billionaires
======
koheripbal
France tried this. 12,000 French millionaires LEFT France each year. This was
a disaster for the French financial industry, and did not generate much in new
tax revenues.

Ultimately France admitted it was a mistake, and eliminated the wealth tax.

There are dozens of sources on this. It's lunacy that people don't read how
this was already tried and FAILED.

...btw, you might be tempted to say "well, the French taxed people of much
lower net-wealth", but remember that when the bill was _first_ proposed, they
had similar high thresholds, and as usual the legislative process broadened
the scope of the bill to anyone with more than $1 million. The same would
happen in the US.

------
db48x
That would be a good way to move wealth out of Palo Alto.

~~~
Ennis
Isn't that addressed with the proposed exit tax that is part of the measure?

Numerically, "losing" 2 or 3 percent is not insurmountable to most people it
affects. We lose as much through core inflation and significantly more so if
you include asset price inflation. The idea does feel invasive though but that
may as well be conditioning.

In western nations, we accept income taxes as justified to have an egalitarian
society, but this wasn't always the case. There are countries without income
taxes and the concept is not perceived as justified at all. Governments have
to make the case and condition people to support the measure when it is
introduced until it is normalized and no one questions it.

A good question is whether production shifts to nations without wealth taxes.
I haven't seen this addressed in research. There is evidence that suggests
production shifting away from high corporate tax environments but this is also
countered by evidence that significant intangible value is created in high tax
environments and this keeps that productive capacity from leaving to cheaper
environments.

~~~
db48x
3% is a lot when compounded yearly. The article says that Marc Zuckerberg has
85 billion in assets. If we assume that's all in cash (it isn't), that he
retires this year (seems unlikely, but whatever), that this measure passes and
isn't repealed (etc), and that he lives to be 80, then over the next 44 years
he'd pay 62.75 billion dollars in taxes. On top of inflation. Why would anyone
let that happen, when they could prevent it by moving just a few miles in any
direction? I'm sure there are a lot of places that are nicer to retire to than
Palo Alto.

But you are right; income taxes were once seen as a really radical and
unlikely idea. I don't think that means that we should resign ourselves to
eventually be facing both income and wealth taxes.

------
RickJWagner
That loud rustling sound you're hearing is a bunch of trust papers being
prepared. Just in case.

