[JKCalhoun]

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals.

Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

[nielsbot]

Agreed. (I'm all in on confiscatory taxation.) No one person should be allowed to accumulate so much power and wealth.

[culopatin]

What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?

[alexashka]

Anyone that wants to take their money and leave and never come back ought to be encouraged to do so as soon as possible.

The never come back bit solves the imaginary problem you mention.

[spongebobstoes]

why do you think that will happen? how could that scenario be prevented, while still taxing money?

if you put more effort into making your point, I'm sure you could get better engagement

[Workaccount2]

Look at what Texas has been doing to California.

People who assign billionaires as being the living manifestation of greed are somehow quick to hand wave away "billionaires will move to protect their wealth".

[p_j_w]

> Look at what Texas has been doing to California.

What might that be? California is still at the forefront of every technological innovation this country is seeing while Texas is at the forefront of theocracy.

California may be seeing a smaller share of the world’s innovation in the past, but that hasn’t moved to Texas, it’s moved to China.

[thoroughburro]

We should be so lucky. They are leeches.

[heavyset_go]

The point of being wealthy is that you don't have to care about shit like that. You can be taxed at 90% land still have more money than you could spend in a thousand lifetimes.

Until the early 1980s, the highest tax bracket was taxed at 70%, and before that even more.

[actionfromafar]

It used to be that the US had unique ways of dealing with that, by virtue of its sheer size and dominance. But nowadays the ballon is leaking power from both ends, soft and hard.

[nielsbot]

I say "see ya!" and wave goodbye.

You think people living in NYC, for example, the financial (and one of the major cultural capitals) of the entire world (not to mention all the other benefits of US residency) are going to bother with packing up their lives and moving overseas because the taxes are too high? Not to mention these people will still have obscene wealth in all likelihood.

Some might, but I don't think we should wring our hands over it.

Rather than worrying about "capital flight" let's instead imaging all the good that could come of us having a more more equal wealth and income distribution.

[hollerith]

Maybe the reason it is the financial capital of the entire world is that historically the tax regime let people keep most of the money they earned.

[TimorousBestie]

Income tax rates and corporate tax rates were higher during the post-war era than they are now.

[bpt3]

Effective tax rates weren't much different, which is what matters.

[TimorousBestie]

The effective income tax rate was still on the whole higher for the wealthy in the 20th century. Depending on where you put the percentile cutoff, I’m seeing peak-to-troughs between 5-20%.

[p_j_w]

Have you any evidence for this proposition?

[bpt3]

Yes, they've been moving to Florida in droves for the last decade plus.

Eventually you'll run out of other people's money to spend, and will be forced to face the reality of your own self-sufficiency.

[fireflash38]

Ah yes we're held hostage by the rich. Do what we say, or we take our ball and go home.

[bpt3]

If you're going to balance your budget on their backs, yes: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-rich-guy-moves-new-jersey...

Europe figured this out long ago and has a very broad tax base (aka higher taxes on the middle class) to fund their social welfare programs but somehow you never see that proposed as a solution by the middle class in the US...

[account42]

You tax them on the way out. Plus any transactions to/from tax havens.