Well done voting against the interests of literally everyone except 0.03% of the people. Incredible. What people won't do to go to bat for the folks that would wipe their feet on them.
That would have hit some 2,500 people in Switzerland — the top 0.03% of the population.
Well done voting against the interests of literally everyone except 0.03% of the people.
Incredible.
What people won't do to go to bat for the folks that would wipe their feet on them.
It was a good intention, bad implementation proposal that the voters rejected. It's not clear that voters are totally against an inheritance tax. They might view the threats of rich people leaving...
It was a good intention, bad implementation proposal that the voters rejected. It's not clear that voters are totally against an inheritance tax. They might view the threats of rich people leaving and taking their wealth with them as too credible. Switzerland, as I understand it, has no exit tax if a citizen chooses to emigrate. The smarter thing to do would be to implement the exit tax first and then an inheritance tax. Otherwise, rich people could sidestep the whole thing so easily.
They already are! That's why this is a thing. Inheritance taxes are supposed to get them to pay in and prevent generational wealth from accumulating at the top 0,03% of people. The absolute gall...
Otherwise, rich people could sidestep the whole thing so easily.
They already are! That's why this is a thing. Inheritance taxes are supposed to get them to pay in and prevent generational wealth from accumulating at the top 0,03% of people.
The absolute gall of them to threaten to leave the country is infuriating.
I'll give you the point on the implementation shortfall, I don't know enough about the plans to say if it would be good enough or not. And I'll admit that my response is kneejerk without knowing the full picture. It genuinely does make or break it.
There's a difference between "threatening to leave " being a rude sort of boldness and a country being a prison. Tbh this is basically like Cuomo (and other billionaires) saying he won't live in...
There's a difference between "threatening to leave " being a rude sort of boldness and a country being a prison.
Tbh this is basically like Cuomo (and other billionaires) saying he won't live in NYC if he lost the mayoral election. He's obviously free to go, but his statements made it clear he didn't give a shit about the city to the residents who can't imagine wanting to live anywhere else.
I guess I don't really at all understand what you're talking about considering I was essentially forced to leave my home country and yeah, people like me are frequently labeled as cowards,...
I guess I don't really at all understand what you're talking about considering I was essentially forced to leave my home country and yeah, people like me are frequently labeled as cowards, traitors, useless, etc. I just didn't expect to see this attitude on progressive western tildes of all places. The more you know.
The person basically said "the audacity" and didn't call anyone a traitor or state they shouldn't be allowed to leave. They find the threat to leave being used as political leverage to be...
The person basically said "the audacity" and didn't call anyone a traitor or state they shouldn't be allowed to leave. They find the threat to leave being used as political leverage to be disgusting.
I appreciate your personal experience but I think calling billionaires rude isn't equivalent to being called a traitor. They are certainly not being forced out of anywhere and if they were, they have all of the legal, political and financial resources to do whatever they want.
The power dynamics are vastly different and no one is either kicking them out nor forcing them to remain. Just disdaining their political threats. Being annoyed at billionaires is a progressive western hobby.
I don't see what their level of wealth has to do with anything besides having an option to leave where others might not. The person alleged that wanting to leave your country is worthy of scorn, I...
I don't see what their level of wealth has to do with anything besides having an option to leave where others might not. The person alleged that wanting to leave your country is worthy of scorn, I find that to be to be distasteful, simple as that.
Being annoyed at billionaires is a progressive western hobby.
Cool, but maybe watch what you're annoyed at? It's kind of important.
It’s clear that this is emotive and personal, so I want to say up front that I’m not trying to argue a point against you, but I do think reframing it a little might help and maybe provide some...
Exemplary
It’s clear that this is emotive and personal, so I want to say up front that I’m not trying to argue a point against you, but I do think reframing it a little might help and maybe provide some comfort and context.
First and foremost, it’s a question of power imbalance. It’s not just leaving, it’s do what I say or I’ll leave. A lot of us see that as bully behaviour - it’s the difference between “I’m done with this game, so I’m going to head out” and “if you try to level the playing field even a little bit, I’m going to take the ball and go”.
Secondly, and more broadly, there are good reasons to leave and bad reasons. This part is always going to be somewhat subjective, but the reasoning says a huge amount about a person’s character, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. There’s a bit of interplay here with the power dynamic issue too, but very broadly, in my personal opinion:
Leaving to move somewhere with a better record on human rights and equality - good reason
Leaving because you just like the look of somewhere else better - neutral reason
Leaving to avoid conscription into a war of aggression - good reason
Leaving to avoid conscription into defending against invasion - complex, multifaceted reason that varies case by case
Leaving to avoid discrimination - good reason
Leaving because your wealth upon death will be reduced from an amount that puts you into the top 0.03% of an already wealthy population, to an amount that will… still put you in the top 0.03% of an already wealthy population, albeit perhaps slightly lower within that tiny sliver of a percentage point, and will still leave enough for your children to live in unparalleled luxury for a literal hundred lifetimes - bad reason
It's not the act of leaving, please do. They clearly do not have any interest in improving the country they live in, what rubs me is the underlying arrogance of finding yourself so important that...
It's not the act of leaving, please do. They clearly do not have any interest in improving the country they live in, what rubs me is the underlying arrogance of finding yourself so important that you threatening to leave is enough grounds to sink a tax law and make it worse for the rest of your fellow citizens. It indicates they feel absolutely zero loyalty or obligation towards the people and country they used to build their dragon's hoard.
"Vote against or else" and keeping progressive law taxes hostage is villainous and should be ridiculed.
Voters do need to know the likely consequences of a referendum, though. Making decisions based on wishful thinking seems bad? I don’t see a way around speculating how billionaires would react....
Voters do need to know the likely consequences of a referendum, though. Making decisions based on wishful thinking seems bad? I don’t see a way around speculating how billionaires would react.
Maybe it’s a decision to be made on principle, but I’d still want to estimate the cost.
That's sensible as an argument and in broad strokes I agree.. but how fair do you think those people play? I'd wager most of them wouldn't actually leave. They're just threatening for the sake of...
That's sensible as an argument and in broad strokes I agree.. but how fair do you think those people play? I'd wager most of them wouldn't actually leave. They're just threatening for the sake of trying to wiggle out of paying extra. I'm not sure you can accurately assess cost based on emotional bargaining by people that don't care about you. Or they would leave but I couldn't materially assess whether or not it's true so I have nothing to go on to estimate that cost and they're counting on me to blink first. I personally wouldn't.
I don’t see a way around speculating how billionaires would react.
Neither do I to be fair. I also don't think that racing to the bottom when it comes to tax burden is the way to go for the long term health of the country so perhaps it's moot. We've seen plenty of countries lower tax rates to stimulate corporations settling there (Ireland and the Netherlands are two big examples) and by and large it means they are now forever burdened by the cost of doing business -think environmental pollution and other negatives- without meaningful returns. At an individual level I'd rather say "fuck you and fuck your private jet, please leave" and go from there, we'll make do with people that actually want to live here and want to contribute to make it a better place because if you don't contribute and just jet around polluting the place without paying back I don't need you.
The Swiss people have autonomy and evidently they don’t agree in the most direct form on democracy we have. Is what it is. I’d imagine very few of the billionaires in Switzerland generated their...
The Swiss people have autonomy and evidently they don’t agree in the most direct form on democracy we have. Is what it is.
I’d imagine very few of the billionaires in Switzerland generated their wealth by extracting it from the Swiss - Switzerland just isn’t that big to begin with. Because of the EEA, Switzerland can be in a unique position, where the wealth is extracted from the rest of the EEA, billionaires hold it in Switzerland, Switzerland taxes it at a small rate - but more than zero, and the wealth is coming from the outside. A good deal for them.
It’s not new for Switzerland - they held Nazi gold, after all. Financial services is their biggest export by far.
I don't really know how billionaires think, but on general principle, if you wanted to get them to leave without actually forcing them, It's hard to think of a better way to tell them that they're...
I don't really know how billionaires think, but on general principle, if you wanted to get them to leave without actually forcing them, It's hard to think of a better way to tell them that they're unwelcome than a huge tax increase.
Often, changing people's incentives is what taxes are for. Consider taxing cigarettes to motivate smokers to quit, or congestion taxes. That's why carbon taxes would be a good idea, because people do compare alternatives based on projected costs.
Loyalty seems unlikely under such circumstances? It sounds like you're okay with it because hatred for billionaires is more motivating than money for you. Apparently the Swiss feel differently.
I do think sometimes economists overestimate the effects of incentives. There are other motives like patriotism, ideology, fear, or addiction, that cause people to make financially unwise decisions. But, financial incentives are important and we expect that people will often act on them.
If the idea were to increase tax revenue without motivating people to leave, perhaps a modest tax increase would be a better way to go, since it doesn't add insult to injury.
I think it's irrelevant to my argument what the Swiss eventually ended up with. In fact, I flat out think they're voting against their own interests. Now this isn't an income tax (I would also...
I think it's irrelevant to my argument what the Swiss eventually ended up with. In fact, I flat out think they're voting against their own interests.
Now this isn't an income tax (I would also call that bluff since it likely won't decrease tax revenue overall even if they leave), this is supposed to be for an inheritance tax for the ultra wealthy. Literally just the children of the 0,03% of the wealthiest people that now have to make do with a couple of fewer millions on their pile of billions. This tax only kicks in when you're inheriting above 50 million francs. This is one of the few methods to decrease institutional wealth disparity, not an incentive to make them leave. That's buying into their narrative that they actually would upend their lives and that it impacts overall tax revenue enough to make a difference. Ultimately it'll reduce wealth disparity one way or the other, which I think is a common good. Reducing tax revenue by wealth flight is likely untrue if I take a peek at the Laffer curve. I don't think we're at the tail end.. in probably every country on earth?
I think you're misunderstanding me, I don't hate the billionaires for having money, I hate how some of them throw a hissy fit like a petulant child and try to skew the results in their favour by manipulating the people when it looks like they may have to pitch in a little for the common good.
I don't really know how billionaires think, but on general principle, if you wanted to get them to leave without actually forcing them, It's hard to think of a better way to tell them that they're unwelcome than a huge tax increase.
Clearly they want to hoard their money and scare people into letting them keep it.
Wealthy people aren't unwelcome. If you look at the tax rate of 70-100 ago you see tax rates up to 90%. It was understood that having higher tax rates helps the country by allowing it to invest in the middle class. A strong middle class is a strong economy.
Before the globalization of wealth you'd see rich people reinvest in their local neighbourhood, community or city and give back that way. Because they understood it was a common good to have a thriving community. I pay taxes not just because I have to, but because I understand my government uses it to provide for the people and I think a rising tide raises all boats (unless, y'know, they don't blow half of it on failed IT projects, but hey you get my point!). Threatening to flee makes you a leech on the society you've used to build your fortunes on.
I don't know, maybe the method of taxing these 2500 out of 9 million could be done differently.. but maybe it's not such a bad idea in general.
*Henley’s estimates, when put into perspective, reveal a picture that is at complete odds with the report’s narrative and media coverage: millionaires are highly immobile, and nearly 100% of millionaires have not relocated to a new country since 2013, if Henley’s estimates are to be taken at face value.
I'm in favor of inheritance taxes and it does seem like they wouldn't be nearly as motivating as taxes that people have to pay while they're alive. I never understood the whole dynasty thing. But...
I'm in favor of inheritance taxes and it does seem like they wouldn't be nearly as motivating as taxes that people have to pay while they're alive. I never understood the whole dynasty thing. But in practice, people do seem to care about them, at least enough to do estate planning.
Saying "it just doesn't happen" seems like an exaggeration. As someone else posted, it did happen in Norway. I guess some do and some don't?
Maybe it's like "threatening" to move to Canada if you don't like the election results. It's true that a lot more people talk about it than do it. I suppose this could be spun as "throwing a hissy fit" if you're unsympathetic.
That's just a 100 people though? It's unlikely this will affect tax revenue. I don't see how such a small amount of people leaving should be cause for worry if it's for the betterment of millions.
That's just a 100 people though? It's unlikely this will affect tax revenue. I don't see how such a small amount of people leaving should be cause for worry if it's for the betterment of millions.
People respond to taxes. Increasing taxes can decrease revenues. Here's a very good article on why most European wealth taxes decreased revenue and were repealed:...
People respond to taxes. Increasing taxes can decrease revenues. Here's a very good article on why most European wealth taxes decreased revenue and were repealed:
Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.
In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.
The Laffer curve is a useful model, but it's not a perfect empirical tool. Switzerland already charges a wealth tax, so billionaire residents are already on the hook for taxes every year. Humans...
Reducing tax revenue by wealth flight is likely untrue if I take a peek at the Laffer curve.
The Laffer curve is a useful model, but it's not a perfect empirical tool.
Switzerland already charges a wealth tax, so billionaire residents are already on the hook for taxes every year.
Humans aren't entirely rational, and billionaires are no exception. It's entirely possible some of them would decide the combination of the inheritance tax plus the annual wealth tax were too much, and Switzerland would end up poorer.
I strongly believe inheritance taxes are more effective than wealth taxes, but the citizens of Switzerland clearly disagree, by a wide margin.
No I'm aware, it's why I referenced the Laffer curve rather than pin my argument on it, but to flat out state that Switzerland would be poorer is also ignoring that the curve exists. Chances are...
No I'm aware, it's why I referenced the Laffer curve rather than pin my argument on it, but to flat out state that Switzerland would be poorer is also ignoring that the curve exists. Chances are they wouldn't be. Decent odds too I'd wager.
My family has considered emigrating to some countries in Europe, but some countries like Spain treat retirement accounts as wealth for the purpose of annual wealth taxes. Because of the high tax...
My family has considered emigrating to some countries in Europe, but some countries like Spain treat retirement accounts as wealth for the purpose of annual wealth taxes. Because of the high tax rates, my family has decided not to move there. If the wealth tax didn't exist, we would move there and pay income taxes, etc.
We are more fortunate than most, but we're not the 1% that care even more about these taxes. There are plenty of historical examples of certain taxes decreasing revenue, even if they affect only a small number of people.
I'll note, as someone not directly a party to this thread but reading along: That link appears to indicate that NYS had double the decline that NYC had and itself seems to state that taxes...
I'll note, as someone not directly a party to this thread but reading along:
That link appears to indicate that NYS had double the decline that NYC had and itself seems to state that taxes themselves can't be the exclusive factor since tax-high CA did have growth in filer count.
Are you part of the 0.03%? Edit to add: Excuse me, I was whisked away on some work thing before I could say more. I'm not saying to delete all wealth, I'm just very unopposed to increasing tax on...
Are you part of the 0.03%?
Edit to add:
Excuse me, I was whisked away on some work thing before I could say more. I'm not saying to delete all wealth, I'm just very unopposed to increasing tax on 3000 people that have the money to spare (and then some). So unless you're part of that 0.03% wealth bracket I'm not going to argue that you need to lower your quality of life.
There is a marked difference between moving within the US between states and national wealth flight world wide. The latter is almost non-existent.
It indicates they feel absolutely zero loyalty or obligation towards the people and country they used to build their dragon's hoard.
Refer to my other comment:
I guess I don't really at all understand what you're talking about considering I was essentially forced to leave my home country and yeah, people like me are frequently labeled as cowards, traitors, useless, etc. I just didn't expect to see this attitude on progressive western tildes of all places. The more you know.
I can't respond if I don't know why you were forced out of your country. If it was to reduce your billions to millions so we can all have a little more then no, I don't particularly feel bad about...
I can't respond if I don't know why you were forced out of your country. If it was to reduce your billions to millions so we can all have a little more then no, I don't particularly feel bad about it.
And on the contrary, I'm not advocating for these people to leave. I'm advocating for people paying their dues and giving back to the community they live in. Reminder, this is about 2-3000 people in a country of 9 million+. They can do with a little less and give a little more.
I had to move because other people were making my existence in my home country actively worse and I was better off leaving. It wasn't not nearly as bad as losing 90% of networth like you're...
I had to move because other people were making my existence in my home country actively worse and I was better off leaving. It wasn't not nearly as bad as losing 90% of networth like you're proposing, but it created a lot of problems in my life. Genuinely never thought I would feel bad for billionaires but here we are.
If a billionaire lost 90% of their net worth, they'd still have 100 million dollars, and be richer than 99% of everyone in the world. They'd be able to own multiple nice houses in beautiful...
If a billionaire lost 90% of their net worth, they'd still have 100 million dollars, and be richer than 99% of everyone in the world. They'd be able to own multiple nice houses in beautiful cities, the interest from their investments would be sufficient to ensure that them and all of their descendants would never need to work a day in their lives, etc. Is that a person who you would feel bad for?
If you're going to use absolute values then a billionaire is paying many orders of magnitude in taxes than any of us, so the whole point is moot. That's not even accounting for jobs and businesses...
If you're going to use absolute values then a billionaire is paying many orders of magnitude in taxes than any of us, so the whole point is moot. That's not even accounting for jobs and businesses and such that participate in the economy. Anyway 90% networth is an insane figure and it's completely understandable to want to avoid losing that.
I don't love rich people and especially I don't love dynasties who keep inheriting ad nauseam. I just think that if other people make your life worse in a country it's a perfectly adequate response to leave and everyone should be able to without making major sacrifices.
Right. And what I'm saying is that losing 90% of their net worth is not a major sacrifice for a billionaire. Their life will still be one of absolute comfort as far as money could provide.
Right. And what I'm saying is that losing 90% of their net worth is not a major sacrifice for a billionaire. Their life will still be one of absolute comfort as far as money could provide.
I'm curious about what a person could do with a billion dollars of personal wealth that would be out of reach with 100 million that is more important than 900 million extra for infrastructure,...
I'm curious about what a person could do with a billion dollars of personal wealth that would be out of reach with 100 million that is more important than 900 million extra for infrastructure, social programs, and other matters of government? What are they actually losing the ability to do? Yes, a number changed. What does that mean for them?
I'm most assuredly not proposing such a rule. I think you're misunderstanding marginal tax and tax brackets if you think a 90% tax would be on all income. In my own country our tax brackets are as...
It wasn't not nearly as bad as losing 90% of networth like you're proposing
I'm most assuredly not proposing such a rule. I think you're misunderstanding marginal tax and tax brackets if you think a 90% tax would be on all income. In my own country our tax brackets are as follows: 17,8% on 39k, 37,5% on everything earned between 39k and 79k, and 49,5% on everything above 79k. None of these brackets are taxed twice.
Let's say we introduced a 90% marginal tax bracket, you would only be taxed 90% only on the money earned above (let's say) 200k. In 1944 in the US this translated to 94% on everything above 200k.
And that's just income tax. If you don't have an income but have everything in equity, these rules would still allow you to boast that you didn't pay any income tax whatsoever despite owning billions.
I had to move because other people were making my existence in my home country actively worse and I was better off leaving.
I can't really tell what your reason was, and I don't need to know since it's clearly personal, but in the context of the conversation I don't think your life would be actively worse if you had to spend a couple of million when you own billions. Even more concretely related to the conversation: It wouldn't even affect you directly since the tax in the article is about gifts and inheritance.
I understand tax brackets. I was referring to Anyway whatever your feeling is, you should also understand then that no one in their right mind would want to be subjected to this and would avoid it...
I understand tax brackets. I was referring to
If it was to reduce your billions to millions so we can all have a little more then no, I don't particularly feel bad about it.
Anyway whatever your feeling is, you should also understand then that no one in their right mind would want to be subjected to this and would avoid it with whatever means possible. It's just cost cutting, we all practice it.
Your life wouldn't be any different if you'd have 900 million instead of 2 billion. Beyond that point, I would even argue you'd live in absolute comfort until the end of your days with 90 million....
Your life wouldn't be any different if you'd have 900 million instead of 2 billion.
Beyond that point, I would even argue you'd live in absolute comfort until the end of your days with 90 million.
But hey, none of that is actually what this topic is about. It's about inheritance tax doing absolutely nothing at all to your quality of life until you need to gift more than 50 million francs.
And no we don't all do that. Quick example: Hybrid cars were taxed at a lower rate in this country and I voted against my "best interests" to get that increased even though it would cost me personally. Because what's in my best interest is the prosperity of all and not just the lucky few.
Principles mean something to me and I find them sorely lacking in people too worried about their neverending balance sheet.
Well sure if you want to tell me when you said "millions" you actually meant "hundreds of millions" we can even talk about that being a more reasonable proposition. I still take issue with "life...
Your life wouldn't be any different if you'd have 900 million instead of 2 billion.
Well sure if you want to tell me when you said "millions" you actually meant "hundreds of millions" we can even talk about that being a more reasonable proposition. I still take issue with "life wouldn't be any different". Of course it would be massively different, the billions aren't a useless pile of money sitting in a vault being eaten up by inflation, they're capital, they're companies, assets, which would be what, nationalized I guess?
Man I still cannot believe I am forced to relate to billionaires here.
Hybrid cars were taxed at a lower rate in this country and I voted against my "best interests" to get that increased even though it would cost me personally
The kind of money you were taxed for couldn't buy you entire successful enterprises that you could then use to do what you think is good
I'm guessing it wasn't a tax saying basically "CptBluebear and his peers pay up, everyone else gains". Bit of a difference here I think.
I'm not looking to rob anyone. I don't think differences in wealth between people is inherently bad but I feel there's an excess to the point it's detrimental. Specifically inheritance and other...
I'm not looking to rob anyone. I don't think differences in wealth between people is inherently bad but I feel there's an excess to the point it's detrimental.
Specifically inheritance and other wealth taxes are of interest to me because I think you do not materially change the life of people that have that kind of money in the first place. Y'know, tax wealth not labour.
Even then, most of the ultra rich have their wealth in equity or other business ventures they can use as collateral to start new businesses.
Those are not the taxes we're talking about.
And even then even then you don't have a single billionaire starting a business with their own entire capital net worth, they'll likely do funding rounds elsewhere.
I don't think just because they start businesses they should be wholly protected against paying into society in other ways. A stronger middle class will also start more companies, likely more in both numbers and product diversity. If there's any chance at reducing wealth disparity, something so incredibly out of whack at record levels, we likely gain so much else from it.
Opportunity cost is still a thing. I will have fewer chances of upward mobility with a lower cash flow.
Sort of, but it doesn't really matter. I used the example to illustrate that people do vote against their material interests for the overall health of society.
As an aside, thank you for keeping up with the conversation and even though I expect it from Tildes, it's always nice to realise we're having a normal back and forth. If at any moment I have...
As an aside, thank you for keeping up with the conversation and even though I expect it from Tildes, it's always nice to realise we're having a normal back and forth.
If at any moment I have sounded hostile or inflammatory towards you I can assure you that was unintended.
This may be a tin foil hat situation, but I’d almost be willing to bet that about ≈nobody is leaving their home country over some taxable/taxed money. It just sounds so… far-fetched to me? I don’t...
This may be a tin foil hat situation, but I’d almost be willing to bet that about ≈nobody is leaving their home country over some taxable/taxed money. It just sounds so… far-fetched to me? I don’t know. The topic is probably in need of some hard data and research; not just the basics, but also beyond, like “what happens to emigration rates of top .%ers if we add an exit tax to the equation?” after having implemented inheritance taxes etc.
I didn't look too deeply into this, but Norway recently enacted something similar and 105 out of the top 400 richest moved their wealth or left the country. So it seems some will indeed move! Keep...
I didn't look too deeply into this, but Norway recently enacted something similar and 105 out of the top 400 richest moved their wealth or left the country. So it seems some will indeed move! Keep in mind that Norway had exit taxes so there was friction. With zero friction, I imagine more than 105 would have left.
But if they're not using that money for productive enterprise and rather just contributing to speculative bubbles (eg housing, stock market secondary buying/selling) then what is actually lost...
But if they're not using that money for productive enterprise and rather just contributing to speculative bubbles (eg housing, stock market secondary buying/selling) then what is actually lost when they leave? One or two jobs per person for private chefs and chauffers? Vs a significantly higher tax take from 3/4ths of those who fall within that bracket and don't leave.... And a more equal society in their absence.
If they are meaningfully and actively investing locally, then they're already tied to the location and their most valuable assets will necessarily remain even as they leave, so again.... Shrug.
I think it's important to note that while rich people should be taxed more (my opinion), the narrative that they don't pay anything in taxes is also an exaggeration in the opposite direction. Rich...
I think it's important to note that while rich people should be taxed more (my opinion), the narrative that they don't pay anything in taxes is also an exaggeration in the opposite direction. Rich people do frequently sell equity, which triggers taxation if they made a profit. If Swiss billionaires/millionaires moved, their stock sales may result in fewer taxes paid to Switzerland.
"Stock market secondary buying/selling" feels to me like you're implying that it's not a useful use of money, at least not in a way to ordinary people, but that's not correct. The only reason that stocks have the value that they do is because a system for resale exists. If stocks could not be resold, then the initial price of a stock would be far, far lower. Kiss goodbye to the concept of a stock market as we know it, driving the amount of money available for investments down by a ton. While the effect of a secondary sale is not felt by the initial seller, the fact that the first sale could even happen is a result of there being the potential secondary sale.
Equally, the amount of value available to be extracted by pure speculation on the market is vast, and I'd argue doesn't proportionally contribute to what most people think of as "productive...
Equally, the amount of value available to be extracted by pure speculation on the market is vast, and I'd argue doesn't proportionally contribute to what most people think of as "productive investment". A lot of statistics and general understanding around things like value and productivity end up being fairly tautological, because they define value as monetary worth, and productivity as that per unit time, without considering externalities or quality of life as a whole. A decent amount don't even account for distribution skew, although that's one that most people are at least a little more aware of nowadays.
It's a tricky one, because any alternative approach to distribution would be risky and untested, and would be actively sabotaged by those with a literal vested interest in the status quo anyway - but I do think it's at least important to recognise that the way we do things right now is... kinda broken, even if it has some positive qualities too and we haven't yet figured out a fully viable alternative.
It changes when you have the EEA and Schengen zone. If, say, Liechenstein is willing to have them, a rich person in Switzerland could move, with all their assets, to Liechenstein and still live in...
It changes when you have the EEA and Schengen zone. If, say, Liechenstein is willing to have them, a rich person in Switzerland could move, with all their assets, to Liechenstein and still live in Switzerland as much as they want. It is their right as a Schengen holder, after all.
France actually did have a wealth tax (the ISF) which research estimates as causing $200b euros in capital flight, which then caused the French government to relent and turn it into a real estate tax (IFI).
Good point, of course all the EU/Schengen area under the five freedoms would have to enact legislation like this together to be even more effective. Meaning it will never happen.
Good point, of course all the EU/Schengen area under the five freedoms would have to enact legislation like this together to be even more effective. Meaning it will never happen.
Yes, having more data would be useful. I certainly wouldn't do it, but perhaps they have multiple houses and could move to a different one? There are probably people who travel a lot and could...
Yes, having more data would be useful.
I certainly wouldn't do it, but perhaps they have multiple houses and could move to a different one? There are probably people who travel a lot and could live anywhere. Maybe that's why they moved to Switzerland to begin with?
I'd agree with this - the extremely wealthy barely really have a "home country" in the sense that most people would think of it. They'll be moving freely between major global cities anyway (and...
I'd agree with this - the extremely wealthy barely really have a "home country" in the sense that most people would think of it. They'll be moving freely between major global cities anyway (and I've long been a believer that those cities have more in common with each other than with the rest of their respective countries, in a lot of ways), they'll potentially have tax residency concerns that are quite different to either their birth nationality or their preferred location to stay, and even if they do choose to settle, work, and become tax resident all in one place, the barrier to moving from there is still effectively zero when the costs are negligible and the work of relocating is all done by lawyers, assistants, and other staff.
I don't know how much any of this should really contribute to tax policy: I've got some of the same suspicions others have mentioned about whether there's much net benefit to having an ultra-wealthy group in a country at all, and I think the precedent of bowing to their interests is potentially more risky than calling their bluff on moving even if they do follow through. But if we're talking data, I do think it's fair to consider how much more global they are, on average, than the rest of us.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Genuinely a lot of their economic prowess comes from being a friendly place to park wealth. The Swiss economy is doing well and its citizens are wealthy and...
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Genuinely a lot of their economic prowess comes from being a friendly place to park wealth. The Swiss economy is doing well and its citizens are wealthy and healthy, so I’m not surprised they don’t want to rock to the boat?
In case anyone else was curious about voter turnout, I got this from Wikipedia's Voting in Switzerland page:
Switzerland voted to reject a 50% inheritance tax on super-rich residents after wealthy entrepreneurs threatened to leave the country. Some 82% of the electorate opposed the plan, according to a preliminary government estimate on Sunday. Polls ahead of the plebiscite had suggested such an outcome.
The left-wing Young Socialists group launched the proposal as a way of raising funds to fight climate change. The levy would have been introduced on all assets exceeding 50 million francs ($62 million), which an individual passes on or gifts. That would have hit some 2,500 people in Switzerland — the top 0.03% of the population.
The plan ran into staunch opposition from the government and all parties aside from the left.
Switzerland — which already has wealth taxes — has more than nine billionaires per million inhabitants, five times the average in western Europe, according to a UBS study. It also has special provisions for well-heeled foreigners that allows them to pay taxes without fully disclosing what they own. The fiscal benefits from such resident millionaires are likely to have swayed voters in Sunday’s ballot.
Swiss citizens — who vote in plebiscites as many as four times a year under the country’s direct-democracy rules — have repeatedly sided with business interests. In past years they rejected measures on stricter emission limits, a national minimum wage, and more mandatory vacation days.
In a separate ballot, voters decided that service in the Swiss army should remain mandatory only for men. The proposal by a center-left coalition aimed to extend the duty to women, while enabling anyone to fulfill the obligation also by civilian service like caring for the elderly or environmental work. The plan garnered just 14% support.
In case anyone else was curious about voter turnout, I got this from Wikipedia's Voting in Switzerland page:
It is often thought that the lower voter turnout is due to “selective participation” and should not be seen as disinterest in governance matters by Swiss citizens. Selective participation means that Swiss citizens are more likely to participate and vote on issues that are of importance to them. In 2016, approximately 90% of Swiss citizens participated in a vote at least once within a four-year period. https://web.archive.org/web/20221024120435/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spsr.12194
Well done voting against the interests of literally everyone except 0.03% of the people.
Incredible.
What people won't do to go to bat for the folks that would wipe their feet on them.
It was a good intention, bad implementation proposal that the voters rejected. It's not clear that voters are totally against an inheritance tax. They might view the threats of rich people leaving and taking their wealth with them as too credible. Switzerland, as I understand it, has no exit tax if a citizen chooses to emigrate. The smarter thing to do would be to implement the exit tax first and then an inheritance tax. Otherwise, rich people could sidestep the whole thing so easily.
They already are! That's why this is a thing. Inheritance taxes are supposed to get them to pay in and prevent generational wealth from accumulating at the top 0,03% of people.
The absolute gall of them to threaten to leave the country is infuriating.
I'll give you the point on the implementation shortfall, I don't know enough about the plans to say if it would be good enough or not. And I'll admit that my response is kneejerk without knowing the full picture. It genuinely does make or break it.
Huh? Why? Living in a country shouldn't be a prison where you aren't allowed to leave.
There's a difference between "threatening to leave " being a rude sort of boldness and a country being a prison.
Tbh this is basically like Cuomo (and other billionaires) saying he won't live in NYC if he lost the mayoral election. He's obviously free to go, but his statements made it clear he didn't give a shit about the city to the residents who can't imagine wanting to live anywhere else.
I guess I don't really at all understand what you're talking about considering I was essentially forced to leave my home country and yeah, people like me are frequently labeled as cowards, traitors, useless, etc. I just didn't expect to see this attitude on progressive western tildes of all places. The more you know.
The person basically said "the audacity" and didn't call anyone a traitor or state they shouldn't be allowed to leave. They find the threat to leave being used as political leverage to be disgusting.
I appreciate your personal experience but I think calling billionaires rude isn't equivalent to being called a traitor. They are certainly not being forced out of anywhere and if they were, they have all of the legal, political and financial resources to do whatever they want.
The power dynamics are vastly different and no one is either kicking them out nor forcing them to remain. Just disdaining their political threats. Being annoyed at billionaires is a progressive western hobby.
I don't see what their level of wealth has to do with anything besides having an option to leave where others might not. The person alleged that wanting to leave your country is worthy of scorn, I find that to be to be distasteful, simple as that.
Cool, but maybe watch what you're annoyed at? It's kind of important.
It’s clear that this is emotive and personal, so I want to say up front that I’m not trying to argue a point against you, but I do think reframing it a little might help and maybe provide some comfort and context.
First and foremost, it’s a question of power imbalance. It’s not just leaving, it’s do what I say or I’ll leave. A lot of us see that as bully behaviour - it’s the difference between “I’m done with this game, so I’m going to head out” and “if you try to level the playing field even a little bit, I’m going to take the ball and go”.
Secondly, and more broadly, there are good reasons to leave and bad reasons. This part is always going to be somewhat subjective, but the reasoning says a huge amount about a person’s character, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. There’s a bit of interplay here with the power dynamic issue too, but very broadly, in my personal opinion:
I believe you're missing my point so I'm going to stop here. But I'll continue to also be annoyed at The Audacity.
It's not the act of leaving, please do. They clearly do not have any interest in improving the country they live in, what rubs me is the underlying arrogance of finding yourself so important that you threatening to leave is enough grounds to sink a tax law and make it worse for the rest of your fellow citizens. It indicates they feel absolutely zero loyalty or obligation towards the people and country they used to build their dragon's hoard.
"Vote against or else" and keeping progressive law taxes hostage is villainous and should be ridiculed.
Voters do need to know the likely consequences of a referendum, though. Making decisions based on wishful thinking seems bad? I don’t see a way around speculating how billionaires would react.
Maybe it’s a decision to be made on principle, but I’d still want to estimate the cost.
That's sensible as an argument and in broad strokes I agree.. but how fair do you think those people play? I'd wager most of them wouldn't actually leave. They're just threatening for the sake of trying to wiggle out of paying extra. I'm not sure you can accurately assess cost based on emotional bargaining by people that don't care about you. Or they would leave but I couldn't materially assess whether or not it's true so I have nothing to go on to estimate that cost and they're counting on me to blink first. I personally wouldn't.
Neither do I to be fair. I also don't think that racing to the bottom when it comes to tax burden is the way to go for the long term health of the country so perhaps it's moot. We've seen plenty of countries lower tax rates to stimulate corporations settling there (Ireland and the Netherlands are two big examples) and by and large it means they are now forever burdened by the cost of doing business -think environmental pollution and other negatives- without meaningful returns. At an individual level I'd rather say "fuck you and fuck your private jet, please leave" and go from there, we'll make do with people that actually want to live here and want to contribute to make it a better place because if you don't contribute and just jet around polluting the place without paying back I don't need you.
The Swiss people have autonomy and evidently they don’t agree in the most direct form on democracy we have. Is what it is.
I’d imagine very few of the billionaires in Switzerland generated their wealth by extracting it from the Swiss - Switzerland just isn’t that big to begin with. Because of the EEA, Switzerland can be in a unique position, where the wealth is extracted from the rest of the EEA, billionaires hold it in Switzerland, Switzerland taxes it at a small rate - but more than zero, and the wealth is coming from the outside. A good deal for them.
It’s not new for Switzerland - they held Nazi gold, after all. Financial services is their biggest export by far.
I don't really know how billionaires think, but on general principle, if you wanted to get them to leave without actually forcing them, It's hard to think of a better way to tell them that they're unwelcome than a huge tax increase.
Often, changing people's incentives is what taxes are for. Consider taxing cigarettes to motivate smokers to quit, or congestion taxes. That's why carbon taxes would be a good idea, because people do compare alternatives based on projected costs.
Loyalty seems unlikely under such circumstances? It sounds like you're okay with it because hatred for billionaires is more motivating than money for you. Apparently the Swiss feel differently.
I do think sometimes economists overestimate the effects of incentives. There are other motives like patriotism, ideology, fear, or addiction, that cause people to make financially unwise decisions. But, financial incentives are important and we expect that people will often act on them.
If the idea were to increase tax revenue without motivating people to leave, perhaps a modest tax increase would be a better way to go, since it doesn't add insult to injury.
I think it's irrelevant to my argument what the Swiss eventually ended up with. In fact, I flat out think they're voting against their own interests.
Now this isn't an income tax (I would also call that bluff since it likely won't decrease tax revenue overall even if they leave), this is supposed to be for an inheritance tax for the ultra wealthy. Literally just the children of the 0,03% of the wealthiest people that now have to make do with a couple of fewer millions on their pile of billions. This tax only kicks in when you're inheriting above 50 million francs. This is one of the few methods to decrease institutional wealth disparity, not an incentive to make them leave. That's buying into their narrative that they actually would upend their lives and that it impacts overall tax revenue enough to make a difference. Ultimately it'll reduce wealth disparity one way or the other, which I think is a common good. Reducing tax revenue by wealth flight is likely untrue if I take a peek at the Laffer curve. I don't think we're at the tail end.. in probably every country on earth?
I think you're misunderstanding me, I don't hate the billionaires for having money, I hate how some of them throw a hissy fit like a petulant child and try to skew the results in their favour by manipulating the people when it looks like they may have to pitch in a little for the common good.
Clearly they want to hoard their money and scare people into letting them keep it.
Wealthy people aren't unwelcome. If you look at the tax rate of 70-100 ago you see tax rates up to 90%. It was understood that having higher tax rates helps the country by allowing it to invest in the middle class. A strong middle class is a strong economy.
Before the globalization of wealth you'd see rich people reinvest in their local neighbourhood, community or city and give back that way. Because they understood it was a common good to have a thriving community. I pay taxes not just because I have to, but because I understand my government uses it to provide for the people and I think a rising tide raises all boats (unless, y'know, they don't blow half of it on failed IT projects, but hey you get my point!). Threatening to flee makes you a leech on the society you've used to build your fortunes on.
Just look at some articles on this.
Rich people are threatening to leave New York after Mamdani win but the data says otherwise.
Rich people threaten to leave Switzerland after an inheritance tax vote. Cheekily relinking above article.
Millionaire exodus if the UK Labour party doesn't weaken tax reforms.. This one has an interesting quote I'll link below.*
When they say they will leave they almost never do.
The Myth of the Mobile Millionaire.
France's tax proposal has the ultra rich threaten the government.
The Netherlands had companies and people threaten to leave.
It just doesn't happen. Where would they even go if you're all introducing tax increases?
Conversely, the rich in India seem to be leaving and not to dodge taxes but to find a better quality of living for their families. Precisely the reason these rich won't leave their cushy Switzerland.
I don't know, maybe the method of taxing these 2500 out of 9 million could be done differently.. but maybe it's not such a bad idea in general.
*Henley’s estimates, when put into perspective, reveal a picture that is at complete odds with the report’s narrative and media coverage: millionaires are highly immobile, and nearly 100% of millionaires have not relocated to a new country since 2013, if Henley’s estimates are to be taken at face value.
I'm in favor of inheritance taxes and it does seem like they wouldn't be nearly as motivating as taxes that people have to pay while they're alive. I never understood the whole dynasty thing. But in practice, people do seem to care about them, at least enough to do estate planning.
Saying "it just doesn't happen" seems like an exaggeration. As someone else posted, it did happen in Norway. I guess some do and some don't?
Maybe it's like "threatening" to move to Canada if you don't like the election results. It's true that a lot more people talk about it than do it. I suppose this could be spun as "throwing a hissy fit" if you're unsympathetic.
That's just a 100 people though? It's unlikely this will affect tax revenue. I don't see how such a small amount of people leaving should be cause for worry if it's for the betterment of millions.
People respond to taxes. Increasing taxes can decrease revenues. Here's a very good article on why most European wealth taxes decreased revenue and were repealed:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs
The Laffer curve is a useful model, but it's not a perfect empirical tool.
Switzerland already charges a wealth tax, so billionaire residents are already on the hook for taxes every year.
Humans aren't entirely rational, and billionaires are no exception. It's entirely possible some of them would decide the combination of the inheritance tax plus the annual wealth tax were too much, and Switzerland would end up poorer.
I strongly believe inheritance taxes are more effective than wealth taxes, but the citizens of Switzerland clearly disagree, by a wide margin.
No I'm aware, it's why I referenced the Laffer curve rather than pin my argument on it, but to flat out state that Switzerland would be poorer is also ignoring that the curve exists. Chances are they wouldn't be. Decent odds too I'd wager.
That they do.
My family has considered emigrating to some countries in Europe, but some countries like Spain treat retirement accounts as wealth for the purpose of annual wealth taxes. Because of the high tax rates, my family has decided not to move there. If the wealth tax didn't exist, we would move there and pay income taxes, etc.
We are more fortunate than most, but we're not the 1% that care even more about these taxes. There are plenty of historical examples of certain taxes decreasing revenue, even if they affect only a small number of people.
As a concrete example, New York's millionaires pay the highest tax rates in the US, and the state has been bleeding revenue as the wealthy flee: https://cbcny.org/research/hidden-cost-new-yorks-shrinking-millionaire-share#hidden
I'll note, as someone not directly a party to this thread but reading along:
That link appears to indicate that NYS had double the decline that NYC had and itself seems to state that taxes themselves can't be the exclusive factor since tax-high CA did have growth in filer count.
Are you part of the 0.03%?
Edit to add:
Excuse me, I was whisked away on some work thing before I could say more. I'm not saying to delete all wealth, I'm just very unopposed to increasing tax on 3000 people that have the money to spare (and then some). So unless you're part of that 0.03% wealth bracket I'm not going to argue that you need to lower your quality of life.
There is a marked difference between moving within the US between states and national wealth flight world wide. The latter is almost non-existent.
Refer to my other comment:
I can't respond if I don't know why you were forced out of your country. If it was to reduce your billions to millions so we can all have a little more then no, I don't particularly feel bad about it.
And on the contrary, I'm not advocating for these people to leave. I'm advocating for people paying their dues and giving back to the community they live in. Reminder, this is about 2-3000 people in a country of 9 million+. They can do with a little less and give a little more.
I had to move because other people were making my existence in my home country actively worse and I was better off leaving. It wasn't not nearly as bad as losing 90% of networth like you're proposing, but it created a lot of problems in my life. Genuinely never thought I would feel bad for billionaires but here we are.
If a billionaire lost 90% of their net worth, they'd still have 100 million dollars, and be richer than 99% of everyone in the world. They'd be able to own multiple nice houses in beautiful cities, the interest from their investments would be sufficient to ensure that them and all of their descendants would never need to work a day in their lives, etc. Is that a person who you would feel bad for?
If you're going to use absolute values then a billionaire is paying many orders of magnitude in taxes than any of us, so the whole point is moot. That's not even accounting for jobs and businesses and such that participate in the economy. Anyway 90% networth is an insane figure and it's completely understandable to want to avoid losing that.
I don't love rich people and especially I don't love dynasties who keep inheriting ad nauseam. I just think that if other people make your life worse in a country it's a perfectly adequate response to leave and everyone should be able to without making major sacrifices.
Right. And what I'm saying is that losing 90% of their net worth is not a major sacrifice for a billionaire. Their life will still be one of absolute comfort as far as money could provide.
I just completely disagree with your definition of a major sacrifice. Life isn't just about comfort either.
I'm curious about what a person could do with a billion dollars of personal wealth that would be out of reach with 100 million that is more important than 900 million extra for infrastructure, social programs, and other matters of government? What are they actually losing the ability to do? Yes, a number changed. What does that mean for them?
I'm most assuredly not proposing such a rule. I think you're misunderstanding marginal tax and tax brackets if you think a 90% tax would be on all income. In my own country our tax brackets are as follows: 17,8% on 39k, 37,5% on everything earned between 39k and 79k, and 49,5% on everything above 79k. None of these brackets are taxed twice.
Let's say we introduced a 90% marginal tax bracket, you would only be taxed 90% only on the money earned above (let's say) 200k. In 1944 in the US this translated to 94% on everything above 200k.
And that's just income tax. If you don't have an income but have everything in equity, these rules would still allow you to boast that you didn't pay any income tax whatsoever despite owning billions.
I can't really tell what your reason was, and I don't need to know since it's clearly personal, but in the context of the conversation I don't think your life would be actively worse if you had to spend a couple of million when you own billions. Even more concretely related to the conversation: It wouldn't even affect you directly since the tax in the article is about gifts and inheritance.
I understand tax brackets. I was referring to
Anyway whatever your feeling is, you should also understand then that no one in their right mind would want to be subjected to this and would avoid it with whatever means possible. It's just cost cutting, we all practice it.
Your life wouldn't be any different if you'd have 900 million instead of 2 billion.
Beyond that point, I would even argue you'd live in absolute comfort until the end of your days with 90 million.
But hey, none of that is actually what this topic is about. It's about inheritance tax doing absolutely nothing at all to your quality of life until you need to gift more than 50 million francs.
And no we don't all do that. Quick example: Hybrid cars were taxed at a lower rate in this country and I voted against my "best interests" to get that increased even though it would cost me personally. Because what's in my best interest is the prosperity of all and not just the lucky few.
Principles mean something to me and I find them sorely lacking in people too worried about their neverending balance sheet.
Well sure if you want to tell me when you said "millions" you actually meant "hundreds of millions" we can even talk about that being a more reasonable proposition. I still take issue with "life wouldn't be any different". Of course it would be massively different, the billions aren't a useless pile of money sitting in a vault being eaten up by inflation, they're capital, they're companies, assets, which would be what, nationalized I guess?
Man I still cannot believe I am forced to relate to billionaires here.
I'm not looking to rob anyone. I don't think differences in wealth between people is inherently bad but I feel there's an excess to the point it's detrimental.
Specifically inheritance and other wealth taxes are of interest to me because I think you do not materially change the life of people that have that kind of money in the first place. Y'know, tax wealth not labour.
Even then, most of the ultra rich have their wealth in equity or other business ventures they can use as collateral to start new businesses.
Those are not the taxes we're talking about.
And even then even then you don't have a single billionaire starting a business with their own entire capital net worth, they'll likely do funding rounds elsewhere.
I don't think just because they start businesses they should be wholly protected against paying into society in other ways. A stronger middle class will also start more companies, likely more in both numbers and product diversity. If there's any chance at reducing wealth disparity, something so incredibly out of whack at record levels, we likely gain so much else from it.
Opportunity cost is still a thing. I will have fewer chances of upward mobility with a lower cash flow.
Sort of, but it doesn't really matter. I used the example to illustrate that people do vote against their material interests for the overall health of society.
As an aside, thank you for keeping up with the conversation and even though I expect it from Tildes, it's always nice to realise we're having a normal back and forth.
If at any moment I have sounded hostile or inflammatory towards you I can assure you that was unintended.
This may be a tin foil hat situation, but I’d almost be willing to bet that about ≈nobody is leaving their home country over some taxable/taxed money. It just sounds so… far-fetched to me? I don’t know. The topic is probably in need of some hard data and research; not just the basics, but also beyond, like “what happens to emigration rates of top .%ers if we add an exit tax to the equation?” after having implemented inheritance taxes etc.
I didn't look too deeply into this, but Norway recently enacted something similar and 105 out of the top 400 richest moved their wealth or left the country. So it seems some will indeed move! Keep in mind that Norway had exit taxes so there was friction. With zero friction, I imagine more than 105 would have left.
But if they're not using that money for productive enterprise and rather just contributing to speculative bubbles (eg housing, stock market secondary buying/selling) then what is actually lost when they leave? One or two jobs per person for private chefs and chauffers? Vs a significantly higher tax take from 3/4ths of those who fall within that bracket and don't leave.... And a more equal society in their absence.
If they are meaningfully and actively investing locally, then they're already tied to the location and their most valuable assets will necessarily remain even as they leave, so again.... Shrug.
I think it's important to note that while rich people should be taxed more (my opinion), the narrative that they don't pay anything in taxes is also an exaggeration in the opposite direction. Rich people do frequently sell equity, which triggers taxation if they made a profit. If Swiss billionaires/millionaires moved, their stock sales may result in fewer taxes paid to Switzerland.
"Stock market secondary buying/selling" feels to me like you're implying that it's not a useful use of money, at least not in a way to ordinary people, but that's not correct. The only reason that stocks have the value that they do is because a system for resale exists. If stocks could not be resold, then the initial price of a stock would be far, far lower. Kiss goodbye to the concept of a stock market as we know it, driving the amount of money available for investments down by a ton. While the effect of a secondary sale is not felt by the initial seller, the fact that the first sale could even happen is a result of there being the potential secondary sale.
Equally, the amount of value available to be extracted by pure speculation on the market is vast, and I'd argue doesn't proportionally contribute to what most people think of as "productive investment". A lot of statistics and general understanding around things like value and productivity end up being fairly tautological, because they define value as monetary worth, and productivity as that per unit time, without considering externalities or quality of life as a whole. A decent amount don't even account for distribution skew, although that's one that most people are at least a little more aware of nowadays.
It's a tricky one, because any alternative approach to distribution would be risky and untested, and would be actively sabotaged by those with a literal vested interest in the status quo anyway - but I do think it's at least important to recognise that the way we do things right now is... kinda broken, even if it has some positive qualities too and we haven't yet figured out a fully viable alternative.
It changes when you have the EEA and Schengen zone. If, say, Liechenstein is willing to have them, a rich person in Switzerland could move, with all their assets, to Liechenstein and still live in Switzerland as much as they want. It is their right as a Schengen holder, after all.
France actually did have a wealth tax (the ISF) which research estimates as causing $200b euros in capital flight, which then caused the French government to relent and turn it into a real estate tax (IFI).
Good point, of course all the EU/Schengen area under the five freedoms would have to enact legislation like this together to be even more effective. Meaning it will never happen.
Yes, having more data would be useful.
I certainly wouldn't do it, but perhaps they have multiple houses and could move to a different one? There are probably people who travel a lot and could live anywhere. Maybe that's why they moved to Switzerland to begin with?
I'd agree with this - the extremely wealthy barely really have a "home country" in the sense that most people would think of it. They'll be moving freely between major global cities anyway (and I've long been a believer that those cities have more in common with each other than with the rest of their respective countries, in a lot of ways), they'll potentially have tax residency concerns that are quite different to either their birth nationality or their preferred location to stay, and even if they do choose to settle, work, and become tax resident all in one place, the barrier to moving from there is still effectively zero when the costs are negligible and the work of relocating is all done by lawyers, assistants, and other staff.
I don't know how much any of this should really contribute to tax policy: I've got some of the same suspicions others have mentioned about whether there's much net benefit to having an ultra-wealthy group in a country at all, and I think the precedent of bowing to their interests is potentially more risky than calling their bluff on moving even if they do follow through. But if we're talking data, I do think it's fair to consider how much more global they are, on average, than the rest of us.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Genuinely a lot of their economic prowess comes from being a friendly place to park wealth. The Swiss economy is doing well and its citizens are wealthy and healthy, so I’m not surprised they don’t want to rock to the boat?
In case anyone else was curious about voter turnout, I got this from Wikipedia's Voting in Switzerland page:
Mirror: https://archive.is/o2zu8