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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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).
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 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