Why wouldn't rich people just move if you raised taxes on them a shit ton?

>Switzerland is a shitty country
lol retard

they would have to move their business too and it's not easy

US citizens in Switzerland still have to pay income taxes to the US government.
Unless they renounce their citizenship, in which case they pay a high exit tax on wealth instead.

>in which case they pay a high exit tax on wealth instead
well if you don't have assets in the usa you can simply ignore it can't you

You would be extradited to the US to face charges of tax evasion unless you reside in a country with no extradition treaty or have become a naturalized citizen of one of the countries that does not extradite citizens on principle.

No, because if it were that simple, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep taxes low for themselves for over the past 3 decades.

They know that if a major change occurred where they were to be taxed heavily, majority of them would be fucked.

Well, not really "fucked". They will still be filthy rich, but good luck convincing them that.

Attached: xRI26TS.jpg (1631x1009, 145K)

>no the point is that taxing the rich isn't going to cause them all to just instantly disappear.
No shit, but you have to look at things long term and not just what happens short term.
>allowing a few people to have such a massive share of the total wealth forces a massive number of people to live well below the poverty line
This is false, rich people are richer than ever yet the world poverty is the lowest ever. The economy isn't a zero-sum game.
>taxing the rich is necessary, it's just how much and what can be done to prevent them from just up and moving away
Indeed, which is about what the tax rates are right now. Capital tax is about 20-30% around the West so if one country went above that the rich would probably move out of that country.
>why is it that brainlets always have such a black/white mindset. poor brainlets too. always so sad to see someone brainwashed by the boss man
Because AOC paints issues as black and white. She said it was immoral for a system that allows people to become billionaires and much more shit. The current system is great, you still get some taxes from the rich and the US has a capital gains tax rate that is comparable to many other Western countries.

>Would you want to move to some shitty country and have to live there just to avoid taxes?
Switzerland, UK, Monaco, Sweden, Singapore and some other countries are shitty countries? A lot of low tax countries are heaven compared to the US

I wonder if rich people managed to fall for their own Jewish schemes and bought into the rat race of one-upping your neighbors.

>US citizens in Switzerland still have to pay income taxes to the US government.
If US CEOs are taxed at 70% and Swiss CEOs are taxed at 25% and they both want to make the same amount of money after tax, why wouldn't the board of directors hire a Swiss CEO if he's cheaper with the same skill level? It's not only about rich Americans moving out it's about that America becomes uncompetitive too. Also that's only income right and not wealth that's taxed, so the real rich people wouldn't get taxed by the US?

just get rid of taxes

>the people of new york

Most voters in the Bronx don't really qualify as 'people'

Exit tax on their wealth. Use the NSA to sus out their offshore dragon hoards and tax them. Make them renounce their citizenship if they want to "move"
Or just eat them.

Yeah man, and i guess when jews lobby against another shoah they're really saying they wouldn't flee a second holocaust. Your post is retarded m8

The American CEO would ask for a competitive pay rate, i.e. equal to the Swiss CEO's requested pay rate before tax, unless he is a retard who wants to be unemployed.
Individual taxes don't affect corporate competition; you're thinking of corporate taxes.

Wonderful question, very good. Sometimes a question is better than an answer.
This is such a broad question that you have to look into a lot of factors, but the main one would be broken down into 3 tiers of cultural, social, and economic. First off, economic. They make money there, if you are successful and project profits you will continue doing that. Things that are adverse to your profits like taxes come into play. Social and cultural is also part of economics, but you also have to find a place that would accept a social or culture normality that makes that business successful where it is.
Immigration doesn't apply to rich people to live but it does for their business. If they just want to dump money into an economy by moving there the rules don't apply to rich people.
So say star bucks or tim hortons, Canada and US can't immigrate between one another with competing businesses like that. Say New Zealand lacks it, one of them could move there if they think they make a profit. Immigration rules don't apply with enough money.
So why don't they do that? It's a smaller market, supply line issues you can't be the next amazon of coffee with that small of a profit margin. So you get into social and cultural stuff. Would they rather move there for a smaller amount of money? The answer is they don't have to cut their budget going to places like that since the rules don't apply to rich people.
Why is bill gates more concerned with diseases in Africa or starving people there when there are people in America on government assistance for food stamps? He'd have to build a cultural and social network there to fix that issue without taxes, and they don't want to pay taxes or employees here.
Those places will reject rich people under some circumstances.
It's a great question and honestly rich people should be forced into making the decision to move somewhere else where they have more skin to risk.

What's with so many rich Americans living in Cali and NY? Why aren't there more rich people in 3rd world shitholes with extremely low taxes?
It's cause wealth redistribution works. Giving more people more money to spend stimulates the economy so the rich get richer without the poor getting poorer as what's been happening in the States.

Attached: 24234315135.jpg (587x663, 54K)

They're not going to raise taxes on the rich. They're going to raise it on middle class. That's what they do in socialist countries.

And they're going to give all the "free college" to niggers, mexicans, and chinks

you're a fucking moron if you think this guy is legit for one second

Attached: 1496175472577.gif (630x346, 1.75M)

First off, you're an idiot.

Second, if taxes were to be raised for that small percentage of mega billionaires in the country, you actually believe they would all just pack up their bags and fucking leave?
Lol.
Once again, if it were truly that simple, those said billionaires wouldn't be fighting so hard to maintain the current status quo if they had better alternatives in the event of a tax raise.

Pro tip: back in the 1920s the 15% with the highest income were taxed more than the poorest Americans rather than the other way around. Can you guess what happened where that is no longer the case...?

>billionaires getting richer
>"hey the system works guys!"

Attached: 8d4.jpg (601x601, 121K)

>The American CEO would ask for a competitive pay rate, i.e. equal to the Swiss CEO's requested pay rate before tax, unless he is a retard who wants to be unemployed.
But the American CEO doesn't have as much incentive because he will earn less after taxes than the Swiss CEO which causes the CEO position to be less attractive in America compared to other countries.
>Individual taxes don't affect corporate competition; you're thinking of corporate taxes.
It really does, most people on the top has lived in a lot of countries and if you think if a CEO could chose between living in a country where he is taxed at 20% as a country where he is taxed 90% equally and not chose the country with the much lower taxes you're delusional.

>What's with so many rich Americans living in Cali and NY
Cali and NYC has high taxes in capital? Capital taxes are the same around the whole country iirc.
>Why aren't there more rich people in 3rd world shitholes with extremely low taxes?
Is Switzerland, UK, Monaco, Sweden, Singapore and some other countries 3rd world shitholes now?

>They're going to raise it on middle class.

...actual proposals:
>70% marginal tax on all income above $10 million per year
>3% wealth tax on estates above $1 billion

>middle class
sure. all those poor overtaxed middle class billionaires.

Not really.
You hire people to run your business
Or you just do a Facebook and say 'yeah global business , we're actually based in Mauritius lmao'

Take all that excess money they'll never actually use if they leave, easy. And if they're gone, that's one less greedy asshole making the country worse. Big fucking deal. Anyone who actually wants to make a useful business and do good things that benefit the country beyond hoarding money in investments and stock shares won't be leaving anyway, because the US is uniquely positioned to allow them to do that.

>Second, if taxes were to be raised for that small percentage of mega billionaires in the country, you actually believe they would all just pack up their bags and fucking leave?
They don't want to raise it will a small percentage, they think a system that allows for billionaires to exist is immoral. If it was the case of them wanting to raise taxes with a few percentage points this debate wouldn't exist.
>Pro tip: back in the 1920s the 15% with the highest income were taxed more than the poorest Americans rather than the other way around. Can you guess what happened where that is no longer the case...?
What?

>politicians
>telling the truth

Ever notice how everyone hates trump and no one hates Bernie?

You'd think if Bernie was going after 70% every news station would be bashing him, would they?

>they would have to move their business too and it's not easy
Moving your CEO and top management is quite easy these days and headquarters change countries and locations all the time.

>But the American CEO doesn't have as much incentive because he will earn less after taxes than the Swiss CEO which causes the CEO position to be less attractive in America compared to other countries.
This is completely illogical.

>doesn't have as much incentive
Incentive to do what? Work? The CEO is going to eschew a raise and choose his $10 million salary with $6 million takehome rather than a $20 million salary with $9 million takehome? That's not how incentives work.
>which causes the CEO position to be less attractive
Hypothetical CEO is an American citizen, and will be paying taxes to the American government in perpetuity unless he renounces his citizenship and pays an enormous exit tax on his whole net worth.

>It really does, most people on the top has lived in a lot of countries
American citizens pay taxes no matter where they live. The US is unique in this way. The CEO will be paying 70% no matter where he lives, unless he wants to give the government half his wealth to renounce his US citizenship.

A person working minimum wage pays more of the income % in taxes. Say you get 15k a year, you pay taxes and are left over with a certain amount. The mega-wealthy don't feel that pinch. Everything in America is funded by the Average person paying taxes that way. The rich might pay more, but it's less of a % to a point if they want to move if they are treated like everyone else they fucking ought to. Hopefully we can send them a nuke or bunk buster precision guided missile a couple years later wherever they go.

Attached: 1546222449392.jpg (600x320, 13K)

>This is completely illogical.
Less money after taxes=less incentive to work is illogical now?
>Incentive to do what? Work? The CEO is going to eschew a raise and choose his $10 million salary with $6 million takehome rather than a $20 million salary with $9 million takehome? That's not how incentives work.
Okay, let's make a possible hypothetical scenario Amerifat CEO earns 3 million dollars from a salary of 10 million dollars, the Swiss CEO makes 8 million dollars from a salary of 10 million dollars. How is the Swiss CEO not more incentivised when he earns more money after taxes?
>Hypothetical CEO is an American citizen, and will be paying taxes to the American government in perpetuity unless he renounces his citizenship and pays an enormous exit tax on his whole net worth.
Why would a company pay more to keep an American CEO if they aren't competitive compared to other countries CEOs, the world doesn't revolve around America.
>American citizens pay taxes no matter where they live. The US is unique in this way. The CEO will be paying 70% no matter where he lives, unless he wants to give the government half his wealth to renounce his US citizenship.
Again, America isn't the world, if American CEOs aren't competitive like they are now why have your HQ in NYC and not London or Zurich instead?

>>This is completely illogical.
>Less money after taxes=less incentive to work is illogical now?
This is the crux of it. Should the average working person get a tax break, or should the multi-millionaires/billionaires.
The average person gets a couple hundred back. The ultra-wealthy get millions back. Look at government workers during the government shutdown compared to the ultra wealthy. One person that makes the country function and sacrifices their time and life to ensuring that has to tighten their belt, one group just goes on private airlines and doing whatever the fuck they want.

You're trying to make sense of this as if they're being honest.

The rich are the best with money. They'll find ways around the tax while everyone else is going to end up paying more in taxes. You don't understand how much of scam it is to leave government in charge of where your money is going. There's so much fucking fraud in the government and you want to give them MORE MONEY. That's why everything is becoming shit. No one is making anything because it makes more sense to just cheat and steal money from the government or through drugs.

>Would you want to move to some shitty country and have to live there just to avoid taxes?
>Why aren't there more rich people in 3rd world shitholes with extremely low taxes?
Singapore, Switzerland, UK, Malta, Monaco, Belgium etc are bad countries to live in now?

>Less money after taxes=less incentive to work is illogical now?
Are you literate?
AMERICAN CITIZENS PAY INCOME TAX TO THE US GOVERNMENT NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE.

>How is the Swiss CEO not more incentivised when he earns more money after taxes?
This isn't how incentives fucking work. Open an economics textbook.
An incentive is something that makes an individual choose one option over another. American CEO and Swiss CEO are two different individuals. There is no difference of incentive between them.
If you're talking about the firm's incentive to hire them - there is no incentive to choose either the Swiss or American CEO, ceteris paribus. They pay their CEO $10 million either way.
Also, the marginal tax rate on incomes up to $10 million is only 39.6%. The American CEO would be taking home about $6 million.
>Why would a company pay more to keep an American CEO if they aren't competitive compared to other countries CEO
In your example, they both received a salary of $10 million. The American CEO is equally competitive with the Swiss CEO.

Your posts indicate a basic misunderstanding of labor economics and utility functions. You also don't understand marginal tax rates.

I am by no means educated enough on this issue to form a valuable opinion.

However, it is disturbing to me to see all these politicians give their two cents on the issue when most of them don't have anything beyond a basic comprehension of economics.

>This is the crux of it. Should the average working person get a tax break, or should the multi-millionaires/billionaires.
Preferably the avg worker, but having a lot of HQs in your country is very important for the economy to flourish.
>The average person gets a couple hundred back. The ultra-wealthy get millions back.
Most wealthy people are capital owners and not CEOs. CEOs are actually workers and they would be hurt instead of the generational/non-workng wealthy capital owners which would just move
>Look at government workers during the government shutdown compared to the ultra wealthy.
What, I don't get this comparison?

I just realized you're trying to argue that someone making $6 million won't work as hard as someone making $8 million, ceteris paribus.
Lmao. That's not how jobs work.

>The rich are the best with money.
No that's the argument that part of the question addresses. If you have enough money to throw at a problem you're always going to be the best with it. The argument that nobody is making anything is absurd, the average worker is taking home less and paying more in inflation while the wealthy are so oblivious to anything because they have so much they just don't care aside from trying to do better than anyone else, where it's just an inconvenience when they could do nothing at all and simply live like kings for multiple life times.
It really puts things into perspective when you realize they're fine with an average person struggling and saying it's not a struggle when they're not part of the countries poverty or murder rate or involved in that area at all.
>Preferably the avg worker, but having a lot of HQs in your country is very important for the economy to flourish.
That use to be important, till the poverty rate is bad enough the average person is living in a shit hole.
Short term investment in the ultra wealthy that are so wealthy they're fine no matter what and can just leave at any time. Or long term investment in improving their investment that they can run into the ground because they don't care and can just move at any time.
Best at money my ass.

Lol, where the fuck are they going to go to? Canada? Looooool, good luck.

Clearly higher taxes than what any of the flyover states do.They have more taxation and Switzerland even has a wealth tax.

They have higher taxes than any of the flyover states and those countries have more taxation, Switzerland even has a wealth tax.
Also why are you singling out capital gains? Weak Strawman.

I agree, reminds me of a clip from the Bill Burr podcast, he said at some point with all the tax avoidance & financial loopholes the wealthy utilize, you just gotta at least give them credit for thinking of these methods and figuring that shit out.

You're still trusting the people you say are bad with all the money you fucking retard.

>AMERICAN CITIZENS PAY INCOME TAX TO THE US GOVERNMENT NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE.
Why wouldn't they hire Swiss, Britbonger, Singaporian CEOs for example if they were more competitive than Amerifat CEOs?
>This isn't how incentives fucking work. Open an economics textbook.
An incentive is something that makes an individual choose one option over another. American CEO and Swiss CEO are two different individuals. There is no difference of incentive between them.
If you're talking about the firm's incentive to hire them - there is no incentive to choose either the Swiss or American CEO, ceteris paribus. They pay their CEO $10 million either way.
Also, the marginal tax rate on incomes up to $10 million is only 39.6%. The American CEO would be taking home about $6 million.
Tax rates are competitive now in America compared to EU, however some people want to see this change. Also how is keeping more of your money after taxes not an incentive lmao?
>In your example, they both received a salary of $10 million. The American CEO is equally competitive with the Swiss CEO.
My example was to show that the CEO position would be a lot more attractive in Switzerland compared to the US which would cause the motivated people around the world to flood there instead of America.
>Your posts indicate a basic misunderstanding of labor economics and utility functions.
Because saying that keeping less of your money is less attractive compared to keeping more of your money is being a economic illiterate now?
>You also don't understand marginal tax rates.
Lol, is this the new leftist meme now? I said that keeping less of your money causes you to be less incentivised to work, never said that effective and marginal tax was the same thing.

How am I trusting them? I just said people like bill gates, if they don't want to do military service should get forced to make a choice to move somewhere else.
It's ridiculous how civil servants can tighten their belts but the rich can play business as usual and get bail outs.

I truly think the average American is fucking retarded with money. Living in an affluent part of the midwest, I see my friend's buying new luxury cars to show off or expensive clothes, instead of dialing back their expenses and putting some money away. We as Americans are brainwashed into this idea of a materialistic consumer based society and we would do anything to replicate it even if it means bankrupting ourselves in the process.

>Switzerland even has a wealth tax.
Their wealth tax+capital gains is still way lower than Americas capital gains taxes though. If America raises capital gains even more Switzerland will be even more attractive

You're a complete moron. Stop talking about politics.

Attached: 2tq39u.jpg (500x437, 55K)

They're in debt. People doing well in the midwest either came from money, or they got lucky and got a well off job. They're such a minority that none of this kind of talk about the wealthy applies to them. You don't understand the concept of being rich if you're talking about wagekeks.

>Also why are you singling out capital gains? Weak Strawman.
Because most rich people make money through capital gains, how is that a strawman when capital gains is how most rich people make money?

What makes you so smart? Why don't you immigrate and start up a business somewhere to prove how smart you are economically and politically?

I don't have a concrete stance on the tax system ATM because I don't know enough about it, I was just sharing my experiences & opinion on how I think regular people for the most part are careless about money and are only think short-term.

You're the one who loves niggers so much. Move to Africa nigger.

Money ---> goes to Taxes -----> eaten up by fraud -----> goes directly to whoever wins the contract instead of through competition ----> no one is around to regulate it -------> no incentive to make anything good ------> Money has to keep going to them because its the law

Money ----> goes to business -----> business owner has to compete with anyone else who makes his product -----> if people get pissed off they stop buying ------> product gets better or worse then it thrives or dies ------> we get good shit out of it because its natural Darwinism

Why is this shit so fucking hard for you morons to understand?

Attached: 7398db8e610111ab4959ea4ae0b25dce.gif (500x375, 272K)

>Why wouldn't they hire Swiss, Britbonger, Singaporian CEOs for example if they were more competitive than Amerifat CEOs?
They aren't. If they were more competitive, then they would command a higher salary and the whole point would be moot.

>Also how is keeping more of your money after taxes not an incentive lmao?
If you made an honest attempt to think for more than ten seconds about why the assumption "a CEO making $6 million will not work as hard as possible to keep his/her job" might be incorrect, you might be a moron.

>Because saying that keeping less of your money is less attractive compared to keeping more of your money is being a economic illiterate now?
American citizens have no choice between paying less and paying more.
If you're talking about a foreigner contemplating a move to the US where they will pay more on their income above $10 million, you're talking about a nonexistent demographic. Salaries above $10 million per year by and large do not exist outside the US.
For example, Norwegian tax records were publicly available for a few years and I believe there was one (1) person whose yearly income exceeded that. His position in industry would preclude a move to the US.

You don't have a concrete stand? What in the fuck is that suppose to mean. Either you get enough take away you can save up for something, which isn't most jobs, you'd be an extreme minority and hitting retirement age in a position that's getting retired and not replaced then a company would just use unpaid interns to do the work. Or you just don't care.
You remind me of this guy that would call me like 20x a day. He didn't have anything to say, he turned out to be a faggot trying to blow anonymous guys online. Acting like a moron was their way of flirting. Go back to the /lgbt/ board fag.
Money is regulated. People running scams don't get fined/jail time enough to outweight the benefits of doing that sort of thing. Where did Bernie Madoffs money go? It didn't go to his victims. Where did all that profit he had go to?

what are you talking about? She ousted Joe Crowley who was one of the highest ranking democrats in congress. He was in line to be speaker. Crowley had endorsements of both senators, gov and everyone. they dumped millions in that race.

Ask New York. That is exactly what they do.

Bernie Madoff is in prison for the rest of his life, he can't possibly get more jail time.

New York raised taxes on the rich. Many converted their permanent homes to Florida and Texas while still residing in 'vacation' homes in New York. New York faced a net loss on that tax raise when the dust settled. The rich are the most mobile segment of society.

Companies don't pay taxes their customers do.

>Ask New York. That is exactly what they do.
Why did New York increase taxes a lot when capitalism is what brought the wealth there, do they want to destroy themselves?

Yeah but those people represent 1% of the population and already pay more than 35% of all taxes. So what is enough?

What in the ever loving fuck are you talking about? There is no finite pool of money. Your neighbor making ten times that you do does not make you poorer.

>Bernie Madoff is in prison for the rest of his life, he can't possibly get more jail time.
So what you're saying is, he lived extravagantly, then all the money he stole went to his heirs. None of the people taking bribes from him got in trouble. His victims are shit out of luck.
You know look at a list of the richest people in the world, none of them will ever have to do any civil service for their countries, not them or their heirs or immediate family. They're just economic leaches. They say they provide jobs, but they eat up all the profit.
These people need to be put into a corner where they can face imprisonment or death.

It is not the place of the government to arbitrarily decide that you have "too much" money and start stealing it from you. Starting and running a successful business does not magically take money away from poor people. Poor people are not entitled to wealthy people's money by virtue of being poor. If you finish high school, have a job, and don't reproduce out of wedlock, you will not be poor. There isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that any kind of institutional prejudice occurs based on race or sex.

No they don't. You don't even get close to paying shit until you are at above $40k per year for a single filer. Most people making less than that are a net loss to the system and get back way more than they put in.

My sister in law has two kids, no man, shit job. Maybe makes $25k. Besides the welfare she gets she also somehow gets a $17,000 tax return. Do you think she pays $17k in taxes? Fuck no. She doesn't pay a penny in taxes.

Bottom line, you are a fucking retard.

No but offering $8 million will probably net the board better and more qualifed candidates. CEO's aren't low skill workers. They are actively courted and recruited based on their skills and track record. They are akin to pro athlete's. Companies bid for them, they go to the highest and best bid.

No one seems to give a fuck when an athlete makes $50 million for playing a fucking game. But they are up in arms when the cream of the business crop makes that kind of money.

You should win a fucking prize. The only sense this entire pile of shit thread.

In short. Yes. Liberal politicians played this tax the rich game. If I recall the net loss was over $30 billion per year.

Other people who helped Madoff pull off his scam were also punished with prison sentences. His wife made a deal to surrender all her possessions. A quick skimming of Wikipedia says the people who benefited most from the fraud had to settle with the defrauded investors, including one guy who settled for 7.2 billion. The IRS allowed the victims to write off the losses as business expenses, which basically turned their losses into tax writeoffs. All the people he ripped off were also rich and according to Wikipedia he ripped off lots of Jewish individuals and Jewish institutions, which makes me feel a little less sympathy. If you want to use an example of a white collar criminal not getting a serious enough punishment, Madoff isn't it.

expatriation tax
>If you finish high school, have a job, and don't reproduce out of wedlock, you will not be poor.
there's a lot of things silly with your whole post, but specifically how does reproducing out of wedlock make you poor?

Attached: 1550055098817.gif (245x230, 920K)

>In short. Yes. Liberal politicians played this tax the rich game. If I recall the net loss was over $30 billion per year.
Lmao, googled a bit about this and Amazon HQ2 is not coming to NYC after all, seems that the liberals were wrong about tax incentives not being effective and that HQ2 would be in NYC even with higher taxes. How can someone be so dumb to make a place unattractive for companies and thinking that high skilled workers moving in is a bad thing for the community lmao.

Maybe. Who cares? The people we're talking about are ultra-rich rootless cosmopolitans (rootless by definition if they decide, upon getting overruled by the American people, that they actually don't love their country enough to pay taxes to stay there) who meddle in our democratic processes and subvert the values of our people. Hell, our nation might already not be a de facto democracy because of money's influence over politics.

The debate is like this; imagine you lived in a house with two roommates. One is your best friend from grade school, who's stood by you through thick and thin, happiness and depression, girlfriends and breakups. The other is a rich guy who you don't know well other than that he also employs the two of you in a small business. However, whenever it's time to pay the rent or utility bills, the rich guy is always dodging you two and saying he doesn't have any money, and it takes a lot of effort to pry it out of him, even though you both know he has plenty of money because he pays you two. He doesn't do dishes, he doesn't clean the house, he leaves bags of chips open, he leaves his clothes in the washer/dryer for days at a time, eats everyone else's food, never picks up the tab at the bar and doesn't flush the toilet even when he shits because of "bad vibes."

Imagine you get sick of all this shit and say that from now on, he's going to start being a good roommate or you're going to kick him the fuck out. The common Republican response to that is like your best friend turning to you and saying "Woah bro, we can't start imposing standards on him, he might move out and fire us!"

Let him. We're not babies. We'll figure it out after he's gone. Either we get a good roommate out of it or we get rid of a bad one, both are good outcomes.

Attached: 1354072022876.jpg (316x316, 56K)

They do. It's precisely what happened in France after Hollande and tax revenues, despite being increased dramatically, actually fell.

Nice strawman user, rich people pay the most in total taxes and take the least from welfare so for the government rich people are a big plus and poor people are a big burden

>They do. It's precisely what happened in France after Hollande and tax revenues, despite being increased dramatically, actually fell.
Laughs in Swiss

your whole argument is based on so many false premises that literally do not align with reality, you assume fraud is a necessary premise when it isn't. you also assume that there is no competition, or can be no competition, in the process of contract bidding, which is unsound, and there is no one to regulate it. nothing you say necessarily follows, or is even necessary.

what you also said secondly is based on totally shaky and false premises, you assume that surplus value just naturally is redistributed back into business fairly, you assume the competition is healthy even though the market may be a monopoly or an oligopoly with no natural or fair competition, and you also assume the regular consumer is rational enough to protest a business or a business doesn't literally lie to the public and hide wrongdoing.

your whole argument is based on a reductionist fantasy land which misconstrues both sides totally with false and unsound premises, the market is nowhere near that efficient or perfect. it's utopian.

>i want an ethnostate!!1!!
>dont raise taxes cos the jews will leave!!!!
the absolute state of Jow Forums

you guys are so intellectually inconsistent it's unbelievable

Those of us with a high net worth don't really pay very much tax in the countries we were born in/operate in. Retarded Amerifats are just falling for the tax the rich line because it sounds like it would effect us when in reality it just effects at most the middle class. Once you can afford a decent accountant and solicitor then you don't have to worry about taxes so much. Socialists want everyone to be poor and "equal".

She primaried him and now the dems are gonna eliminate her district lol.

Because they are short sighted and most are rather dumb about econ. They equate tax breaks as lost tax money to spend. Yet that money does not exist today. Giving a future tax break is basically giving away air, companies don't really pay a lot in taxes anyways. What does? Their employees, the people that work around the new business (usually a 2:1 ratio) - so bars, restaurants, retail, housing, construction, etc... All of those are new revenue. Then you have local and state taxes that are likely still being paid and not part of the bargain. Add to this local taxes from approximate 30,000 new housing units. I think you get it.

So the dems dumped likely 75,000 jobs and all of that tax revenue from those people in leau of $3 billion that they do not even have today. It is not like they handed Amazon a check to move there..

In short. They are fucking child like idiots who cannot comprehend that econ is not a zero sum game.

>fraud, corruption, waste and incompetence aren't rampant in the government
Bluepilled as fuck

What do you do for work, user? Banned for not being original

>Every country other than America is shitty

Imagine believing this....just imagine it

NY and NJ did the same thing. Lost almost 50,000 millionaires.

I think the French were losing almost 1000 per day. Quit a bit for a country that honestly does not have a lot to start with.

>
no the point is that taxing the rich isn't going to cause them all to just instantly disappear. the point is that there is no perfect solution as obviously allowing a few people to have such a massive share of the total wealth forces a massive number of people to live well below the poverty line
Economics is not a zero-sum game, you know that, right? Can you not talk about what you don't understand.

You do realize that the least effective form of spending your money is government. In particular the further away from you the worse it is. The federal government gets effectively 30% value for every dollar it spends. The rest is lost to fraud, pensions, and overpayed bureaucrats. State level is close to 60% so better and local is about 80%. The point is, at every step of the way your money is worth less and less due to the cost of government.

You know what is close to 100% in efficiency, private business and charities are right behind them.

Why would they care about how "qualified" she is? Nobody cared about that with Trump.

I'd also wager that her primary demographic is liberal millennials and zoomers whose only experience of American capitalism is getting fucked in the ass by depressed wages, inescapable student loan debt, unaffordable housing and delayed adulthood, unlike boomers who at least got the good stuff when they were young. The young will vote for anyone who says "I'm going to burn this shit to the ground."