1. Wealth-tax being ameliorated by growth will in principle make it negligible. Except for the one case when someone is down on his luck and losing money, i.e. the only case in which one really wants financial security, so it removes the very important "feeling" that people have about making money of "once I have this I will be secure" (of course, that feeling is fake, but many people get into the rat race for just that security high)
2. Wealth tax as a mechanism, to my naive understanding of economics, already exists via inflation and dividends/CGT. Since any significant amount of wealth is likely producing more wealth, quite a lot probably, 2-4-8-20-200% a year, taxes somewhere between 10 and 40%, that's a lot more than a wealth tax.
I think those 2 points alone are enough to argue against a wealth tax, but
3. Living and paying taxes in the US seems like a status symbol to me or a socio-cultural decision. It gets you a weak passport, a beyond 3rd world probability of being drafted, insanely high taxes with criminal charges for getting them wrong, no public services besides some roads (tbh, the roads are nice) ... oh, a government that hounds you for money even if you leave unless you wait 1 year and pay an administrative fee and potentially a divorce tax, then it will leave you alone (maybe).
On the other hand Andora, Malta, Romania, Montenegro, Bulgaira, Georiga and various Swiss Cantons are winking at you and offering:
* Taxes between 0-25% depending on profession and income levels
* De-facto (and in some cases de jure, arugably) it's no a crime (you can be fined, but not imprisoned or killed) to mess up your taxes
* Double taxation treaties with basically all countries imaginable (except the US)
(Some `*` don't apply to 1 or 2 places, e.g. low tax Swiss cantons and Lichtenstein are expensive in terms of housing)
I've tried to convince people making low 6 figures in the US (in remote-friendly jobs) to renounce its cruel taxes and come live in <the rest of the world> like literal kings, yet for some reason they prefer allocating 140k as: 70k tax, 20k insurances, 30k tiny metal cage in skyscraper, 20k takeout.
And I've failed to convince a-single-person. So I for one have come to disagree with the idea that people take any rational actions in regards to their tax environment, I'm sure you can make or break a society with taxes, but I think the process is much more subtle and I doubt anyone understands it.
Yeah it's a hard nut to convince folks to leave, even very rich folks. There's something intangible that holds value!
And I'm not for the tax very strongly or anything, but the inflation argument is actually a strong one in favour. For me, just that I'm in favour of trying more experiments. Ideally simpler ones :)
I disagree with the statement that it's a hard nut to convince very rich folks to leave. They are, in fact, the most mobile citizens because they have the time and wealth to do it. Look back over United States Taxation and see how much the wealthy generally protect their income from taxation (throughout history) and you will see they are already doing that. And that is for income, not Wealth.
A second consideration is a psychological one on 2 fronts:
1. Instituting a wealth tax takes every individual from an owner of property to a leaser of property with the government the ultimate owner.
2. Once the government breaks the barrier to instituting a wealth tax of any sort, the barrier to doing so will always be gone. Governments, over time, always increase their taxation. Break this final barrier and the right to private property ownership immediately becomes an endangered species. All other individual liberty quickly fall behind it.
The risk of that outcome is so catastrophic for liberty, that I cannot imagine anyone who intends the country to remain "free" would seriously entertain it.
Few notes:
1. Wealth-tax being ameliorated by growth will in principle make it negligible. Except for the one case when someone is down on his luck and losing money, i.e. the only case in which one really wants financial security, so it removes the very important "feeling" that people have about making money of "once I have this I will be secure" (of course, that feeling is fake, but many people get into the rat race for just that security high)
2. Wealth tax as a mechanism, to my naive understanding of economics, already exists via inflation and dividends/CGT. Since any significant amount of wealth is likely producing more wealth, quite a lot probably, 2-4-8-20-200% a year, taxes somewhere between 10 and 40%, that's a lot more than a wealth tax.
I think those 2 points alone are enough to argue against a wealth tax, but
3. Living and paying taxes in the US seems like a status symbol to me or a socio-cultural decision. It gets you a weak passport, a beyond 3rd world probability of being drafted, insanely high taxes with criminal charges for getting them wrong, no public services besides some roads (tbh, the roads are nice) ... oh, a government that hounds you for money even if you leave unless you wait 1 year and pay an administrative fee and potentially a divorce tax, then it will leave you alone (maybe).
On the other hand Andora, Malta, Romania, Montenegro, Bulgaira, Georiga and various Swiss Cantons are winking at you and offering:
* Taxes between 0-25% depending on profession and income levels
* Socialized everything (healthcare, pension, dentistry)
* Cheap (relative to US cities) housing
* Very strong passports
* De-facto (and in some cases de jure, arugably) it's no a crime (you can be fined, but not imprisoned or killed) to mess up your taxes
* Double taxation treaties with basically all countries imaginable (except the US)
(Some `*` don't apply to 1 or 2 places, e.g. low tax Swiss cantons and Lichtenstein are expensive in terms of housing)
I've tried to convince people making low 6 figures in the US (in remote-friendly jobs) to renounce its cruel taxes and come live in <the rest of the world> like literal kings, yet for some reason they prefer allocating 140k as: 70k tax, 20k insurances, 30k tiny metal cage in skyscraper, 20k takeout.
And I've failed to convince a-single-person. So I for one have come to disagree with the idea that people take any rational actions in regards to their tax environment, I'm sure you can make or break a society with taxes, but I think the process is much more subtle and I doubt anyone understands it.
Yeah it's a hard nut to convince folks to leave, even very rich folks. There's something intangible that holds value!
And I'm not for the tax very strongly or anything, but the inflation argument is actually a strong one in favour. For me, just that I'm in favour of trying more experiments. Ideally simpler ones :)
I disagree with the statement that it's a hard nut to convince very rich folks to leave. They are, in fact, the most mobile citizens because they have the time and wealth to do it. Look back over United States Taxation and see how much the wealthy generally protect their income from taxation (throughout history) and you will see they are already doing that. And that is for income, not Wealth.
A second consideration is a psychological one on 2 fronts:
1. Instituting a wealth tax takes every individual from an owner of property to a leaser of property with the government the ultimate owner.
2. Once the government breaks the barrier to instituting a wealth tax of any sort, the barrier to doing so will always be gone. Governments, over time, always increase their taxation. Break this final barrier and the right to private property ownership immediately becomes an endangered species. All other individual liberty quickly fall behind it.
The risk of that outcome is so catastrophic for liberty, that I cannot imagine anyone who intends the country to remain "free" would seriously entertain it.