Lets test the theory - eviltoast
  • hellofriend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    What’s stopping the wealthy from just up and leaving? They could liquidate their assets and invest in somewhere with tax laws more favourable to them.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Liquidate to who? Are those assets things they can take with them, or are they things like buildings that stay right where they are?

      • hellofriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Anyone who would buy. Unless you’re sentimentally attached to something then I doubt you’d have a difficult time selling it. Billionaires own property as investment, not for use. Just sell it to another billionaire and buy property in a country more favourable to you. As for things like cars, collections, yachts, and other such mobile assets, just stick them on a container ship and unpack at your destination.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          But then there has to be at least one billionaire who is staying right there, and can be taxed.

          • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah that sounds awesome let’s divide those 200 billions into 333 million people and let’s get a whooping one time only 600 USD extra for the month. Then let’s repeat it again.

            It sure will last foreverrrrrrrrr

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              First of all 200 billion is chump change compared to how much the wealthy have. Second, spreading money would do far more to stimulate the economy than wealthy people buying yachts, flying into space, and visiting the Titanic.

              I am sure if you removed your mouth from the wealthy’s cocks for a moment you would realize how fucked up the situation is. But I know you will just suck it foreverrrrrrrrrrr hoping they will gild you into their club.

              • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Stimulate the economy LMAO 🤣

                Bro just admit you don’t know shit about how money works and leave it at that haha

                • boonhet@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The money would be spent on necessary goods and services, allowing more companies to hire more people because their income rises. That’s how capitalism works (when it works) and is why the rich suddenly poop their pants when people stop consuming.

                  The entire thing is a house of cards, but if you remove excess weight at the top and put it at the bottom, it’s at least a bit more stable.

    • Skydancer@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The fact that you already confiscated them. Since we’re talking hypotheticals though, you could confiscate those assets at the border. Or set up international treaties with a look-back provision.

      • hellofriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        See, what I don’t like about this is that if you have the power to confiscate a billionaire’s possessions for no other reason that they’re a billionaire, then there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from turning that power against anyone you don’t like. And I’m not talking “you” as in you specifically, or anyone with a sense of morality and ethics, but “you” as in the inevitable exploitative scum that would at some point hold that power.

        Now, if the confiscation is contingent on a billionaire commiting a crime then that’s another thing, but then the billionaire would actually have to commit a crime. And if you made tax law ironclad then sure, if they break the law then they should have their things confiscated in recompense. But that’s assuming that the trial wouldn’t be bogged down in court by a billionaire being able to throw money at the problem.

        • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          you have the power to confiscate a billionaire’s possessions for no other reason that they’re a billionaire, then there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from turning that power against anyone you don’t like.

          This is already how it is for poor people…

          contingent on a billionaire commiting a crime

          Weird how so many crimes are the things poor people do out of desperation rather than the things rich people do to coerce poor people to do the things poor people don’t want to do…

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          You seem to be under the assumptions that hoarding vast wealth to the point of extreme inequality is benign and not damaging to society & individuals living in that type of civilization, and that limiting extreme wealth inequality for billionaires means they’re coming for everyone next with no limits. These are some of the main ingredients in cooking an oligarchy soup.

          • hellofriend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, I’m well aware that it’s damaging and I’m not a proponent of the system. You would do well not to make assumptions. My problem is that the people that take power are rarely the ones who will use it with temperance. I see no way that the same laws used to penalize the accumulation of wealth wouldn’t be applied to dissidents regardless of class. Rather than having an oligarchy of private citizens, you’ll have an oligarchy of people with government powers. At least in the current system there’s a degree of separation. What’s needed is a way to strengthen the people, not to punish the wealthy. And I have some ideas for that, but I doubt any would be feasible.