TAX THE RICH!!! GOOD OR BAD??

[reo]

1 hour ago, Titandan said:

I think the real question if we increase taxes for the super rich and the corporations is, "what will the super rich and corporations do if we increase taxes on them?" 

 

I believe a lot of them will relocate their businesses to more tax friendly countries and they themselves will move out of the area. 

 

The idea that “they’ll all relocate” isn’t really supported by the research.

 

In the U.S., a Stanford study that analyzed IRS data covering 45 million taxpayers (1999–2011) found that millionaire migration rates are about 2–3% per year, and taxes had very little effect on whether they moved. The estimated migration elasticity was around 0.1–0.3, meaning a 10% increase in tax rates would shrink the high-income tax base by roughly 1–3%, mostly from income shifting,  not people physically leaving.

 

We also have real-world state comparisons. California has had a 13%+ top marginal rate for years, while Texas has 0% state income tax. If tax flight were dominant, California should have emptied out. Instead, it still has the largest concentration of millionaires in the country, and IRS data shows only modest net outflows relative to its high-income population.

 

On the corporate side, the 2017 federal corporate tax cut (35% to 21%) was supposed to trigger massive domestic investment and reshoring. Instead, most of the gains went to stock buybacks, and there was no large-scale relocation wave in reverse. That suggests taxes are only one factor among many,  market access, infrastructure, workforce, and legal stability matter more.

 

There can be some movement at the margins, but the data does not support the claim that raising taxes on the rich or corporations leads to mass relocation. The empirical evidence shows modest behavioral responses, not an exodus.

 

If their market is in New York then that's where the market is. They're not going to pick up their business and move it out of the country, at great cost, just b/c you increased their taxes. They'd have to recreate their entire business and possibly even try to recreate an entire market. If you've got a business selling lumber, you go where the buyers are.

In short, once again, you're falling for  bullshit propaganda and misinformation. 

Edited February 22 by reo

[Callidus]

17 hours ago, nine said:

The entire “Make America Great Again” mantra is clearly stating that America is no longer a great country and that we must restore it to greatness…. which presumably refers to the post-WWII era when the United States established itself as the world’s preeminent military superpower and a giant of science, education, and industry. 

If this is in fact the era of American history that MAGA admires and wishes to emulate… then perhaps we should consider re- instituting the tax structure from that era, which is what made such growth possible in the first place.  

90% top tax bracket for people and 50%+ tax on large corporations with none of the ill effects they claim. Compare that with a corporate tax rate of 21% with less than 5% being paid by lots of these companies today. 37% in the highest income tax bracket which again, almost no1 pays because of loopholes and its a joke. 

[ctm]

MAGA is political code for going back to the 50's when people of color and women didn't have rights and white men ran every thing as they wished.

[IsntLifeFunny]

18 minutes ago, ctm said:

MAGA is political code for going back to the 50's when people of color and women didn't have rights and white men ran every thing as they wished.

Whoever said the economic style is more late 1800s is correct. They're taking us back into a mercantilist era. And white people did those things during that timeframe too lol. 

[nine]

It’s common sense that corporations  maintain operations in the areas where their business is located.
 

The United States is the world’s largest  consumer economy by a very wide margin and is likely the single largest market for most large corporations.  The idea that corporations would move operations out of their biggest and most lucrative market in droves just because the corporate tax rate increased by a few points makes zero sense.  

[9 Nines]

31 minutes ago, nine said:

It’s common sense that corporations  maintain operations in the areas where their business is located.
 

The United States is the world’s largest  consumer economy by a very wide margin and is likely the single largest market for most large corporations.  The idea that corporations would move operations out of their biggest and most lucrative market in droves just because the corporate tax rate increased by a few points makes zero sense.  

I think other 1st world countries, more direct with voters in parliamentary systems, would establish world minimums so that none are drastically lower.  Then companies can either stay in first world and be taxed accordingly or go to third world countries and become that. 

[OILERMAN]

22 minutes ago, Titandan said:

 my mom has dementia

 

It's all starting to make sense

 

Most dementia cases are not directly inherited, but genetics can influence your risk. While having a close relative with dementia—especially Alzheimer's—can double your risk

[reo]

26 minutes ago, Titandan said:

I am personally planning on moving in the next 5-10 years.  

I am by no means anywhere close to being a billionaire so I do not have the geographic mobility some of the super wealthy do.  The thing that's tying me down currently is my family (dad wants to stay in the area for at least 2 years and my mom has dementia so I feel obligated to stay near her in case of emergency).  Most likely, I will move to Orange County or move up to Washington/Oregon border where my sister's family reside.  The second thing that's holding me back is my business being down here.  As soon as mortgage interest rates hit anywhere near 3-4%, I'll sell everything and move my portfolio to a less restrictive and more tax friendly state.   

I personally don't see myself being tied down to California for the next decade. 

The super wealthy ($100 millionaire +) might be fine living in LA or NYC but I'm sure most of them also have the ability to store their money in tax havens. 

 

The problem with increased tax rates based on earnings is that it may de-incentivize people from earning more money or it will cause for people to look for loopholes such as receiving company shares instead of a salary.  Then why don't we tax unrealized gains?  If you want to tax people on their unrealized gains from their assets and they don't happen to have cash, they will have no choice but to sell these assets in order to pay the unrealized gains.  

For example, if a person owns a home.  He is able to pay his mortgage, insurance, utility, HOA, and property taxes.  However, after all his living expenses are paid, he is barely able to make a living and saves next to nothing.  If he has to pay unrealized gains on that home, he'll have to fork out another estimated 20% on the 4% appreciation of the home's value on an annual basis.  If the house is $750,000, an annual appreciation of 4% would be $30,000.  20% of the $30,000 would be an extra $6,000 tax burden based on the appreciation of the home.  Many middle class home owners might have no choice but to sell their property at that point.  

If unrealized gains are taxed in the future, I'll definitely sell all my properties, move to a tax friendly state, and never look back. But that's just me. 

 

I respect that you might personally move. People relocate for lots of reasons. But that’s different from claiming tax increases cause large-scale economic flight.

 

On the data side, we already have evidence from high-tax states like California and New York. Despite top state rates over 10–13% for years, they still contain the largest concentrations of high-income earners in the country. IRS migration data shows annual millionaire migration rates around 2–3%, and studies estimate tax sensitivity is modest... roughly a 1–3% reduction in the high-income tax base for a 10% tax increase, mostly from income shifting, not mass relocation.

 

On unrealized gains, the proposals that have been discussed at the federal level apply only to extremely high net worth households (typically $100M+), not middle-class homeowners. There has not been any serious proposal to tax annual appreciation on primary residences for regular households. So the $750k home example wouldn’t apply under current policy discussions.

 

As for corporations, when the federal corporate rate dropped from 35% to 21% in 2017, we didn’t see a massive reshoring wave... most gains went to stock buybacks. That suggests taxes are only one factor. Market size, infrastructure, workforce, and legal stability matter more for large firms.

 

There can be behavioral responses at the margins, sure. But the empirical record doesn’t show the kind of broad exodus that’s often predicted. It shows limited mobility and moderate tax-base effects, not collapse.

[OILERMAN]

1 minute ago, Titandan said:

It's a pretty sad situation regarding someone I love so I'd appreciate your consideration on this.  

 

I'll show my usual care

[OILERMAN]

 

[reo]

3 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Some major companies have already left California due to overtaxing and overregulation.

Some recent departures are Tesla, Oracle, Chevron, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Charles Schwab, Palantir, Twitter (X), SpaceX, In N Out, and Toyota Motor North America.  These are pretty big players. 

I think observing the various states and the migration of businesses is a micro-indicator of what potentially can happen on a national scale.  Of course it's easier to relocate to a different state within America than it is to set up shop in a totally different country.  But I think it's entirely possible that that can happen as well if taxes are really out of hand.  

Or these corps will just use the loop holes or discover new ones to exploit. 

 

 

First, “headquarters relocation” is often legal or executive-level, not operational. Tesla moved its HQ to Texas, but the Fremont factory is still in California and remains one of its largest production facilities. Chevron moved its HQ, but it still has thousands of employees and major operations in California. Oracle moved its HQ, yet much of its workforce remained. These moves don’t equal pulling up core infrastructure. It's mostly political posturing b/c their owners are big Trump supporters. They can say "we moved out of California" but then... they don't really do it. 

 

Second, California’s economy hasn’t shrunk in response. It remains the largest state economy in the U.S. (~$3.8 trillion GDP) and would rank around 5th in the world if it were a country. Venture capital investment is still disproportionately concentrated there. That’s not what widespread corporate flight looks like.

 

Third, net business formation data doesn’t show an exodus. The Census Bureau’s Business Formation Statistics show California consistently ranks near the top in new business applications annually... typically hundreds of thousands per year. If over-taxation were driving systemic collapse, you’d expect sustained negative business formation and investment trends. That hasn’t happened.

 

At the national level, when the federal corporate tax rate dropped from 35% to 21% in 2017, we didn’t see a major reshoring wave or dramatic relocation shift back to the U.S. Instead, stock buybacks surged. That suggests taxes are one variable among many... market access, workforce talent, infrastructure, and capital ecosystems matter more.

 

Do companies respond to tax differences at the margins? Yes. Do some relocate executive addresses? Yes. But the macro data doesn’t show mass disinvestment or economic hollowing tied directly to top tax rates.

 

The evidence points to moderate behavioral adjustments but not large-scale economic abandonment.

[Strunk'sDessert]

2 hours ago, Titandan said:

My mom's the first person in my family that has had any symptoms (paired with Parkinson's Disease) and I'm pretty sure what some of the causes were.  Retirement from a volunteer position at church, shame, depression, and hopelessness. 

It's a pretty sad situation regarding someone I love so I'd appreciate your consideration on this.  

 

As someone that recently lost a parent to this horrendous disease...

 

She was obviously a worthless cunt if for nothing else than popping you out. 

 

I appreciate your attention to this matter. 

Edited February 23 by Strunk'sDessert

[Strunk'sDessert]

12 minutes ago, Titandan said:

 

Hope your parent is in a better place.  Love you, buddy

 

They're not, nor is your mother. 

[Callidus]

6 hours ago, nine said:

It’s common sense that corporations  maintain operations in the areas where their business is located.
 

The United States is the world’s largest  consumer economy by a very wide margin and is likely the single largest market for most large corporations.  The idea that corporations would move operations out of their biggest and most lucrative market in droves just because the corporate tax rate increased by a few points makes zero sense.  

You can also tell them if they move over seas they cant do buissness here. Loosing out on the vast consumption of america would be a disaster no tax rate could save them from. 

[OzTitan]