When you’ve gotta go, you’ve gotta go! Checkout this packable toilet that can be set up anywhere
PepperLM: Wealth is transportable. Tax havens exist with no taxes (Monaco or Caymans), or low taxes (isle of Man and Andorra) are examples, and some that offer “economic citizenship” that do not require living in the country (St Kitts and Nevis). In addition, if corporate taxes are increased, “tax inversions” will likely start up AGAIN as they did during 2000-2016–moving corporate HQ to other countries in order to decrease taxes. History and actual results of relatively higher taxes demonstrate wealth and higher income will move their wealth and income to lower taxing jurisdictions, where possible. A second, more likely, scenario is that anyone subjected to a wealth tax will hire the best tax planners and appraisers to reduce their tax exposure. A significant portion of wealth does not have an objective, easily determined value—so there will be obstacles to getting any valuation. Again, history shows that of all the countries that have attempted wealth taxes or relatively higher taxes, end up collecting far less that projected, have great difficulty in collecting the higher taxes, experience “wealth flight”, and eventually abandon the wealth tax. As an example, proponents point to the very high tax rates on high income taxpayers in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s—but neglect to also point out the huge tax reduction options ALSO included in the IRS regulations during that period—such as how depreciation was calculated. During the late 1950s the rates in the USA were seen as reducing the economic output of the USA economy. As a result, in the 1960s, President Kennedy launched a huge tax cut that was enacted and signed into law by his successor, President Johnson. This tax cut was widely credited with boosting the USA economy. However, the tax planning tools remained in the tax code, and President Jouhnson was advised that 155 “rich taxpayer” paid zero federal income tax—and that led to the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT was supposed to capture additional taxes from high income taxpayers only—but eventually led to many middle income taxpayers being subjected to AMT. AMT is but one example of how the USA government attempts to deal with taxpayers who legally reduce their federal income tax—and end up punishing groups of taxpayers who are not wealthy or high income. With the repeated failures of governments to raise taxes above competing countries, to actually collect additional taxes in an amount approaching forecasts, to legislate closure of loopholes and not have punitive effects in the middle class, and to experience “wealth flight”, why do proponents believe it will successfully work “this time”?