The "more effectively" part is important here. Plenty of people will happily vote for increased corporation tax here in the UK to stick it to those evil billionaires and just end up ruining small businesses in the process (while of course the likes of Amazon, Google and Starbucks carry on paying essentially nothing).

So what's the problem with taxing them for egregiously more but ineffectively? What if we kept the current effectiveness but imposed, say, a 120% rate on the ultra-wealthy? Maybe they would end up needing to pay 40% of this but at least it would be a lot better than we are doing now.

Let's say you started out with a 3% effective tax and a 30% ineffective tax. Would adding that 120% be effective or ineffective? If effective it would break their backs, and if ineffective it would kill whatever small businesses couldn't employ the dodge.

If you look at countries with generous social programs, the tax rates for the middle class are very high. Like 50%.

Why? Sure the rich have a lot of money, but there aren’t that many of them.

They would just renounce their US citizenship and move to a country with lower taxes. That’s what Eduardo Saverin did.

They didn't do that in the 1950s, though.

It does address an important point, though: should you pay tax based on where you live, or on where your income comes from? Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc. For foreign companies to profit from that healthy market but not pay taxes there, seems wrong. Similarly, for people to work in a healthy labour market but not pay taxes there seems equally wrong. These things result in a race to bottom to attract rich people and corporations that make their money elsewhere.

Instead, I think it would be better if income and profit were taxed more based on where it comes from, making tax havens irrelevant. But I have no idea how practical that is.

> They didn't do that in the 1950s, though.

In the 1950s there weren't any alternatives to the US. Europe and Asia were rebuilding from WWII. Central and South America weren't nearly as developed as today. Places like Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea were extremely poor. The english language wasn't as popular internationally. Intercontinental communication was expensive and low bandwidth. Travel was much more expensive. These communication and travel costs made investing in foreign ventures was a very risky endeavor. Nowadays, it costs nothing to video chat with people on the opposite side of the planet. And foreign investments are no longer the crapshoot that they used to be.

It's much, much easier to live and work in a foreign country today. And it's only getting easier as technology improves.

> Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc.

Do they? I find that most people are successful despite governments, not because of them. For example: One of the schools I went to as a child was structurally condemned while I attended it. The water wasn't fluoridated, so my parents had to pay for fluoride pills to protect my teeth. I don't feel beholden to the government I live under anymore than I feel beholden to my employer. My employer has taught me valuable skills, invested in equipment, training, and pays for health care. Does that mean I should pay dividends to them after I leave? I don't think so.

> It's much, much easier to live and work in a foreign country today. And it's only getting easier as technology improves.

So let the current oligarchs exile themselves and we'll do what we can to make sure no more Bezos are created again.

I wonder if your school situation has to do how schools are funded in the United States in particular. It sounds like your school needs more tax money from richer parts of the country then where you grew up.

>> Governments invest a lot in their country, their citizens, education, a healthy market, etc. > Do they?

They absolutely do. What I've seen of other countries's welfare states is grand.

> I find that most people are successful despite governments, not because of them.

Universal Healthcare. Universal shelter. Public transportation. Environmental protection. Welfare. Universal Education. Massive wealth redistribution. Markets. Most rich countries do these things with the government and are better for it. Huge numbers of Americans are not successful because this country lacks these things, and is actively prevented from having them.

But I want more Bezos, Gates, Buffets, and Musks, not fewer.

They personally are not great people, but the system that has enabled them to hoard personal wealth and leave the streets full of the destitute will be destroyed.

The most important thing, of course, is to eliminate poverty and protect the planet. The next most important thing is destroy oligarch’s power so they don’t continue to jeopardize the most important things. And, practically in a scarcity economy, capture their mis allocated resources for better ends.

Wanting more wealth hoarded by the few is not a good thing to want.

Still, you went to school. Would your school situation have been better if the government didn't provide schools? If the schools are lacking, shouldn't the government provide better schools?

Similarly, roads to get to school, law enforcement keeping the place fairly safe, rather than overrun by roving warlord bands, food standards that ensure corporations aren't selling you poison. I think living is generally better in countries where the government takes good care of these sort of things.

Although I suppose in lawless countries, rich people could just become their own warlord and hire their own army.

About 30% tax haircut (on assets) if you renounce citizenship and try to repatriate money.

yeah, but there's no way he's not gray/blacklisted from entry on his new passport with that sort of outstanding tax bill.

Money is nearly always enough to get someone through an immigration system. Even if immigrant X did avoid taxes at home and can be relied upon to do the same, the wealth they're bringing over will typically end up benefiting the new country's economy somehow. Canada's made a strategy of exactly this.

The existing ultra-wealthy are one problem, and tricky.

Systemically preventing oligarchs and aristocrats from arising in the future is another.

Some might, but some are older and have roots in family ties and local ties. It is actually pretty hard and not especially desirable for many to abandon friends and family to save a money that is only to buy even more luxuries/see a bigger number in an account somewhere.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax. The top 20% of earners pay 80% of taxes.

This stat is disingenuous when used out of context. The bottom 45% still pay SS/payroll taxes, which is quite regressive due to the $127k cap. When you consider that along with consumption and property taxes, their effective rate of taxation is still moderate.

There has never been a society wherein the most productive do not bear the majority of the costs. This is simply due to necessity; nothing else is possible.

At the least they also have the most say in how society is run, given money is the deciding factor in electoral politics such as ours. Were sortition or some other noncorrupt means of choosing rulers used, this would actually be an unfair arrangement. I suspect this is why oligarchy such as ours is so popular; it recognizes the reality of elites while creating the illusion of popular legitimacy.

That's not a useful thing to add to the conversation without the context of how much income is going to those two different groups of income earners. Some might even say it is purposefully misleading.

But then the government would have less money. What could be more important than the govt having more money?