I'm sorry, but I think there's an upper bound on necessary accumulated wealth.

This may also be the reason why the number of billionaires per country correlates so strongly with the population numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_numbe...

Those are the only two facts that should matter. The rest is just snark.

I think the point that exit-tax proponents are attempting to make is that the current social understanding of wealth is that wealth-holders tend to show that they are capable of efficiently allocating resources, so they should be able to continue to do so while they're still in the country, thus we tax them lower than we would if we could more efficiently use those resources. So think of it like a partial taxation or a conditional subsidy alongside a future promise of additional, likely greater, taxation from their future business dealings, job creations, &c.

Since they're leaving, the country is losing out any investment it assumed at an earlier date when deciding to tax less, so the country would effectively just be reclaiming a conditional subsidy.

This is one of the reasons exit tax has failed miserably around the world: it prevented good business people doing business in punitive countries in the first place.

You have to define the "good" in "good business people". If you are a global scale entrepreneur planning to start a business and looking for country with an educated workforce that has good infrastructure but you need to be able to take your gathered wealth when the business is mature (read you have an obscene amount of wealth) in order to find cheaper less educated workforce to keep up operations in order to generate more wealth for yourself. Then you are a "good" businessman only in the sense that you are good at maximizing your own pile of gold. Morally you are bankrupt. So what does a "punitive" country loose by not letting you reap the benefits of a "high taxes system" for your own personal gains?

What should he do, not sleep at night thinking about "the good of the company" to be a "good employee"?!

That's not what the article is talking about.

The truth here is that none of us are tax specialists in high government, we're all just speculating from a place of ignorance.

"Legally" is a vague term. What's legal today can become illegal tomorrow and vice versa. What is legal depends entirely on who gets to define and enforce the meaning of the term.

That enforcement can happen in two ways. Either because individuals acknowledge that the state holds a monopoly on violence in return for lawful order through a social contract, or individuals get effectively subjected to violence coming from a stronger individual or group of individuals.

> And yes, they already paid tax on said money in the country they earned them.

You're appealing to a principle of fairness. However, such principle only applies if those who get to define the rules are willing to accept and enforce that principle. Either because there's a large social consensus, or because enlightened despots are in power.

A universal principle of fairness does not exist.

Society at large isn't rational. It's a collective that spawns irrational, often conflicting views and beliefs. And the net result is, in the best of worlds, an uneasy compromise. If the large majority of a community feels that an exit tax is a fair principle, then that's something you will have to accept unless you find a way to convince people of the opposite view.

"Legal" is not a vague term. What is legal at the time the money was made is pretty clearly established (in the court of law, if necessary).

> That enforcement can happen in two ways.

The enforcement, under the Rule of Law, happens in only one way: through the state. If you don't believe in the Rule of Law, then all this discussion is pointless.

> You're appealing to a principle of fairness.

No, I am appealing to the principle of The Contract. Going back and changing the terms of a contract is illegal. Under the rule of law, of course.

Or how about the American Revolution which was literally a conflict about taxes? As far as the British Crown was concerned, sending an expeditionary force was all about enforcing the rule of law among rebellious subjects. And if the British had won, we would now consider a short-lived Congress just a bunch of irresponsible rebels.

How about the Civil War? Slave owners have balked for a long time over Abolition violating their rights; yet, today nobody in their right mind would consider slavery as something that should to be legalized once again.

What's "legal" or "illegal" has little to do with "The Contract" and everything with who gets to define the rules.

And why is "the country" in scare quotes.

> And why is "the country" in scare quotes.

Because it's not a "country" asking for this. It's politicians. Who make these kind of proposals for their own, selfish goals. Lately populists have managed to gain more and more support pretending what they propose is for the good of "the country" but in the end it's them who profit the most.

Politicians are, more or less, democratically elected in the US. A country is just a huge net of social relations, and those social relations express power in electing a representative. A country isn't going to express any preference because it's collectively imagined, and the closest we're currently capable of expressing the preferences of those who are apart of this imagination is through democracy. These politicians don't just pop out of thin air.

You also didn't address my point about the missing tax revenue on use of capital.

I don't pay income tax with my offshore family trust structure but it's legal and I pay sales tax when I spend - those are the only facts that matter the rest is unseemly.

My company doesn't pay tax but it's legal and I pay my employees and /they/ pay income tax - those are the only facts that matter and the rest is just snark.

Leave it out. Leave it right out. All the way out. Then and only then can it be discussed what constitutes good tax policy and what is trying to be achieved with that policy.

Billionaires whining about paying a legal tax that once paid leaves them with more money than they can possibly spend in their lifetimes and those of their children makes me want to spit on my hands, hoist the black flag and begin... - and /I/ tend toward libertarian.

It's difficult to fight tax evasion but rather important unless you want to give up on a system of taxation altogether, which has issues.

When you look at an entity with a large income and very little tax paid you know it's one or both of tax evasion and tax avoidance. Apple. Evasion or avoidance? Which is a fancy way of asking "Is what they're doing actually legal? I can't do that, why can they?" Trump doesn't pay tax because he inherited a billion dollars and thinks he's smart. I know a lot of people who really are /very/ smart, who didn't inherit a billion dollars who pay their tax. They can't decide not to like Trump did.

Rule of law. Equality before the law. Sure. Precisely. So what should the law be? What should the tax system be designed to achieve? What are the consequences of each particular trade-off you consider? Is there some new and better way worth considering or is it just hype to disaster?

And now we're at the starting point of a sensible discussion about tax policy.

When do you consider someone paid enough tax?

Shall we ask all politicians just in case they gain power and implement their own vision of taxation someday? Or is it safer to just give all earned money to the state just so we can sleep at night?

And if Warren or Sanders are elected, they are going to take some of that money...legally.

>they already paid tax on said money in the country they earned them.

From what I gather, "the country" doesn't believe it's enough.