689
submitted 10 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 256 points 10 months ago

I love that the main criticism is that this will cause the ultra wealthy to leave the state. That just seems like a reason to implement this nationwide rather than at the state level.

[-] Kalysta@lemmy.world 138 points 10 months ago

What, the people who buy elections are fleeing? Sign me up for that.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 73 points 10 months ago

I mean, an eroding tax base is a problem. I just think the solution is to drag them kicking and screaming to pay back into the system that enabled them to become so stinking rich rather than chasing them off/eating them. The Guillotine of the first French Republic sure did feel good until the reign of terror rolled in.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] doctorcrimson@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Technically the people who buy elections via Campaign Funding and Political Endorsement are almost never actually in the state they're buying the elections of. Reminds me of The Southern Strategy, when Republicans invested heavily in the south to stoke the flames after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

[-] swiftcasty@kbin.social 69 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I remember seeing this argument about billionaires and corporations leaving the US if they are taxed fairly at a national level. If that were the case then 1. The US wouldn’t lose out on revenue it wasn’t losing out on already, and 2. The “free market” or the government would adapt to fill the abandoned niche.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago

And anyplace worth living already has a higher tax rate anyway.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Besides we would all be better off if people like that left. Human happiness levels off around 110k per year, on average in the US. If there really are people who would give up all the things that make normal people happy just to add a marginal amount to their net worth, do we really want them?

We have all unfortunately met someone like this. Someone who cuts the line at an all you can eat buffet. All the food you could possibly want and they are angry that someone else might possibly get slightly more of something. And that isn't fair. Someone who has a fake job with almost no work and tries to find ways out of that even token tasks.

Let them leave.

[-] phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Source on the 110k number? Because I remember reading something about 75k not that long ago and inflation couldn’t have been that bad could it?

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Massachusetts was already relatively high tax, high cost of living

[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[-] JDubbleu@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

California. Highest taxes in the US, yet we generate 14.2% of the country's GDP despite being 11.7% of the population. We have an economy the size Germany (who has the world's 4th largest economy) with 46.4% the population.

People talk shit about the state, how awful it is, etc, and while we do have many problems we're doing pretty damn well all things considered. If we get housing and healthcare fixed (both active efforts by our government) we'll be in an amazing position as a state.

[-] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

California is weird like that. I've seen plenty of sentiments about California surviving standalone as its own nation.

Without doing any research, most of us assume the revenue and economy is based on key industries like tech, agriculture?

Would the states survive if it didn't have his current water supply for agriculture?

With the Exodus of some tech companies, what is that trend look like overall? If it continues, will the state still be in the same good shape?

I'm assuming the great weather has something to do with it?

[-] kksgandhi@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago

There are already places (in the U.S. and other countries entirely) with far, far lower taxes than MA. Why haven't rich people moved already?

[-] Djtecha@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago

Yea except I'm sure our federal government would just blow it on more missles and bullets. At least here it's doing good things like feeding kids.

[-] qbus@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Fun fact! Where do you think those missiles are designed? It's not all universities in Boston.

[-] crackajack@reddthat.com 11 points 10 months ago

It did happen to New Jersey, Norway and France. Rich people leave when you tax them. I'm not arguing against the law, but to prevent "flight of the rich", the law has to be applied universally. Or if that can't happen, do what Norway did, tax wealth flight.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I’ve read studies that indicate the tax flight from NJ wasn’t as bad as people made it out to be as net tax revenue still increased and that some of the migration can be attributed to factors other than the tax increase. Still, I agree a blanket tax on the rich is ideal.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Even if it's not implemented nation wide, there's the implication that the state is losing something by these people leaving. I suspect they're contributing little by being there though.

[-] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

I mean, if they leave, that tax revenue drops, meaning the goodies you gained may have to be dropped. The concern is whether it is sustainable long term

[-] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

What tax revenue drops? Before the change they weren't paying the additional tax, and now they aren't paying it if they leave, so nothing is lost on that account. The state loses whatever taxes they were paying originally; given that they're annoyed enough to leave over an increase that suggests that they were already finding ways to minimize their tax payments. Thus, by them leaving, the state is likely losing a small amount of revenue. Given that each person has a cost to the state, the net effect will be even smaller.

Surely there's a point at which taxes drive away enough people that it doesn't work, but it's clearly not the case for this particular implementation.

[-] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago

I don't know what the tax bracket earning for this scenario is. I wonder what the difference is between the extra money a person earning a million dollars a year would be under this new tax guideline, versus the amount they were paying before. Now what's the difference if they leave in state revenue?

[-] jnplch@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

Even that fear is not really supported by data, according to Cristobal Young’s The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago
[-] Mamertine@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

What are you trying to show?

You didn't have to make $1,000,000 per year to buy a $600,000 house.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

That the median house price in MA is 38% higher than the median US house price, suggesting that the wealthy aren’t fucking off.

this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
689 points (99.4% liked)

News

23376 readers
2943 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS