- just put a tax on leaving, duh
https://sfba.social/@drahardja/115841080357294931
They will buy the media, undermine your democracy and institute fascism if you tax them.
They will also do that if you don't tax them.
Looks like they’ve already done most of that tbh
That's how we know!
Heard this weird comment on the radio the other day: "We can't tax the rich because they are the best milk-cows in our stable." Mate if you can't get milk from a cow it's hardly the best one in your stable.
If they don't eat the meat and they don't drink the milk, why keep them around?
They're not the cows, they're the ranch owners.
Can't bite the hand that feeds, they might feed us one of these days!
My country (Norway) saw a lot of rich people moving to Switzerland because of more advantageous tax rules, so we actually did implement an “exit tax”!
To the surprise of no one, the rich people will not stop whining about it.
germany has a rule like that also, but people pretend like it doesn't exist and rich people would leave if we tax them
Norway is awesome. I really admire your country
We’ve, as most of the world, been drifting right for a few decades unfortunately. The tax I mentioned was one of the main issues in last year’s election even though it affects nearly no one. That’s a sign of a small group gaining control of public discourse, which is not great…
“Billionaires will leave if you tax them.”
They aren’t paying enough to begin with as an overall percentage of the state’s tax, so what’s the difference if they leave?
I think the underlying threat is that they'll bring their industry with them.
Then... Outlaw that? Like, the government can simply say "no, and if you so much as make a move, your entire company gets nationalized"
It's simpler than that. There's other rich people who'd gladly buy a ready to roll production facility, there'd be no real loss. But in reality they won't leave, there's still money to be made.
But why sell it to other rich people at all? Just keep the business collectively
That's just how it would currently work.
Outlaw a company shutting down operations in a country?
Literally yes, outlaw a company moving to another country
How? The company isn't operating within the jurisdiction of the original country anymore.
Cool, that's the directives, the workers haven't left. Nationalize all their possessions, bank accounts, and enjail everyone involved in the process.
If you tax them enough they won’t be billionaires anymore, so billionaires really wouldn’t leave.
I like your thinking.
We wouldn't need to. They have no survival skills. They survive by leeching off the rest of us. If we isolated them from us, they'd be dead inside of a year.
Supplying them with enough narcotics and at least half of them would take themselves out.
https://www.angryflower.com/348.html
What is the downside?
Option 1) Billionaires and no tax revenue from billionaires.
Option 2) Lower housing prices because no billionaires and no tax revenues from billionaires.
Chuck em out the window and there's a thousand people behind them willing and able to take their place.
So don't close the window
Billionaires pay taxes? Is this new?
They don't pay their share and they don't keep their money where they live anyway, so leave and hopefully die on the way to Dubai or whatever tax haven you decide to go, billionaire piece of shit
Putting a tax on billionaires leaving is actually a brilliant idea...
- Consistent: they made that wealth, in your country, so by the same principles of income tax, VAT, or corporation tax, we know the government believes it deserves a cut. All that money they take wth them is money the government was intending to dip into slowly over the course of 10 years or so.
- Targets a Loophole: Billionaires are of course uniquely positioned to relocate on a whim - normal people and even many millionaires will not be able to do this, as they can't change jobs on the fly, get someone else to sell their house for them, remotely buy a house in another country.
- Motivates them to be better: the taxation of billionaires is ultimately about increasing the complexity of the system until they're left with no choice but to be useful. But first we have to weather the storm of them trying to bribe the government not to tax them, before we can get there.
As stated in this post, this exists in several countries: Germany, Norway...
So basically the governments of the uk and usa are always like 'ah we can't tax the rich because they'll run away and then we'll go from 10% tax effectiveness to 0%, when countries of a similar developememt level are already doing it and doing fine?
Apparently the US also has it (and I just read in a different 2025 article that the vast majority of expatriates do not have to pay it because they're not rich enough).
They'll leave, but still own their property.
Property is very taxable!
Tax the property. Tax it so high they have to sell it, creating a greater supply of property which then reduces the price of property and the cost of living. Economics 101
But price go down = abject failure. Economics 201
Eminent domain it and use it to house the poor.
Or, you know, throw them in jail and expropriate everything they own?
Honestly if they’re not paying for anything in the community anyway why do we care whether or not they stay?
I’m tired of 0.1% courting and worshipping that people do.
I could not agree more. These are people who have taken greed and hoarding of wealth well into the realm of mental illness, and we are supposed to admire them!
Massachusetts implemented a 4% millionaire tax in 2022 and a small capital gains tax. The results?
- extra $3b in tax revenue, extra $1.3b with the capital gains changed.
- passed a $2.5 billion infrastructure & education bill
- millionaires in Massachusetts actually grew because of the economic expansion
- collective wealth of the people in the state went up by 40% two years after it passed
It's proven that it works. We just need policies that benefit people and not just the rich.
Some of the sources:
https://www.axios.com/local/boston/2025/04/29/millionaires-massachusetts-income-surtax-increase
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/politics/data-shows-mass-is-home-to-more-millionaires-despite-new-surtax-according-to-advocates/3698430/
But then how will Musk et al ever become trillionaires if they are taxed accordingly? /s
- Billionaires and millionaires want to live in safe places. Guess where it is safe? Where the general public has a good relative wealth. Guess what taxes causes...
I already bought it, you don't need to keep selling it to me.
Why would they leave? This system has made them billionaires. Even if it costs them a little bit more, this system STILL generates billions in revenue. They won't find a friendlier attitude anywhere else on the planet. If they could, they'd be there.
They never leave. China won't let them get that rich because they're not part of the party, Europe is many smaller markets with various regulations that make it less profitable. South America and Africa are both risky and difficult.
Tax em till all kids have enough to eat and get great educations.
Worth remembering: the “they’ll leave” line gets used for any reform—so it’s healthier to ask for data and design policy around outcomes, not threats.
Good riddance. The perfect analogy is removing a brain cancer.
I think it's a terrible idea to put a tax on leaving the country, however I think forcing people who leave to revoke their own citizenship permanently would work even better
Too long.
- They usually don't
- Put a punitive tax above the local equivalent of too much
- What billionaires?
Aka the great compression method. Worked great at the time, would work again. Does not even require great changes like forms of socialism do.
5 - You’re running cover for pedophiles when you say this.
That would be unconstitutional. Violation of freedom of movement.
No one is stopping them from moving, just pay the taxes they owe.
Care to share concerned country, which constitution and applicable period if not the current one and relevant paragraphs?
Yeah except don't put a tax on them leaving. That amounts to holding them hostage, and will eventually be used as an excuse to apply the tax to everyday people, limiting their mobility (and also their ability to leave the country if it goes rogue). Just let them leave if they really want to.
why would the tax be applied to everyday people, that's a logical leap
It's already the case in the US. Expatriation costs a couple thousand, and for all practical intents and purposes even more since the IRS then checks every last detail of the last five years of your tax returns looking for any reason to fine you (sometimes "accidentally" making mistakes themselves and hoping you pay the fine anyway), so you're going to want to hire an accountant and/or a tax lawyer to ensure you don't get fucked. This applies to anyone renouncing their citizenship regardless of wealth (or, that is, until a certain level of wealth, after which you're thoroughly fucked if you want to leave the US - and we're not talking billionaire level wealth here, far from it).
I don't understand the argument here. We have a version of this rule that we don't like, so let's not implement a different version that we do like?
Because of what it fundamentally means. If we accept that it's OK to take away the rights (in this case the right to leave the country) of the ultra wealthy and powerful, it's only a matter of time until the argument is turned around to target those who have less power. Precedents are a thing, after all.
The point is, let's not take anyone's rights. Let's start by ensuring that tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy are eliminated, then increase the taxes on top earners if the financial situation is still dire. If they stay, more for everyone. If they leave, less corruption (which also means more for everyone). So you win either way, and we haven't set any potentially dangerous precedents.
EDIT: and to come back to the US example: those laws were actually introduced in that very vain, to target the very rich. Except that once the idea was seen as acceptable, it was turned into law that applied to everybody.
Increasing the tax rate at the upper income and wealth range would be ideal, I agree. I especially like the simplicity of it. But I don't understand why you think that's acceptable while an exit tax isn't. What is it that makes one a slippery slope but not the other? Tax rates/laws have been eroding to favour the wealthy while screwing over the poor. So the solution should be to fight to get it back to a good state, right? Shouldn't it be the same for anything else?
The problem is that it relies on a different principle. With income tax, you earn money above what (at least in theory) you need to survive, you contribute a part of that to society. With sales tax, you spend money on things that aren't strictly necessary to survive, you contribute a part of that to society. With an exit tax, you leave the country or renounce your citizenship, something that is your fundamental right, you get penalized - so you get penalized for using a fundamental right. That's the problem.
I guess that kind of makes sense. I think to me, migration falls very low on rankings of needs, let alone giving it status as a human right. It isn't necessary for survival unless you're already deprived of food/clothing/shelter, which I do consider to be human rights.
I mean as with most rights, if things are going well, you don't really directly need them, but when shit hits the fan, things are different. When you're healthy, it's tempting to not care about healthcare. Get sick and that can change quickly. Have a government that you agree with and (at least for many people) it's tempting to not care about free speech. Get a government you disagree with and the tables turn. Similarly, if you're doing decently there's not much of a need to migrate. If you are deprived of food, clothing or shelter, then mobility can be a way out. And not just that - spatial mobility can be one of the most important factors for social mobility. And finally, if you have a fascist government that in the worst case has a target on your back, then you'll want to make every use of your mobility (mind you, there's a reason why authoritarian governments like to clamp down on spacial mobility).
I'm not sure why people are downvoting you - everything you said is accurate, although not necessarily relevant to the discussion of billionaires. I mean, as @IO said, it is a leap.
To avoid accusations of some kind of class war, I expect.
Difference being, of course, that this would likely be a progressive tax, like the mansion tax or income, so as to impact the "big fish" and allow movement of others.
Yes, do let them leave. But tax any wealth over a billion at 100%, and the tax on leaving is 99% of their wealth over a billion.