The biggest story you've never heard about today's f...

thanks for the link. I'll have to read later but it looks scary important...

It's probably true for most of the industrial countries. For those who remember, in the 1980 and 1990, rich people threatened to (and did) move their money into fiscal paradises to avoid paying tax on them. The governments had to choose: lose all revenues from those rich citizens, or lower their taxes to to still get at least some income.

Well, here we are. But I think more and more, governments are willing to investigates other ways to get revenues from those super- and ultra-rich people by taxing money that is sent out of the country (for assumed tax evasion). As everything is on computers now, it's easy (or easier) to trace money movements.

So let's take Musk's newest floating castle (AKA: the biggest yacht ever built), and imagine the US deciding they get a 10% tax on the money sent out of country to pay for it, cause it's clearly a luxury item, and it has nothing to do about bringing more money in as revenues. Secondary homes in twelve countries? Taxed. Luxury cars there? Taxed. Etc.

And he tries to just move his money to the Bahamas so his expenses don't get taxed? Taxed too. Move his businesses outside of the US so he gets no revenue in the US? Taxed on the value of the businesses. That would bring a lot of revenues to the US treasury, and it would make it a hassle to try to avoid paying taxes.

Now, I know there are talks done about things like that, but of course, they move very slowly. Perhaps we should make a lot of noise so they become reality.

it's a tricky road. You will slightly hurt the super rich. But also hit not so rich people who just happen to live out of the country. If you live and work in another country you pay taxes in that country, Double taxing is no fun.

They can avoid that problem by indexing the limit on how much can be transferred. So up to 1 million, OK. Over 1 million, they can't take the money out

The issue of tax avoidance with bonds is why I think advocates for more spending who are afraid to raise taxes are wrong to say deficit spending is not a problem. Deficit spending is wealth transfer from the middle class to the rich...

We need to run a deficit when we are in a receission or depression, but that should be countered by running a surplus with a growth economy and paying it down. But we can't have smart economic policy if we won't tax the rich. That's where the money is. The lies promulgated by Chicago School economics frauds have hollowed out not just the US but Europe, too

sjonsvenson : I would expect there should be some need to justify getting money out of the country it was made (migrants supporting their family at home, for example). Plus tourists. A threshold (with annual values, not individual amounts) would be enough, if you can manage to spend a hundred thousands of dollars to you family, or on vacation,

then I guess you deserve to get taxed a little more than the pity that is currently asked. It's about curtailing tax avoidance, not strangling international money exchanges.

I can only speak to US/France tax laws, but we only pay French taxes since this is where we live and earn our salary. But there is a limit to how much we can transfer between countries, how much we can even have in our checking account, etc. and our French bank is required to send a monthly report to the US govt (which made it hard to find a bank here).