Recurring would be nice, but they would move away immediately.
Good. Why would we want people who take vastly more than they contribute to remain in our state? And make no mistake - billionaires cost us more than they contribute and regular taxpayers always foot the bill.
Just like how we have proved that trickle-down economics does not work, the wealthy will not pack up their entire business operation and move elsewhere to avoid paying a tiny fraction of their wealth back to the state in taxes.
Good. Why would we want people who take vastly more than they contribute to remain in our state?
That’s a good question, but the rich are good at making the poor fight for the scraps. And their riches may come from the whole of USA and even the entire world, so local states fight each others to keep the rich in their state, because their taxes are still often significant even when they pay to little.
As I mentioned, the best way to stop this is by mandatory international agreement on a wealth tax. But unfortunately such an agreement is not likely. But we should all at least support it.
Good. Why would we want people who take vastly more than they contribute to remain in our state? And make no mistake - billionaires cost us more than they contribute and regular taxpayers always foot the bill.
Just like how we have proved that trickle-down economics does not work, the wealthy will not pack up their entire business operation and move elsewhere to avoid paying a tiny fraction of their wealth back to the state in taxes.
That’s a good question, but the rich are good at making the poor fight for the scraps. And their riches may come from the whole of USA and even the entire world, so local states fight each others to keep the rich in their state, because their taxes are still often significant even when they pay to little.
As I mentioned, the best way to stop this is by mandatory international agreement on a wealth tax. But unfortunately such an agreement is not likely. But we should all at least support it.