• NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    181
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • kksgandhi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year 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?

    • coffeecup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.