You must log in or register to comment.
They’ll leave, but still own their property.
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
Property is very taxable!
Eminent domain it and use it to house the poor.
Or, you know, throw them in jail and expropriate everything they own?
“Billionaires will leave if you tax them.”
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!
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.
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…
germany has a rule like that also, but people pretend like it doesn’t exist and rich people would leave if we tax them
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.
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
But then how will Musk et al ever become trillionaires if they are taxed accordingly? /s
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
I am curious antiyanks, since you mention this a lot. Can you actually go into detail about what happened?
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.
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).
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
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.
That would be unconstitutional. Violation of freedom of movement.
No one is stopping them from moving, just pay the taxes they owe.
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”
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.
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
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.
Good riddance. The perfect analogy is removing a brain cancer.
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
