zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
Does London need the Global Rich hanging around if they’re not willing to pay taxes? Is it necessary to have the tax bring in 30 Billion in order for it to be considered a success? If nothing else, this tax demonstrates to those who DO pay tax, that the Government is willing to treat earners equally and fairly, regardless of how much tax it brings in.

>>mickga+92
If they're here they tend to spend money, and employ people. That all ends up as tax slightly more indirectly.

>>trebli+N3
That's just arguing trickle down economics, which has a decades long story of failure.

>>XorNot+h4
>That's just arguing trickle down economics, which has a decades long story of failure.

Deng Xiaoping's "let some people get rich first" worked out pretty well.

>>gruez+sd
This worked because China had very strong regulatory frameworks and redistribution was at center of that philosophy. The entire point of letting a few people get rich was that those people who get rich will need to pay taxes to redistribute that wealth around the country.

The people who hoard the wealth in the US actively attack regulation and avoid taxes so that they don't have to redistribute the wealth. At that point, you're a drain on the system.

>>ujkhsj+io
>This worked because China had very strong regulatory frameworks and made sure the wealth was redistributed.

Source? Aside from some lip service paid about "common prosperity", China definitely does not have a strong wealth redistribution system. I can't find good metrics on size of welfare systems specifically, but using the crude metric of government revenue as % of GDP, it's clear that China isn't some sort of global leader in redistribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Government_revenues_as_a_...