Are any of those statements factually incorrect or otherwise misleading? A critical discussion of methodology is welcome.
Most wealthy people don't have an issue paying taxes, say 15-20% of their income (income / dividends / capital gains) -- even if that income runs in the millions. Most have an issue paying excessive taxes, e.g. 30%+, for what they get back from society.
Simple math: the higher the tax rate, the more sense it makes to avoid. And once you've set up the structures to avoid and are taking the risk, you might as well try and bring it as close to zero as possible.
For example, I recently had a friend tell me: I could buy this expensive car every three months, with the amount of tax I pay on my (passive) dividends. Why wouldn't I just move to Monaco (or some other country that doesn't tax their income excessively) and keep that money?
It might be an unpopular opinion, but in my view, he's right. As selfish as it sounds, the fact of just being allowed to live in a certain jurisdiction might not be sufficient for any wealthy person to stick around.
They're welcome to. But they don't (or they haven't yet) because they see some benefit to staying versus the cost of leaving.
What an unsourced and biased viewpoint :) a lot of wealthy people are routinely found evading taxes even in low-tax countries. Even the likes of Luxembourg and Monaco have to go after illegal tax avoidance. Nobody likes paying tax, even at 1% people would try to skim. Egoism is a natural element of human psychology.
> Why wouldn't I just move to Monaco
Indeed, why? It might have something to do with Monaco being a minuscule country and their citizens being subject to more restrictions when working or investing in larger markets. This is a friction that globalization has eroded (e.g. there are no such restrictions now for Luxembourg citizens accessing the EU market, or Delaware citizens accessing the US market), which is part of the problem. If you make money from a large and well-run market, you should pay your fair share towards maintaining that market, no matter where you haul from.
Monaco and Luxembourg are not 'low tax' countries.
They are 'tax shelters' for foreigners, not for locals.
And other things.
But you still pay high Euro taxes, VAT and all sort of things like hidden taxes.
Source: myself, ex-Monaco resident + worked and stayed in Lux.
That is genuinely new, at least at scale. Private actors making states compete against each other to lower their taxes and sue nations for enforcing health codes a la investor rights trade agreements.
While trade is good, extractive trade is damaging. The American industrial midwest is a good example. Capitalists first moved jobs overseas, and then automated what was left. We still have strong manufacturing, but few people doing it.
This level of inequality, lack of agency, and lack of hope is incredibly corrosive to democratic values. You can see it for yourself in the election of our leader, the grievance of the pepés, and the general ascension of the right. The fact that this kind of thing is taking place globally across the trilateral powers means there's something systemic at work, it's not a quirk of American circumstance.
Of course I am, this is the comments to an article submitted to HackerNews.
> Factually, capitalism/globalization has benefited lower classes materially
So we're in agreement.
> but has stripped them of agency
Social mobility has gone up since 1700s and continued to go up, with little more than a few hiccups along the way. Regardless, whether or not globalization is good or bad is an opinion and one that does not belong in an article about a single specific study on tax avoidance / possible tax evasion.
I'm not going to reply to the rest of what you said because of that same basic point. It's a complicated issue that tackles a lot of different areas of economics, history, and politics that doesn't have any real agreement with the experts that study those things. I certainly have no hope of doing the subject justice as a comment to an article.
And that's precisely why that shouldn't be shoehorned into an article about taxes to begin with. You have no hope of defending general condemnation of globalization and piling on nonspecific blame on the "ultra rich." If a journalist has an opinion and they want to argue why they're right backed up by objective facts and research, I'd love to read that sort of thing. But precisely because I don't want to live in an echo chamber, I don't want to hear your opinion stated as fact without anything to back up.
You'll note that judging whether globalisation has helped capital more vs labour more is not an assertion of goodness or badness of globalisation, either way. Just like someone can say that cars make road accidents more likely (fact), without it being a judgement on whether cars are good or bad (opinion).
I think you've been triggered and are reacting to something that wasn't written; you've over-read into the piece.
The old system is crashing. We need to acknowledge reality now and work as fast as possible to fix it after we figure out how.
Sure, globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, but it is also pretty uncontroversial to state that it also has disproportionately increased the wealth of the billionaire and millionaire class.
> Globalization has primarily benefited the poor
But you aren't. It is simultaneously possible for globalization to have strongly benefited the poor and for "Globalisation [to have] disproportionately benefited the rich in part by rewarding capital more handsomely than labour."
They quite regularly make the point that trade has broad benefits, and on net they're fans of globalization. But unlike you, they are willing to hold that opinion while simultaneously noting that not everything about it is perfect.