• danc4498
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    Perfect. They move to Texas and California loses the income and Texas is the net benefactor.

    Not sure what you think will be the benefit. Statewide wealth tax does not make sense period. Nationwide or not at all.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      Texas is the net benefactor.

      That’s assuming that billionaires contribute more to the economy than they receive, which is the opposite of reality.

      Not sure what you think will be the benefit

      From the article I linked:

      when wealth is concentrated in the hands of one person, it tends to stagnate. Billionaires invest in tax shelters, financial assets, and luxury goods that benefit very few. That money circulates less, creates fewer jobs, and contributes less to local economies compared to wealth distributed across more people.

      The opportunity cost is massive. Every dollar hoarded in a hedge fund is a dollar not building schools, funding infrastructure, or supporting small businesses. Billionaire spending rarely benefits the broader economy. Especially compared to what working-class or middle-class millionaires would do with that same money.

      So yeah, California would do well to offload some of its over hundred billionaires and in the meantime get some of that hoarded wealth flowing through the system again.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      You are assuming that the political, financial, criminal, and mental illness baggage that comes with billionaires is worth it. A state filled with billionaires is NOT going to be better than the states that don’t want them. Not for working citizens, anyway.