The wealthy don’t protest. They exit.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – ConsequencesSamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Economics, Business & Globalization · Self ownership · Slogans & Quotations May 16th, 2025 |
 13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – ConsequencesLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Perry will be with Alessandro on that one.
“Insulate, insulate, insulate!”
(Bonfire of the Vanities.)
Do the wealthy revoke their citizenship when they exit?
Back in the 2010s, I ran across a book with the title Does Atlas Shrug? that argued that high taxes did not actually induce people to move to different locations. Supposedly there was empirical evidence to support this. On the other hand, recent U-Haul statistics have shown far more people leaving California than moving it.
The ability to put pressure on governments with bad policies is one of the strengths of federal systems; every shift of policy discussions to the national level undermines it.
Why would they? If things change, they come back, which is why they’re called expats rather than immigrants. That what happened in the 1980s when many wealth creators who’d fled UK in the 1960s-70s returned. I moved to Portugal but I’m not financially mobile enough to move more than once, so I’m an immigrant here in Porto.
Only ones from USA, I know several of those who shredded their passports due to how the US taxes people worldwide. US HNWI never go back, others often do.
Addendum: Old Jack Tar said more or less the same thing as I was posting my comment 😀 Lots of UK HNWI will go back to UK if Farage wins big in 2029.
People voting with their feet is perhaps a purer form of democracy. People have been moving out of the city centres to the suburbs for decades – and now the outer suburbs or the countryside are preferred for those that can afford it. A select few move abroad and it is much easier nowadays for the wealthy to up sticks.
Build it and they will come; demolish it and they will leave.
QED
High taxes can (possibly) be mitigated by other factors – for example Mr Knight, the creator of the vast Nike Corporation, paid very high taxes in Oregon because it was his home and he loved the place. But now Oregon is not such a nice place – at least not around Portland (and the rest of Oregon has also changed – for example the State government keeps trying to ban effective self defense, and keeps trying to find ways round the 1st Amendment so that it can ban the expression of opinions it does not like – as if Oregon was Britain, where this has been the case for a long time).
Paying high taxes to be surrounded with screaming lunatics who want to burn you, or tear you to pieces, is not a very attractive option.
As for Britain – “London is my home, it is where my family has always lived – and this part of London is really a village, the families here have always known each other” is something that made sense in, say, 1964 – today it attracts laughter.
As Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer says – this island has become a “country of strangers” – he says “in danger of becoming….” but it has already happened. And the “strangers” are often hostile, and the “natives” themselves have undergone a terrible culture decline (over many decades now).
It does not make sense for a wealthy person to pay high taxes to stay here.
As for the United States – internal migration is a, relatively, easy option.
For example, Massachusetts was NOT really “Taxachusetts” – as Property Tax rates were capped, and the State Income Tax was 5% (flat rate).
But now there is a “Progressive” State Income Tax – so Massachusetts will join New York and California in going down the drain.
After all why stay in Boston where the Mayor constantly tells you that you are evil – because you happen to have “white” (pinkish-grey) skin, or are male, or are not a homosexual?
Why not go and live in Florida – where you pay lower taxes and the rulers do not denounce you as evil – and do not encourage people to attack you.
And Flordia is a very ethically diverse place – showing that this can work, IF (if) the principles of Liberty and Property are supported – are at the core of governance.
Is life a lot better in Porto than in UK ? I don’t speak about the weather I am speaking about the people, the social life and also the health system I am interested as a 70 years old ..
There is also a lot of hypocrisy – for example the “Progressive” wealthy white residents of Martha’s Vineyard (in Massachusetts) were horrified when lots of poor Hispanic migrants were bussed to the place, but they did NOT say so – on the contrary they said how much they loved these people (even as they pulled political strings to have them removed – “Diversity for you – but NOT for me”) – and even came out (with fake tears in their eyes) to wave the migrants goodbye, when they were removed.
And “Progressive” white wealthy people from New York used to move to Vermont – because it was NOT “diverse”, but they did NOT admit that was the reason. On the contrary, they boasted that they were moving to a place that had taxes almost as high as the place they were leaving – “we are Progressive – we love high taxes”.
Now parts (parts) of Vermont are becoming more “diverse” – watch as these Progressive wealthy people quietly start leaving.
On the positive side – look how the elected government of Italy has made a real difference on taxation, and the positive effects this is having.
The elected government of Italy is light years from perfect – but it does have the interests of Italy (of the Italian people – poor as well as rich, for there-is-no-contradiction) at heart.
Neither the elected or unelected government of the United Kingdom has the interests of the British people at heart – indeed they have a deep contempt (yes – contempt) for the British people.
Reduce tax rates, control government spending, stop mass migration – the United Kingdom has not had a Prime Minister who wanted to do these things (with the exception of Liz Truss – who was in “power” for only a few weeks and was not allowed to do anything) since Margaret Thatcher – and that was 35 years ago.
35 years ago.
“But what about Boris Johnson?” – Look at what Prime Minister Alexander Boris Johnson DID, or was done in his name.
No real action on taxation, government spending totally out of control (even before Covid), and mass migration (not really “immigration” – migration) higher than ever before in history.
Either Mr Johnson had no real power (and I suspect that he had no real power) – or he was not a friend of the British people.
Perry – I read during the post referendum Brexit farce that a community necessitates losers consent. Does that mean you aren’t a committed member of the uk community?
As a child we had family friends who lived just outside Sheffield. In 1968 Sheffield extended its borders, taking in the area they lived in; they promp[tly moved to get out of the taxbase of the city council. In 1974 the council expanded again; they again moved to get out of the city’s tax base. Each time they explicitly stated their reason was to get away from paying taxes to Sheffield.