this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
139 points (96.6% liked)

World News

32297 readers
790 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

2% isn't enough. If that's all you probably will just get capital flight.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

to where? we are the biggest market in south america. good luck abandoning it because of a measly 2% tax.

i wish their capital would fly, we would probably take over that fucking space ourselves and do a better fucking job.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

What this means in practice, is that someone will make a billion dollars in Brazil, and then move and spend it all elsewhere, so they can continue becoming richer. This is bad for Brazil, since developing is expensive.

I think a hard cap would be better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I agree, a 2% tax is barely anything and would only be just slightly better than absolutely nothing.

someone will make a billion dollars in Brazil, and then move and spend it all elsewhere

they do exactly that already. most of our oligarchs hate their own country and spend most of their time (and money!) in europe or something. really gross people in general.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You could secretly take 90% and I'm convinced they wouldn't even notice in their day to day

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Lol, probably. You just have to get their accountants in on it.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Capital flight only exists where it is allowed to exist. It is possible and, in fact, advisable to have laws allowing for the seizure of assets in such a scenario.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

At that point you're not talking about 2% anymore, though, so it's not really relevant here.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, the 2% is for the ones who obey the law, and is enforced with something more like 100% for those who break the law.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why not just 100% across the board?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That depends on if you do or do not want to fight a global revolutionary war against the bourgeoisie, since they would never allow such a thing to succeed in their liberal republics

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But you do, so what's the problem?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's countless layers of hypotheticals away from reality and I think recommending bourgeois governments liquidate their bourgeoisie is silly in the way that, in medieval times, recommending the kings of the world abolish noble titles and the monarchy is silly, you aren't going to get these institutions to just kill themselves. What I support is the proletariat, by reason of having class antagonism with the bourgeoisie, fighting a war against the former's control of the state.

What do you support?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Funny thing, I think you're the first person to ask me that in the past few years. Everyone's eager to join a club and advertise it, but I've had better luck just staying away from labels. Nobody cares what I think, probably not even you, but people do care a bit about facts. Yes, that's a dodge of the question, but only because I don't like wasting time on discussions that probably go nowhere.

You're right, it's far from reality. This proposal is also far from reality, given that it was put forward as a global thing. A 2% tax but then a 100% tax if they're naughty is also far from reality. On the internet, everything is far from reality. In real life I do activism, on the internet I talk and share and hope it makes a difference just by bringing something to someone's attention.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The proposal is for a globally-levied tax. Where exactly is capital going to fly to?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

DPRK, they dont have income tax garf-troll

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

Confused libertarian noises

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If they could get totally global coordination to work, sure. Every single nation signing up is a pipe dream though. If that's how the proposal was actually written it was never intended to pass.