Six months into tariffs, businesses have no idea how to price anything

That’s fine if you accept that you can’t force the rich at gunpoint to stay, or seize their wealth upon exit.

But if they do choose to leave, or at least stop expanding their businesses, you can’t deny the rational self interest

The bayonets of the capitalists. Better lie down and take it.

I heard New Zealand is nice.

If a nation's fortune hinges on permitting a handful of extremely rich individuals to extract wealth with impunity, wield their immense hoard to buy up major media organizations and communication platforms, use those assets to continually suppress labor and consumer protections, and fix political elections by way of SuperPACs and other dark-money slush funds... well, that isn't my idea of a robust society or economy.

We've done fine without them in the past, and we'd be better off without them now. At the end of the day, labor and its fruits are the primary origin of value in an economy, not the handful of individuals that have had the immense luck and/or dubious ethics required to capture that value for their personal gain.

It is, probably because it has a 39% tax rate on income over $180k, and no capital gains (stock sales are considered income and taxed at income tax rates).

> But if they do choose to leave, or at least stop expanding their businesses, you can’t deny the rational self interest

"If you tax the rich, they will leave" is a myth created by the rich so that you won't tax them.

In the middle of the 1900s, the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was 91%.

Nobody is going to leave over Mamdani's extremely modest proposal.

> In the middle of the 1900s, the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans was 91%

You forgot to mention that only half of capital gains were subject to tax. So the highest marginal rate was 45.5%.

This statement is also supported by the fact that despite the relatively high taxes in NYC billionaires will jump through all loops necessary to effectively still live there just not on paper

This is making a lot of assumptions --

1) That we're at the threshold for taxes that the wealthy will accept. I would bet many wealthy folks feel attached to their homes as their identity, and it would take some amount to price them out. Like, clearly a billionaire would leave if the cost to stay was a 100% of their wealth, but would probably stay if it was $10 more in taxes. So there's a very nebulous line somewhere in between. I suspect we are not close to that line.

2) That wealthy people living in an area are storing their wealth or declaring that area as their home. Plenty of ways to shield wealth from local taxes, and plenty of ways to claim a place as your home without being taxed by it.

3) That having wealthy people in your community is a net positive for the community. Wealthy people tend to use a lot more resources and distort local politics for their personal gain rather than the gain of the community. Maybe we'd be better off if they weren't around, and several families moved in to take their place. Wealthy people don't ride public transit, normal folks do. Wealthy people can push city council positions to reduce transit, normal folks don't have that influence. Maybe we need more normal folks around.

4) That businesses owned by the wealthy are a net positive compared to, e.g., workers co-ops. Maybe we could be a bit more collective in our approaches and a bit less lionizing towards the wealthy person who got lucky. Maybe we need more community oriented businesses run by members of the community they live in and fewer wealthy business owners racing to the bottom.

If they want to sell off all their assets and leave, then lets see them do it. If they don't want to sell their assets, I don't see why it can't be seized if they leave.

> That’s fine

Oh good. Then we can ignore your baseless assertions / talking points / propaganda and outright [non-truths].

The maximum effective rate on long-term capital gains was 45.5% but the top marginal rate on ordinary income was 91%.

In any case, this is all a major deflection resulting from the lie that the low job creation rate is due to "the threat" of a possible future mayor rather than tariffs.