Billionaires threatening to leave

@wildgrass said
It's kinda common sense innit?

True story: This happened in reverse to someone I know in upstate New York about 20 years ago. He owned a thriving hardware store but foot traffic vanished when a Home Depot megastore opened a few blocks away. He made ends meet by renting tools and heavy equipment for a while but in the end there was nothing he could do.

that scenario doesnt answer this...

"Companies like Walmart stifle competition. If they leave, mom-and-pop shops indeed flourish, increasing competition and consumer choice."

@Sprogladog said
For me it boils down to egalitarianian and collectivism. Within that the quality of health, education, work-life balance and levels of democracy and maybe a tiny sprinkle cultural stuff like the arts and history.

You?

This is great. Marauder all over!
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Your definition of “great” is pretty clear: egalitarianism, collectivism, healthcare, education, work-life balance, democracy, and a little culture and history.

Mine is different. I would put individual freedom, opportunity, economic mobility, personal responsibility, innovation, security, and the ability to build something through your own effort near the top of the list. I would also include the ability of a country to attract ambitious people from around the world and give them the opportunity to succeed.

I dont think equality of outcomes isthe measure of a great country. I think equality of opportunity is much more important. (Read that somewhere…it is true)If two people are given the same opportunity, I don’t believe the government should be responsible for making sure they end up in the same place. If you respond to only one thing in this post, I wish it would be that sentence.

I also value the things you mentioned—good healthcare, good education, democracy, culture and history. But I don’t automaticallly equate government provision of something with greatness. The question for me is whether the system actuallyproduces a prosperous, free, secure and opportunity-rich society.

So now we’ve got something interesting to debate. Were not really arguing about whether a country is “great.” We’re arguing about what makes a country great in the first place.

You have your measuring stick. I have mine. Let’s put the countries against both and see what happens. 😄
Not verbose, please. Please no longer than what I just typed. I just cannot do those voluminous posts… I skip all of them.

@AverageJoe1 said
This is great. Marauder all over!
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Your definition of “great” is pretty clear: egalitarianism, collectivism, healthcare, education, work-life balance, democracy, and a little culture and history.

Mine is different. I would put individual freedom, opportunity, economic mobility, personal responsibility, innovation, security, and the ab ...[text shortened]... lease no longer than what I just typed. I just cannot do those voluminous posts… I skip all of them.

Tldnr

@AverageJoe1 said
This is great. Marauder all over!
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Your definition of “great” is pretty clear: egalitarianism, collectivism, healthcare, education, work-life balance, democracy, and a little culture and history.

Mine is different. I would put individual freedom, opportunity, economic mobility, personal responsibility, innovation, security, and the ab ...[text shortened]... lease no longer than what I just typed. I just cannot do those voluminous posts… I skip all of them.

I agree that equality of opportunity is very important. however i do think that occasionally a goverment may need to sprinkle a little equity into the system here and there.

as for collectivism v individualism. i agree that indvidualism is very important but to put the individual first feels like a selfish, self centered view. i could not be happy in a world where i had everything i wanted but society is a mess. where i could be happy in a world where i dont have exactly what i want but the society around me is happy.

on a final note i dont really think the size of a government is an issue in a healthy democracy. a fear of the government is a symptom of democracy going wrong.

@sh76 said
"1% lower tax bill" is highly misleading.

I assume you mean they could spread out the 5% over 5 years.

But that's 1% of their wealth, not 1% of their tax bill, or even income.

A person worth $10B in stock would ower an additional $500 million under this tax.

No matter how rich you are, it's hard to imagine a person not moving to save $500 million.

I don't think so. Some of these Silicon Valley guys have made $50 billion and they're only 23 years old. You couldn't pay them $500 million to move anywhere else.

The average stock market ROI in the last 5 years is 13.5%. Maybe we round down to 10% to account for inflation. You're saying that someone with $10 billion invested will move away from California because their 5-year yield on that stock will be slightly less (stay in California, make $4.5 billion, or leave and make $5 billion). I think the real innovators, the job creators, those with active investments meant to grow the economy, won't care. They might throw a stink publicly but won't give a rat about a 1% wealth tax in the long term.

Especially if California doubles down on its commitment to continue investing tax dollars in innovation, R&D and education to fuel those very lucrative enterprises.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
that scenario doesnt answer this...

"Companies like Walmart stifle competition. If they leave, mom-and-pop shops indeed flourish, increasing competition and consumer choice."

I don't know what to tell you man. People gotta eat, and Walmart's prices are always lower than any competitor can approach because they buy wholesale in extreme bulk. It seems obvious that the big box stores drive out smaller businesses.

Why do you think they don't?

@Sprogladog said
I agree that equality of opportunity is very important. however i do think that occasionally a goverment may need to sprinkle a little equity into the system here and there.

as for collectivism v individualism. i agree that indvidualism is very important but to put the individual first feels like a selfish, self centered view. i could not be happy in a world where i had ...[text shortened]... is an issue in a healthy democracy. a fear of the government is a symptom of democracy going wrong.

Ha. I love that “sprinkle” has now become an important part of your political philosophy. 😂 First you sprinkle in some culture, and now we’re sprinkling in some equity.
anyway, individualism, and selfishness can hardly be equated.

I don’t equate individualism with selfishness.That doesn’t mean I want to live in a society where everyone looks out only for himself. Quite the opposite. I believe individuals, families, churches, charities, businesses and communities dhoukd take enormous responsibility for the welfare of others without requiring government to do it for them.
But I don’t think the way to create a healthy society is to subordinate the individual to the collective. I think a healthy society is largely the result of millions of individuals exercising freedom, responsibility, generosity and initiative. Not a collective . Real creepy

Where I suspect we really differ is what happens when government starts deciding how much “equity” needs to be sprinkled into the system. 😂 Who gets to hold the shaker? Who decides how much is enough? And when does the sprinkle become a pour?

So maybe my definition of a great country comes down to this: a country that gives its citizens enormous freedom to pursue their own version of a good life, while maintaining the institutions and socialrorder necessary for everyone else to do the same. They do what they want , one may be more successful than the other, and certain people will be all mad about that. I just don’t get it.

I don’t want government to make society happy for me. I want a society in which free people have opppotyumoties

And I’m still waiting for your definition of how much equity constitutes a proper “sprinkle.” 😄