“Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory

It’s not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that’s what marginal rate means, it’s the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there’s no point since it will bring no income after taxation.

If your wealth is from owning a portfolio of apartment buildings, good luck taking those with you.

Sell it to a holding company incorporated abroad. Own shares of that holding company instead.

It’s not. If you accept that :

• Taxing at 0% brings no tax revenue
• Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue

Then you accept that between those two extremes there’s a tax optimum that for a given rate gives the most tax revenue. This is the Laffer curve.

That was only on earned income and with a starting point so high that at some point only one person ever reached it.

But worse for those looking for a rental.

Rent control is a bandaid on a real problem that makes things worse long term. What California needs is build more, which means end the NIMBY and unfreeze property taxes so those seating on underutilized land are forced to develop it or sell.

Given the millions of people whose retirement fund is invested in the stock market, yes it will.

He was always like this and has been distributing public money left and right. France’s public spending and taxation as a share of GDP are at all time highs.

It’s just the French left thinks everybody to their right is a spawn of Reagan and Thatcher.