• Hawke@lemmy.worldEnglish
    106·
    10 days ago

    Other disappointments when people didn’t flee from a lost election:

    (He also said it in 2024 in reference to Harris… such a missed opportunity)

  • mikenurre@lemmy.worldEnglish
    88·
    10 days ago

    1,000,000 claim they are going to pack up, sell their homes, find employment in another city, and move… but they couldn’t be bothered to vote? Bunch of snowflakes.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      10 days ago

      Probably can’t vote in NYC because their legal residence is already Florida, Nevada, or somewhere without income tax. And they won’t leave because The Villages just doesn’t have the food, parties, or culture that NYC has.

      • tempest@lemmy.caEnglish
        4·
        10 days ago

        I’m sure they found a couple tweets about it (or paid some bots if they were real keen)

        From what I can tell it only takes 10 or twenty tweets for the media to latch on and pump out a story about it.

        It’s the same when a comedian complains about being “cancelled” because 5 people said their joke sucks on Twitter.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    65·
    10 days ago

    This is similar to how rich people will threathen to leave a country if taxes for them go up yet never do, because they live were they live and do business were they do business because of how good for them it is to live there and how much more profitable it is to do business were people are more prosperous and the Law actually works.

    Turns out that such people want the quality of life they get living were they are and the juicy profits from operating their businesses there, whilst not paying for what makes it all possible themselves and thus be parasites on the rest, is just the cherry on top: they have no problem in saying whatever it takes - because talkie-talkie costs them nothing - to keep on getting that quality of life and profits whilst somebody else pays for the conditions that make it possible, what they’re not fine with is the actually doing what they say they will do because if they do act as they threathen, it will cost them said quality of life and profits.

    Unsurprisingly (for those who question things a bit further and don’t just accept at face value the theatrics of society’s top parasites) that “Paradise” free of “government oppression” called Somalia has failed to attract any of those those who claim they will leave the place were they live and do business when society elects somebody who will make them pay their fair share for that quality of life they so enjoy.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.worldEnglish
      33·
      10 days ago

      Even rich people who moved to texas from california like rogan and musk constantly bitch about how much texas sucks.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      10 days ago

      Around the world, rich people often do relocate personally for tax purposes. One of the reasons we don’t often see rich people in the United States do this is that we have incredibly low taxes compared to the rest of the world. And that’s just nominal tax rates; in practice the super-rich pay almost nothing, which makes it even weirder how rabidly anti-tax they are.

      There is quite a bit of business relocation that happens because companies are lured to different locales through tax abatements.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        5·
        10 days ago

        On the people side, the ones who would do it are already doing it: for example rich people who go live in Monaco 6 months a year to have residence there. The one’s who aren’t doing it and simply bitch and moan about it seldom tend to start doing it because they prefer the lifestyle of being were they are rather than the “live in your yacht of the coast of Monaco”.

        As for businesses, they only ever do it when they can still keep operating with the same advantages in their original markets whilst paying all taxes elsewhere that is cheaper. In regimes were taxation isn’t actually based on “place of sale” but instead on HQ location, the move their HQs to reduce the tax they pay but they don’t actually move their businesses. Such moves indicate that tax legislation is actually not taxing the doing business (i.e. their actual selling) but something else and thus need fixing.

        It’s incredibly rare for a business to actually stop selling altogether in a country merely for tax reasons - instead what you see is them trying to use accounting loopholes to move their tax residence elsewhere.

        • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish
          5·
          10 days ago

          500 sqft condos in Monaco sell for $4-7M. Sports celebrities live there to evade taxes, then fly the flag of the country they evaded taxes. Some of them even get knighted after evading hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes. Cough[Lewis Hamilton]cough.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            10 days ago

            Yeah, but they already live abroad because they can (given how the Law is made, they can use it to avoid existing taxes) and they prefer the quality of life there.

            My point is that those who don’t do it already, are were they are still rather than living in Monaco to avoid existing taxation because they would rather live there than in Monaco, so their threats of leaving if taxes go up are seldom true. Further, if taxation is based on asset ownership and asset location it doesn’t mater were those individuals live, it maters were their assets are: whether they live in Monaco or not, they’ll be paying the same for, say, realestate they own in the UK, since that’s something they can’t take it with them, so they’ll have to divest from those assets by which point they won’t be profiting from the conditions in the UK that make those assets be so profitable for them.

            Situations like Lewis Hamilton’s or Taylor Swift’s - people who makes their money mainly from their own work, though they also ride legal weaknesses that let them avoid being taxed on were they actually operate and/or sales were the sale happens (in this case by not paying tax were they play concerts or do races) - are actually unusual as high net worth individuals: most of the very wealthy make their money from the income of asset ownership, and assets have a physical location (even IP), at the very least some kind of national registar somewhere that certifies that they own those assets, so governments that genuinelly want to tax most of the rich who are not paying fairly into the common pot were they derive their gains (i.e. at the very least by making those assets so profitable to own) just have to tax them via the assets rather than via residence.

      • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        10 days ago

        One of the reasons we don’t often see rich people in the United States do this is that we have incredibly low taxes compared to the rest of the world

        The much, much bigger reason we don’t see that in the US is that the US is the only country in the world that can, and does, tax citizens living abroad. Anyone trying to avoid US taxes would have to renounce US citizenship

        • Don_alForno@feddit.orgEnglish
          4·
          9 days ago

          Anyone trying to avoid US taxes would have to renounce US citizenship

          … and would then pay a hefty exit tax.

          I’m not convinced on the “only country that can” part though.

          • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 days ago

            Huh, TIL. Didn’t realize the US had an exit tax. Sounds like it forces a sale of US based assets when you renounce citizenship, then you have to pay taxes on that

        • ManOMorphos@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 days ago

          The US only taxes the difference between the country’s tax amount and the US tax amount, at least. Someone living in Sweden may not have to pay anything while someone in Thailand may owe most of their taxes to the US. It still is wild that they demand tax money from citizens all over the world though.

          • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            8 days ago

            That is true, although I doubt many rich people care where the tax money goes. They just care about the amount they get taxed

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        10 days ago

        Conservatives point to the “exodus” of people from France after tax laws change, but many Canadian millionaires have their money legally offshore evading taxes.

        • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          10 days ago

          Can you clarify what you mean? What do Canadian millionaires have to do with France?

  • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    49·
    10 days ago

    Lol, I live in California, and sometimes catty Republicans like to make snide comments about how they don’t want to live here because of the “politics”.

    Every time I hear this, I get excited. Like… “Really? Where do you live? Is it nice? Go the fuck away please.”

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      10 days ago

      I always laugh when conservatives describe Cali as a “shit hole”. Yes, that’s exactly why property is so cheap in California, because nobody wants to live in such an awful place.

    • toy_boat_toy_boat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      10 days ago

      i’m laughing harder at the posts from TX saying ‘the south is full, so don’t come down here when NY turns into a communist hellhole’.

      “oh no, my rent is frozen! we’ve got to get out of here!”

      “where are we gonna go?”

      “mexico… ish”

    • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      10 days ago

      I really wish conservatives would leave progressive areas alone. They’re constantly attacking California, and cities across the US. Their goal isn’t to raise the standard of living in their own communities, but to make the rest of the country worse

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      10 days ago

      And if the improbable actually happens, it just means that Mandani managed to lower house prices on his own.

      • tetris11@feddit.ukEnglish
        2·
        9 days ago
        • Bad news for those who bought property to sell / rent
        • Indifferent news to those who bought property to live in it
  • DupaCycki@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    10 days ago

    Same kinds of people who flee to Russia to avoid DEI and other “western degeneracy”. It’s probably for the best. Or it would be if any of them had the balls to act on their idiotic words.

  • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    10 days ago

    I think NYC is going to have more of a problem of people moving to the city thanks to Mamdani

      • Taldan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        9 days ago

        I feel you :(

        I pay less than $1,000 a month in rent and utilities in the midwest. I work fully remotely and could afford NYC, but moving there would cost me more than 3x as much to live. Even though I hate midwest suburbia so much, I plug in that $2,000/month into an investment calculator and it feels impossible to move. It’s the difference between maybe retiring at 65 and retiring at 50

  • bonus_crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18·
    9 days ago

    honestly left leaning places should do this more. the right does it when they make cruel laws to torture dissidents - all the left needs to do is trigger them and get them to leave.

    • maybe require identification on social media (dislike but rightwing trolls get hurt more) ,
    • ban vehicles over a certain size on class c licenses (like 4k lbs, intentionally low enough to ban big pickup trucks),
    • ban private schools and fund schools from state taxes entirely instead of city for equity,
    • require highschoolers to take classes on psychology and parenting,
    • make sex ed mandatory and lgbt inclusive,
    • build up light rail and ban cars in cities except for delivery purposes,
    • require garbage to be sorted and actually fine people,
    • massively shorten prison sentences and focus on re education to end “prison culture”,
    • tax incentivize continual adult education,
    • document undocumented immigrants
    • pay black people reparations
    • ensure access to abortions and contraceptives to everyone, including minors
    • legally mandate vaccines
    • institute a maximum wage,
    • institute election spending maximums,
    • ban landlords, the local govt takes ownership of rental properties and contracts property managers or something
    • universal healthcare
    • ban the pledge of allegiance

    idk what else?

    • Soup@lemmy.worldEnglish
      27·
      9 days ago

      Uh, that first one is kinda dumb. Very much unnecessary and kinda goes along the same line of thinking as republicans giving up their rights so that minorities have it worse.

    • AxExRx@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      9 days ago

      You know how Texas just threatened tariffs on people moving in? He should do the opposite; a large% tax on anyone attempting to change their residency to a non NY one.

      Youre a bilionaire who wants to leave NY? cool- that $10M in property you own should just about cover it, along with a check for a couple million. Otherwise you can keep paying taxes here.

    • thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2·
      8 days ago

      Good except:
      ID on social media: I believe in a fully anonymous web, maybe instead mandate them to ban right wing and alt left accounts?
      Ban private schools: This hurts alternatives to governmental things
      Mandate vaccines: Good, except that this would worsen their reputation, mandating would be more conspiracy-able
      Government takes rental properties: No, the alt left tried that, no, just no. What could work is the government determining the rent on a property.

    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      8 days ago

      Every single one of those will take about a decade in court battles to get passed (at a federal level). It could be quicker if you figure out how to introduce legislature on a state-level, but that is an incredibly volatile strategy (every state’s billionaires will fight against it). Many, if not all, will lose out unless you strategize grass-roots movements for every single one of those issues. People love cops. People love blaming poor people. People love blaming others on their problems. No legislature of yours will fix that, so you also need to fix societal issues.

      Just saying, this is what people say when they talk about idealism over pragmatism. It’s great to have big ideas, but you need exponentially larger ideas on strategizing to prevent those ideas from failing. None of this will happen overnight unless something revolutionary happens, and Democrats don’t want that—they will fight against radical change, it goes against the party’s entire ideology. Measured, temperate, incremental change is the policy of the Democrats. These are incredibly radical ideas to the normal voting population and you have to convince them, not us autists on lemmy, that they are worth spending time and energy on instead of putting food on the table or stressing out on bills.

      They’re all great ideas that should work in theory and probably would in practice in many ways, but having good ideas isn’t what gets votes. Having a plan all while appealing to low information voters (absolutely necessary, and is what destroys this world at the moment unfortunately and no new law will fix that) is the name of the game.