If they are moving businesses away then that could cause the job loss and other bad effects.

So maybe tax the first kind of wealth more?

Speaking as an American who lives in California (so not directly relevant to the article in question, but 'wealth exodus' is often brought up to scare people about wealth taxes here as well):

Fucking Good. Bye Felicia. Hope they all move to Florida and/or Texas. We'll still be absolute fine here without them.

But also institute land value taxes so they can't be here while pretending to not be here

Their company already don't produce much in France, it's all imported. They are paying minimal taxes already on what they produce and sell outside of France. And they don't pay taxes personally. So what would we lose if they leave?

For the things that are actually made in France, it's because they have to. They would have moved it already otherwise. So it's physical assets and people that can't be moved or sourced elsewhere. So what they have to produce there, they will still do. Their real estate, their logistic chain vehicles, and their local workshops will stay here. Even if they would sell part of it in fact, the actual physical stuff would stay here.

And what they sell here, they will still do: they are not going to exit the French market just because they can't be physically here so it's not going to affect the economy that much. What, less jet and luxury hotels revenue? It's ok.

And of course, we can increase taxes on their companies so that they get less revenue to compensate for their exile. We tax trading or exporting French-based company stocks so that they can't move that around without paying first.

Besides, once a stock is bought from the IPO, moving it from hand to hand is not investing more money into the company in any way. It's not going back into the economy.

They can move with their bank accounts and bonds, why do we care? It's not something that goes into our economy. They made sure of it.

/s

I find the notion that you should pay less tax on capital gains asinine, too; it makes no sense to me that people should have to pay less tax on income that they didn't even work for.

My belief is that people were blind to growing income inequality and flawed taxation schemes because there was enough growth to paper over the resulting issues, but this stops being the case.

Specifically housing, I'd argue, has not become so expensive because of greedy construction workers (or immigrants, or regulation) but because average homeowners have to compete against an increasingly wealthy upper-class that sees real estate as a pure investment/rent extraction mechanism.

The problem is the floor (cost of living, standard of living) is too low for too many people.

Inflation is a tax on poor already, so why not double-tax the rich via share dilution and Zucman tax.