Anonymous #1 11w

Why would millionaires leave NYC when all of their assets are in the city, they like it, and they can do good business when they have to pay 2-3% more in taxes? Makes zero sense.

10

Anonymous #3 11w

Pointing out gravity isn’t pro-neoliberal. It just means I’m not building a house on a cliff and calling it justice. The system doesn’t need to be fair in that it only needs to be mobile. Pretending otherwise is just bad math.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

If asset exposure anchors residency, why do so many high-net-worth individuals domicile in Florida while retaining Manhattan real estate? If place attachment is sticky, why do tax receipts shrink disproportionately in high-tax jurisdictions after rate hikes? And If a 2–3% delta is meaningless, why are entire estate planning industries built to avoid it? Is it possible the wealthy aren’t irrational, but mobile in ways you fail to account for?

-1

Anonymous #1 11w

???

1

Anonymous #3 11w

???

1

Anonymous OP 11w

That’s literally the point I made man. Millionares aren’t going to leave New York ASSEST WISE because that’s how they make their money. And guess what? They still have to pay taxes on those assets. So unless they start selling their property (terrible idea) they are staying in New York. Get this capitalists are always making the smart decisions mindset out of your head.

2

Anonymous OP 11w

sorry I don't have the patience to argue with someone who learns economics from Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell

1

Anonymous #1 11w

You don’t need to sell a NYC asset to move your legal domicile. That’s why billionaires keep penthouses in Manhattan but file taxes in Florida. There’s a reason NY audits residency and Florida builds its economy on tax migrants. You didn't say this.

1

Anonymous #3 11w

The fuck are you talking about? I didn’t cite Rand or Sowell. You’re arguing with a caricature of your own creation to avoid reckoning with system logic. This is merely a poor attempt of evasion.

1