The Capitalist End Game Engineered by the GOP

[Huntn]

The Capitalist End Game
Think about it, this is the “patriotic”, “traditional values”, “moral”, “Christian values”, “fiscal hawk” party who railed about National Debt in the 1990s and personal responsibility while robbing us blind. Their genius? Focused on whites, brought out the racist in us, pitting us against one another, preaching to us the virtue of “traditional values”, “fiscal responsibility”, LOL, fool’d ya white privilege types. What they were preaching “I got mine, I want yours” and you’re on the menu.

“The National Debt is Evidence of the Crime- The first shots were fired in 1981, when Republicans’ so-called supply-side tax cuts began a forty-five-year upward transfer of over $50 trillion in wealth that made billionaires fabulously rich while it hollowed out our nation’s Treasury. They stole $38 trillion from our government, and another $12 trillion (at least) from working class families via wage freezes and the destruction of unions.”


https://substack.com/@thomhartmann/...&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

This is like a peasant at the height of the Marie Antoinette moment defending the divine rights of kings and why the aristocracy is needed.

Funny you mention the aristocracy, because I think they took a major blow in the UK. @RobF not doubt has a better perspective than I do, but this seems like a significant change. I think it shows that the global fascist have both awakened and pissed off the global giant of democracy.

Lords a-leaving: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

Britain is ending the centuries-old tradition of hereditary aristocrats sitting in Parliament’s House of Lords.

apnews.com

Or not recognizing the dominance of the medici in the Florence republic. And as mentioned, the robber barons.

The funny thing, we ve mentioned that we re not seeking fdr levels. Something between jfk and Reagan. But these types keep arguing that we need zero taxes for these tycoons...bc...
divine rights of man.

Tl;dr the pitfalls of concentrated wealth.

 

[Dragon]

And I can post articles that address the dangers of people leaving because of wealth taxes.

The idea that companies simply leave countries because of wealth or corporate taxes ignores a basic reality: businesses depend heavily on public infrastructure funded by those taxes.

Research in economics consistently shows that companies choose locations based on factors like infrastructure, workforce quality, market access, and political stability—not just tax rates. Good roads, reliable electricity, functioning courts, quality schools, and healthcare systems make it possible to attract skilled workers and run complex operations.

Without those public systems, companies face higher costs, lower productivity, and difficulty recruiting talent. In other words, the infrastructure funded by taxes is not a burden on business—it’s one of the key things that makes business profitable in the first place.

Since companies and their owners benefit enormously from these systems, it’s reasonable that they contribute a fair share toward maintaining them.

 

[TampaJoe]

The idea that companies simply leave countries because of wealth or corporate taxes ignores a basic reality: businesses depend heavily on public infrastructure funded by those taxes.

Research in economics consistently shows that companies choose locations based on factors like infrastructure, workforce quality, market access, and political stability—not just tax rates. Good roads, reliable electricity, functioning courts, quality schools, and healthcare systems make it possible to attract skilled workers and run complex operations.

Without those public systems, companies face higher costs, lower productivity, and difficulty recruiting talent. In other words, the infrastructure funded by taxes is not a burden on business—it’s one of the key things that makes business profitable in the first place.

Since companies and their owners benefit enormously from these systems, it’s reasonable that they contribute a fair share toward maintaining them.

If a company can relocate to an area that has all the infrastructure you mention and has a lower tax structure, then companies can and do relocate. You are correct that a company isn’t going to relocate into an infrastructure desert just to achieve lower taxes. Taxes are just one consideration. It is a cost benefit question.

We weren’t talking about raising taxes a point or two. What started this whole discussion was the notion that govt should cap the wealth of individuals. That would require taxes targeted at high net worth individuals that are draconian in amount. In that instance, people who can relocate will relocate.

 

[MT15]

Once again you tell a deceptive half truth. Bezos and Schultz both moved to Miami, you know the same place that the guy they're both sucking up to lives, you know, your boy Trump.

Amazon and Starbucks are both still headquartered in Washington. Those two companies both generate a lot more money and benefits for the people of Washington than Bezos and Schultz did.

If the Washington tax were nationwide, they wouldn't leave the country and neither would their businesses.

Not to mention any state those two bozos vacate instantly becomes better.

 

[Dragon]

If a company can relocate to an area that has all the infrastructure you mention and has a lower tax structure, then companies can and do relocate. You are correct that a company isn’t going to relocate into an infrastructure desert just to achieve lower taxes. Taxes are just one consideration. It is a cost benefit question.

We weren’t talking about raising taxes a point or two. What started this whole discussion was the notion that govt should cap the wealth of individuals. That would require taxes targeted at high net worth individuals that are draconian in amount. In that instance, people who can relocate will relocate.

A country or area that has all the infrastructure I mentioned will not be cheaper tax-wise. That infrastructure does not just magically appear. It is build over years and paid for - by (surprise) higher taxes!

 

[MT15]

Yeah, the narrative is just that. I notice they don’t really supply studies or proof. Just their feeling that people and companies will leave.

 

[Huntn]

I don't have an issue with fair and reasonable taxation. I have already said as much. But I don't see anything in the constitution that would permit "wealth caps". So I don't agree that it "must be". Particularly at the Federal level. I don't believe it to be constitutional.

States have more latitude but the ones who are attempting to do a wealth tax might find that folks with money will just pack up and move elsewhere which they are certainly free to do.

There’s so much in the Constitution that “conservatives” don’t even want to honor as is, this is not a valid argument as a reason to reject it, unless you just don’t like it, or don’t want to recognize the reality of wealth hoarding as a detriment to the stability of a healthy coherent, productive society. And if you are in any way familiar, since its inception many things have been added to the Constitution. There is a lack of awareness or an over abundance “Me” that would try to use “well it’s not in the constitution” so I don’t like it.

 

[TampaJoe]

A country or area that has all the infrastructure I mentioned will not be cheaper tax-wise. That infrastructure does not just magically appear. It is build over years and paid for - by (surprise) higher taxes!

That is a broad assumption on your part. A theory. That doesn’t mean it is always true. But my point holds. If a business can move to a new location that has what it requires to operate successfully at a price point low enough to justify making the move, they MAY opt to make that move. Taxation is part of that consideration esp if taxes are significantly lower. Also a theory.

It happens all the time in the states.

 

[TampaJoe]

There’s so much in the Constitution that “conservatives” don’t even want to honor as is, this is not a valid argument as a reason to reject it, unless you just don’t like it, or don’t want to recognize the reality of wealth hoarding as a detriment to the stability of a healthy coherent, productive society. And if you are in any way familiar, since its inception many things have been added to the Constitution. There is a lack of awareness or an over abundance “Me” that would try to use “well it’s not in the constitution” so I don’t like it.

Wealth caps as you describe would require a change in law. In this country, laws must align with the constitution. I didn’t make the rules. I can assure you that any attempt at wealth caps at the Federal level will most certainly be challenged in the courts. So unless you can find a place where the US Constitution provides for such wealth confiscation by the federal government, my bet is that such an attempt will fail because it exceeds the Federal governments legal authority. I also highly doubt there would be legislative support for such a measure in the first place.

Out of curiosity, why the attachment from Jodie Foster? I like her as an actress but I don’t think she is an expert on such matters. I do not find that persuasive.

 

[Sendai]

Yeah, the narrative is just that. I notice they don’t really supply studies or proof. Just their feeling that people and companies will leave.

Here’s 200

Major companies continue to relocate to Texas

Texas has become a popular destination for companies, with many relocating their headquarters to the Lone Star State. Here's the list.

www.businessinsider.com

South Florida’s Corporate Migration Wave (2024–2025) | MILLION | Redefine Lifestyle

Explore South Florida’s 2024–2025 corporate migration wave and what 30 major expansions mean for luxury real estate demand in Miami, Brickell, and Palm Beach County.

www.millionluxury.com

 

[J-DONK]

Here’s 200

Major companies continue to relocate to Texas

Texas has become a popular destination for companies, with many relocating their headquarters to the Lone Star State. Here's the list.

www.businessinsider.com

South Florida’s Corporate Migration Wave (2024–2025) | MILLION | Redefine Lifestyle

Explore South Florida’s 2024–2025 corporate migration wave and what 30 major expansions mean for luxury real estate demand in Miami, Brickell, and Palm Beach County.

www.millionluxury.com

Relocating your HQ for tax evasion doesn't actually do anything for the state.

My company is technically in Texas. We have a single office floor in Dallas, and one employee. The actual jobs are in the states with our data centers.

 

[Dragon]

There’s also a moral issue in this debate that often gets ignored.

Many companies build their success in places that have invested heavily in public goods: good roads, ports, reliable utilities, universities, research institutions, healthcare systems, and schools that educate their workforce. Those things don’t appear by magic — they are paid for by taxpayers.

Yet some companies keep their factories, engineers, and customers in those states because they benefit from that ecosystem, while shifting their headquarters or executive tax residency to lower-tax states to reduce what they contribute.

In other words, they continue to benefit from the infrastructure and talent that taxpayers funded, but move the part of the business that generates the biggest personal tax payments — executive income and headquarters taxes — somewhere else.

That leaves ordinary citizens and local businesses carrying more of the cost of maintaining the very systems that made those companies profitable in the first place.

A functioning economy is a shared system. If companies profit from the roads, schools, research, courts, and stability that society pays for, then contributing a fair share back isn’t punishment — it’s simply paying their part of the bill.

But right now ordinary americans are paying the bills and making billionaires richer.

 

[RobF]

A country or area that has all the infrastructure I mentioned will not be cheaper tax-wise. That infrastructure does not just magically appear. It is build over years and paid for - by (surprise) higher taxes!

One situation where it can be cheaper occurs to me; when the infrastructure is already established, and the country/area starts cutting taxes in a race to the bottom to attract, or retain, people and companies who want to minimise their contributions, because they've been convinced that this is somehow a winning strategy.

Of course, then we have to consider what happens to that infrastructure when the contributions are no longer enough to maintain it. And what happens to taxes to try to address that. And who ends up being squeezed when the philosophy is "avoid taxing the rich as much as possible".

Edit: Sorry @Dragon, I was clearly making this post at the same time as yours!

 

[TampaJoe]

Relocating your HQ for tax evasion doesn't actually do anything for the state.

My company is technically in Texas. We have a single office floor in Dallas, and one employee. The actual jobs are in the states with our data centers.

Tax evasion? Tax evasion is a crime. Nothing we are discussing is criminal. Legally minimizing your tax liability isn't criminal. I can't speak for others but I don't seek to pay more in taxes than I am legally required to pay. I prefer to live in low tax or no tax states. Nothing illegal about that.

 

[TampaJoe]

There’s also a moral issue in this debate that often gets ignored.

Many companies build their success in places that have invested heavily in public goods: good roads, ports, reliable utilities, universities, research institutions, healthcare systems, and schools that educate their workforce. Those things don’t appear by magic — they are paid for by taxpayers.

Yet some companies keep their factories, engineers, and customers in those states because they benefit from that ecosystem, while shifting their headquarters or executive tax residency to lower-tax states to reduce what they contribute.

In other words, they continue to benefit from the infrastructure and talent that taxpayers funded, but move the part of the business that generates the biggest personal tax payments — executive income and headquarters taxes — somewhere else.

That leaves ordinary citizens and local businesses carrying more of the cost of maintaining the very systems that made those companies profitable in the first place.

A functioning economy is a shared system. If companies profit from the roads, schools, research, courts, and stability that society pays for, then contributing a fair share back isn’t punishment — it’s simply paying their part of the bill.

But right now ordinary americans are paying the bills and making billionaires richer.

Most states tax income earned in those states. They are entitled legally to do so. But are they entitled to tax income earned in other states or nations? That's debatable. So companies who relocate their headquarters aren't avoiding taxes paid on income earned in that state. The state is still getting what it is entitled to receive. However, if they close business in one state and relocate the entire footprint to another that entire revenue stream will move. You may view that as unfair. I do not. If I move to another state to take a better job or to enjoy a change in scenery, I don't owe the state I leave anything. As long as I've paid the taxes I have owned them to that point, I'm paid up. We are free to move around in this country. Businesses are the same.

 

[RobF]

So companies who relocate their headquarters aren't avoiding taxes paid on income earned in that state.

Who wants to explain profit shifting to Joe?

 

[UriUT]

There’s also a moral issue in this debate that often gets ignored.

Many companies build their success in places that have invested heavily in public goods: good roads, ports, reliable utilities, universities, research institutions, healthcare systems, and schools that educate their workforce. Those things don’t appear by magic — they are paid for by taxpayers.

Yet some companies keep their factories, engineers, and customers in those states because they benefit from that ecosystem, while shifting their headquarters or executive tax residency to lower-tax states to reduce what they contribute.

In other words, they continue to benefit from the infrastructure and talent that taxpayers funded, but move the part of the business that generates the biggest personal tax payments — executive income and headquarters taxes — somewhere else.

That leaves ordinary citizens and local businesses carrying more of the cost of maintaining the very systems that made those companies profitable in the first place.

A functioning economy is a shared system. If companies profit from the roads, schools, research, courts, and stability that society pays for, then contributing a fair share back isn’t punishment — it’s simply paying their part of the bill.

But right now ordinary americans are paying the bills and making billionaires richer.

To your point of infrastructure, education, and social environments that gives companies abilities to attract talent.

Austin was supposed to be America's next big tech hub. Here's how it all went wrong.

Austin has lost its hot growth streak as the market cools....

sherwood.news

In April, Oracle chairman Larry Ellison said the software giant would be moving its world headquarters to Nashville, Tennessee, in a blow to Austin; and that same day, Tesla announced it was eliminating 2,688 jobs in Austin as part of a restructuring. In the venture-capital world, startup accelerator Techstars announced in December it was closing its Austin operations too. Meanwhile, Bloomberg noted the number of companies relocating their headquarters or major operations to Austin kept declining, from 64 in 2022 to 37 in 2023, to just 11 so far in 2024.

Beyond home prices, Austin's infrastructure has struggled to keep up with its population growth. In February 2021, a winter storm caused Austin's worst energy infrastructure failure in history, with millions of people across Texas losing power, causing hundreds of deaths, and last summer, Austin almost had power blackouts during a series of brutal heat waves.

Edit: I want point out that these cursory observations in the same vein as throwing a snowball on the Capitol floor to prove global warming is fake, just misses on the reasons why Boston and California continues to attract high end talent. If one lives in Lafayette all their lives, they wouldn't know the amenities that bigger California cities provide. And the educational opportunities....experiences. and i love austin. as a tangent, last year, I drove past Lafayette and saw a state sized billboard of trump for 3rd term. This year, its the 2020 election was stolen and "we" need to prevent it happening again.

 

[Incumbent]

To your point of infrastructure, education, and social environments that gives companies abilities to attract talent.

Austin was supposed to be America's next big tech hub. Here's how it all went wrong.

Austin has lost its hot growth streak as the market cools....

sherwood.news

Edit: I want point out that these cursory observations in the same vein as throwing a snowball on the Capitol floor to prove global warming is fake, just misses on the reasons why Boston and California continues to attract high end talent. If one lives in Lafayette all their lives, they wouldn't know the amenities that bigger California cities provide. And the educational opportunities....experiences. and i love austin. as a tangent, last year, I drove past Lafayette and saw a state sized billboard of trump for 3rd term. This year, its the 2020 election was stolen and "we" need to prevent it happening again.

I think this hits on some issues but I think the beneficial impact of the pandemic on Austin gets way overblown. The city (as you must know) was years into a boom, fueled by Tech, well before that. If anything, I think the residual consequences of the pandemic were a net negative for the region.

It is congested here and I think a lot of people arrive and find out the Austin they picked to live in isn’t the same one they visited, or the utopia they learned about from social media influencers. I also think state politics has taken a toll on a lot of people, and turned others off completely. It’s not simply conservative, it’s far right radicalism and corrupt, pandering to Christianity, with a heavy assault on civil rights and public education.