>


You completely missed my point. 

I never miss the point.
​

For the money that we pay in taxes, too much of it is wasted.

How specifically is it wasted? What is it being spent on that you think it should not be?
Tax flight does occur, but the billionaires usually move to European tax havens like Switzerland or Monaco rather than the US. >

That’s where rich Americans keep their money too >

Correct me if I am wrong but the United States is one of the very few countries in the world to impose income taxes based on citizenship meaning even US citizens who live in foreign countries are still taxed with the same tax rates as resident citizens. Other countries seem to have no problem with the U.S. using this very different taxation tactic. So, even if the income tax rate was to be raised on the wealthy Americans, I highly doubt they could avoid it by moving out without renouncing their US citizenship entirely.
Also, as seen here, plenty of Europeans have become tax exiles. >

The US taxes expats, but you do get credit for whatever local taxes you pay.  If your American tax rate is 20%, and your French tax rate is 19%, you only pay 1% American income tax. >

US ignores the first $108k/year you make at the federal level as long as you spend 330/365 days out of country. On top of that, a smart expat registers in a state like Texas, so if you’re middle class you end up paying little-to-no taxes. >

Which is why this sort of loophole should be closed.
If tax evaders are state shopping, we dont have one country, we have 50. >

You can’t regulate state taxes at a federal level. And the federal tax break exists to provide a break for people like me, who make middle class wages in another country, not significantly benefiting from the things American taxes pay for. >


You can’t regulate state taxes at a federal level.

Yeah you can. Its done all the time one of them being SALT, another is sales tax deduction, another is sales tax normalization to benefit big business. Theres actually tons of laws that do just this. >

SALT is not regulating state taxes. >

its federal regulation of state taxes >

SALT does nothing to regulate state taxes. It's a deduction for Federal taxes based on how much you pay for state taxes. There's no Federal law regulating state taxes (except for obvious taxes that violate the Constitution)
States can raise or lower their taxes as they see fit.
Before you reply, please read the Wikipedia page on the deduction which shows that it does nothing to regulate state taxes.
If you insist that the SALT deduction regulates state taxes, I'm going to insist that you back up your claims with substantive sources. >

European countries don’t tax the wealthy much more than the US. The US has one of the most stratified tax systems in the developed world with high income Americans paying near European levels of taxation.
The real difference between European and American taxes lies in the taxation of the middle class (who are far more heavily taxed in Europe) and to a lesser extant the lower class who are also more heavily taxed in Europe.
The flip side is that Europeans get more social services. >


The flip side is that Europeans get more social services.

This is important. I may be taxed less in the US, but I pay a lot of money for private health insurance for my family that would otherwise be covered in slightly higher taxes through a single payer system. >

The taxes aren’t slightly higher. >

Healthcare is just one additional service as an example. >

The other “services” aren’t things people in the US want.  Take the public transit systems in Europe.  Most of us need a car and don’t care about public transit because we can’t use it anyway.  Their countries are the size of some of our cities.  Nothing about what they do is comparable to a country as large and diverse as the US. >

You care so much about cars because our public transportation sucks and the philosophy for neighborhood planning throughout a large portion of the last century was built around owning a car.
It was a stupid idea, and hopefully a rather brief one when all of human history is concerned. It’s time to move away from these ridiculous suburbs. They’re still building them unfortunately because some people just don’t know any better and they want their big useless yard with their McMansion in their nothing neighborhood in the middle of nowhere. >

In fairness some of us anti social people want this.
The McMansion and excessively large yard might be a bit much, but I want to live in a rural area, not a city. >

As a non-social person who has lived in multiple cities - in my experience you don’t actually have to interact with people, you just exist around them. Outside of outdoor hobbies, there’s also generally more to do in the way of “being relatively alone”.
For me, it feels easier to not be social while also not feeling like I’ve dropped out of the world.
Regardless, I understand the appeal of living in a rural area, and even a suburban one. I just really dislike the inefficient design of the 20th century American suburb. Nothing is close, nothing is far; big paved roads leading to big paved parking lots. It’s a new biome created half for people, and half for cars. >

Good for you but I still feel around too many people in a city. I do not like it. I also don't like feeling like I'm in a hotel room rather than a house like many city apartments have. 
That and I do have outdoor hobbies. And hobbies where I need more space for two workshops, tools, etc. >

This isn't a preamble to a kidnapping. I'm not about to force you into a $2000 a month closet in Manhattan. Just providing some perspective from someone else who relates to the "Don't want to deal with people" bit who also thinks that the US's city and neighborhood planning around the abundance of automobiles needs to end. >


Is there any way to convince the wealthy that their tax money is being put to good use and convince them to stay in the State in which they reside?

Short answer: No.
The wealthy elite in Europe (wealthiest 0.5%) may reside in London, Paris and Rome (just as examples) but their wealth does not. They are legally listed as residents of Monaco or multiple "offshore" countries that tax them at a much lower rate.
Take for example the Non-Domicile tax status in the United Kingdom. A person whose main home (or domicile) is not subject to tax in the UK on all non-UK income or capital gains as long as that person keeps that income "offshore".
It's a very beneficial arrangement. So much so that the current Prime Minister's wife also claimed non-dom status. The leader of the UK is married to a woman whose considerable wealth and income is wholly outside the country. This is true for thousands of the wealthiest individuals in Europe. Here is partial list of notable people who claim Non-Domicile status in the UK.
List of people with non-domiciled status in the UK

It seems overall that upper income earners in Europe, Canada, and Australia despise higher taxes to a much lesser extent than the wealthy in the United States. Is it an ethos problem which is ultimately irreparable? If not, what's the work around?

The rich are the same all over the globe and they also inhabit the same spaces, utilize the same attorneys and accountants. They ALL shield their immense wealth from both world governments and the prying eyes of outsiders. This is the main reason why we can't have nice things.
The wealthy elite are not just aware of the damage they're doing to global societies but they are preparing for the inevitable collapse.
Hunting the One Percent’s Doomsday Bunkers in New Zealand
Billionaire bunkers: How the 1% are preparing for the apocalypse >


but they are preparing for the inevitable collapse.

The joke is on them, those bunkers won't stop the hoards of poor masses from overrunning them >

It will. All they need are drones. >

Those drones need gas to fuel them, they'll run out of fuel reserves >

Right? And you can see it play out in real time. I’m a California native so I’ve lived my entire life hearing about the imminent socialist taxation economic collapse that’s coming any minute.
Unfortunately I’m forced to visit San Francisco or Los Angeles every couple years, and the traffic is worse every single year. People seem to love those places and will pay shockingly ludicrous fortunes for a one week visit, never mind the people that move there and try to make a life. 
Look at who stays and who leaves. Did Hollywood collapse when joe Rogan fucked off to Texas, or did nobody care because we’ve got bigger things going on here than a washed up radio host?
This may come as a shock, but rich people like paying big money for nice things. Maybe you’ve heard of coach?
I dunno. I’m a libertarian, and to me, it’s pretty clear that the free market is speaking. People in general appear to like paying higher taxes for better services. >

CA and other hight tax states are seeing significant out migration.  CA and NY both lost house seats as a result. >

This seems to be more because of aging populations performing wealth transfers by moving. >

Many middle and working class are fleeing. >

Considering that New Jersey is the second most common moving choice, and New Jersey basically has higher taxes than New York, and California is #3 I don’t think we can draw a conclusion as whether it’s about politics or not “#1. New Jersey

Moved from New York to New Jersey in 2019: 58,664
— 13.3% of residents that moved
Moved from New Jersey to New York in 2019: 31,942
--- #2 most common destination from New Jersey” >

Sure but from where ? >

New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and North Dakota we’re leaders the last few years, ND because the fracking surge was over.   Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona were among the leading destinations, with Tennessee  and the Carolinas in the mix much of the time. >

so the most dense areas in the USA are also losing population.  this doesn’t not make sense.  For the record, i left a job because it was moving to Texas, and my tax burden would have been higher in Texas versus New York because of the absurd real estate takes.  it helps that my real estate taxes are pretty low because i purchased my house during the housing crash >

I'm not gonna pretend I know taxes. However, a cursory glance at the wikipedia entries for the panama papers and capital flight implies that they generally don't prevent wealth flight.
Anecdotally, every conversation I've seen online about taxes from european nations has told me your average european is much happier to pay them. They don't have to deal with garbage like Turbotax lobbying the government to keep taxes complicated, and they get much more return on investment. >

Wealth flight is a thing there as well. When France passed their quickly aborted millionaire tax, other countries advertised their lower tax rates. >

Here’s a simple concept to understand. The American consumer/worker has benefited enormously from the building middle class purse through decades. It made national and global enterprises want to be in the American marketplace to have access to those dollars. But when you bleed the American consumer dry through trickle-down economics, lopping the tax burden from the wealthy and yoking it on the back of those same middle class, and create a for-profit healthcare and education system, you are gutting the USA. Those wealthy who are bending the us laws and tax code to their benefit, have the mobility to move at will anywhere in the world and can simply extract as much wealth from the USA as they can without dealing Sudhakar the consequences or fallout. 
Look how many enterprises are clamoring to get into the Chinese market now. They have the growing middle and lower classes. They have the money to throw at innovative products. Those will now be showing up to American shores less and less, and when they do, it will be after foreign markets have been served. >

I am guessing that the most wealthy Europeans are part of families that have been wealthy for a VERY long time, so much of the income is in assets that can't be moved and that are not necessarily massive in regard to annual income.  
Furthemore, there is the actual role that a community and location plays in regard to the value it adds to your life and identity.  You and your city or country IS who you are.  Your "high society" friends are all in Paris or Milan or whatever, so are your siblings, cousins, etc.  You WANT to stay there, and to some degree there is a certain pride to be had for supporting your society and country by paying your taxes.   
This is very much in opposition to the US, where most people don't have deep roots, most places don't really have much value (save for the handful of major cities - and most of these have horrible weather), add to that that most Americans move around quite a bit (even to go to school)... so in the end there are no geographic ties. >

There is a reason why Switzerland has the highest concentration of massively wealthy people.  They have the best tax situation in that part of the world.  Majority of those very wealthy people are not natives, they became rich in Europe and leave as soon as they can.  Also, safety nets in Europe actually give benefits that helps the people.  Like it or not the safety nets in the US only keep you in need, never a way to stay in temporarily and then get out.  
For example corporate taxes are much lower in Canada than the US.  The issues is you are trying to compare oranges and apples with our tax systems.  EU has much easier tax laws compared to ours.  As a conservative I would love to see some EU style tax systems like VAT or flat taxation.  Though as soon as I say that the left here in this country loose it.  They want to see punish the rich instead of what's best for the country as a whole. >

You’re almost right. Taxes are popular with everyone until they are the ones that have to pay for it. The American public loves raising taxes for other people. >

If you saw the US through their eyes, you’d understand why they’re happy to pay for a premium experience. >

The problem is that the rich and rich corporations can pay zero, Trump paid zero many years.   And there are tax schemes where the rich can keep their money hidden from taxes in their capital gains and borrow at very low rates instead when they need money, so they borrow and pay a few percent instead of the 35% that many have to.
America has  a problem with the rich fooling the poor in thinking taxes are bad so they can avoid paying them.  We could shore up Social Security by just raising the limit on how much income is taxed which is only $180K now.
We have another problem the poverty rate is not realistic.  It's set at like $5 an hour for the lowest when in reality even at $15 an hour you could not even qualify three times the income to afford a one bedroom apartment. >

As some are pointing out, Europeans like their high taxes because they see returns on them. 
On the American side of things, we have an almost cult like hatred of taxes because of mass propaganda campaigns run in politics for decades to make people earning under 400K that taxes on the higher income brackets will just fall on them with no benefit. 
These right wing propaganda campaigns have also led to social programs being villainized and made anemic from day one, sabotaging them while making public action in the economy seem like a huge failure. >

uh no. the rich in europe have all their money in offshore bank accounts just like they do in the US >

Wealth flight isn't really a thing. The US used to have much higher taxes and, to no one's surprise, the rich didn't leave. Wealth flight is just something Republicans use to justify unfairly low taxes for the rich (who happen to donate large sums of money to them). >

The US effective tax rate at the top end hasn't changed much in nearly a century it was bumped to 36% in 1933. Topped out at 45% in 1945 and sits at 38% today. >

90% was the highest marginal tax, but it wasn’t people’s effective tax, which was much much lower. Few if any people were actually paying 90% above a certain threshold. >

I asked the other guy for evidence for his numbers. If you could provide any that would be great. >

You gave us the evidence! >

I gave evidence for my numbers and claim. Again, refute my claim that the US used to have significantly higher taxes. >

It's quite simple: moving to a different country is not a small step, and most people won't consider doing that just for a slightly lower income tax bill, especially considering you then also have to find a new job. Aside from that, taxes are not that high anyway, with marginal rates usually not higher than 60%, compared to historical rates in the US of over 90% (which also did not lead to a mass exodus).
If people get their income mainly from capital it's a different story, but those taxes tend to be low in every Western country. Sweden has roughly twice as many billionaires per capita as the US. >

Yanks are brainwashed against taxes by the Corps that choose the officials that people are allowed to vote for. 
I live in Canada. My income level is such that it is taxed at 21%. Add 10-15% for the goods and services i buy. Seems steep, im sure, but ive never paid a penny in medical bills. 
Although that may change as US corps are taking over our medical system and privatizing it fast. >

You in the US just got used to the narrative, that taxes are wrong and perceived as theft. You hardly get any return of the tax payments. In Europe the return is much higher. The health care systems are much more affordable, the education system is also cheaper. In general the understanding and acceptance of taxes is much higher. I mean, I don’t blame you, because you basically don’t have a decent education or health care system. Only when you pay for it out of your own pocket. Isn’t that also kind of a tax? Just asking… >

There’s a lot of good answers here but there’s one really important thing that I want to point out; the perceived incompetence of the US federal government to handle the increased tax income Vs most European governments. 
The US congress has an approval rating of like 20 on good days and it routinely turns into toxic petty politics for yearly spending bills (look at the current one that just passed that Rs wanted to hold until they hold the house for more leverage). I’m not sure on the specifics but most parliaments would be disbanded and new elections scheduled if their approval rating got that bad. 
The fact is, no one trusts the feds. I would love to see universal healthcare and/or higher education in the US but one of my biggest reasons for voting R (most days) is because of their (supposed) position of small government/state rule and that I don’t believe they’d actually do what they are saying and turn into “yeah, we know we said this but now we need more money because we ran out” or “To cut health costs, these procedures will now no longer be covered”. This doesn’t even touch the toxicity of contraceptives, abortion, gender transition, or any of the other hot button issue that are medical related and would turn into an even greater political football.
TLDR: The feds suck, no one trusts them, and why should I want to give them more money to blow?
Edit: if you wanna downvote that’s fine but at least give some input on why otherwise it accomplishes nothing. >

maybe start to hold government accountable and stop voting for candidates who refuse to govern. >

I agree but that doesn’t matter if the population at large doesn’t do it. Maybe it’s the primary system, I don’t know. But more times than not (unless you’re in a state that’s so hard red or blue that it doesn’t matter) your options are to either choose whomever the candidate is for the party that you identify with or someone from the other party that may or may not but super far left or right of what you’re comfortable with. >

you're missing the point.
candidates on the right flat out REFUSE to govern, and by govern, i mean do anything at all towards making government work for anyone but the super wealthy (which it already does work for).
they are more than happy to pass legislation to cut taxes for the wealthy, look how fast they got that done when R had both chambers.
but ask a conservative to pass legislation that benefits the public in any way and it's filibuster city.
democrats are not much better, but they are better.
if you really want choices in your elections, push for Ranked Choice Voting, that way your vote will be counted even if your preferred candidate doesn't win. >


look how fast they got that done when R had both chambers

You mean the bill that cut taxes for the majority of the Americans, not just the rich? That kinda contradicts your point, don’t you think? >

This honestly seems more like “Republicans are trash and anyone who doesn’t explicitly say this is immediately wrong” kind of post >

It varies by which European state, but most of them raise their taxes from VAT and sales taxes, and not very progressive income taxes such that the vast majority of taxes are paid by the middle and working classes, who in turn receive much of the government spending.
You write " everyone wants to have a nice social safety net...but also nobody wants to pay for it" which is not quite right.  Better to say that no-one who wants a nice social safety net wants to be the one to pay for it.  By no means does everyone want government in that role. >

Not sure how popular the "social safety net" thing is anymore.  Feels like that net is lined with sticky glue.  A lot of people milk that and up being a taker when they dont have to be.  A lot of working class people resent that and you cant blame them.  
High taxes would be more acceptable if and only if you get a lot for those taxes.  Like perfect roads, super low crime, efficient Govt., etc.  Even then, it is a tough sell because taxation means less money for you to spend on yourself and your family. Its like, most of us work reasonably hard and long to get where we are and its not fun watching a lot of it get thrown into the "community" tip jar. >

you know how you get low crime... public assistance/programs/facilities
when everything is privatized and only the wealthy can afford them, those who are struggling will resort to crime in order to survive.
you claim the net is "glue" but where is your evidence that ppl would rather take a hand out than make a meaningful contribution to society?
keep in mind a lot of the means tested benefits that we do manage to provide are taken away as soon as you make any money for yourself at all
to get medicaid, you you have maintain less than $2000 worth of "wealth"
that's insulting. >

You know how you fight crime?  Make it easier to support oneself.  Facilitate job training, low cost career education versus stupid colleges, tax incentives & programs to start businesses, ease down on red tape & regulation.  Make it easier for people to NOT have to rely on the Govt. 
Crime is a morality issue and no decent person would ever resort to that.  You do what you have to but you dont hurt others. >


Crime is a morality issue and no decent person would ever resort to that.  You do what you have to but you dont hurt others.

easy for you to say, obviously.... and i dare say when it comes down to survival, the greater hurt is not with the victims of property crime.
but i agree with everything you said above that, except for the bit about regulations because we need those to prevent fraud and grift. >


Is there any way to convince the wealthy that their tax money is being put to good use and convince them to stay in the State in which they reside?

So, your position is they'll leave the US for a country with high taxes if their taxes are raised here? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?
The thing is, unlike Americans, Europeans are happy to pay taxes. >

People would be happy to pay more taxes if we actually got good services with the money.  But we don't actually get it, so nobody wants to pay more. >


... if we actually got good services with the money. But we don't actually get it ...

That's mainly because of the tax code. The U.S. has some of the lowest taxes in the world, both in terms of personal income tax rates and sales tax rates. Too many loopholes, tax breaks and deductions for corporations and the uber rich help to put the U.S. at the bottom end of the tax scale when compared to other nations. U.S. taxes represented about 25.5% of GDP in 2020. The average for other OECD member countries was 33.5% that same year, and we spend more on our military. >

You completely missed my point.  For the money that we pay in taxes, too much of it is wasted.  I don't want to pay more in taxes because more will be wasted.  If we got better services delivered, then it would be different.  
The USA is less efficient and more corrupt than the countries you're thinking of.  Collecting more money won't fix anything.