>

Sure but from where ?
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”