On the people side, the ones who would do it are already doing it: for example rich people who go live in Monaco 6 months a year to have residence there. The one’s who aren’t doing it and simply bitch and moan about it seldom tend to start doing it because they prefer the lifestyle of being were they are rather than the “live in your yacht of the coast of Monaco”.
As for businesses, they only ever do it when they can still keep operating with the same advantages in their original markets whilst paying all taxes elsewhere that is cheaper. In regimes were taxation isn’t actually based on “place of sale” but instead on HQ location, the move their HQs to reduce the tax they pay but they don’t actually move their businesses. Such moves indicate that tax legislation is actually not taxing the doing business (i.e. their actual selling) but something else and thus need fixing.
It’s incredibly rare for a business to actually stop selling altogether in a country merely for tax reasons - instead what you see is them trying to use accounting loopholes to move their tax residence elsewhere.
500 sqft condos in Monaco sell for $4-7M. Sports celebrities live there to evade taxes, then fly the flag of the country they evaded taxes. Some of them even get knighted after evading hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes. Cough[Lewis Hamilton]cough.
Yeah, but they already live abroad because they can (given how the Law is made, they can use it to avoid existing taxes) and they prefer the quality of life there.
My point is that those who don’t do it already, are were they are still rather than living in Monaco to avoid existing taxation because they would rather live there than in Monaco, so their threats of leaving if taxes go up are seldom true. Further, if taxation is based on asset ownership and asset location it doesn’t mater were those individuals live, it maters were their assets are: whether they live in Monaco or not, they’ll be paying the same for, say, realestate they own in the UK, since that’s something they can’t take it with them, so they’ll have to divest from those assets by which point they won’t be profiting from the conditions in the UK that make those assets be so profitable for them.
Situations like Lewis Hamilton’s or Taylor Swift’s - people who makes their money mainly from their own work, though they also ride legal weaknesses that let them avoid being taxed on were they actually operate and/or sales were the sale happens (in this case by not paying tax were they play concerts or do races) - are actually unusual as high net worth individuals: most of the very wealthy make their money from the income of asset ownership, and assets have a physical location (even IP), at the very least some kind of national registar somewhere that certifies that they own those assets, so governments that genuinelly want to tax most of the rich who are not paying fairly into the common pot were they derive their gains (i.e. at the very least by making those assets so profitable to own) just have to tax them via the assets rather than via residence.
On the people side, the ones who would do it are already doing it: for example rich people who go live in Monaco 6 months a year to have residence there. The one’s who aren’t doing it and simply bitch and moan about it seldom tend to start doing it because they prefer the lifestyle of being were they are rather than the “live in your yacht of the coast of Monaco”.
As for businesses, they only ever do it when they can still keep operating with the same advantages in their original markets whilst paying all taxes elsewhere that is cheaper. In regimes were taxation isn’t actually based on “place of sale” but instead on HQ location, the move their HQs to reduce the tax they pay but they don’t actually move their businesses. Such moves indicate that tax legislation is actually not taxing the doing business (i.e. their actual selling) but something else and thus need fixing.
It’s incredibly rare for a business to actually stop selling altogether in a country merely for tax reasons - instead what you see is them trying to use accounting loopholes to move their tax residence elsewhere.
500 sqft condos in Monaco sell for $4-7M. Sports celebrities live there to evade taxes, then fly the flag of the country they evaded taxes. Some of them even get knighted after evading hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes. Cough[Lewis Hamilton]cough.
Yeah, but they already live abroad because they can (given how the Law is made, they can use it to avoid existing taxes) and they prefer the quality of life there.
My point is that those who don’t do it already, are were they are still rather than living in Monaco to avoid existing taxation because they would rather live there than in Monaco, so their threats of leaving if taxes go up are seldom true. Further, if taxation is based on asset ownership and asset location it doesn’t mater were those individuals live, it maters were their assets are: whether they live in Monaco or not, they’ll be paying the same for, say, realestate they own in the UK, since that’s something they can’t take it with them, so they’ll have to divest from those assets by which point they won’t be profiting from the conditions in the UK that make those assets be so profitable for them.
Situations like Lewis Hamilton’s or Taylor Swift’s - people who makes their money mainly from their own work, though they also ride legal weaknesses that let them avoid being taxed on were they actually operate and/or sales were the sale happens (in this case by not paying tax were they play concerts or do races) - are actually unusual as high net worth individuals: most of the very wealthy make their money from the income of asset ownership, and assets have a physical location (even IP), at the very least some kind of national registar somewhere that certifies that they own those assets, so governments that genuinelly want to tax most of the rich who are not paying fairly into the common pot were they derive their gains (i.e. at the very least by making those assets so profitable to own) just have to tax them via the assets rather than via residence.