Comment by rvz

Comment by rvz 4 days ago

12 replies

TLDR: yes.

Case study: New York City, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Denmark…

The list goes on until they choose; Texas, Florida, Singapore and Dubai.

jdiff 4 days ago

People have been saying it about NYC forever, but last I checked the millionaire+ population of NYC had grown, not shrunk.

  • lucaspm98 4 days ago

    Of course the number of millionaires has grown on an absolute basis given inflation and the strong stock market.

    To control for this look at NYC's share of the nation's millionaires, which shrank from 6.5% in 2010 to 4.2% in 2022.

    https://cbcny.org/research/hidden-cost-new-yorks-shrinking-m...

    • zbentley 4 days ago

      Okay, so aggressive taxation should then have its (proven) benefits weighed against the (dubious) benefits of having 30% of your millionaires change their legal residence to be elsewhere.

      I think taxes still handily win with room to spare. Even more: plenty of those rich people are still in NY and participating in its economy (legal residence != where you actually physically live, especially if you have resources to game residence by owning multiple properties).

ReluctantLaser 4 days ago

Perhaps I missed it, but your TL;DR seems like a personal view rather than what is in the article. Do you have sources for your claims?

zipy124 4 days ago

I mean, net millionares are massively up in the UK, not nearly as many left as are created, so it's not really a good case study there.

chipgap98 4 days ago

Ah yes. There are famously no billionaires who live in New York City