• Kethal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Even if it’s not implemented nation wide, there’s the implication that the state is losing something by these people leaving. I suspect they’re contributing little by being there though.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean, if they leave, that tax revenue drops, meaning the goodies you gained may have to be dropped. The concern is whether it is sustainable long term

      • Kethal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        What tax revenue drops? Before the change they weren’t paying the additional tax, and now they aren’t paying it if they leave, so nothing is lost on that account. The state loses whatever taxes they were paying originally; given that they’re annoyed enough to leave over an increase that suggests that they were already finding ways to minimize their tax payments. Thus, by them leaving, the state is likely losing a small amount of revenue. Given that each person has a cost to the state, the net effect will be even smaller.

        Surely there’s a point at which taxes drive away enough people that it doesn’t work, but it’s clearly not the case for this particular implementation.