The problem with these constructions is that they’re a Motte and Bailey: As soon as anyone starts pointing out the numerous problems with analyses that assume zero-sum games and no second-order consequences (like business owners restructuring to move their companies to nearly any other country which wont seize their ownership) the person retreats to something like “I just think taxes should be slightly higher” or “Why do you hate feeding the poor” or something.
If the US hadn't argued so vociferously against normalised worldwide minimum tax standards, this argument would be significantly weaker. The root cause of "well I'll just take my wealth elsewhere" is that taking it elsewhere attracts a benefit against leaving it in the economy with the new taxes.
It's certainly true that capital flight is a risk which has to be assessed, but at that point, we really can say (to re-enter the political domain) that the super rich are holding the rest of the economy to ransom.
Apple sitting on $1T of funds deciding how to spend it best in apple shareholder interests needs to be set against apple re-distributing $1T to shareholders, who then incur tax consequences with capital gain, and the rest of the world gets to move on with things that tax can do. Keeping the money inside Apples safe harbour isn't actually useful.
Remember, money is meant to be useful. Hoarding it, is not always helpful.
How does it apply here? There is no retreat - Mamdani's plan is public and is "taxes should be slightly higher" among other things. Specifically higher corporate tax and top percentage wealth tax for the area.
