> Ok, so abolish the free market worldwide?
Actually, it'd empower the free market, as we'd have more fair competition. Tax avoidance breeds unfair competition. After all, if your competitor is paying tax while you don't, then you get more profit. More profit allows you to invest more, take more risks, do more R&D, etc.
> Removing incentive structures and high taxation does cause the wealthy to leave.
I never argued otherwise; I argued if we, as humanity, fight this problem on a world-wide level the rich have no place to go.
> It's happening in the U.K. right now.
We're not addressing the problem on a world-wide scale right now (AFAICT), and it'd be a process. Not a one day project. During such a process you'll see a lot of rough edges, like with alpha software.
The response: "the plan isn't perfect" is a straw man. Of course the plan isn't perfect. Of course they can move to the Bahama's, Monaco, or what not. It isn't meant to be perfect; it is meant as a first step in the right direction, after which reflection must take place to continue to tackle the problem.
> They didn't come by their wealth through forcibly taking it from poor people. The free market dictates voluntary exchange of goods and services. They are wealthy through a long series of voluntary transactions with the public.
However if they paid their taxes fair and square they'd have less profit, and the little guy who starts their own company would have an easier barrier of entry. Hence, entrepreneurs (for whom you could argue HN is for) would benefit from this climate. Instead, what we have is a few successful ponies who get bought by the big fish.