That wasn’t his statement, though. He was saying that the super-rich are a tiny outlier group, so even an infrastructure personal tax that they manage to avoid will have minimal impact on the system at large, because they are so small that even heavy abuse in this scenario is a rounding error.
I think he is insinuating that a system that works but allows tiny groups to fall through the cracks would still be acceptable for this, which I tend to agree with.
It is much like in the past when welfare recipients were vilified because a tiny number of its users found a way to qualify even though they made a bit too much money for it, or managed to double dip somehow to get more than was intended. The system still fills a need and more or less works (its grievous underfunding and paperwork hell notwithstanding) and is far better than nothing, so the statistically insignificant amount of fraud or evasion is an acceptable cost to people that understand statistics and are speaking in good faith.
You don’t have to be rich to register your vehicle in Montanna. It happens all the time in California to avoid smog and taxes.
Also, just because the rich are a small percentage of the population obviously doesn’t mean they should be taxed less, that’s a wild statement.
California is actually going after people registering in Montana when their primary residence is California.
Just like NYC does for people who claim they don’t live in the city to avoid taxes
That wasn’t his statement, though. He was saying that the super-rich are a tiny outlier group, so even an infrastructure personal tax that they manage to avoid will have minimal impact on the system at large, because they are so small that even heavy abuse in this scenario is a rounding error.
I think he is insinuating that a system that works but allows tiny groups to fall through the cracks would still be acceptable for this, which I tend to agree with.
It is much like in the past when welfare recipients were vilified because a tiny number of its users found a way to qualify even though they made a bit too much money for it, or managed to double dip somehow to get more than was intended. The system still fills a need and more or less works (its grievous underfunding and paperwork hell notwithstanding) and is far better than nothing, so the statistically insignificant amount of fraud or evasion is an acceptable cost to people that understand statistics and are speaking in good faith.