The article doesn’t mention it, but it’s also difficult to bring their money with them due to strict transfer limits. China is shedding its parasite class, and the leeches are migrating to their natural environment.
And think about how that tax revenue gets spent on weapons and not healthcare.
(Given those millionaires were able to circumvent China's strict capital controls. Even if some of them did I'm sure they'd find a way of circumventing taxes in their new host country also)
China saw the world's biggest outflow of high-net-worth individuals last year and is expected to see a record exodus of 15,200 in 2024, dealing a further blow to its economy, a new report says.
It's interesting how through the neoliberal lens this looks like "a blow" to their economy. But from a Keynesian or MMT lens, China doesn't need high net worth individuals to drive the economy. Public investment can and has done this in China as well as many other parts of the world.
From another angle, letting high net worth individuals flee, could reduce apparent wealth inequality in China.
I mean, if they are fleeing, they are fleeing with their money. Capital is essential for an economy and if capital leaves the country, it means that you have less growth, less investment and less prosperity in general. You can't even tax that capital once it has left the country.
Plus, many of those low-millionaires are probably some of the most competent and knowledgeable people (not the hundreds-million industry captain with ties to the government, but the plant manager or lead researcher, lead developer etc. i.e. those who've made a small fortune through their ability). Getting rid of lead people is not exactly beneficial for an economy.
And sure, making everyone poor will reduce apparent wealth inequality, you're right.
In fiat economies financial capital isn't a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens' money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn't hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don't need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There's no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government's "printing press."
Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they're not as easily replaceable. That's why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they're knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they're people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn't ideal. If we assume the latter, then it's a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they're not essential for economic growth.
Fiat currency doesn't work like that. It is a way to hold value so that a potato farmer isn't exchanging a bushel of potatoes for a dentist appointment. It still needs to be backed by productivity in the economy, otherwise you just get hyperinflation. There is no magic.
And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example dollars backed by future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn't exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn't, without causing inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc).
The system that allows them to exist and that they control to always keep like that (and maybe you guys wanted to say billionaire, with current exchange even being multimillionaire is not something that distant)
So I shouldnt be allowed to have commerce with whom I please? I shouldnt be able to save/invest money? Most millionaires are people with a modest income.
Unless you re part of a coop (based) or run your business as a one man show, you're reliant on the labour and appropriation of surplus value of others to amas such wealth (aka committing capitalism).
So a surgeon doesnt earn their wealth off their own labor & value? Hard disagree, even accounting for their assistants that couldnt do what they do. The surgeon provides some amount of value, their staff makes them more efficient, so theres an equilibrium where theyre being fairly compensated. The hospital owners and investors are the leeches.
I mean, given enough time, just a mere salary man can become a millionaire (and with more time, a multi-millionaire) only by keeping their spending low and stashing the rest of their net salary into index funds. Sure, that's capitalism which isn't too popular in Lemmy, but it's just an example of how a millionaire can really just be a normal, somewhat frugal, person. They aren't showing their wealth though because that's the reason they are able to save such a nest-egg so you can't really tell if your neighbor is secretly wealthy or not.
Billionaires (and "multihundredmillionaires") are a completely different group of people though, and no normal person is able to amass such wealth without a shit-ton of luck and most probably some abuse as well.