Big Country Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Interesting article on a subject that we;ve discussed quite a bit lately Obviously harder to move out of the country to avoid higher income taxes, but an interesting case study in what happens when you count on the "rich" to pay more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yet another example of why manipulating progressive tax rates to shift more of the burden on the upper incomes doesn't work. Oh that and spending more than you receive. A balanced budget is the best thing going forward but governments at every level seem to be incapable of understanding that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Not surprising at all. There is a reason that while most states are losing jobs, Texas has more new jobs than all other states combined, and is running a surplus. While it isn't that bad yet, when it comes time to pay for BO's spending spree some of those getting fleeced may seriously consider other nations, particularly those who's primary income is not tied to a specific location. BO may be doing more to help Mexico than anyone could imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency." Almost everyone I know that has moved to Virginia in the past 10 years or so has done so from Northeast states with ridiculous tax rates. The retired people that built across the street sold their house in Pennsylvania and moved here to get rid of that ridiculous personal property tax rate they charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 DO not move to Texas, there is no work for you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 "These are not the droids you want." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Surprisingly, I see no commentary from the more liberal folk that peruse this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Surprisingly, I see no commentary from the more liberal folk that peruse this board. They're thinking it isn't fair or right that those people can move away - that they should just have to stay there and take it, the greedy bastages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Surprisingly, I see no commentary from the more liberal folk that peruse this board. they are at defcon 7. all their teets are moving away!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 They're thinking it isn't fair or right that those people can move away - that they should just have to stay there and take it, the greedy bastages... Nah, they don't care about people moving away. Eventually Obama will suckle them and cuddle them and hold them and call them George and transfer all the power away from State Government into the Federal hands since they obviously know what is best for us. Then it won't matter which State those evil tax-dodger people live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I, for one, am shocked that there are fewer millionaires after the banking industry and economy collapses. The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including first homes, fell by 2.5 million to 6.7 million in 2008, according to the Spectrem Group report, as reported by Rueters. After the 27 percent drop, the number of millionaires is at the lowest level since 2003, when the millionaire population stood at 6.2 million. Here's a tip... if the article uses the terms "soak-the-rich" and "fleecing the wealthy" in the first two sentences... they are probably trying to sell you something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I trust the Wall Street Journals opinion page on tax matters as much as I would trust the PETA webpage for BBQ recipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Not surprising at all. There is a reason that while most states are losing jobs, Texas has more new jobs than all other states combined, and is running a surplus. While it isn't that bad yet, when it comes time to pay for BO's spending spree some of those getting fleeced may seriously consider other nations, particularly those who's primary income is not tied to a specific location. BO may be doing more to help Mexico than anyone could imagine. most folks I know looking for a new gig actually have a college degree - which rules out Texas more new jobs than all other states combined???? funny chit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 most folks I know looking for a new gig actually have a college degree - which rules out Texas more new jobs than all other states combined???? funny chit One last point: States aren't simply competing with each other. As Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently told us, "Our state is competing with Germany, France, Japan and China for business. We'd better have a pro-growth tax system or those American jobs will be out-sourced." Gov. Perry and Texas have the jobs and prosperity model exactly right. Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year. That is some funny chit isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 That is some funny chit isn't it. Now do job creation per capita. Because... like... Texas is the 2nd most populous state. So saying it created the "most jobs" in the state with the 2nd most people is really just saying that it beat the numbers of California. Show me the per capita stats that remove the heavy bias of Texas's population, and I'll be impressed (or unimpressed as the case may be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Atomic that would involve Perch not cherry picking editorial quotes from the opinion pages . . WAY too much work. It is pretty obvious that only rasiing the tax rate on the very rich would cause them to leave. . . . most of them have multiple residences anyway. If the US tax code strictly kept to a flat rate and eliminated all the loopholes and tax havens that the rich employ battalions of accountants to take advantage of, then the field is evened out. What is the problem with a flat tax rate? If loopholes are eliminated so that 5% REALLY means 5%, what is the issue? Wouldnt that be the very definition of "fair"? Keep in mind rabid conservatives, that means that the wealthy actually pay the same rate as poorer folk and CANT manipulate the system to get out of their portion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Atomic that would involve Perch not cherry picking editorial quotes from the opinion pages . . WAY too much work. It is pretty obvious that only rasiing the tax rate on the very rich would cause them to leave. . . . most of them have multiple residences anyway. If the US tax code strictly kept to a flat rate and eliminated all the loopholes and tax havens that the rich employ battalions of accountants to take advantage of, then the field is evened out. What is the problem with a flat tax rate? If loopholes are eliminated so that 5% REALLY means 5%, what is the issue? Wouldnt that be the very definition of "fair"? Keep in mind rabid conservatives, that means that the wealthy actually pay the same rate as poorer folk and CANT manipulate the system to get out of their portion. What is the income required to be considered rich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Show me the per capita stats that remove the heavy bias of Texas's population, and I'll be impressed (or unimpressed as the case may be). Apparently Baltimore Maryland does okay. http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends.jsp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Apparently Baltimore Maryland does okay. http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends.jsp Ahem ... the big dot is "Washington DC" (i.e., "fedgov"). And, Baltimore is a not too far from there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Ahem ... the big dot is "Washington DC" (i.e., "fedgov"). And, Baltimore is a not too far from there... And......you agree that Perch's insinuation that Texas is #1 solely because of their tax code is not only overly simplistic but almost certainly inaccurate? I mean Boston, MA is #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 So the wealthy treat state income tax the same as war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 And......you agree that Perch's insinuation that Texas is #1 solely because of their tax code is not only overly simplistic but almost certainly inaccurate? I mean Boston, MA is #5. Simplifications are generally inaccurate, yes. Primarily because they are S-I-M-P-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S. FYI, Massachusetts also has (iirc) the highest per-capita millionaires of any other state. That doesn't tell me that their tax-code is driving that either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Simplifications are generally inaccurate, yes. Primarily because they are S-I-M-P-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N-S. Which was the purpose of my post (and a response to Perch's 3-month non-stop barrage in general). We, including me for sure, all seem to be guilty of either ignoring or attaching ourselves onto rather frivolous cherry pickings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 ...blah blah blah... We, including me for sure, all seem to be guilty of either ignoring or attaching ourselves onto rather frivolous cherry pickings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 :blah: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts