Any real world example of taxing super rich being detrimental

[YoungGun21]

Is super rich anyone making $100k or more?

Lol umm...no?

 

[JeepinEd]

I run a small business that employs about 20 people. California considers me one of the "Rich" people, who should be taxed to hell. What they don't consider, is that they have made it so expensive to do business in this state, that I, along with my employees, pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. Funny thing is, we were all doing much better before the EDD got involved in "Leveling the playing field".

While I am not totally against a small raise in certain taxes (ie: capital gains), an over reliance on tax income from the "Rich" can have very negative effects, as can be witnessed in California.

Going back to the OP's request, here are a few articles on California's budgetary problems which have been exacerbated by it's reliance on wealth taxes:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html

http://www.neatorama.com/2011/03/27/the-problem-with-taxing-the-rich/

Here is an article by one the the L.A. Times -left of center- writers: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/22/local/la-me-cap-buffet-20110922

 

[Atreus21]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/supply-side_snookinomics.html

This might be relevant to this thread.

It's almost an article of faith on the left that lowering taxes on corporations and job-creators would have no effect on job-creation (see also here, here, and here) . Conservatives believe that lowering taxes on corporations will have the effect of stimulating job growth and creating economic prosperity. This is reflected in conservative support for supply-side economics.

Just when this difference in beliefs seemed certain to derail any attempts between the parties to reach a compromise, a real-world phenomenon has been identified that suddenly shows promise in helping liberals understand the effect that taxation has on job-creation. I call this new economic principle "Supply-Side Snookinomics."

Snookinomics gets its name from "Snooki," the nickname for a character on the MTV reality show Jersey Shore. Last Monday, the show lost its $420,000 film tax credit when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie blocked it, citing the show's negative portrayal of the state and its citizens.

The popularity of Jersey Shore makes it unlikely that the loss of tax credits will have a significant impact on its economic viability. However, it does shine a spotlight on the whole issue of film incentives. Currently, 42 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico offer some type of film production incentive. Twenty-eight of those states offer tax credits. Though some smaller production companies benefit from these incentives, the vast majority of the recipients are major production companies and studios whose executives reside in the highest quintile of income-earners.

Ordinarily, liberals would be up in arms about the idea of "corporate welfare" being handed to the bigwigs at some multinational company. However, rather than being opponents of these tax breaks for the rich, they are avid supporters. Their bedrock support for the incentives wasn't even shaken when super-liberal filmmaker Michael Moore collected a million dollars in tax credits for his Viacom-funded anti-corporate greed movie Capitalism: A Love Story.

So, what are the reasons that supporters of production incentives give for providing these tax breaks and other subsidies? What could be so compelling about this program that even liberals would support the notion of giving a tax break to wealthy businessmen?

A 2010 article on Investors.com gives one liberal's opinion of what will happen when the State of Michigan gives huge tax breaks to wealthy Hollywood moguls:

According to [Michael] Moore, these tax incentives -- imagine it! -- "will mean jobs and money being pulled into Michigan."

Of course, Michael Moore is a bit of a wild card. Certainly other Hollywood liberals would be shocked by his sudden embrace of supply-side economics. The author of the article provides Moore's description of the reaction of his fellow liberals at learning the news:

"When the new film incentives were established, some in Hollywood said that it was an Internet rumor[.]" ... "My agent Ari Emanuel called and asked if this was real. I told him, yes, it is real, and he responded, 'I am getting this out to all of my clients because no state has anything close to this.'"

In every state with film incentives, you will find liberals to be the staunchest supporters of this brand of corporate welfare, and they will provide all sorts of data to lend support to the notion that these incentives create jobs, prevent the exit of companies seeking a better business environment, and generally contribute to the wealth of the states where these tax breaks are offered. On the whole, their arguments match those of conservatives who would like to see a better tax and regulatory environment for all businesses, not just the film industry.

In fairness, support for film production incentives is not limited to the far left. Both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney signed film incentive legislation as governors of their respective states. However, at least in the case of Texas, the incentives were a small part of a wider-ranging pro-business climate in the state. More to the point, lowering taxes for job-creators has been a consistent conservative position and fits well within a conservative economic model that predicts that lower taxes leads to job-creation and economic prosperity. Conservatives who oppose film production incentives do so primarily because narrowly applied tax breaks, where the government chooses the winners and losers, are significantly less efficient than providing broad tax relief and allowing the market to choose where to create jobs. Liberals, on the other hand, are being inconsistent when they claim that broad tax relief will not stimulate economic growth and job-creation while claiming that film production incentives will.

The film production incentive is just one instance where liberals selectively applaud tax relief, in the form of an "incentive," to an industry dominated by liberals. We see the same thing in the so-called Green Industry, where Democrats have decided to use a form of trickle-down economics to create jobs, while simultaneously arguing that the same thing is impossible on a broader scale.

This leads me to the definition of Supply-Side Snookinomics: an economic theory, embraced by liberals, which holds that tax breaks for the rich never create economic growth unless these tax breaks are applied to rich liberals.

 

[werepossum]

That was a tax on a product, not incomes. Try again.

Ah, the Magic Cupboard theory lives. Doesn't matter how much government takes from the rich, they'll still spend just as much.

 

[DaveSimmons]

A 2010 article on Investors.com gives one liberal's opinion of what will happen when the State of Michigan gives huge tax breaks to wealthy Hollywood moguls:

Except this is a state tax break specific to having jobs and production in a state, not an income tax break or capital gains break not tied to any activity.

It's comparable to targeted income tax breaks for buying equipment (accelerated depreciation) or hiring workers.

Ah, the Magic Cupboard theory lives. Doesn't matter how much government takes from the rich, they'll still spend just as much.

It depends on how much you take. Will raising the marginal rate for capital gains above $100K from 15% to 20% stop the rich from buying yachts, or will it just slow their accumulation of wealth?

I'm for modest increases, and large spending cuts.

 

[werepossum]

I can tell you that giving a bank $5,000,000,000 helps them start plans less than two weeks later to lay off 10000+ workers.

This is something at which both Bush and Obama failed. If we have to bail out something, there should be some intense negotiations as to what we're getting for our buck. We'll bail you out, but in return you agree not to lay off anyone for the next two years, cut our bonuses completely, and sharply cut high level pay. If that requires a pre-negotiated structured bankruptcy, so be it.

And if we're bailing out something just because it's "too big to fail", we should be taking steps to break it up, not giving it money to become even bigger.

 

[Ausm]

So if we raise taxes to Clinton levels the debt will disappear?

Not right away but after we climb out of this Recession and get out of 2 illicit Wars then yes.

 

[Ns1]

lots of high earning actors/producers/directors have corporations based outside of the US. LOTS.

 

[Ns1]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/supply-side_snookinomics.html

This might be relevant to this thread.

what a stupid fucking article

I can assure you that tax credits have a VERY LARGE impact on where studios shoot their movies

you want 3000 people working in your city for 5 months? better hook it up with tax credits.

production tax credits = direct job creation

and if cities in the US don't have tax incentives, you can sure as fuck bet cities/countries outside of the US have them (see: canada, germany)

 

[Atreus21]

what a stupid fucking article

I can assure you that tax credits have a VERY LARGE impact on where studios shoot their movies

you want 3000 people working in your city for 5 months? better hook it up with tax credits.

production tax credits = direct job creation

and if cities in the US don't have tax incentives, you can sure as fuck bet cities/countries outside of the US have them (see: canada, germany)

 

[Ns1]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/29/business/la-fi-ct-onlocation-20110629

Study shows film tax credit pumped $3.8 billion into California economy
A study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. shows the California film tax credit program pumped $3.8 billion into the state's economy and created more than 20,000 jobs in the last two years.

LAEDC based its findings on a detailed examination of budgets from nine projects that were allocated $41.4 million in tax credits. These included a new TV series, a movie of the week and feature films with small and medium-size budgets.

Those films produced $847 million in overall spending. That included not only direct production expenses, such as wages for crew members, but also expenditures on restaurants, hotels and construction supplies. The projects generated 4,440 jobs and $312 million in wages, contributing $44.6 million in total state and local taxes, according to the report.

 

[werepossum]

Not right away but after we climb out of this Recession and get out of 2 illicit Wars then yes.

TWO illicit wars? So the two approved by Congress are illicit, but the one waged only by Obama's fiat is, um, licit?

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, the Magic Cupboard theory lives. Doesn't matter how much government takes from the rich, they'll still spend just as much.

Pure obfuscation.

It doesn't matter how much the investor class makes off the working class, either, because the cupboard will always be full, right?

Even when you really have nothing to say, you can create an attack vector out of thin air, pretend it's relevant.

Anything to say that's on topic?

And, uhh, tax credits in one state just move jobs from another state, resulting in a net loss for govt. It's a beggar thy neighbor proposition, a race to the bottom. Reference Texas.

 

[Ns1]

And, uhh, tax credits in one state just move jobs from another state, resulting in a net loss for govt. It's a beggar thy neighbor proposition, a race to the bottom. Reference Texas.

when they move out of the country, net loss for the US

see: germany / toronto / vancouver

 

[JSt0rm]

tax credits work incredibly well in the film industry.

 

[Ns1]

tax credits work incredibly well in the film industry.

http://www.ceidr.org/2005CEIDRReport.pdf

100 pages of reading pleasure, for the hardcore.

 

[Jhhnn]

tax credits work incredibly well in the film industry.

At what, exactly? As I've pointed out, it's worse than zero sum, it's a net loss for govt in general.

Let's say filming in Calif would cost $50M in taxes, but Michigan gives a $10M break to film there. $10M just went to the film producers rather than either Calif or Michigan, which sure as hell won't stay in Michigan. Maybe some govt entity will become so desperate for jobs that they'll pay the producers to film there, huh?

Let's all race to the bottom, see what we can find...

For the great and benevolent Job Creators!

 

[Ns1]

//edit


fuck it, don't have time for this

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Read thread. Example count still at zero

 

[glenn1]

Read thread. Example count still at zero

Who gives a fvck? Increased taxes for the rich aren't happening while there's a Republican House, and liberals wouldn't care if 1,000 examples were given in any event.

 

[UberNeuman]

Trickle down doesn't work... Never has, never will....

 

[Jhhnn]

Who gives a fvck? Increased taxes for the rich aren't happening while there's a Republican House, and liberals wouldn't care if 1,000 examples were given in any event.

Headfirst into the Bunker O' Denial, raving epithets on the way.

To whit- example count still zero. zip. zilch. nothing. nada.

But you already knew that, which creates the craving for... the Bunker!

 

[glenn1]

Headfirst into the Bunker O' Denial, raving epithets on the way.

To whit- example count still zero. zip. zilch. nothing. nada.

But you already knew that, which creates the craving for... the Bunker!

Here you go, see the link below. As I said, there's plenty out there if you actually cared to look or had any desire to actually consider the evidence. Of course this being economics where no theory is truly falsifiable, you can simply wallow in your confirmation bias and find a Paul Krugman to dispute this and say the exact opposite.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/kleven-landais-saez09football.pdf

Abstract:
This paper analyzes the effects of top earnings tax rates on the migration decisions of football players across European countries. We construct a panel data set of top earnings tax rates and football players in the first leagues of 14 European countries since 1980. We identify the effects of top earnings tax rates on migration using various tax and institutional changes: (a) the 1995 Bosman ruling which liberalized the European football market, (b) top tax rate reforms within countries, and (c) country specific tax provisions offering lower tax rates for immigrant football players. We provide both case study analyses and a structural mobility model estimated using all the data and sources of variation simultaneously. Both approaches show that the level of top earnings tax rates has a very large impact on the migration decisions of football players, especially after the 1995 Bosman ruling. Specific tax reductions for immigrants also have large impacts on location decisions. Overall, the elasticity of the probability of playing in a given country with respect to the net-of-tax rate on earnings in this country is large, and even larger for younger players and top quality players. The large tax induced migration effects we uncover translate into significant effects in the performance of football clubs across countries.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here you go, see the link below. As I said, there's plenty out there if you actually cared to look or had any desire to actually consider the evidence. Of course this being economics where no theory is truly falsifiable, you can simply wallow in your confirmation bias and find a Paul Krugman to dispute this and say the exact opposite.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/kleven-landais-saez09football.pdf

Abstract:
This paper analyzes the effects of top earnings tax rates on the migration decisions of football players across European countries. We construct a panel data set of top earnings tax rates and football players in the first leagues of 14 European countries since 1980. We identify the effects of top earnings tax rates on migration using various tax and institutional changes: (a) the 1995 Bosman ruling which liberalized the European football market, (b) top tax rate reforms within countries, and (c) country specific tax provisions offering lower tax rates for immigrant football players. We provide both case study analyses and a structural mobility model estimated using all the data and sources of variation simultaneously. Both approaches show that the level of top earnings tax rates has a very large impact on the migration decisions of football players, especially after the 1995 Bosman ruling. Specific tax reductions for immigrants also have large impacts on location decisions. Overall, the elasticity of the probability of playing in a given country with respect to the net-of-tax rate on earnings in this country is large, and even larger for younger players and top quality players. The large tax induced migration effects we uncover translate into significant effects in the performance of football clubs across countries.

Football players? You cite European football players, young guys who have little wealth, but rather relatively large earnings and short careers? They're super rich, as a group? Billionaires?

Example count still zero. And it wouldn't matter for US citizens, anyway, who are taxed on earnings both foreign and domestic.

 

[shira]

NAFTA also was signed in 1993. Brett Farve also started playing for the Packers in 1992. Coincidence? I don't think so.

You asked for an example. You received it.

Yet now you pretend that what you actually requested was an example that occurred in the world of make-believe; a world where - when taxes were raised - NOTHING else happened in the years before, during, or after that could possibly obfuscate the cause and effect. You want an example with no trade agreements, no wars, no banking crises, no actions by the Fed, no international monetary issues, no major legislative actions, no significant supreme court decisions, no influences of the business cycle, no major terrorist actions, no union actions, no health crises - nothing.

Yep, you're a fvcking moron.