Atlast Shrugged IRL: Connecticuit

[Zorkorist]

Who is John Galt?

 

[Steeplerot]

Do you believe that the government should also nationalize the food industry? Food is a more basic need than electricity. Why should anybody make a profit?

Food is something that works fine with a bit of regulation. The profit motive works fine as food is a very diverse type of commodity.

People need the same electric everyday with no need for diversity which is why it lends itself better to being a "pooled" resource.

Capitalism works well for candy and food, public water and energy notsomuch. Capitalism needs "choices" to be responsive to the market. Generally metro areas have (and need) all of one choice of utility anyhow, so capitalism and profit are a moot point since its a monopoly situation which means it needs public oversight lest it rape to public for profits. It's the nature of the capitalism when it is in a "undemocratic" situation. Then its just a middle man with no accountability to the very same public it serves.

 

[fskimospy]

At some point you look at the studies and wonder why the hell didn't they come up with plausible explanations. "Oh we just don't know" isn't going to get anyone anywhere in real sciences. Since they won't determine the cause then the only thing left is the evidence of one and others experiences. Can you provide a reason people would want to pay higher and higher taxes with less returned? At some point the appeal to valueless studies is ridiculous. In fact I'll bring up that little matter of how Obama's plan was going to save money. Remember the CBO studies that everyone cited. Yeah that's real numbers there! The problem is that those who supported it jumped on the headlines and failed to take into account that the CBO itself said that their projections were based on some unlikely assumptions, such as cutting reimbursements to physicians. Well that whole smoke and mirror routine was shattered, and then we heard, "well it will cost more but that's not important" or some such nonsense.

In short you can speak the truth without studies if you apply how people respond as a whole and lie with hard numbers.

Want to convince people that human nature isn't a major factor in flight? Get someone to figure it out. Until then I'm going with the evidence of the real world.

What you're actually doing is taking personal bias and pretending it's factual. In the real world we need to provide evidence for our assertions, and you all have failed miserably at it.

 

[CycloWizard]

What you're actually doing is taking personal bias and pretending it's factual. In the real world we need to provide evidence for our assertions, and you all have failed miserably at it.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with, his methods of argument, or the argument itself? Given the choice, do you really think people will choose to pay more taxes or less? The IRS can give you billions of data points backing up the argument that people choose to pay as little in taxes as they are legally allowed to pay. Any argument against this mountain of data will require you to supply data indicating that the number of checks voluntarily rendered to the treasury over and above what was legally required. How many people are visiting this site tonight as they file their taxes?

 

[fskimospy]

So what exactly are you disagreeing with, his methods of argument, or the argument itself? Given the choice, do you really think people will choose to pay more taxes or less? The IRS can give you billions of data points backing up the argument that people choose to pay as little in taxes as they are legally allowed to pay. Any argument against this mountain of data will require you to supply data indicating that the number of checks voluntarily rendered to the treasury over and above what was legally required. How many people are visiting this site tonight as they file their taxes?

Laugh, I'm disagreeing with both the methods and the argument. Poor methods led to an unsupportable argument, and your attempt to turn it around is pretty pathetic. You also appear to be failing the basic rules of evidence. My argument is that the contention of people leaving New York due to the millionaires tax is unsupported by the evidence. I am not required to disprove their assertions, they are required to prove them.

People do in fact choose to pay as few taxes as possible. Considering that the 49 states other than the one with the lowest taxes are in fact inhabited however shows that people choose their place to live based upon many factors, taxes being only one. This should be obvious.

 

[CycloWizard]

Laugh, I'm disagreeing with both the methods and the argument. Poor methods led to an unsupportable argument, and your attempt to turn it around is pretty pathetic. You also appear to be failing the basic rules of evidence. My argument is that the contention of people leaving New York due to the millionaires tax is unsupported by the evidence. I am not required to disprove their assertions, they are required to prove them.

People do in fact choose to pay as few taxes as possible. Considering that the 49 states other than the one with the lowest taxes are in fact inhabited however shows that people choose their place to live based upon many factors, taxes being only one. This should be obvious.

So the only acceptable evidence would be a predictive regression model which gives the significant factors driving interstate migration? You're right - you're the only one here who understands the burden of proof.

 

[fskimospy]

So the only acceptable evidence would be a predictive regression model which gives the significant factors driving interstate migration? You're right - you're the only one here who understands the burden of proof.

hahahahaha, no. I like how you guys are upset that I won't accept your made up evidence.

 

[CycloWizard]

hahahahaha, no. I like how you guys are upset that I won't accept your made up evidence.

I didn't make up anything. I want to know what you consider a reasonable burden of proof for an internet forum debate.

 

[Thump553]

This mornings paper reports: (a) Govenor Malloy will not accept a bill with the 330 million tax bill in it, (b) Malloy had proposed a $33 million tax hike originally, the legislature came up with the 330 million one, (c) Dominion has consistently refused to open its books to either the state or the public or other actually documented their claims and (d) Dominion yet again ran at least one full page ad in the paper against this proposal-as they have been doing all week.

I think you Randistas are being grossly manipulated by masters in the PR world.

 

[jonks]

I just met a partner at a top law firm who just moved to NYC from Chicago. Theory disproved.

 

[werepossum]

Laugh, I'm disagreeing with both the methods and the argument. Poor methods led to an unsupportable argument, and your attempt to turn it around is pretty pathetic. You also appear to be failing the basic rules of evidence. My argument is that the contention of people leaving New York due to the millionaires tax is unsupported by the evidence. I am not required to disprove their assertions, they are required to prove them.

People do in fact choose to pay as few taxes as possible. Considering that the 49 states other than the one with the lowest taxes are in fact inhabited however shows that people choose their place to live based upon many factors, taxes being only one. This should be obvious.

To what do you attribute the last two Democrat governors believing the same thing? Are they secret Tea Partiers? Has the Ayn Rand/Rand Paul secret society drugged their mineral water? Perhaps they've been bought off by billionaires?

On a related note, anyone else notice that President Obama did not avail himself of the opportunity to pay the high tax rate he claims he wants to pay?

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't make up anything. I want to know what you consider a reasonable burden of proof for an internet forum debate.

Significant statistical correlation combined with a plausible causal mechanism. If you can show me that New York state lost millionaires at a substantially higher rate than the average state after enactment of this law, that would at least be a start.

What has been supplied here has been personal opinion backed by anecdotal evidence. By that standard you can 'prove' anything you want.

 

[jonks]

From the comments section to the WSJ article:

"These aren’t just anecdotes. I make over $1mm and I moved to Jersey City to avoid paying the NYC income tax."

facepalm.

 

[fskimospy]

To what do you attribute the last two Democrat governors believing the same thing? Are they secret Tea Partiers? Has the Ayn Rand/Rand Paul secret society drugged their mineral water? Perhaps they've been bought off by billionaires?

On a related note, anyone else notice that President Obama did not avail himself of the opportunity to pay the high tax rate he claims he wants to pay?

I don't attribute it to anything. Lawmakers believe dumb and wrong things all the time. If I hadn't checked into it myself I might be inclined to defer to the governor's opinion, but in this case I have. I see no evidence that he's basing that opinion on, and plenty of cause to think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's not ideology to me, it's practicality. If the tax was actually causing more millionaires to leave the state and thus lowering revenues I would oppose it too. Such a thing is certainly possible to do. There's no evidence that it's the case here however.

 

[Thump553]

It's absolutely silly to try to compare a billionaire individual who can make his money anywhere he has access to reliable phones, internet and air transportation to a nuclear power plant.

The individual is far more mobile. If Dominion shuts this plant down, their income stops completely, they will incur huge close up costs and the chances of replacing this plant with another elsewhere are slim to nonexistent.

I guess Ayn Rand does fit into this scenario, as the foundation for her writings is grossly oversimplifying situations and distorting the facts to fit her greed is good agenda.

 

[CycloWizard]

Significant statistical correlation combined with a plausible causal mechanism. If you can show me that New York state lost millionaires at a substantially higher rate than the average state after enactment of this law, that would at least be a start.

What has been supplied here has been personal opinion backed by anecdotal evidence. By that standard you can 'prove' anything you want.

So logic is irrelevant and only data are admissable? I agree that anecdotal evidence isn't useful, but in the absence of a working statistical model, logic turns out to be just about the only recourse. If we posit that people like money, we can safely conclude that they will do what they can to keep most of it. Obviously this doesn't always result in actions which will maximize net income, but that is certainly one of the terms in the objective function. If someone can move his tent 10 feet and keep an additional 10% of his income, he'll do it. That's about as far as we can get here I think. The relative barriers and proportionalities involved are what could be studied but apparently haven't been.

 

[fskimospy]

So logic is irrelevant and only data are admissable? I agree that anecdotal evidence isn't useful, but in the absence of a working statistical model, logic turns out to be just about the only recourse. If we posit that people like money, we can safely conclude that they will do what they can to keep most of it. Obviously this doesn't always result in actions which will maximize net income, but that is certainly one of the terms in the objective function. If someone can move his tent 10 feet and keep an additional 10% of his income, he'll do it.

Of course logic isn't irrelevant, but in this case saying 'people would rather keep their money, therefore this tax has caused so many millionaires to leave the state as to result in a net decrease of revenue' (as was the original argument I took exception with) would be such an extreme oversimplification of how and why people choose their residence that it is useless.

I'm sure there are SOME people out there who would leave because of an extra tax, but there is just no evidence that there are enough of them that such a statement would be true. In fact the evidence available does more to disprove such an idea than prove it, as New York state lost millionaires at a rate about 50% slower than the rest of the country did during the stock market crash.

 

[CycloWizard]

Of course logic isn't irrelevant, but in this case saying 'people would rather keep their money, therefore this tax has caused so many millionaires to leave the state as to result in a net decrease of revenue' (as was the original argument I took exception with) would be such an extreme oversimplification of how and why people choose their residence that it is useless.

I'm sure there are SOME people out there who would leave because of an extra tax, but there is just no evidence that there are enough of them that such a statement would be true. In fact the evidence available does more to disprove such an idea than prove it, as New York state lost millionaires at a rate about 50% slower than the rest of the country did during the stock market crash.

You don't seem to hold yourself to the same standard that you want to hold the rest of us to. There's no significant correlation for your claim about the rate, but you keep bringing it up.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't seem to hold yourself to the same standard that you want to hold the rest of us to. There's no significant correlation for your claim about the rate, but you keep bringing it up.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What claim about the rate? I'm not trying to claim I know why millionaires are moving in and out of NY state, only that there is no evidence that they are leaving due to the millionaire's tax.

 

[CycloWizard]

I have no idea what you're talking about. What claim about the rate? I'm not trying to claim I know why millionaires are moving in and out of NY state, only that there is no evidence that they are leaving due to the millionaire's tax.

This:

In fact the evidence available does more to disprove such an idea than prove it, as New York state lost millionaires at a rate about 50% slower than the rest of the country did during the stock market crash.

This claim, which you have made multiple times, is based on "evidence" which doesn't meet your own explicit standard for evidence. You're simply using non-evidence to make a different argument, then claim that your approach is fine because it's not making the same argument as the one someone else tried to make using equally flimsy claims.

 

[fskimospy]

This:

This claim, which you have made multiple times, is based on "evidence" which doesn't meet your own explicit standard for evidence. You're simply using non-evidence to make a different argument, then claim that your approach is fine because it's not making the same argument as the one someone else tried to make using equally flimsy claims.

Do you even know what correlation is? It requires two variables.

What I cited is a simple fact, the number of millionaires in NY state. It is not 'non-evidence' in any way, shape, or form, it is a statistic that as far as I know is undisputed.

EDIT: And to be clear, there is no standard of evidence for my position required. Werepossum said millionaires were leaving because of the tax, I said he had no evidence to prove his point. What I most certainly did NOT say was that millionaires were NOT leaving because of it. (that would be a positive statement that required its own evidence) You are not required to DISPROVE other people's claims, just prove your own. So your claim that I am somehow violating my own rules of evidence when I didn't even make an argument that required evidence is simply baffling.

 

[werepossum]

This:

This claim, which you have made multiple times, is based on "evidence" which doesn't meet your own explicit standard for evidence. You're simply using non-evidence to make a different argument, then claim that your approach is fine because it's not making the same argument as the one someone else tried to make using equally flimsy claims.

His position boils down to (1) admitting that some millionaires and billionaires are leaving New York because of high taxes; (2) pointing out that people stay or leave for many reasons, not all of which are clear; (3) focusing on one particular component of these high taxes; (4) insisting that someone provide him evidence that this particular tax is causing a significant exodus; and (5) insisting that in the absence of more than anecdotal evidence, the opposite of the observed happening be assumed as the rule. Therefore absence of evidence that high taxes are driving out millionaires and billionaires must be taken as evidence of absence, and therefore high taxes are NOT driving out millionaires and billionaires.

Or in simpler terms . . . Yay socialism! Yay high taxes! Yay progressive Democrats!

 

[CycloWizard]

Do you even know what correlation is? It requires two variables.

What I cited is a simple fact, the number of millionaires in NY state. It is not 'non-evidence' in any way, shape, or form, it is a statistic that as far as I know is undisputed.

Sweep it under the rug all you want, but it's already quoted for posterity:

In fact the evidence available does more to disprove such an idea than prove it, as New York state lost millionaires at a rate about 50% slower than the rest of the country did during the stock market crash.

You claimed that New York lost millionaires at a rate about 50% lower than the rest of the country. Own up to it and admit that you're human just like the rest of us - you jump to use any available support for your opinion. We all do the same thing. You don't want to make statistics arguments with me - I can promise you that.

 

[sMiLeYz]

His position boils down to (1) admitting that some millionaires and billionaires are leaving New York because of high taxes; (2) pointing out that people stay or leave for many reasons, not all of which are clear; (3) focusing on one particular component of these high taxes; (4) insisting that someone provide him evidence that this particular tax is causing a significant exodus; and (5) insisting that in the absence of more than anecdotal evidence, the opposite of the observed happening be assumed as the rule. Therefore absence of evidence that high taxes are driving out millionaires and billionaires must be taken as evidence of absence, and therefore high taxes are NOT driving out millionaires and billionaires.

Or in simpler terms . . . Yay socialism! Yay high taxes! Yay progressive Democrats!

Did you really infer all that from him asking for evidence?

 

[jonks]

Or in simpler terms . . . Yay socialism! Yay high taxes! Yay progressive Democrats!

I give you the Wall Street Journal, bastion of socialism and defender of high taxes.

Bring back the old WP please.