NC Repubs implement HUGE gamble called the modified flat tax

[hal2kilo]

Republicans doing the same old same old. Lowering taxes and while not lowering spending to make up the difference. They will either go bankrupt, get massive federal handouts to make up the difference and/or annihilate services. This is just one big bone to the rich.

They'll just go after the pensions when that no longer works. Almost seems to be a standard formula when the pubs take over a legislature.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Everybody paying an equal percentage is unfair?

Yes. Thank diminishing marginal utility.

 

[Zaap]

Yes, but you're used to being wrong. I can't speak for NC specifically, but most states love educated, high-income, tech professional couples.

Pfft. California doesn't. It's been chasing those types out for the past 20 years.

 

[Fern]

NC is in an area where a lot of large corps/manufacturers consider moving to. E.g., large auto manufacturers like BMW. Lately they've been missing out on these to other nearby states like South Carolina or Alabama.

IIRC, NC has been ranked at something #46 on the 'attractive to businesses' lists and this tax law change is expected to move them up to #17. I'm guessing that this tax reform and the resulting improvement are hoped to help them land some of these big manufacturers etc.

The 'retirement industry' is pretty important in NC, particularly the Eastern (beaches) and Western (mountains) areas. I suppose lowering the individual rate is aimed at helping here (e.g., FL has no individual income tax).

It would be nice if more data was provided for the revenue loss this article predicts: How much is from corporate v. individuals. I think it might be a little early to get solid numbers since the law just passed quite recently. In any case, I'd rather wait until we get through a year under the new regimes. I tend to be skeptical of estimates.

Fern

 

[Acanthus]

North Carolina's state budget is nearly balanced, while here in Illinois we run a yearly $40+ billion deficit.

I don't think many people have a leg to stand on if they want to criticize what North Carolina is doing.

I'm very curious to find out how this changes the state moving forward.

Illinois has 25% more people, and much much much higher population density.

I'm not defending their budget at all. It is horrific. Comparing raw budgets is apples to oranges though.

Also consider that IL gets 92 cents of federal spending for each dollar in taxes paid (net loss), while NC gets $1.29 in spending for each dollar in federal taxes paid (net gain).

Source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/

 

[Acanthus]

Pfft. California doesn't. It's been chasing those types out for the past 20 years.

I know right? Silicon Valley is like Detroit now.

 

[Darwin333]

Everybody paying an equal percentage is unfair?

I am all for some sort of flat tax but even I understand that it has to be stepped up as you get into higher income brackets. Otherwise you would have to jack up the rate on the middle and lower class, royally fucking them for relatively small amounts of money to the .gov, in order to extract the money from where the majority of it is, the rich.

While I believe that everyone should pay some sort of federal taxes, taking the same percentage from someone who lives check to check (making their lives MUCH harder) as you do from someone who is rich (which doesn't effect their ability to eat, pay electric bills, water bill, etc..) for virtually zero gain is retarded.

We are talking about literally taking food off of peoples plates versus people that are already very comfortable. I would say that is much more "unfair" than everyone paying the same percentage for whatever reason you think thats fair.

 

[Darwin333]

Illinois has 25% more potential taxpayers, and much much much higher population density.

I'm not defending their budget at all. It is horrific. Comparing raw budgets is apples to oranges though.

Also consider that IL gets 92 cents of federal spending for each dollar in taxes paid (net loss), while NC gets $1.29 in spending for each dollar in federal taxes paid (net gain).

Source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/

Don't have a dog in this hunt but I added the bolded.

 

[Darwin333]

They'll just go after the pensions when that no longer works. Almost seems to be a standard formula when the pubs take over a legislature.

How can they go after the pensions when most .gov pensions in the nation were built by liars who based the ability of the pension to perform on a perpetual 8% a year growth forever which any retard knows is simply impossible. Most .gov pensions are already wild and truly fucked by the very people that implemented and negotiated them.

I am quite sure that it will be someone elses fault when they eventually go tits up, which is a mathematical certainty, but that doesn't change the fact that they were designed to fail. Luckily the people who are truly responsible are long gone and will not catch a bit of the blame, very well played on their part.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes. Thank diminishing marginal utility.

Who the hell are you to determine the amount of utility a person gets out of the money that they earn? Plus DMU refers to consuming a product or service not about getting more money from their work/investments. But even if it applies to money that they earn its up to them to do with their money as they see fit based upon the utility that they gain from the extra money. Saying the government should just take the extra portion automatically shits on the whole concept.

You can't measure utility of anybody else's consumption in any case so this has nothing to do with progressive tax brackets being fair.

 

[buckshot24]

I am all for some sort of flat tax but even I understand that it has to be stepped up as you get into higher income brackets. Otherwise you would have to jack up the rate on the middle and lower class, royally fucking them for relatively small amounts of money to the .gov, in order to extract the money from where the majority of it is, the rich.

Then you're not for a flat tax. I've never heard of a progressive flat tax, maybe you could explain how that would work.

While I believe that everyone should pay some sort of federal taxes, taking the same percentage from someone who lives check to check (making their lives MUCH harder) as you do from someone who is rich (which doesn't effect their ability to eat, pay electric bills, water bill, etc..) for virtually zero gain is retarded.

I agree that being rich is preferable but that isn't any kind of surprise is it? Of course being poor makes it harder to make ends meet but that doesn't make it fair to take more from people who have more.

We are talking about literally taking food off of peoples plates versus people that are already very comfortable. I would say that is much more "unfair" than everyone paying the same percentage for whatever reason you think thats fair.

The rich guy is still going to be paying more so it isn't fair still. Plus the poor/middle class is going to be getting a higher percentage of the benefit from government. That isn't fair either.

So the rich...

• Pay more in gross taxes
• Pay a higher tax rate
• Consumes less of the governmental resources that they pay more for

Who are we to say the millionth dollar a person earns is less valuable to him than the 1000th a poor person makes?

 

[Fern]

They'll just go after the pensions when that no longer works. Almost seems to be a standard formula when the pubs take over a legislature.

I'm unfamiliar with Repubs "going after pensions".

How does that work?

Which pensions?

Please explain.

TIA

Fern

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

So the rich...

• Pay more in gross taxes
• Pay a higher tax rate
• Consumes less of the governmental resources that they pay more for

Who are we to say the millionth dollar a person earns is less valuable to him than the 1000th a poor person makes?

You think the rich would have made their money without the infrastructure in place to service their means to make money and a stable society to buy their goods?

 

[buckshot24]

You think the rich would have made their money without the infrastructure in place to service their means to make money and a stable society to buy their goods?

No I don't. They do consume some of the governmental resources.

 

[Zaap]

I know right? Silicon Valley is like Detroit now.

Just give our idiot politicians here enough time and it will be. I notice you don't bring up bankrupt San Bernardino.
Also, just as I said:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UgRqSmRbVeJ

For the past two decades, California has been sending more people to other American states than it receives from them. Since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 million residents through this migration.

This study describes the great ongoing California exodus, using data from the Census, the Internal Revenue Service, the state’s Department of Finance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and other sources. We map in detail where in California the migrants come from, and where they go when they leave the state. We then analyze the data to determine the likely causes of California’s decline and the lessons that its decline holds for other states.

The data show a pattern of movement over the past decade from California mainly to states in the western and southern U.S.: Texas, Nevada, and Arizona, in that order, are the top magnet states. Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah follow. Rounding out the top ten are two southern states: Georgia and South Carolina.

As for Silicon Valley:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rajsabh...fornias-fiscal-crisis-dooming-silicon-valley/

This week, Phil Mickelson, one of the world’s top golfers from California, made headlines by saying he might be retiring and/or leaving the state, as opposed to paying 62 percent of his income in taxes.

He’s not alone. California reportedly now has more people leaving than coming. And the other 49 states aren’t just holding the exit door open; they’re buying the tickets, driving the buses and packing the suitcases for countless fed-up Californians.

Once known as a place of infinite opportunity, our recent free-fall has left California as the worst place to do business. That’s why Apple is expanding its Austin, Texas presence with 3,600 new jobs. Apple was induced by a $21 million investment from the state of Texas through the Texas Enterprise Fund. That’s right. Texas is paying Apple to be there — do you hear that California?

At Zoho, we recently made a similar decision. Even though we are headquartered in Silicon Valley, we decided to expand our presence in Texas. We looked for a place where we could do business more easily and where our employees would have a better quality of life.

California is EXACTLY what you get when tax and spend leftwing twits gut your state for 20 years. Contrary to the usual liberal myths, no many intelligent, well-educated, upwardly mobile people are not clamoring to come to leftyloon-land where they instantly lose 10-20% of their spending power. These are exactly the people who are leaving, while our near communist state government does everything it can to turn the entire state into Tijuana North as they've always dreamed of so they can have absolute power over a state full of peasants.

 

[Zaap]

No I don't. They do consume some of the governmental resources.

They also pay for them. Government has zero resources without their money. And many people use infrastructure that pay nothing for it.

That whole infrastructure argument is so lame anyway, like Obama with his stupid "You didn't build that" crap (especially when many of the people he's talking down to DID build that, and DID pay for it) and saying that it's roads and bridges and such that are the reason people have money.

Newsflash for the nitwits of our society- believe it or not, they even have roads and bridges and infrastructure in North Korea. You might even find *gasp* a school with some teachers in it. If that's all it took to have instant prosperity, then everyone must be rolling in it so long as someone can lay down a road.

Roads and freakin' bridges and such don't make anyone wealthy in and of themselves, it's just another long discredited talking point that always gets regurgitated.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Who are we to say the millionth dollar a person earns is less valuable to him than the 1000th a poor person makes?

Maybe we'd be economists? Because the 1000th dollar is necessity, the millionth dollar is luxury.

 

[Darwin333]

Then you're not for a flat tax. I've never heard of a progressive flat tax, maybe you could explain how that would work.

Same thing as the flat tax except its progressive. Just for an easy example your "flat tax rate" goes up by half a percent every hundred grand more you make with a cap somewhere.

I agree that being rich is preferable but that isn't any kind of surprise is it?

We are talking about being rich versus being potentially hungry. I would say its a bit more than "preferable" but thats just me.

Of course being poor makes it harder to make ends meet but that doesn't make it fair to take more from people who have more.

Life isn't fair. Using your argument its not fair that the rich pay the same percentage as the poor because the rich will still pay far more actual dollars.

The rich guy is still going to be paying more so it isn't fair still.

Using your argument it isn't fair that the rich have more. Granted that is not an argument that I am trying to make but all this "fair" nonsense is rather irrelevant.

Plus the poor/middle class is going to be getting a higher percentage of the benefit from government. That isn't fair either.

Thats the way its been for quite a while and yet the rich were still able to get rich in that system. The rich did not get rich in a vacuum and without society. It is arguable that they benefited far more from our society than the poor despite directly receiving less .gov benefits. If you are rich I would say life is treating you rather well.

So the rich...

• Pay more in gross taxes
• Pay a higher tax rate
• Consumes less of the governmental resources that they pay more for

Who are we to say the millionth dollar a person earns is less valuable to him than the 1000th a poor person makes?

When that 1000th dollar is the difference between eating or not I would say its value is absurdly greater. The rich guy ain't going hungry if he doesn't get that millionth dollar.

 

[Zaap]

Maybe we'd be economists? Because the 1000th dollar is necessity, the millionth dollar is luxury.

Oh so if that millionth dollar was going toward making the payroll for your paycheck or not, it's just luxury.

No pay for you this week! That's just a luxury.

 

[Engineer]

Oh so if that millionth dollar was going toward making the payroll for your paycheck or not, it's just luxury.

No pay for you this week! That's just a luxury.

What does using the money for payroll (no taxes paid as it's deducted from earnings) have to do with income taxes and the tax system in general?

(serious question - as I thought that you deduct the money that you spend on the business - in this case payroll - and what's left over as profits are what's taxed)

 

[fskimospy]

Oh so if that millionth dollar was going toward making the payroll for your paycheck or not, it's just luxury.

No pay for you this week! That's just a luxury.

I don't think you understand the difference between revenue and income.

Taxing your income from a business could not prevent you from meeting payroll for that business by definition, as income comes after expenses like payroll.

 

[Genx87]

Fixing roads is for communists. In this super scientific ranking, North Carolina was only beaten by Louisiana. Come on, NC, YOU CAN DO IT.

http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/lifestyle/travel/worst-roads-us

Im not sure if you are being sarcastic. But that list is sporadic and I dont think it has much to do with income taxation. If you look at the best roads in America from that site the top two are New Mexico followed by North Dakota.

 

[JTsyo]

North Carolina's state budget is nearly balanced, while here in Illinois we run a yearly $40+ billion deficit.

I don't think many people have a leg to stand on if they want to criticize what North Carolina is doing.

I'm very curious to find out how this changes the state moving forward.

I'm fine with states experimenting. Now we can revisit in five years and see how things look. Don't think it'll be fair to judge it before at least 3 years since things will still have to be ironed out.

In general, I think the flat tax is a gimmick the rich figured out to lower their tax bill. If you had a flat tax that was revenue neutral, then those lower in the bracket would pay more and those on the top would pay less. If you add deductions to help the lower end, you'll come back to the system we have already.

 

[fskimospy]

Im not sure if you are being sarcastic. But that list is sporadic and I dont think it has much to do with income taxation. If you look at the best roads in America from that site the top two are New Mexico followed by North Dakota.

I was being sarcastic about how scientific it was, but state road maintenance funds are tied in with the general fund in NC (although not to a huge extent). Needless to say, it's hard to see state road maintenance funding going up under these changes.

I am suspicious of road quality analyses in general because in many cases there seem to be structural impediments to the quality of roads that aren't accounted for.

 

[boochi]

Also consider that IL gets 92 cents of federal spending for each dollar in taxes paid (net loss), while NC gets $1.29 in spending for each dollar in federal taxes paid (net gain).

This is easy to explain, we have 50% more blacks than Illinois.