New Jersey tries to scare away millionaires using Marylands tactics

[tk149]

“We’ve got a lot of people who can’t afford to pay their taxes”

So the answer to that is...more taxes! This is so full of Win!

 

[Specop 007]

I agree with the stupid label, but mostly because people who say "pay their fair share" are using the wrong argument. Even with a flat tax rate, rich people pay many times the tax amount of poorer people...it's hard to call that "not their fair share" by any stretch of the imagination. And in any case, as you point out, everyone has a different idea of what's fair...which leads to truly moronic tax debates.

The real argument for higher taxes on the wealthy is that it's the only way the system is going to work, period. Very few people on the left will use that argument, because it has no emotional appeal...but it's a much better argument if you ask me. You can't get blood from a stone. Trying to get more tax revenue from rich people might seem "unfair", but trying to get it from poorer people is just dumb.

And overall government spending is irrelevant. Lower spending should equate to lower taxes, but it should be across the board. Particularly since much of the money government spends goes to help average tax payers. So cutting spending, while only decreasing taxes for the wealthy, increases the overall financial burden on average people even if their taxes don't go up at all. That might seem more "fair" to conservatives, but it's not very practical.

Liberals often make a stupid argument in this debate, but the real dummies are the conservatives...because their whole position is based on "it's not FAIR", which I'm pretty sure stopped working as an actual reason when you turned 10.

The glaring problem with your post, and one you quite nicely avoid mentioning, is that a good portion of those collected tax revenues go directly into the hands of the poor.

You are right in most of it. Wealthy people are in a position to provide more in tax revenue. However that doesnt mean they should be required to. Imagine how much budgets would drop if all social programs outside of basic education were cut. No more housing assistance, no more paid groceries, no more coverage of medical bills.

Of course its easy to ignore the fact that the "rich" bear a higher tax burden primarily to enable the lifestyles of the poor when you want to focus on simple numbers. Its the data behind the numbers that brings clarity to it.

Instead of taking more from the working class why not give less to the lower class?

 

[PokerGuy]

More bitching about something that affects none of you.

Yeah, sure. So, in your world nobody should complain about race discrimination as long as it's not directed to their particular ethnic group? Good thinking!

 

[Munky]

More bitching about something that affects none of you.

/facepalm

 

[Blackjack200]

The glaring problem with your post, and one you quite nicely avoid mentioning, is that a good portion of those collected tax revenues go directly into the hands of the poor.

You are right in most of it. Wealthy people are in a position to provide more in tax revenue. However that doesnt mean they should be required to. Imagine how much budgets would drop if all social programs outside of basic education were cut. No more housing assistance, no more paid groceries, no more coverage of medical bills.

Of course its easy to ignore the fact that the "rich" bear a higher tax burden primarily to enable the lifestyles of the poor when you want to focus on simple numbers. Its the data behind the numbers that brings clarity to it.

Instead of taking more from the working class why not give less to the lower class?

Medicaid, Welfare, and Unemployment add up to less than 20% of the budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

 

[Darwin333]

Medicaid, Welfare, and Unemployment add up to less than 20% of the budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

What does the Federal budget have to do with the conversation?

 

[werepossum]

Medicaid, Welfare, and Unemployment add up to less than 20% of the budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png

I don't think it's fair to lump in unemployment insurance, which is funded by a tax on those who work and pays proportionally to your former salary. This is pretty much like any insurance except that it's mandatory and run by government, so someone drawing unemployment is drawing back what he or she has paid in for that specific purpose. Unemployment insurance is one of those socialist government programs I actually like - although again, I think it could be profitably moved to the state level.

 

[Zebo]

More bitching about something that affects none of you.

Actually it does you fool. You see if taxes become to onerous people who create jobs for the rest of Americans will leave or won't produce. You think an eye surgeon with 10 million in the bank has to keep working or keep working in NJ? You think a restaurant owner will take a huge capital risk, work 100 hrs a week at the beginning without a significant portion of proceeds going back to him? Idiot.

The only question is how much can you tax before you kill talent and incentive aka goose that lays golden eggs.

Not sure about the amount.

Never mind your whole fallacy of not caring until something effects you directly. I'm sure a nuking the Middle East you would have issue with.

 

[dmcowen674]

Imagine that.

If you try to take more money from 1 group of people to help another group then the first group may just decide to up and leave.

You can only steal from the rich for so long before one of two things will happen.

Either the rich run out of money for the social programs or they say screw it and just flat out move.

First of all if you are in any danger of "running out of money", you are not rich.

So are you a wannabe or have you moved yet?

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Trouble
I try not to be too jaded and too cynical, but is there any other way to see this kind of stuff as simple class warfare? Do democrats in legislature ever think of anything but increasing taxes?

Democrats are very creative when it comes to getting into trouble but they are a one trick pony when it comes to solution time.

At least it's not cutting taxes for the wealthy like Republicans.

That really worked

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Democrats are very creative when it comes to getting into trouble but they are a one trick pony when it comes to solution time.

That is one of the funniest lines I've read recently. Mind if I include that in my sig?

 

[EXman]

Let us tax our millionares equally across all 50 States, and tell them all to pay their fair share our get the hell out of the country. And even if they can move their residence easily, such millionares may find moving their assets out of State is not quite as easy.

So what do we do smart guy when the rich are no longer rich? Should everyone be employed by the government? How's 1/3 of Greeks employed by the gov't working out?

And if they were out of the country how are we going get taxes?

Rich pay for the taxes bub. Breaking them to the middle class will essentially dry up our tax base. That is another reason europe has a VAT tax.

Is it a crime to be rich? Is it a Crime to keep what you earn? Isn't that part of the dream? Work hard and reap the benefits of that hard work? I surely don't think it is "sit on your ass and we'll pay for your cadillac and steak"

You have a skewed vue of what American values are. I have no problem when a state burdens it's citizens to move to a different state. States that follow good government will benefit. Governments that try to hose people out of envy of their money will hose themselves.

 

[EXman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Trouble
I try not to be too jaded and too cynical, but is there any other way to see this kind of stuff as simple class warfare? Do democrats in legislature ever think of anything but increasing taxes?




At least it's not cutting taxes for the wealthy like Republicans.

That really worked

Actually it did in the 80's and taxes collected went up!

Show me a socialist wealthy country.

Shit have you ever played SimCity?

 

[MotF Bane]

Actually it did in the 80's and taxes collected went up!

Show me a socialist wealthy country.

Shit have you ever played SimCity?

If he has, he probably enacts every controlling ordinance in the game, runs the taxes to the maximum levels, and then wonders why his city fails.

 

[sciwizam]

Looks like Christie vetoed it......2 minutes after it's passing.

“Let me be real clear on it,” he said. “They can call it whatever they want to call it. They can package it however they want to package it. They can send it to me with a bow on it. They can send it to me in a nice box, gift-wrapped. They can throw it over the transom and leave it there and hope nobody smells it. No matter how they send it to me, it is going back. It is going back with a veto on it. We are not raising taxes in the state of New Jersey this year.”

 

[Howard]

Let us tax our millionares equally across all 50 States, and tell them all to pay their fair share our get the hell out of the country. And even if they can move their residence easily, such millionares may find moving their assets out of State is not quite as easy.

You are advocating theft, I am assuming?

 

[MotF Bane]

More bitching about something that affects none of you.

I'm assuming you are white (after all, it is still statistically most likely), so therefore, you shouldn't ever complain about perceived racism against minorities, since racism against them doesn't affect you either.

 

[Tristicus]

Looks like Christie vetoed it......2 minutes after it's passing.

 

[Darwin333]

First of all if you are in any danger of "running out of money", you are not rich.

So are you a wannabe or have you moved yet?

Thats not the way the government sees it.