Soak the rich, lose the rich.

[Atreus21]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Some tidbits:

- From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.

- Over same time-frame, no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

And my favorite quote:

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Heard about this on Rush today, and it made my day. Politicians seem to think of people as static objects, to be manipulated with full predictability. Lo and behold, people have the capability to escape the money-grabs of their elected officials. It's sad that time and time again the lesson must be taught.

Incidentally, is there anyway to correct the misspelling in my title?

Speeling fixed- Hayabusa Rider Sr. Moderator

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Some tidbits:

- From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.

- Over same time-frame, no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

And my favorite quote:

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Heard about this on Rush today, and it made my day. Politicians seem to think of people as static objects, to be manipulated with full predictability. Lo and behold, people have the capability to escape the money-grabs of their elected officials. It's sad that time and time again the lesson must be taught.

I can't believe you admitted that. :laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Some tidbits:

- From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.

- Over same time-frame, no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

And my favorite quote:

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Heard about this on Rush today, and it made my day. Politicians seem to think of people as static objects, to be manipulated with full predictability. Lo and behold, people have the capability to escape the money-grabs of their elected officials. It's sad that time and time again the lesson must be taught.

1) Of course the article neglects to mention the fact that these states have a much much higher cost of living due to years and years of economic expansion. It's nearly impossible to find affordable housing for many people in some of these states. Also, property tax in Texas is comparatively higher than other states to make up the lack of income tax.

2) Comparing New Hampshire and California? Hahaha, New Hampshire doesn't have to deal with massive immigration that California has to deal with. If NH was near the South Border , their public services would be under much more strain. Of course it's going to cost less for New Hampshire to fund it's schools. And besides that, most of the jobs come from MA. Lots of Mass. people move to southern NH for the cheaper housing and commute to MA for the jobs.

 

[feralkid]

There must be a better way to get these rich slobs to pony-up their fair share.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Some tidbits:

- From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.

- Over same time-frame, no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

And my favorite quote:

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Heard about this on Rush today, and it made my day. Politicians seem to think of people as static objects, to be manipulated with full predictability. Lo and behold, people have the capability to escape the money-grabs of their elected officials. It's sad that time and time again the lesson must be taught.

I can't believe you admitted that. :laugh:

Eh, I listen to him when I'm driving to see my fiancee at lunchtime.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Atreus21
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Some tidbits:

- From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.

- Over same time-frame, no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

And my favorite quote:

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Heard about this on Rush today, and it made my day. Politicians seem to think of people as static objects, to be manipulated with full predictability. Lo and behold, people have the capability to escape the money-grabs of their elected officials. It's sad that time and time again the lesson must be taught.

1) Of course the article neglects to mention the fact that these states have a much much higher cost of living due to years and years of economic expansion. It's nearly impossible to find affordable housing for many people in some of these states. Also, property tax in Texas is comparatively higher than other states to make up the lack of income tax.

2) Comparing New Hampshire and California? Hahaha, New Hampshire doesn't have to deal with massive immigration that California has to deal with. If NH was near the South Border , their public services would be under much more strain. Of course it's going to cost less for New Hampshire to fund it's schools. And besides that, most of the jobs come from MA. Lots of Mass. people move to southern NH for the cheaper housing and commute to MA for the jobs.

Please note the bolded for an obvious contradiction. And can you prove that property taxes outweigh the tax burdens in states like California and New York?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Atreus21
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

Some tidbits:

- From 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas.

- Over same time-frame, no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

And my favorite quote:

Those who disapprove of tax competition complain that lower state taxes only create a zero-sum competition where states "race to the bottom" and cut services to the poor as taxes fall to zero. They say that tax cutting inevitably means lower quality schools and police protection as lower tax rates mean starvation of public services.

They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.

Heard about this on Rush today, and it made my day. Politicians seem to think of people as static objects, to be manipulated with full predictability. Lo and behold, people have the capability to escape the money-grabs of their elected officials. It's sad that time and time again the lesson must be taught.

1) Of course the article neglects to mention the fact that these states have a much much higher cost of living due to years and years of economic expansion. It's nearly impossible to find affordable housing for many people in some of these states. Also, property tax in Texas is comparatively higher than other states to make up the lack of income tax.

2) Comparing New Hampshire and California? Hahaha, New Hampshire doesn't have to deal with massive immigration that California has to deal with. If NH was near the South Border , their public services would be under much more strain. Of course it's going to cost less for New Hampshire to fund it's schools. And besides that, most of the jobs come from MA. Lots of Mass. people move to southern NH for the cheaper housing and commute to MA for the jobs.

Please note the bolded for an obvious contradiction. And can you prove that property taxes outweigh the tax burdens in states like California and New York?

That's not a contradiction, it's nearly impossible to find affordable housing IN MASSACHUSETTS (near where the jobs are anyway). Nobody goes to NH for jobs, it's a vacuum of nothing.

As a percentage of the value of one's home, texas has the #1 highest percentage property tax rate:

http://articles.moneycentral.m...DoesYourStateRank.aspx

Just pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to only mention income taxes when texas makes it up in other ways.

 

[LTC8K6]

Rich folks can avoid the taxes. Poor folks can't.

Rich folks employ poor folks.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase tax revenue because people start avoiding the tax in whatever way they can.

This relationship always seems to elude politicians. Taxes that are too high result in lower tax revenue.

 

[Phokus]

Also:

""A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

-Milton Freidman"

This has to be the most moronic quote when inequality between rich and poor is increasing at an astounding rate

 

[Genx87]

Income tax is the easiest measure of taxation and one people see every pay check and it is also the most progressive. So I dont see it being dishonest to show states with the highest state income taxes are also seeing the highest flight of high income earners, the lowest increases in standards of living, and the biggest deficit holes to fill.

Florida has high property taxes but people's take home pay is bigger than in New York due to no stat income tax. Property taxes and interest is deductible on the federal level.


Look if anybody wants one of the most obvious examples of this look at Las Vegas. No income taxes and was the fastest growing city for 10 years in this country. It sits right next to California. Not a coincidence.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Also:

""A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

-Milton Freidman"

This has to be the most moronic quote when inequality between rich and poor is increasing at an astounding rate

Why is it mornic? Do you understand what the quote is saying?

 

[StageLeft]

It's real. Rich really do and will leave high tax areas, resulting in extra stress on the rest to get done in the ass dry. One of, if not the richest guy in Rochester last week announced he's finally had enough of NY state. He's going to live in Florida. He started Paychex, a massive company, right here, but he's had enough of this rubbish so he can save $13,800/day or $5M/year by leaving the state, and that's what he'll do.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's real. Rich really do and will leave high tax areas, resulting in extra stress on the rest to get done in the ass dry. One of, if not the richest guy in Rochester last week announced he's finally had enough of NY state. He's going to live in California. He started Paychex, a massive company, right here, but he's had enough of this rubbish so he can save $13,800/day or $5M/year by leaving the state, and that's what he'll do.

That seems odd that he is moving to California hehe.

Though I do agree with you 100% the rich move when the burden becomes too much and it leaves the middle class paying for it.

I am not rich by any means but under the state of MN is considered 20%. I have considered moving to Colorado or ND. Two states with effective state taxes about 2% lower than MN.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Income tax is the easiest measure of taxation and one people see every pay check and it is also the most progressive. So I dont see it being dishonest to show states with the highest state income taxes are also seeing the highest flight of high income earners, the lowest increases in standards of living, and the biggest deficit holes to fill.

Florida has high property taxes but people's take home pay is bigger than in New York due to no stat income tax. Property taxes and interest is deductible on the federal level.


Look if anybody wants one of the most obvious examples of this look at Las Vegas. No income taxes and was the fastest growing city for 10 years in this country. It sits right next to California. Not a coincidence.

It's dishonest when you tax people more in other ways. And the whole argument is dishonest because it doesn't account for the high cost of living. I was looking into moving to Austin or Houston a while ago because the housing prices in CT is enormous. In texas, you can by a huge mcmansion for $200k, whereas, you'd have to spend like $600-700K for a comprable house where i live. And you don't even get a swimming pool/game room like some of the houses i was browsing in TX

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's real. Rich really do and will leave high tax areas, resulting in extra stress on the rest to get done in the ass dry. One of, if not the richest guy in Rochester last week announced he's finally had enough of NY state. He's going to live in California. He started Paychex, a massive company, right here, but he's had enough of this rubbish so he can save $13,800/day or $5M/year by leaving the state, and that's what he'll do.

That seems odd that he is moving to California hehe.

Though I do agree with you 100% the rich move when the burden becomes too much and it leaves the middle class paying for it.

I am not rich by any means but under the state of MN is considered 20%. I have considered moving to Colorado or ND. Two states with effective state taxes about 2% lower than MN.

I have Californ-IA on my mind today. Edited--he's going to Florida. He already spent much of the year now and is just changing the percentages so that he can save a bunch of NY tax.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
Also:

""A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

-Milton Freidman"

This has to be the most moronic quote when inequality between rich and poor is increasing at an astounding rate

Why is it mornic? Do you understand what the quote is saying?

yeah, economic freedom leaders to more equality, which is ridiculous when middle class wages have been stagnant for a while while the rich have gotten much richer.

 

[StageLeft]

You want property taxes, I pay about 3.2% of my house's appraised (which matches market) value per year in fvcking property taxes.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
Income tax is the easiest measure of taxation and one people see every pay check and it is also the most progressive. So I dont see it being dishonest to show states with the highest state income taxes are also seeing the highest flight of high income earners, the lowest increases in standards of living, and the biggest deficit holes to fill.

Florida has high property taxes but people's take home pay is bigger than in New York due to no stat income tax. Property taxes and interest is deductible on the federal level.


Look if anybody wants one of the most obvious examples of this look at Las Vegas. No income taxes and was the fastest growing city for 10 years in this country. It sits right next to California. Not a coincidence.

It's dishonest when you tax people more in other ways. And the whole argument is dishonest because it doesn't account for the high cost of living. I was looking into moving to Austin or Houston a while ago because the housing prices in CT is enormous. In texas, you can by a huge mcmansion for $200k, whereas, you'd have to spend like $600-700K for a comprable house where i live. And you don't even get a swimming pool/game room like some of the houses i was browsing in TX

How is it dishonest though? The simple fact is higher income taxed states are seeing an exodus of people to lower income tax states. Regardless if property taxes are higher in those states. It is no coincidence people who make enough to pay these taxes move. What you end up with is situations like NY or California that have driven enough of the wealth away they cant make their budgets.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's real. Rich really do and will leave high tax areas, resulting in extra stress on the rest to get done in the ass dry. One of, if not the richest guy in Rochester last week announced he's finally had enough of NY state. He's going to live in California. He started Paychex, a massive company, right here, but he's had enough of this rubbish so he can save $13,800/day or $5M/year by leaving the state, and that's what he'll do.

That seems odd that he is moving to California hehe.

Though I do agree with you 100% the rich move when the burden becomes too much and it leaves the middle class paying for it.

I am not rich by any means but under the state of MN is considered 20%. I have considered moving to Colorado or ND. Two states with effective state taxes about 2% lower than MN.

there is no reason to consider moving to ND. 2% of your income is worth not living here.

 

[Cuda1447]

What do house prices have to do with taxes and services offered? House prices increase because more people want to live there and less housing is available. This has nothing to do with states with higher income taxes having lower quality schools etc...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
Also:

""A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

-Milton Freidman"

This has to be the most moronic quote when inequality between rich and poor is increasing at an astounding rate

Why is it mornic? Do you understand what the quote is saying?

yeah, economic freedom leaders to more equality, which is ridiculous when middle class wages have been stagnant for a while while the rich have gotten much richer.

The first part of the quote is the real doozy. When people put equality before freedom you get tyranny. It has happened in the past, it is happening right now. When you put freedom before equality everybody gets a higher degree of both.

There is nothing moronic about that at all.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's real. Rich really do and will leave high tax areas, resulting in extra stress on the rest to get done in the ass dry. One of, if not the richest guy in Rochester last week announced he's finally had enough of NY state. He's going to live in Florida. He started Paychex, a massive company, right here, but he's had enough of this rubbish so he can save $13,800/day or $5M/year by leaving the state, and that's what he'll do.

Gollisano's leaving? That's too bad; he employed a large number of people in the area and was *very* generous with his money (in fact, his donations to my alma mater resulted in some excellent new facilities).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's real. Rich really do and will leave high tax areas, resulting in extra stress on the rest to get done in the ass dry. One of, if not the richest guy in Rochester last week announced he's finally had enough of NY state. He's going to live in California. He started Paychex, a massive company, right here, but he's had enough of this rubbish so he can save $13,800/day or $5M/year by leaving the state, and that's what he'll do.

That seems odd that he is moving to California hehe.

Though I do agree with you 100% the rich move when the burden becomes too much and it leaves the middle class paying for it.

I am not rich by any means but under the state of MN is considered 20%. I have considered moving to Colorado or ND. Two states with effective state taxes about 2% lower than MN.

there is no reason to consider moving to ND. 2% of your income is worth not living here.

I lived there for 5 years of my life. It isnt bad except for dec, jan, and feb.

 

[miketheidiot]

anyways, this is just another example of the race to the bottom, and another reason federalism sucks. I wonder how much in growth losses and wasted overhead come from the complexities of having to deal with 50 different tax programs between various states?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways, this is just another example of the race to the bottom, and another reason federalism sucks. I wonder how much in growth losses and wasted overhead come from the complexities of having to deal with 50 different tax programs between various states?

Or growth possibilities as people get to keep more of their earned wealth and put it back into the private sector. It isnt a one way street.