Soak the rich, lose the rich.

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Phokus

As for your last remark, funny thing about entrepreneurs, the smartest of the workers/entrepreneurs (i.e. the googles of this world) are typically liberals, gg.

Wow, you got a source for that? All the smartest people I've known are quite conservative; Midwest Michigan (where I am) has the DeVos, Meijer, VanAndel, Padnos, and other families, all very conservative.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Phokus

As for your last remark, funny thing about entrepreneurs, the smartest of the workers/entrepreneurs (i.e. the googles of this world) are typically liberals, gg.

Wow, you got a source for that? All the smartest people I've known are quite conservative; Midwest Michigan (where I am) has the DeVos, Meijer, VanAndel, Padnos, and other families, all very conservative.

I've been to the google complex, it's an extremely liberal environment with a few libertarians sprinkled about. There aren't really many true republicans there. Because republicans typically aren't smart and creative.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...google-give-usat_x.htm

Google employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates for last year's elections, up from just $250 in 2000 when it was still a start-up. And 98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors, a new USA TODAY campaign finance analysis shows.

Note: This article was from 2005, i imagine google went even more nuts for obama

Republicans should stick to what they do best: drilling for oil and starting wars (well, in the latter case, what they do worst)

And i remember a few years ago GOPers were complaining about google giving preferential treatment to democratic links or hurting gop links or something because everyone at google was liberal... some whackjob conspiracy by you guys, but i forgot the specifics.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Phokus

As for your last remark, funny thing about entrepreneurs, the smartest of the workers/entrepreneurs (i.e. the googles of this world) are typically liberals, gg.

Wow, you got a source for that? All the smartest people I've known are quite conservative; Midwest Michigan (where I am) has the DeVos, Meijer, VanAndel, Padnos, and other families, all very conservative.

These sound like families, not individual people that you are naming. If I was a trust fund baby living off daddy's pyramid scheme fortune, I'd probably be pretty conservative too.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Phokus

As for your last remark, funny thing about entrepreneurs, the smartest of the workers/entrepreneurs (i.e. the googles of this world) are typically liberals, gg.

Wow, you got a source for that? All the smartest people I've known are quite conservative; Midwest Michigan (where I am) has the DeVos, Meijer, VanAndel, Padnos, and other families, all very conservative.

These sound like families, not individual people that you are naming. If I was a trust fund baby living off daddy's pyramid scheme fortune, I'd probably be pretty conservative too.

Yeah, i've only heard of Meijer and i just looked up Devos (founder of Amway). So according to bobsmith, these 'intelligent' entrepreneurs started a retail chain and a scam MLM/Pyramid scheme company.

So according to conservatives, that's the same thing as a hi-tech/cutting edge company like google :laugh:

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Facts and logic are like kryptonite to a conservative:

http://www.economist.com/blogs...ating_inequality_1.cfm

According to the Congressional Budget Office?s income inequality data, the top 1 percent of households have seen their incomes go up by 7 percent and the bottom 80 percent have seen their income shares go down by 7 percent. In total that is a $664 billion increase in inequality, representing $7,000 for each household in the bottom 80 percent and nearly $600,000 for each household in the top 1 percent.

Umm... so does that mean reading comprehension is your kryptonite?

One number is quoted in absolutes, the other as a relative statistic. The article is comparing apples to oranges. It does NOT mention whether the bottom 80% of households had their income go up or down, or by how much. Hell, if the top 1% of households have an average income of $1,000,000 and the bottom 80% of households have an average income of $30,000 the bottom 80% would have to have their incomes go up on the order of >100% in order to not lose income share when the top 1% have absolute incomes increase 7%.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

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

You are living a lie. Go look where this country was 100 years ago. Go look at where other countries are today, especially in Asia.

You were more tolerable when you were just spouting your crack-pot theories of the grand conservative conspiracy of oppressing blacks.

100 years ago in the US and today in many Asian states, (equal) rights for workers, women, immigrants, and religious and racial minorities were and are not respected, and so-called "freedom" (for the men oppressing everyone else) was put before them. We have vastly improved our society by valuing equality over "freedom," and we and the rest of the world ought to continue to do so.

This quote is logically flawed because equality and freedom are not at odds. In reality, equality is a prerequisite for freedom. The sweat-shop worker is not free, nor are the uneducated who cannot get a job that pays a living wage. Economic freedom exists only for those who already have money, education, residence in the right part of the world, etc. To increase economic freedom, we must first improve the circumstances of the world. Absolute equality may not be important, but the achievement of economic freedom requires relatively more economic equality than currently exists. I don't know the context of that quote, but by itself it does seem moronic.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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

Please stay out of Texas, we don't want you. We will raise the property tax to kep you out.
You say Texas is bad because it has a higher property tax to offset no income tax, but guess what. It's still not effectively higher than paying income+sales+property taxes in California or Taxachuessets.
I pay about $2000 a year in property taxes or about 2% of the household income. Compare that to the 9.3% I would be paying in california in income taxes, plus 1% property tax levy and additional portion on the property tax + sales tax. So most liekly around 13%-15%
I'll take paying 2% of the household income in taxes over the absured rates in the west and east coast.
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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?

Sure thing!

Yet another shit filled WSJ editorial. 'Tax haven' Florida has the same effective tax rate as 'tax heavy' New York when you count everything instead of just foolishly focusing on income taxes alone. And exploding tax haven Nevada? They tax an entire $.003 less per dollar than crazy tax apocalypse New York! The WSJ wouldn't be able to make its dishonest point without that though, so I can't say I'm surprised. They put several of these out a year.

This is just part of the continuing war against progressive taxation that the rich have been waging since it was introduced. Depending on what point the right is trying to prove you have several scenarios. Either A.) The rich avoid the taxes so there's no point in increasing them. Or B.) The rich will be so oppressed by taxation that they will no longer be able to employ people. Strangely enough these two arguments are frequently posed in quick succession to one another which can only lead me to the conclusion that rich people are just dicks. Apparently they are so angry at the increase in taxation that even though they aren't paying it, they will fire some people just to get back at us.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sure thing!

Yet another shit filled WSJ editorial. 'Tax haven' Florida has the same effective tax rate as 'tax heavy' New York when you count everything instead of just foolishly focusing on income taxes alone. And exploding tax haven Nevada? They tax an entire $.003 less per dollar than crazy tax apocalypse New York! The WSJ wouldn't be able to make its dishonest point without that though, so I can't say I'm surprised. They put several of these out a year.

This is just part of the continuing war against progressive taxation that the rich have been waging since it was introduced. Depending on what point the right is trying to prove you have several scenarios. Either A.) The rich avoid the taxes so there's no point in increasing them. Or B.) The rich will be so oppressed by taxation that they will no longer be able to employ people. Strangely enough these two arguments are frequently posed in quick succession to one another which can only lead me to the conclusion that rich people are just dicks. Apparently they are so angry at the increase in taxation that even though they aren't paying it, they will fire some people just to get back at us.

IF (and I'm not saying you should) you wanted to use data from that site, you should have used this chart; total tax burden per capita. Why you chose to use total tax burden per $10 of GDP is beyond me.

Edited to add: The Tax Foundation released this chart for 2008.

The Tax Foundation says they are non-partisan, but when I did some digging I did find claims that they were a conservative front. However, a lot of those claims were coming from organizations that also seemed pretty liberal, so 'moderate' may seem 'conservative' to them, I don't know. Also, the effect of bias on these numbers is questionable. It looks like there are a lot of Red states at the bottom of the list. But are they low because they're red and the institute is biased or simply because they're Red and dislike taxes? I don't know.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sure thing!

Yet another shit filled WSJ editorial. 'Tax haven' Florida has the same effective tax rate as 'tax heavy' New York when you count everything instead of just foolishly focusing on income taxes alone. And exploding tax haven Nevada? They tax an entire $.003 less per dollar than crazy tax apocalypse New York! The WSJ wouldn't be able to make its dishonest point without that though, so I can't say I'm surprised. They put several of these out a year.

This is just part of the continuing war against progressive taxation that the rich have been waging since it was introduced. Depending on what point the right is trying to prove you have several scenarios. Either A.) The rich avoid the taxes so there's no point in increasing them. Or B.) The rich will be so oppressed by taxation that they will no longer be able to employ people. Strangely enough these two arguments are frequently posed in quick succession to one another which can only lead me to the conclusion that rich people are just dicks. Apparently they are so angry at the increase in taxation that even though they aren't paying it, they will fire some people just to get back at us.

IF (and I'm not saying you should) you wanted to use data from that site, you should have used this chart; total tax burden per capita. Why you chose to use total tax burden per $10 of GDP is beyond me.

I think tax burden per GDP is a perfectly reasonable way to calculate it. Regardless, if you want to use tax burden per capita than you just have different examples blowing the editorial's logic out of the water. ('tax heavy' Ohio beating 'tax haven' Nevada for example)

 

[First]

Yawn, it's a WSJ op-ed and it's as always fringe conservative. No mention that "tax havens" (i.e. more friendly sales tax states like Texas) generally have terrible employment law allowing, for example, age discrimination in Texas (which is illegal here in CA). Fewer labor rights, fewer public services, etc. but hey, economic growth is, er, wait, CA and NY are still the two largest economies in the union.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Phokus

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.

if ever there was a self answering statement.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

Let's see, there's Austin and?????

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

Let's see, there's Austin and?????

Which just happens to be the liberal oasis in Texas.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

Let's see, there's Austin and?????

DFW, Houston and San Antonio rank quite well on the list.



But this is the part I dont understand. Why do liberal think that people do not respond to tax code changes. The liberals in the this thread seem to think they can tax as much as they want without running people and business away.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

Let's see, there's Austin and?????

DFW, Houston and San Antonio rank quite well on the list.



./q]

Yeah if you can deal with the pollution and the unbearable weather in the summer months not to mention the Texans themselves

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

Let's see, there's Austin and?????

DFW, Houston and San Antonio rank quite well on the list.



./q]

Yeah if you can deal with the pollution and the unbearable weather in the summer months not to mention the Texans themselves

Just so you know San Antonio is the largest cleanest city in the US when it comes to pollution. Houston could be better, but it makes gas for the nation, so it is a bit of tradeoff.

I would rather deal with texans than arrogant californians. :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison
I would rather deal with texans than arrogant californians. :roll:

Well you are a Texan, I'd assume you'd rather deal with your own kind

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Let's not forget, that Texas continually leads the pack in the number of the best cities to live in.

Let's see, there's Austin and?????

DFW, Houston and San Antonio rank quite well on the list.

But this is the part I dont understand. Why do liberal think that people do not respond to tax code changes. The liberals in the this thread seem to think they can tax as much as they want without running people and business away.

Let me explain some of your confusion to you.

There are two basic real models - the lower tax lower service model, and the higher tax higher service model.

For the former - I haven't checked this for accuracy, it's impression - think red states, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Texas, Alaska; for the latter, CA/NY/MA as examples.

What you are talking about is the mythical right-wing propaganda delusion of the 'Unio of Soviet Socialist Blue States' where - to quote you "they can tax as much as they want".

Doesn't exist. What does exist are higher taxes and higher services - not 99% tax rates.

When you fall for straw men like that, you get confused, thinking Blue states are something they're not.

Of *course* taxes are an overhead, and they have a negative effect; some of them have a positive effect that more than offsets it, and some don't.

The issue is to look at the specifics - how high are they and what are they going for?

Liberals tend to approve more of 'quality of life' and 'investment in the people and the infrastructure' spending at the state level than Republicans.

Is California an especially weak economy as you imply? New York (before the Wall Street crash, at least)? No, they're national leaders with huge businesses - despite taxes.

Taxes going up or down each have good and bad effects - depending how they're spent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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).

Same thing where my wife teaches. He gave enough money to build a new library. NY is ridiculous. Chase out the wealthy philanthropists so they can increase the medicaid rolls. Nice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

New York (before the Wall Street crash, at least)? No, they're national leaders with huge businesses - despite taxes.

Not really. Businesses have been leaving here for decades because of ever increasing taxes. NYC has been sucking the life out of the rest of the state, but because it also made money it was tolerable. Now we're being told about having to sacrifice. Well, unless you are a recipient of social services that is. Medicaid is untouchable. It's growing in fact. So much that they are taking money from our schools to pay for it.

So they chase Golisano out, who gave more money to hospitals, colleges and whatnot than they would ever see from the state.

What we need is to make NYC the 51st state, but only if they take the Albany politicians which they own with them.

We'd make a recovery in short order.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 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.

It's a long dead fallacy that cutting taxes on the rich improves investment.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: 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.

It's a long dead fallacy that cutting taxes on the rich improves investment.

I wasnt talking about the rich. I am talking about everybody who is taxed. Every dollar taxed is an opportunity cost in the private sector.

 

[Phokus]

Anyway, as a former MA resident, just rereading the NH portion of that article makes me wonder why anyone takes Art "draw a graph on a napkin and call it economics" Laffer seriouisly

Here's a fellow NH resident (who commutes to MA) commenting on the article about the NH part of the article:

You mean because the personal income is 6th in the nation? Let me help you out with that one: it's because of all the people who live in Hillsboro County and commute to work in MA. The median salary of Hillsboro county is over 120k and almost none of the people work in NH. Every single one of them drives down the Everett Turnpike in the morning to Lowell or Marlboro or Boston. They all pay Mass income tax.

Compare that to Coos County, which is too far north to commute from Boston. Even though Coos County is home to the second largest city in NH (Berlin), the average salary is still just $27000.

New Hampshire isn't evidence for thriving personal income because of low taxes you twit. New Hampshire is prime evidence for rich white people wanting to live in the woods and having the money to afford ludicrous property taxes and MA income taxes on top of it.

If it wasn't for Massachusetts New Hampshire would be a withering shitheap of a state. Sure, the unemployment rate is only 7%, but once you get further north that increases precipitously while the income drops off a cliff.

I can't believe Laffer cites fucking New Hampshire as an example of a self-sufficient economy where everyone just gets along fine because of the tax haven. I'm from NH, I love NH, but any economic success we have comes from being an unrepentant parasite on the back of Massachusetts and telecommuting subject to taxes in other states.

In short, the libertarian/economic conservative oasis of New Hampshire is a shit state to find work. Funny how large corporations don't flock to NH en mass. Great place if you want cheaper housing and commute to the 'satanic liberal hell hole of Massachusetts' where all the jobs are though.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
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:

I know, seriously. He must be one of those right wing terrorists the government warned us about.

Originally posted by: feralkid
There must be a better way to get these rich slobs to pony-up their fair share.

Force equal taxation across the nation. Lower level government need no longer exist, Washington represents the people. Problem solved.