Soak the rich, lose the rich.

[spacejamz]

Lower level government need no longer exist, Washington represents the people. Problem solved.

But that's impossible. How will the emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

 

[Phokus]

More from "Petey" over at SA on this article. Laffer should just shoot himself over how disingenuous he is. The "libertarian" haven of NH is nothing but a leech, unsustainable on it's own.

Hillsborough County is right on the border:

[timg]http://img.waffleimages.com/3f40a57bf693b59b6343516cce1578d6beee3226/hillsboro_county.gif[/timg]

It has 33% of New Hampshire's population in less than 10% of its area. The median income is almost 70k (the average is much, much higher), per capita over 25k, and less than 7% under the poverty line (and that includes Nashua and Manchester).

There are a lot of very high paying jobs along the 128 beltway in Massachusetts. There has been an extraordinarily exodus of very rich white families from the beltway area to southern NH. They move to towns right on the border, near I93 or the Everett Turnpike, so they can commute to work in 30 minutes or so down the highway.

Since the only meaningful taxes in NH are local property taxes, there are these clumps of unbelievably good schools right there along the border, where it is incredibly expensive to live. So tons of people move there for the schools, because by living there they can make sure every cent of their money goes to education and not elsewhere in the state for social services.

[timg]http://img.waffleimages.com/435cb65b66877afd81c9afc71de3ac594bbe7a35/NH_18848.gif[/timg]

Compare that to Coos County in the north, which has 2% of New Hampshire's population in 20% of its area. The median income in Coos County is $40k, but per capita it's only 17k and over 12% are beneath the poverty line. Even Coos is primarily propped up by tourism from Massachusetts and rich southern NH (aka Massachusettes) for skiing in the winter, people who have retired there and live off capital gains, etc.

New Hampshire would be West Virginia without Massachusetts. It's just a perfect example of how counterfactual Laffer is.


'Small Estates' are an understatement. Let's look at some places I canvassed this election:

[timg]http://img.waffleimages.com/971b6d9646175f03e706306c23c33925984b69c5/Picture 2.png[/timg]

[timg]http://img.waffleimages.com/8d6685fdd03adaacfdbb6f2e2bae09f88d01aae3/Picture 1.png[/timg]

[timg]http://img.waffleimages.com/2e90d42a6230f5fdd07a6e1f50e77b4a961cab95/Picture 3.png[/timg]

Southern NH is nothing but McMansions owned by people who work in Massachusetts and use NH as a tax shelter so they don't have to subsidize the education of poor kids in MA.

e: I just want to point out that I'm not opposed to nice houses per se, I'm just saying that the idea that somehow this wealth is native to New Hampshire is preposterous, especially because 99% of these people pay income tax to MA because that's where they work. These photos come from a southern commuter town where the median income for a family is 104k.

Contrast that to a place about an hour north in the lakes region, which is still relatively wealthy because of the tourism, where the median income is 30k:

[timg]http://i.somethingawful.com/u/petey/frontpage/notesfromnh/albert.jpg[/timg]

You know how they say Pennsylvania is Philly and Pittsburgh with Kentucky in between? Well, New Hampshire is West Virginia north of Concord. This is why Laffer's point is so misleading and false. New Hampshire doesn't benefit from lower taxes. It benefits from industry in Massachusetts.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

I disagree that its as simple as two options. I also disagree that conservatives are against improving the quality of life and infrastracture, we just disagree witht he method to achieving those goals. You can argue that your method is the only correct method, but that is where the devide is, not that conservatives are some group of evil people wanting nothing but the worst for their fellow citizens.

I know you have your own opinion of what conservatives are, but another misconception I see stated over and over is that we are against any taxes and are against improvements in services. The truth is, we know taxes are neccesary and that there are services that should be improved within the government. We disagree with the level and type of taxation. We also disagree with what services the goverment should be involved with. The government is bloated in many ways, but instead of finding ways to be more efficient (allowing services to be improved), they just stack more services and spend more money on the problem.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

seems like common sense to me

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's kinda hard when your country is a REPUBLIC.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: 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.

Or only cares about money, money, and more money.

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.

??WHAT?? You can't be serious??

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: 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.

Considering how many of our politicians also hide their money... Look that up if you will. Start with the Kennedy Family trust (offshore) and you'll see why old Teddy doesn't mind the "death" tax. The Kennedy family has avoided paying millions in estate taxes over the years thanks to hiding their wealth in the family trust. Repubs do it too.

When our own politicians dodge their own tax liabilities, and control the laws which allow them to do so... Well, I'll let you draw up you own conclusions.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: 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.

So do you think the rich who are moving away from high taxation would reconsider if taxes went to "worthwhile" things? I think youre kidding yourself if you answer yes. Its not HOW taxes are spent that is causing exodus. Its taxation itself.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: 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.

So do you think the rich who are moving away from high taxation would reconsider if taxes went to "worthwhile" things? I think youre kidding yourself if you answer yes. Its not HOW taxes are spent that is causing exodus. Its taxation itself.

I don't know, the rich wouldn't live somewhere with low taxes but high crime where their nice stuff gets stolen or they might be taken for ransom all the time.

It's all about balance. You need taxes. You need government intervention/services. Too much of those though can be a bad thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

So do you think the rich who are moving away from high taxation would reconsider if taxes went to "worthwhile" things? I think youre kidding yourself if you answer yes. Its not HOW taxes are spent that is causing exodus. Its taxation itself.

No, it's not as disproven by several examples in this thread and others. Rich people in NH have their jobs in Massachusetts. The dumb editorial thinks there are high taxes in New York that are causing the loss of jobs, but then claim those jobs are being gained by 'low tax' places like Florida, despite the fact that Florida has the same effective tax rate.

The editorial was dumb. It was dishonest. It was pretty much average drivel from the WSJ editorial board, which has been a laughingstock for god even knows how long.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Phokus
That's not a contradiction, it's nearly impossible to find affordable housing IN MASSACHUSETTS (near where the jobs are anyway).

not quite with the current market. Housing around the Boston area is pretty damn affordable (I wouldn't say cheap, though). We just bought a 3-bedroom, 1700sq ft home for the price my friends paid for their condo in No. Reading two years ago. Prices are still falling.