PDA

View Full Version : Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich



patriot45
05-18-2009, 09:52 AM
Coming to a state near you, a moving tax! Just kidding... maybe!

Tax the rich to death! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html)




With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.


Chad Crowe
.Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."

Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

linda22003
05-18-2009, 10:30 AM
I read that in the WSJ this morning and thought it made eminent sense. Money gives you options, and mobility is one of them.
On the other hand, there was a long article on how much it really costs one to be poor, in the Washington Post this morning. You spend more time doing laundry when you have to stay with coin operated machines. You spend more money on groceries when you can only walk to the corner store, and you spend more on paying bills when you don't have a checking account and have to use a payday service.

I don't know what I was supposed to learn from that but I said to my husband, "I learned that being poor is a bore. Let's not do it." He assented.

Gingersnap
05-18-2009, 10:40 AM
I read that in the WSJ this morning and thought it made eminent sense. Money gives you options, and mobility is one of them.
On the other hand, there was a long article on how much it really costs one to be poor, in the Washington Post this morning. You spend more time doing laundry when you have to stay with coin operated machines. You spend more money on groceries when you can only walk to the corner store, and you spend more on paying bills when you don't have a checking account and have to use a payday service.

I don't know what I was supposed to learn from that but I said to my husband, "I learned that being poor is a bore. Let's not do it." He assented.

Poverty makes everything less efficient in life. On the other hand, naturally efficient people generally don't stay poor for any length of time, either.

However people stand on the evils of wealth, there is no denying that it opens up a lot of options including the option to simply leave. It's poor people who are stuck geographically. Even if they have a skill that could be employed in a different area, they usually don't have the money for first and last month rent, security deposits, and all the associated expenses that come with relocation. Rich people do.

patriot45
05-18-2009, 10:44 AM
It is simply amazing though, that the powers that be decide they can tax just about all there is to tax and people will just ask for more! Richer people moving take away jobs with them, they are more likely business owners. Poor Kalifornia, they are going to get slammed!

Water Closet
05-18-2009, 10:52 AM
We're looking at the requirements for my girlfriend to open a practice in Monoco. Between us we speak all three requisite languages. Her degree from Columbia will serve her well there and, should we get married :eek:, I would be eligible for an EU passport. The problem is I can't make any money there, so I would have to either find a way to do IT consulting based out of there or to change my line of work. Maybe I could grow olives. :D

MrsSmith
05-18-2009, 09:43 PM
Poverty makes everything less efficient in life. On the other hand, naturally efficient people generally don't stay poor for any length of time, either.

However people stand on the evils of wealth, there is no denying that it opens up a lot of options including the option to simply leave. It's poor people who are stuck geographically. Even if they have a skill that could be employed in a different area, they usually don't have the money for first and last month rent, security deposits, and all the associated expenses that come with relocation. Rich people do.

I don't think being poor makes everything less efficient. Less efficient people make choices that keep them poor. More efficient people make choices that help them escape from poverty.

For example, in lindaNumbers post...if a person is too poor to afford a car, then an efficient person buys a used wagon at a garage sale, makes a longer walk to a cheaper store, buys lots of efficient food (bagged beans, bagged rice, Ramen noodles, on-sale veggies, on-sale meat, etc), and hauls enough back to last a while. If they are too poor to afford a washer and dryer, they buy clothing at garage sales and thrift stores and only haul it to the laundry every other week.

There is no "too poor" to be smart about things.

linda22003
05-19-2009, 09:08 AM
For example, in lindaNumbers post...if a person is too poor to afford a car, then an efficient person buys a used wagon at a garage sale, makes a longer walk to a cheaper store, buys lots of efficient food (bagged beans, bagged rice, Ramen noodles, on-sale veggies, on-sale meat, etc), and hauls enough back to last a while. If they are too poor to afford a washer and dryer, they buy clothing at garage sales and thrift stores and only haul it to the laundry every other week.

There is no "too poor" to be smart about things.

I agree with you, but since my example came from a Washington Post article, it was naturally not written with solutions in mind, but simply as a "Women and Minorities Impacted the Most" piece. ;)

Gingersnap
05-19-2009, 12:03 PM
I don't think being poor makes everything less efficient. Less efficient people make choices that keep them poor.

It is less efficient to be poor. Everything takes longer, every purchase is a bigger bite, every setback teeters on the verge of crisis, and every penny saved is simply worth less than a comparable amount of savings in a higher income bracket.

Even smart poor people (or the "temporarily disadvantaged" as I used to refer to myself) have to struggle with built-in economic inertia. It can be overcome but it's more difficult. The rich have no economic inertia. On the contrary, money greases the skids to make or efficiently use even more money.

This is why you don't find boatloads of wealthy people living in decayed urban centers. They can afford to move away. If they can afford to move out of a city, some of them can afford to move out of this country in an economic sense.

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 12:40 PM
It is less efficient to be poor. Everything takes longer, every purchase is a bigger bite, every setback teeters on the verge of crisis, and every penny saved is simply worth less than a comparable amount of savings in a higher income bracket.

Even smart poor people (or the "temporarily disadvantaged" as I used to refer to myself) have to struggle with built-in economic inertia. It can be overcome but it's more difficult. The rich have no economic inertia. On the contrary, money greases the skids to make or efficiently use even more money.

This is why you don't find boatloads of wealthy people living in decayed urban centers. They can afford to move away. If they can afford to move out of a city, some of them can afford to move out of this country in an economic sense.

You're correct regarding being poor making things less efficient. Why, when you're poor, sometimes you can't even find a pot when you desparately need one! :D

As to cities, you do find wealthy people living in cities. Take NYC (Manhattan), DC (Northwest & Georgetown), and SF, for example.

lacarnut
05-19-2009, 12:43 PM
A 10% excise luxury tax passed in 1990 was an attempt to soak the rich on boats, luxury cars, airplanes, jewelry and furs. Boat sales plummeted and many boat dealer went out of business in the northeast. The rich quit buying those items; the program was a disaster because it brought in far less revenues than anticipated. Thousands lost their job because of this stupidity. BTW, it was touted as a FAIR TAX.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 12:46 PM
You're correct regarding being poor making things less efficient. Why, when you're poor, sometimes you can't even find a pot when you desparately need one! :D

As to cities, you do find wealthy people living in cities. Take NYC (Manhattan), DC (Northwest & Georgetown), and SF, for example.

Yeah, and take out a cigarette in any of those cities and watch how fast the mob surrounds you asking for one.

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 12:52 PM
Yeah, and take out a cigarette in any of those cities and watch how fast the mob surrounds you asking for one.

OK. Since I've never smoked, while I object to it from a principled point of view (more government intervention into private matters), at the practical level I really don't care. Certainly a small price to pay in order to live in one of the places I mentioned.

lacarnut
05-19-2009, 12:58 PM
Yeah, and take out a cigarette in any of those cities and watch how fast the mob surrounds you asking for one.

I cured the moochers in college of bumming from me. Picayune cigs made in N.O. will take your breath away similar to a straight shot of white lightning. Think they went out of business though.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 01:01 PM
I cured the moochers in college of bumming from me. Picayune cigs made in N.O. will take your breath away similar to a straight shot of white lightning. Think they went out of business though.

I almost started a riot in SF when I took out a cigarette (Marlboro) and lit it.
It was bizarre.

At 30 cents a pop, I'm not GIVING a cigarette to ANYONE.

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 01:10 PM
I almost started a riot in SF when I took out a cigarette (Marlboro) and lit it.
It was bizarre.

At 30 cents a pop, I'm not GIVING a cigarette to ANYONE.

Sorry, I misread your post. People asking for cigarettes? I haven't really experienced that very often?

Gingersnap
05-19-2009, 01:13 PM
You're correct regarding being poor making things less efficient. Why, when you're poor, sometimes you can't even find a pot when you desparately need one! :D

As to cities, you do find wealthy people living in cities. Take NYC (Manhattan), DC (Northwest & Georgetown), and SF, for example.

I didn't say "cities", I said "decayed urban centers". Kind of a difference there.

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 02:09 PM
We're looking at the requirements for my girlfriend to open a practice in Monoco. Between us we speak all three requisite languages. Her degree from Columbia will serve her well there and, should we get married :eek:, I would be eligible for an EU passport. The problem is I can't make any money there, so I would have to either find a way to do IT consulting based out of there or to change my line of work. Maybe I could grow olives. :D
Or, you could work outside of Monaco and declare it as your residence. That would eliminate US taxes and Monaco probably doesn't tax income earned outside of its borders. Of course, you could always take up Baccarat, wear a tux and get in the habit of introducing yourself as "Closet, Water Closet."

I agree with you, but since my example came from a Washington Post article, it was naturally not written with solutions in mind, but simply as a "Women and Minorities Impacted the Most" piece. ;)
My favorite of those was a parody written decades ago: "World to end tomorrow! Women and Minorities Most Effected." [/QUOTE]


This is why you don't find boatloads of wealthy people living in decayed urban centers. They can afford to move away. If they can afford to move out of a city, some of them can afford to move out of this country in an economic sense.

Many years ago, I was in an industry that collapsed. I managed to find a job on the opposite coast and moved 2,500 miles from NYC to California for work. At the time, I'd had to max out a credit card for daily expenses and making the move, and spent the next two years living like a monk while I paid it all off, so I was not only poor, but had a negative net worth. Of course, no sooner had I done that than I got into an argument online with a liberal who believed that poor people couldn't relocate for work. My example didn't faze him for an instant. Apparently being broke and in debt wasn't the same as being "poor" so I didn't count.

I wouldn't mind all of the relocations as long as people understood why they were relocating. If they leave California or New York because the economy is tanking there, and it isn't tanking in Texas, then perhaps they shouldn't try to impose California or New York business/economic models on Texas, especially in terms of taxes and government spending. Voting for California or New York style taxes in Texas is the fastest way to ensure that Texas is no longer capable of sustaining the economic conditions that made it an attractive destination in the first place. It would be especially nice if idiots who are concerned about the impact of people on the natural environment took the time to look at the impact of liberal migration on the economic environment.

BadCat
05-19-2009, 03:29 PM
We're looking at the requirements for my girlfriend to open a practice in Monoco. Between us we speak all three requisite languages. Her degree from Columbia will serve her well there and, should we get married :eek:, I would be eligible for an EU passport. The problem is I can't make any money there, so I would have to either find a way to do IT consulting based out of there or to change my line of work. Maybe I could grow olives. :D

A quandry there.

Lord knows the Europeans need more dental care, but would it not be subject to their socialized dental programs? Would your female not be paid what the government "thinks" she should be paid for her services? Alternately, she could open a practice here in the states and have Hussien tax the living bejeezus out of her.

Now, if you could still consult and have expatriate status on taxes, that would be something else.

Speedy
05-19-2009, 03:41 PM
I almost started a riot in SF when I took out a cigarette (Marlboro) and lit it.
It was bizarre.

At 30 cents a pop, I'm not GIVING a cigarette to ANYONE.

One of the biggest fights I ever got into in prison was over cigarettes. I did not even smoke. Some new guy had been bumming cigarettes off of everyone. Because he was new, he had no problem getting people to give him any. He made his first commissary, came back with at least $200 of stuff, but no cigarettes. I was outside and saw him come in with two mesh laundry bags full of stuff.

He comes back outside, goes straight to a smoking inmate and bums one. As he lights up I say that he is a real piece of shit. Buying $200 of comissary but not buying cigarettes. He does not like what I say, I tell him to go fuck himself and we get into a fight.

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 03:48 PM
Or, you could work outside of Monaco and declare it as your residence. That would eliminate US taxes and Monaco probably doesn't tax income earned outside of its borders. Of course, you could always take up Baccarat, wear a tux and get in the habit of introducing yourself as "Closet, Water Closet."...

Establishing residency in Monaco is quite difficult and costly. Given that, there is little advantage of living elsewhere. One would have to review the cost/benefit of doing so, e.g., lower cost of living, and of paying taxes to the country in which you lived. The US, as I'm sure you know, also taxes its citizens on monies earned abroad above the SSN limit. The host country also typically taxes expats, although they may have a reciprocal agreement with the US.

So, the difficulty in avoiding any tax lies in (a) obtaining a citizenship that does not tax its citizen's earnings from abroad and (2) residing in a tax haven. Given that, Romanian citizenship with an EU passport and residency in Monaco sounds the most attractive (much more so than, for example, living in Saudi).

And while I've been in the Grand Casino many times, I've never worn a tux (there) and I've never introduced myself a la James Bond.

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 03:52 PM
A quandry there.

Lord knows the Europeans need more dental care, but would it not be subject to their socialized dental programs? Would your female not be paid what the government "thinks" she should be paid for her services? Alternately, she could open a practice here in the states and have Hussien tax the living bejeezus out of her.

Now, if you could still consult and have expatriate status on taxes, that would be something else.

In Monaco? Monaco has no taxes. The cost of living is a bit high (small one bedrooms go for over $1M). As to the optimal status vis-a-vis taxes, see my post above.

Odysseus
05-19-2009, 06:08 PM
So, the difficulty in avoiding any tax lies in (a) obtaining a citizenship that does not tax its citizen's earnings from abroad and (2) residing in a tax haven. Given that, Romanian citizenship with an EU passport and residency in Monaco sounds the most attractive (much more so than, for example, living in Saudi).
I don't know that I'd want an EU passport nowadays. First, as demonstrated by Geert Wilders, it doesn't get you everywhere in Europe (come to think of it, how did the Brits justify excluding a fellow EUro-peon?). Second, in the next few years, you're going to have to convert to Islam if you want to avoid paying the Jidzya with the rest of the dhimmis. Say what you will about Texas, but I've as yet to hear anyone say "Allahu Akbar, Y'all."


And while I've been in the Grand Casino many times, I've never worn a tux (there) and I've never introduced myself a la James Bond.
Okay, then how do you explain those vodka martinis, shaken, not stirred, with a twist? I suppose that they ordered and drank themselves? Right. :D

Water Closet
05-19-2009, 06:21 PM
I don't know that I'd want an EU passport nowadays. First, as demonstrated by Geert Wilders, it doesn't get you everywhere in Europe (come to think of it, how did the Brits justify excluding a fellow EUro-peon?). Second, in the next few years, you're going to have to convert to Islam if you want to avoid paying the Jidzya with the rest of the dhimmis. Say what you will about Texas, but I've as yet to hear anyone say "Allahu Akbar, Y'all."

The UK's not part of the schengen agreement so European nationals are required to show a passport when entering. Over and above that, I believe all EU countries may forbid the entry of those they deem as "underirable" if they chose.

The world is not linear and Malthus was wrong. I really doubt that in 20 years everyone in Europe will be saying "Allah Akbar." And I can't think of any place in Texas that I would want to be.


Okay, then how do you explain those vodka martinis, shaken, not stirred, with a twist? I suppose that they ordered and drank themselves? Right. :D

Wasn't me. All of my martinis are shaken, not stirred; but I never use vodka, only gin. :D

AlmostThere
05-20-2009, 02:16 AM
I cured the moochers in college of bumming from me. Picayune cigs made in N.O. will take your breath away similar to a straight shot of white lightning. Think they went out of business though.

Ok Sherman, time to hop in the way-back machine. :)

I just had an epiphany. The problem with today's kids is they have no idea what the way-back machine is or that it even exists.

Odysseus
05-20-2009, 11:46 AM
I wonder if Obama is planning to try to regulate movement of capital within the country the way that he's trying to get an international tax-surveillance regime in place. The movement of capital from one state to another will inconvenience the losing high-tax states (which tend to be blue states) but will greatly benefit the gaining lower-tax states (which tend to be red), so it's exactly the kind of gubernatorial conflict that would justify a federal power grab. Or, they could impose some equalizing tax that would shift money from the low tax states back to the high tax states in some parody of equality.

AlmostThere
05-20-2009, 04:55 PM
If the U.S. winds up backing the bonds that California is selling to itself, I think we'll have a clear answer to that question.