Maryland's lesson on taxing the rich

[Nightshade]

A year ago, Maryland became one of the first states in the nation to create a higher tax bracket for millionaires as part of a broader package of maneuvers intended to help balance the state's finances and make the tax code more progressive.

But as the state comptroller's office sifts through this year's returns, it is finding that the number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April has fallen by one-third, to about 2,000. Taxes collected from those returns as of last month have declined by roughly $100 million.
Source: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.millionaire14may14,0,6465292.story

When a state decides to raise taxes on its citizens, regardless of amount earned, they will essentially collect less taxes in the long run. It's a concept that a lot of state legislatures don't seem to get. Maryland learned that lesson the hard way and my state, Oregon is gonna learn that same lesson very soon.

When it comes to taxes is all about volume, the volume of businesses, the volume of people making money, the volume of people buying things (in the case of sales taxes), etc. When a state raises taxes on its citizens eventually it will get to the point where the citizens of that state will flee to other states that has less of a tax burden. As a result the state will collect less taxes because there are less people and businesses to tax because the taxable volume for that state has shrank.

If there is two things that can be made mobile quickly it is people and money. People and business will move from a state if the tax burden is high enough and find another state with a low tax burden. What is funny is that the states with the lower tax rates will actually collect more money because their taxable volume is larger because their tax burden on their citizens is lower, and when the low tax states take in the citizens that are fleeing from states with high tax burdens, they will collect more money without the need of raising taxes at all.

Just goes to show higher taxes does not equal higher revenue for the government. But hey try telling the government that, especially a government run by Democrats and Liberals. I mean what they expect the rich people do, stay and suck it up? I don't think so.

[Iehovah]

In the big scheme of things, citizens of the USA win either way. Where's the problem?

[Captain Politik]

OMG IVE BEEN FUCKING SAYING THAT ABOUT NIGGEROMA FOR MONTHS


That worthless nigger got so many idiots to believe that the rich in america are to blame for this recession.

TAXING THE RICH DOES NOTHING CONSIDERING THEY PAY MOST THE TAXES ANYWAYS

[Yggdrasil]

People (all of us) in this country are barely taxed. I say, go Swedish, tax us for all we've got, and set up a socialist utopia. 'Nuff said...

[Nightshade]

Actually, the Swedish Prime Minister had something to say about the "success" of socialism in Sweden. He called it Sweden's "Mad quarter of a century."

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10296/a/99193

[elf omg]

So we just need to raise taxes on the rich in every state.

[Timmah!]

So we just need to raise taxes on the rich in every state.

Unfortunatly, they will just take their money to other countries. I know I would.


On the original topic:
Fuck me, now I am gonna end up paying more state taxes because people can't figure out the right amount to tax the rich. I hate living in Maryland.

[elf omg]

Unfortunatly, they will just take their money to other countries. I know I would.


On the original topic:
Fuck me, now I am gonna end up paying more state taxes because people can't figure out the right amount to tax the rich. I hate living in Maryland.

Most countries have higher taxes anyway. Where would they go?

[Iehovah]

Unfortunatly, they will just take their money to other countries. I know I would.


On the original topic:
Fuck me, now I am gonna end up paying more state taxes because people can't figure out the right amount to tax the rich. I hate living in Maryland.

They could, yeah. But that assumes that those countries have at least -as good- a quality of life to offer without bullshit taxation. Good luck on that.

[Rust]

You've shown correlation, not causation.

Show us how the know the number declined because of the new tax law and not because of the troubled economy or any other factor that may explain the decrease. Until then, this is just speculation.


--


Ahh, context how I love thee...

"The recession provides an obvious explanation. Capital gains have become almost nonexistent as stock markets have tanked. Corporate executives have seen their salaries slashed. And small businesses, many of whom file individual income tax returns, have seen their profits gouged by the economic downturn.

Another more debatable explanation would be that millionaires have simply fled the Free State. While some say they have heard anecdotal evidence of the wealthy packing it up, officials say there's no proof yet of such a development."

[a giant pterodactyl]

People (all of us) in this country are barely taxed. I say, go Swedish, tax us for all we've got, and set up a socialist utopia. 'Nuff said...

then we can become the Pirate Party. YAARRRR. dawn that was cool what happened in Sweden with that!

[Yggdrasil]

then we can become the Pirate Party. YAARRRR. dawn that was cool what happened in Sweden with that!

Don't get your reference, my friend. Swedish politics have been dominated by the Social Democratic Party for the past 70 years or so.

[Agent 008]

Actually, the Swedish Prime Minister had something to say about the "success" of socialism in Sweden. He called it Sweden's "Mad quarter of a century."

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10296/a/99193

http://www.goat.se

[Yggdrasil]

Actually, the Swedish Prime Minister had something to say about the "success" of socialism in Sweden. He called it Sweden's "Mad quarter of a century."

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10296/a/99193

I was exaggerating a bit. A market too highly regulated and a population too highly taxed/has communism imposed ultimately lead to ruin. I like to think of my ideology as watered-down social democratism.

[Agent 008]

I think Monaco has got the right idea of what taxes should be like.

[ComradeAsh]

I think Monaco has got the right idea of what taxes should be like.

And racing.

[Agent 008]

And racing.

And gambling.

[Nightshade]

You've shown correlation, not causation.

Show us how the know the number declined because of the new tax law and not because of the troubled economy or any other factor that may explain the decrease. Until then, this is just speculation.

Well it's too early to tell for Maryland like the comptroller said but if history has told us; this is not just mere correlation. Some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal opinion article "Soak the Rich, Lost the Rich".

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays 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. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

and contuning...

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

And finally...

Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

As you can see from these examples, if history is of any indicator of what happened to Maryland passing the same type of soak the rich tax as what other states did, it backfired and failed on what it was supposed to do. And according to the article, blaming it on a recession does not necessarily hold water. This is because of the quote above the study was done during a boom cycle. Mr. Poulson also pretty much came to the same conclusion and he analyzed data from 1964 to 2008, which easily covers a wide range of economic cycles.

"The recession provides an obvious explanation. Capital gains have become almost nonexistent as stock markets have tanked. Corporate executives have seen their salaries slashed. And small businesses, many of whom file individual income tax returns, have seen their profits gouged by the economic downturn.

The recession does provide an obvious explanation, but is it the whole picture? I don’t think it is and to be honest blaming the recession for Maryland’s budget issues is too simplistic and naive. That is because this recession is still relatively young so there could be many factors that affected the state budgets. You also got to factor in Maryland's spending habits. The soak the rich tax is just one factor. But it is a factor that is backed up by history and data.

Another more debatable explanation would be that millionaires have simply fled the Free State. While some say they have heard anecdotal evidence of the wealthy packing it up, officials say there's no proof yet of such a development.

But yet did the same comptroller say that Marylanders with more than a million dollars who filed taxes dropped by one-third? Granted he said that many probably filed extensions but even he acknowledged in the article that he wrote a letter to the governor and legislative leaders that there was a trend emerging indicating, “a "substantial decline" in the number of residents and small businesses with that kind of income.” Yet he said that there is no such proof yet of such a development. So you tell me, which is it? Or is this just a case of government doublespeak?

[Rust]

Well it's too early to tell for Maryland like the comptroller said but if history has told us; this is not just mere correlation. Some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal opinion article "Soak the Rich, Lost the Rich".

If it's too early to tell then don't imply you can already tell Maryland to learn a lesson in the title of this thread...



As you can see from these examples, if history is of any indicator of what happened to Maryland passing the same type of soak the rich tax as what other states did, it backfired and failed on what it was supposed to do. And according to the article, blaming it on a recession does not necessarily hold water. This is because of the quote above the study was done during a boom cycle. Mr. Poulson also pretty much came to the same conclusion and he analyzed data from 1964 to 2008, which easily covers a wide range of economic cycles.


That's a great article, which you should have posted initially. That said, I never suggested that the rich moving to tax havens couldn't possibly explain the decrease in filings. It certainly can. That wasn't being question. The problem I had was that being a possibility does not mean that's the case in Maryland. You have shown correlation, not causation. Moreover, your initial post completely ignored the alternative explanations. You already blaming the increase in taxes as if it weren't too early to tell!



The recession does provide an obvious explanation, but is it the whole picture? I don’t think it is and to be honest blaming the recession for Maryland’s budget issues is too simplistic and naive. That is because this recession is still relatively young so there could be many factors that affected the state budgets. The soak the rich tax is just one factor. But it is a factor that is backed up by history and data.

You mean a full picture like the one that was completely absent from your initial post? I'm not claiming to know what exactly caused this. I'm pointing out how:

1. Causation hasn't been established.

2. Your post didn't paint the full picture because it conveniently left out all other explanations.


But yet didn’t this same comptroller say that Marylanders with more than a million dollars who filed taxes dropped by one-third. Granted he said that many probably filed extensions but even he acknowledged in the article that he wrote a letter to the governor and legislative leaders that there was a trend emerging indicating, “a "substantial decline" in the number of residents and small businesses with that kind of income.” Yet he said that there is no such proof yet of such a development. So you tell me, which is it? Or is this just a case of government double-speak?

How is that double-speak? Read what he said again. That the downturn (i.e. a decrease in the number of people in that income bracket) is happening is not being questioned. What he questioned is why is that? Is it because the people that once belonged to that income bracket have now moved to a lower one, or is it because the moved from the state all together? That's not double speak in the least.

Your post made it look like the article, and the debate, had reached the conclusions that the increase in taxes had caused that. That was misleading, if anything the article suggests that it's because of the economy (i.e. if you look at the "Evidence" used in the article you cited in the OP, there was anecdotal evidence in favor and against your claim, and then physical evidence of a similar increase in taxes years ago that did not result in less filings thus supporting the opposite).

[Nightshade]

Well Rust let's wait and see what happens but something tells me, and history and data proves it, that my analysis of the article is one of many factors of Maryland's budget woes.

[Rust]

One of the many factors? Sure! I'm not disagreeing with that so we don't really have to wait for anything. You are assuming that I think it's impossible that some of the people that were in that income bracket have left for another state. I don't. They might have, that's a reasonable possibility.

But you didn't say that, did you? Your original post was already concluding that that was the reason for the decline, and you gave absolutely no indication of all the other reasons ("all the other factors"). That was the problem.

[squeegee]

It surprises me that nobody has mentioned tax evasion. I bet a lot of the higher bracket people chose to hide assets/income.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

Now home invading the rich, that's another story.

[Nightshade]

But you didn't say that, did you? Your original post was already concluding that that was the reason for the decline, and you gave absolutely no indication of all the other reasons ("all the other factors"). That was the problem.

No and why should I? All I gave was an analysis of tax volume being affected and making the connection that people who are rich have the most impact on the tax volume growth and decline, with one of those factors being the state taxing the rich. If anything you are accusing me of being too focused. Fine I accept that. However, everyone is well aware there are other factors, all I did was bring one factor to light that was probably not well known. And guess what, so did the article.

[Rust]

Why should I? I don't know because... it paints the full picture, the very thing you were claiming the recession doesn't? Because you haven't established causation, yet you're claiming it is to blame? Because you're portraying the article as if proving your claim when it anything it does the opposite?

Please, stop pretending you don't know that mentioning both sides of the story - especially when the article you're using does just that and when you haven't proven your claim - isn't the intellectually honest thing to do.

[a giant pterodactyl]

Don't get your reference, my friend. Swedish politics have been dominated by the Social Democratic Party for the past 70 years or so.

lol, sorry. i was referring to the 'Pirate Party' that won a seat on the Swedish (i think) parliment the other day.

sweden is one of the FEW places that a socialist government has worked, now unfortunatly the foreigners are using the liberals laws against the country and taking over. Sha'ria law will be a reality throughout europe. we will see it in our lifetime.

[Nightshade]

Why should I? I don't know because... it paints the full picture, the very thing you were claiming the recession doesn't? Because you haven't established causation, yet you're claiming it is to blame? Because you're portraying the article as if proving your claim when it anything it does the opposite?

Please, stop pretending you don't know that mentioning both sides of the story - especially when the article you're using does just that and when you haven't proven your claim - isn't the intellectually honest thing to do.

Okay so let me get this straight, you want me to just to take history and case study of what has happened to other states and not apply it to Maryland, despite the fact Maryland has done the same thing that other states have done in only taxing the rich? Not to mention I did acknowledged the other factors that you pointed out in that they are valid points on Maryland's economic woes. Sorry Rust ain't gonna happen. To do otherwise would of been intellectually dishonest to the point of being laughable.

[Rust]

Who said anything about not applying the second article you posted? Nobody. In fact, I mentioned how it would have been a great addition in the original post. My whole commentary has been in regards to your original post where you misrepresented the article by making it seem as if it supported your claim when if anything it supported the opposite and by not painting the full picture. Like it or not, your original post was completely dishonest, and you asking the question "why you should have painted the full picture" only cements that point.

[Nightshade]

I totally disagree with your interpretation of it supporting the opposite. If anything the article was balanced and presented many aspects of possibilities of Maryland's tax woes, including soaking the rich. Even the opening statement of the article presents my viewpoints.

One of Maryland's budget-balancing tactics - asking millionaires to pay more money to the state - appears to be backfiring as the number of the highest-earning taxpayers dwindles with the flagging economy.

and here...

Karen Syrylo, a tax expert with the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, which lobbied against the millionaire bracket, said she has heard from colleagues who are attorneys and accountants that their clients moved out of state to avoid the new tax rate. She said that some Maryland jurisdictions boast some of the highest combined state and local income tax burdens in the country.

So don't tell me that the article is all about the supporting the opposite. And how is it being dishonest by presenting a perspective of the article based on my analysis and conclusion? I presented a side of the article and the fact is you didn't care much for it. Fine, I can live with that. It's what different viewpoints are all about. But to accuse me of dishonesty is in the larger picture, accusing the whole debate process of being dishonest. Why I say this because my perspective is debatable, as is yours.

Never have I once accused you of being dishonest when presenting your side of the article, yet you immediately go on the offensive when I presented my perspective. I didn't dismiss your viewpoints and yet you dismiss mine, calling them dishonest when in fact you provided no factual proof or evidence that I was being dishonest. Whatever happened to having a civilized debate? In fact, you seem to be only one who is making a big deal out of this. Sounds like to me you're making a big deal out of well, nothing.

Regardless, my perspective and analysis of the article still stand. If you want to debate it or whine about it, that I am leaving up to you.

[Rust]

I totally disagree with your interpretation of it supporting the opposite. If anything the article was balanced and presented many aspects of possibilities of Maryland's tax woes, including soaking the rich. Even the opening statement of the article presents my viewpoints.

and here...

So don't tell me that the article is all about the supporting the opposite.




I didn't say it was "all bout supporting the opposite". Stop misrepresenting what I said. I said "If anything, it supports the opposite". As in "If we have to absolutely decide which side it supports, it's the opposite".

Why do I say that? Because if you look at the evidence it presents then there's more of it on the other side:

1. They cite two anecdotal accounts:

a. One from a lobbyist - who lobbied against the tax increase - saying he knew of people that were leaving.

b. Another one from an investment banker I believe, saying his clients were staying because the less than 1% increase would be trivial to his clients and it would be a bigger hassle to move.


2. Then they offer another piece of information, where they cite a similar event in Maryland in the pass - where the tax of a income bracket was increase - and how the tax filings increased that time, not decreased.


So of the 3 pieces of information in the article, 2 support the opposite.



And how is it being dishonest by presenting a perspective of the article based on my analysis and conclusion? I presented a side of the article and the fact is you didn't care much for it. Fine, I can live with that. It's what different viewpoints are all about. But to accuse me of dishonesty is in the larger picture, accusing the whole debate process of being dishonest. Why I say this because my perspective is debatable, as is yours.

I already explained why it's dishonest. It's not your "analysis" that's the problem, it's how you presented it. Whether you like it or not, deliberately hiding the rest of the article which puts in question your conclusion is intellectually dishonest.

Never have I once accused you of being dishonest when presenting your side of the article, yet you immediately go on the offensive when I presented my perspective. I didn't dismiss your viewpoints and yet you dismiss mine, calling them dishonest when in fact you provided no factual proof or evidence that I was being dishonest. Whatever happened to having a civilized debate? In fact, you seem to be only one who is making a big deal out of this. Sounds like to me you're making a big deal out of well, nothing.

1. I haven't been dishonest. I'm not the one reaching a conclusion and hiding the information that puts that conclusion in question, you are.

2. Whether other people made a big deal about it or not is irrelevant. Those people didn't even notice how you had hidden the rest of the information and where already following you concluding that it was a fact that the tax increase caused the decrease in filing returns when that hasn't been established.

3. I'm "making a bid deal" about it because this is not the first time you pull shit like this. The other thread you made about "Obama's Plan" to have a tax was completely dishonest as well. You were pinning that on Obama when neither Obama nor anyone in his staff that you could prove had given that as their solution.

[supperrfreek]

Most countries have higher taxes anyway. Where would they go?

when you're a millionaire, or say a billionaire, you may be able to afford to buy a yacht and live on that. Or you could take all the money in cash and stash it in your basement.
The rich can essentially move to just about anywhere, because they have the money to do it.

[Nightshade]

I didn't say it was "all bout supporting the opposite". Stop misrepresenting what I said. I said "If anything, it supports the opposite". As in "If we have to absolutely decide which side it supports, it's the opposite".


Why do I say that? Because if you look at the evidence it presents then there's more of it on the other side:

The article may support the majority, but there is also the minority and well according to what I presented in my supporting article the majority is pretty weak.

1. They cite two anecdotal accounts:

a. One from a lobbyist - who lobbied against the tax increase - saying he knew of people that were leaving.

b. Another one from an investment banker I believe, saying his clients were staying because the less than 1% increase would be trivial to his clients and it would be a bigger hassle to move.

Well then they are more than entitled to pay for that. But the proof will be in the pudding come October.

2. Then they offer another piece of information, where they cite a similar event in Maryland in the pass - where the tax of a income bracket was increase - and how the tax filings increased that time, not decreased.

Can you cite other instances of where this has happened? One isolated incident offers weak support for the other side. Also it doesn't explain why the filings increased. For all we know the filings could of increased because more people worked.


So of the 3 pieces of information in the article, 2 support the opposite.

Regardless of how the same thing in the past has happened and case study proves it? Yeah whatever. :rolleyes:


I already explained why it's dishonest. It's not your "analysis" that's the problem, it's how you presented it. Whether you like it or not, deliberately hiding the rest of the article which puts in question your conclusion is intellectually dishonest.

Now that's laughable. If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest and deliberately hide the rest of the article. I would of never cited the source link. Try again.

1. I haven't been dishonest. I'm not the one reaching a conclusion and hiding the information that puts that conclusion in question, you are.

Again how is reaching a conclusion and so called hiding the information when I included a source link to the article?

2. Whether other people made a big deal about it or not is irrelevant. Those people didn't even notice how you had hidden the rest of the information and where already following you concluding that it was a fact that the tax increase caused the decrease in filing returns when that hasn't been established.

Or just maybe there wasn't anything to notice. Like I said I posted the source link, everyone including you had seen the same article and yet you were the only one who reached this so called conclusion of intellectual dishonesty. I find that interesting.

3. I'm "making a bid deal" about it because this is not the first time you pull shit like this. The other thread you made about "Obama's Plan" to have a tax was completely dishonest as well. You were pinning that on Obama when neither Obama nor anyone in his staff that you could prove had given that as their solution.

Not to take this thread off track but what is your point?

This shit you saying that I am pulling is called being a proactive citizen. Being a proactive citizen means that making sure the government does not get away with shit because well someone is watching them. In a Republic, it is the responsibility of the citizens to be proactive citizens to make sure their representatives don't do anything backhanded. Reactive people such as you the government loves because they can say "nothing to see here" and you would believe it. Then the government would go ahead and do it and then it would be too little, too late.

[Rust]

The article may support the majority, but there is also the minority and well according to what I presented in my supporting article the majority is pretty weak.

What majority? What are you talking about? You're making no sense and are changing the subject.

The point is that the article, if anything, supported the opposite side. Thus you making it out to represent your side was dishonest.



Well then they are more than entitled to pay for that. But the proof will be in the pudding come October.

...
Regardless of how the same thing in the past has happened and case study proves it? Yeah whatever.



Which has what to do with the point you're supposed to be replying to? Nothing. Please follow the discussion. I'm talking specifically about the first article you posted:

1. You questioned my statement that the article if anything supported the opposite (e.g. "So don't tell me that the article is all about the supporting the opposite. ")

2. I proved that what I said was correct since out two out of the three evidences the article cited supported the opposite.



Can you cite other instances of where this has happened? One isolated incident offers weak support for the other side. Also it doesn't explain why the filings increased. For all we know the filings could of increased because more people worked.

Again, follow the damn discussion. I wasn't supposing that was some great form of evidence, I'm showing you how the very first article you posted gave three forms of evidence and out of those three two of them supported the opposite. Which shows how dishonest it was for you to make it seem as if the article supported your claim by ignoring the rest of it.

Now that's laughable. If I wanted to be intellectually dishonest and deliberately hide the rest of the article. I would of never cited the source link. Try again.

Except that premise is proven false given that the morons of this board were already convinced by your misrepresentation of the article! If you look at their replies - which happened before you posted the WSJ article - you'll see they were all concluding the original article you posted proved what you claimed when in reality it did no such thing!

So no, you don't get to claim honesty just because you posted the link. A dishonest individual can easily bet on the morons of this board not following the link and/or not even reading the full article and just letting themselves be mislead by the small pieces you quoted.


Again how is reaching a conclusion and so called hiding the information when I included a source link to the article?


See above. That you posted the link is irrelevant, you misrepresented it here by only posting quotes of certain things. That was enough to get the lazy people in this board to only read what you quoted (if they even did that!) and not read the rest.

Or just maybe there wasn't anything to notice. Like I said I posted the source link, everyone including you had seen the same article and yet you were the only one who reached this so called conclusion of intellectual dishonesty. I find that interesting.

No, there was something to notice because it's a demonstrable fact that the original article you were using provided more evidence of the oppossite. I already showed you that above. So right there they would have noticed just how the article didn't really support the conclusion you were making it out to support. Moreover, you don't know if anyone else followed the link and read it in its entirety, which is the point. I was the only one to notice that the article if anything supported the opposite which is a undeniable fact.


Not to take this thread off track but what is your point?

This shit you saying that I am pulling is called being a proactive citizen. Being a proactive citizen means that making sure the government does not get away with shit because well someone is watching them. In a Republic, it is the responsibility of the citizens to be proactive citizens to make sure their representatives don't do anything backhanded. Reactive people such as you the government loves because they can say "nothing to see here" and you would believe it. Then the government would go ahead and do it and then it would be too little, too late.


Spare me the conveniently spinned bullshit.

You can be a "proactive citizen" without making shit up (like when you pinned the tax idea on Obama, calling it his plan when you could not show anyone in his administration supporting that as a solution much less Obama himself) and without obscuring information by not presenting the full picture.

Not to mention the utter inanity in you saying that I would believe/accept what I was told when I did just the opposite in this thread! I questioned your convenient quotes of the article both here and in the other Obama thread. I didn't take what you said for granted, I investigated and saw how you weren't presenting the full picture and/or were making shit up. That's not being proactive, that's being intellectually dishonest.

[Nightshade]

*claps slowly* Congratulations Rust, you done something totally amazing and stupid at the same time.

Insult everyone in the forum that you moderate. Way to go man, even I wouldn't of gone that far.

Is it any wonder why anyone doesn't take you seriously? I have seen the things you posted and you know what you follow a pattern on most of them telling them they are either dishonest, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Why the hell do you moderate this forum in the first place when it seems you can't stand from you own perspective the dishonesty, ignorance, or stupidity of the users? Personally I think there are some pretty bright users in Der Poltik, The Better Version, Patton, and Yaggarsil comes to mind, and every opinion has value. Want to know why, opinions make people think. It seems to me that you can care less about the users or what they think given that you pretty much insult most of them, and their opinions.

Anyways, I am done with this thread. Time to move on and find some fresh new material for the people to chew on.

[Rust]

:violin:


First of all, I didn't call everyone on the board a moron. I called everyone who fell for your lies because they didn't bother reading the full article a moron. I stand by it. It might be harsh, but it's also true.


Second of all, I didn't insult anyone because of their opinion, that's you misrepresenting what I said yet again. Surprise. I have no problem with people having different opinions, I have problems with people supporting their opinions and claims with falsehoods and intellectually dishonesty. You did both in this thread. The fact of the matter is that if you follow the discussion you see that you misrepresented the initial article, I called you on it and instead of admitting that and making it right, you decided to try not do the right thing and trot out silly excuses and complaints in a last ditch attempt to save face. Pathetic.


Finally, you if you have a problem with me being a moderator of Der Politik then please, by all means, go ahead and contact the administration with your complaints. You can do so here (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/private.php?do=newpm&u=1)and here (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/private.php?do=newpm&u=13). Since you have ample means to contact them, I ask that you please don't litter the forum with your whining. Thanks.

[WAN]

Unfortunatly, they will just take their money to other countries.

I know they can, but they shouldn't be allowed to.

They get rich off of the people in this country (although their own capitals and ingenuity played a part too, in unknown proportions). Therefore, their wealth has to stay in this country as to benefit the country's people.

[supperrfreek]

I know they can, but they shouldn't be allowed to.

They get rich off of the people in this country (although their own capitals and ingenuity played a part too, in unknown proportions). Therefore, their wealth has to stay in this country as to benefit the country's people.

This is your choice as a consumer to make though. You can a) buy from big box stores (this sends the money to the rich and overseas), or b) buy from local small businesses (this keeps more of the money local, although not quite all of the money, it's better than none). The only way to keep all of the money here would be to end all forms of outsourcing and trade with other nations: in short, not gonna happen.
People have the liberty here to pretty much move where they want to, when they want to for whatever reason. There's little restriction on where you can go, or can't go: this is a good thing. If rich people, and old people in the case of New York, leave to go to a state which they believe to have a "fair tax" that's their personal decision. Nobody is obligated to stay in one state, or even in this country so long as their taxes are up to date. Besides, it teaches us a valuable lesson: when people are treated differently, demonized and discriminated against by the government, they may choose to leave and this can have consequences we may not be willing to deal with.

[Death_Merchant]

I took the time to read up on some things, so I don't pay any taxes except for GST, cause you can't buy anything without paying it. This year, with grants and whatnot, the government is paying me to live here.

[superspeedz]

Source: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.millionaire14may14,0,6465292.story

When a state decides to raise taxes on its citizens, regardless of amount earned, they will essentially collect less taxes in the long run. It's a concept that a lot of state legislatures don't seem to get. Maryland learned that lesson the hard way and my state, Oregon is gonna learn that same lesson very soon.

When it comes to taxes is all about volume, the volume of businesses, the volume of people making money, the volume of people buying things (in the case of sales taxes), etc. When a state raises taxes on its citizens eventually it will get to the point where the citizens of that state will flee to other states that has less of a tax burden. As a result the state will collect less taxes because there are less people and businesses to tax because the taxable volume for that state has shrank.

If there is two things that can be made mobile quickly it is people and money. People and business will move from a state if the tax burden is high enough and find another state with a low tax burden. What is funny is that the states with the lower tax rates will actually collect more money because their taxable volume is larger because their tax burden on their citizens is lower, and when the low tax states take in the citizens that are fleeing from states with high tax burdens, they will collect more money without the need of raising taxes at all.

Just goes to show higher taxes does not equal higher revenue for the government. But hey try telling the government that, especially a government run by Democrats and Liberals. I mean what they expect the rich people do, stay and suck it up? I don't think so.
Hey retard,

There is no empirical evidence that shifting the burden of taxation the rich, will decrease tax revenues, this stat does not control by the average decrease in wealth that most americans have seen due to the fall in housing prices or the recession.

5.5 to 6.25 is not a large enough amount to cause people to move...
especially when you have all those assets and moving costs...

[MadVillain]

Oh hey look its another article from the Baltimore Sun........



http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock22may22,0,6426003.column