- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Well then obviously the solution is to have higher taxes on the rich everywhere, so they've got nowhere to run to. duh.
Was there a reason you instantly resorted to ad hominem attacks? Is discussing change not debatable?
This thread is about ONE state's income tax policy decision, and its direct effects, not the right of a state to have that power.
When discussing/debating a STATE government taxation matter, one that instantly dismisses the very NATURE of states rights, and jumps to proposing "changes" that override ALL such state, local and popular power, demanding that "the solution" is ALL gov't be federal is WELL BEYOND discussing the effects of this policy and transfers the focus of the thread to unrelated areas. I sought to remind this poser that not sticking to the confines of OUR constitution, is well beyond CURRENT federal powers, and has no bearing on the right of a state gov't to make taxation policy decisions, in order to fund actions well within the constitutional responsibility and rights of a state.
Change by constitutional amendment yes, federal takeover and regulation of state taxation policy to make them "correct", "fair" and uniform no. The idea that anything, at any level of gov't (state level in this thread), that does not conform to the "likes" of someone, is not grounds for "uniformity" or a federal takeover. The people of MD, via their elected officials, made a choice to change their income taxation temporarily, and I assume that the poster thought that extremely high income taxation rates for the upper income brackets was "wise" public policy, and thus should be mandated policy in all states, even though the great teleprompter wizard Obama has YET to do so, on a national level.
Thing is, you merely assumed that he wasn't referring to constitutional amendments and jumped right into the "moron" statement.
That is true, yet that poster had ample opportunity to go there yet did not. The answer to all problems is NOT federal control, and there have been no calls from this poster for constitutional amemdments in this or other threads, that I have seen. The theme is always for more gov't, more taxation of the wealthy; and that states which elect to attract and welcome businesses, and their wealthy owners (and employment opportunities), with less regulation and taxation are somehow "cheating" the other states. This argument is constantly used to demand federal protection (or bailouts) for unions and high tax states, as more of their businesses, industry and associated jobs NATURALLY migrate to states that offer better environments. The resulting "tax vacuum" and unemployment are then seen as a federal problem.
MD got away with it temporarily ONLY beacuse, like VA and DC, they have a huge stable fedral GOV'T based employment source based on their proximity to great gobs of federal tax money and its associated power. DC has the highest per capita "output" (GDP) in the nation, yet produces absolutely NOTHING but gov't paperwork. Note the continuing transfer of auto manufacturing from the "rust belt" to the southern states. Note how the low tax states are being chosen overwhelmingly as retirement destinations, as people work and amass fortunes in the high cost states and then leave ASAP, to enjoy spending that money in the lower taxed, and lower cost of living, states.
People may think they want something for nothing, but the something is never very good, and the nothingYeah, this is shocking: people want something for nothing.
People may think they want something for nothing, but the something is never very good, and the nothing
turns out not to be free.
For some reason, people don't appreciate or value things given to them.
The things they earn through their own labor, are held in much higher value.
It's about about the human spirit, being recognized and rewarded for a job well done.
Free stuff dampens human initiative and creativity.
The point is that nothing is free. Roads aren't free, national security isn't free, police protection isn't free, fire safety isn't free, educating your children isn't free, a safety net isn't free, food security isn't free, environmental protection isn't free, trade administration isn't free.... Just because you didn't personally negotiate a trade pact with Cheatistan doesn't mean that it didn't cost anything. But some people want all of these things and don't think they should have to pay for them.
the rich should band together and crush the parasites
So if states were removed here, you'd move to another country that has a national government and no states... That makes total sense?
I would gladly join them as a middle-classer.
the rich should band together and crush the parasites
To you, everyone who isn't rich is a parasite.
Is there any way to edit the thread title? It should be the same as the article title, but is meant to demonstrate the point that, on the state level, at least, tax rate increases can provoke migration.
In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: Study
Published: Monday, 9 Jul 2012 | 5:13 PM ET
By: Robert Frank
CNBC News Headlines
A new report says wealthy Maryland residents may be moving out due to recent tax hikes – a finding that is sure to escalate the battle over taxing the American rich.
The study, by the anti-tax group Change Maryland, says that a net 31,000 residents left the state between 2007 and 2010, the tenure of a "millionaire's tax" pushed through by Gov. Martin O'Malley. The tax, which expired in 2010, in imposed a rate of 6.25 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year.
The Change Maryland study found that the tax cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenues. A county-by-county analysis by Change Maryland also found that the state’s wealthiest counties also had some of the largest population outflows.
In total, Maryland has added 24 new taxes or fees in recent years, Change Maryland says. Florida, which has no income-tax, has been a large recipient of Maryland's exiled wealthy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?