How To Tax The Millionaires And Billionaires Away
Stossel writes at reason about "progressives" who want to tax those making more than $200K a year. These nimrods say it's wrong for the rich to be "given" more money:
Sunday's New York Times carries a cartoon showing Uncle Sam handing money to a fat cat. They just don't get it.As I've said before, a tax cut is not a handout. It simply means government steals less. What progressives want to do is take money from some--by force--and spend it on others. It sounds less noble when plainly stated.
That's the moral side of the matter. There's a practical side, too. Taxes discourage wealth creation. That hurts everyone, the lower end of the income scale most of all. An economy that, through freedom, encourages the production of wealth raises the living standards of lower-income people as well as everyone else.
How's that tax 'em blind thing working for various states? Not so well, it seems:
New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.
"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?
He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.
The line for giving up your American citizenship at the Swiss Consul is currently a year and a half long. They've changed tax laws so your children have to be American citizens for you to claim them as dependents, and some other "let's tax people more even though they don't even live here and are paying taxes already in another country" type things, and so now a lot of people who have dual citizenship are giving up the American. Which means the US will not get ANY taxes from them.
I'm not giving up mine. I'm being a housewife for a couple years, though, so there won't be anything to tax.
NicoleK at October 2, 2010 2:05 AM
I could be wrong, I thought New York was one of the states that taxed your income that you earned while in New York with a small exemption. I know some states do. That is, if you do a quick sales trip, no big deal. If you spend a lot of time there - even if your legal residence is in another state - then the income is taxed.
Where I used to work had a problem around that. A bunch people commuted in from across the state line. However, if they worked from home more that 10 days (I think) in a year, then work location had to be tracked so income taxes could be applied by the correct state. Not sure which location now -- but it was an east coast office -- NYC, Boston?
The Former Banker at October 2, 2010 2:38 AM
Nicole is right: the USA income tax on Americans living abroad is offensive. The USA is, afaik, the only country that taxes citizens live and work abroad (and are already paying income tax where they live).
Even more offensive is the insistence you send the USA information on your bank accounts, as well as the accounts of any company in which you are involved. Even if this violates the privacy laws of the other country.
Of course, expats make for a weak political lobby, so they're easy to victimize.
bradley13 at October 2, 2010 5:07 AM
We have a measure on exactly this coming up next election.
I know if it passes, then we can count on an exodus of the people with the most money leaving the state and no new ones hot to settle here.
Then in a couple years the state will claim they are not seeing the expected revenue from the tax measure. Brilliant!
LauraGr at October 2, 2010 7:02 AM
Don't miss that Tom Golisano likely took his 13,000 jobs out of the state. NY cost themselves more than his bill.
Radwaste at October 2, 2010 7:12 AM
This is like the hotel taxes. If you look at the your bill when you stay at a hotel, usually you have this hostelry tax of as high as 15%. Especially if you are in from out of state.
The reason they can get away with it is that you are staying in a tourist trap and aren't a local voter. So the local/state government can rip you off with no repercussions.
Jim P. at October 2, 2010 7:13 AM
And there's no lesson learned. The Luxury Tax cost 30,000 Florida boatbuilding jobs immediately. As it turns out, a 10% tax on a million-dollar yacht pays the freight on one from Singapore or the Netherlands.
That's what you get from the old, "screw the rich" campaign.
Lost jobs!
Radwaste at October 2, 2010 11:40 AM
Ah, the rich...the poor, poor, rich. Whatever shall we do for them?
Give them tax breaks, and they just go overseas and create sweatshops. Create jobs? For us? Nah. We're too expensive. That pesky minimum wage law. Of course, we could just do away with the minimum wage and let the free market competition give us fair wages...yeah, right. HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
Patrick at October 2, 2010 1:41 PM
Hey, Patrick: you're only going to get paid what someone judges you to be worth. If you don't like that, go start your own business and be the bossman for yourself.
Except in that condition, the job will take a lot more than 8 hours a day, and you'll find yourself being the last one getting paid.
Tax man is first. Creditors are next. Employees, then you, if there is anything left over.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 2, 2010 2:34 PM
IRA Darth: Hey, Patrick: you're only going to get paid what someone judges you to be worth.
Oh, that's quaint! So sweet and naive. It makes me just wanna pinch your little cheeks!
You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services.
Patrick at October 2, 2010 4:03 PM
One state (pretty sure it was West Virginia) tried to tax diesel fuel used by tugboat pushing barges through the state **even when no fuel was bought in their state**. They didn't get away with it, but expect a lot of similarly "creative" moves by states as they get desperate to keep their spending up.
david foster at October 2, 2010 4:35 PM
"You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services."
Exactly, pretty much the definition of "what you're worth" although why you needed to restate that for darth, I'm not sure.
momof4 at October 2, 2010 5:18 PM
"Taxes discourage wealth creation"? For this administration that's not a bug, it's a feature.
Ellen at October 2, 2010 5:21 PM
Momof4: Exactly, pretty much the definition of "what you're worth"
Uh, no, it's not.
Patrick at October 2, 2010 5:30 PM
"One state (pretty sure it was West Virginia) tried to tax diesel fuel used by tugboat pushing barges through the state **even when no fuel was bought in their state**."
That is the actual case for trucking today. A truck uses the roads in South Carolina, somebody has to collect road use taxes somehow.
-----
As for minimum wage laws, this is where you should be using the algebra you swore you'd never need when you took it: raise everyone's pay, then everything costs more. The End.
Radwaste at October 2, 2010 5:39 PM
I was talking to a younger lady today -- she couldn't get the concept that for a windmill to make money -- it had to last 25 years, and couldn't understand that physics will wear them out in 15. Like talking to a brick wall.
Jim P. at October 2, 2010 7:05 PM
If any of us think these welfare-spending-freaks aren't going to shake all of us down to keep their bellies full, we're in for a rude awakening. There's not enough $s on planet earth to cover the spending, but that won't stop them for rummaging through the rich/poor-man's pockets - on their way to that realization.
egoist at October 3, 2010 4:56 AM
"You're only going to get paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services"
And that would be ... About as much ( or a tiny bit more) than you could make anywhee else for similar work. Because if someplace else would pay you more, you'd leave. Hence, they pay you what they figure the market says your work is worth.
Markt at October 3, 2010 5:15 AM
Receipt.
(Note NSA/CIA etc not listed)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 3, 2010 5:19 AM
"You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services."
Um, yeah, that's how it works. Got skills that everyone and their mother has and you're not terribly productive? Then someone will always be able to take your job and many companies will try to replace your sorry *** with someone who is cheaper or more productive.
Alex at October 3, 2010 5:27 AM
The receipt is cute. What would be better - and more useful - would be to require the government to publish its annual accounts following exactly the same principles that it requires of publicly held corporations (GAAP).
Done properly, and audited, this would make it impossible to hide earmarks and pork - they would be laid out for all to see. It would also be entirely obvious just how broke the government really is.
bradley13 at October 3, 2010 5:28 AM
"You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services."
- - - -
Only someone who brings naught to a job but body warmth, a sense of entitlement, and anger that no one appreciates his obvious and superior talents could state this noble and empowering concept with a sneer.
bobby b at October 3, 2010 5:32 AM
What a lot of people cannot seem to understand is that we are in a global market. If the employer pays above market value for employees, he is going to have to charge above market value for the product. Consumers will not pay above market value.
Does this only applies to labor that can be outsourced to Asia? No.
If a contractor employs local labor, has all the insurance coverage mandated by state and local regulations, complies with all building regulations, gets all the mandated inspections, and uses quality materials, he is going to go out of business because his competitors will be using illegal labor, evading insurance coverage, and using substandard materials and methods. Consumers will go with the low price. We've seen it happening over and over here. The people that follow the rules go out of business. The laws seem to be more of a suggestion now.
SwampWoman at October 3, 2010 5:38 AM
In economic terms, the value of anything is what someone is willing to give up for it. No more, no less. I have no doubt that Patrick wishes that were not true, and that he wishes that the world held to Marx's "labor theory of value." That theory, wherein the value of something is determined by the amount of labor required to create it, has a little superficial logic to it, and a lot of people cling to the idea. However, the logic of the theory leads to conclusions like this: a house on the beach in Carmel is an even swap for an identical house next to a sewage plant in Jersey City.
Dean at October 3, 2010 5:38 AM
Re the argument over what someone's labor is worth: I teach my students that the words "worth" and "value" have no intrinsic meaning. Things, including people's labor, are whatever you can get someone to pay. If you doubt that, look up the dessicated grilled cheese sandwich that someone thought had a picture of the Virgin Mary on it. He paid $24,000 for it. What was it worth? I'd have put it in the garbage, but to him it was worth $24,000.
When we let the government define "worth", both labor and capital markets get screwed up.
MochaLite at October 3, 2010 6:06 AM
Bradley, what business is it of yours if you don't even live here?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 3, 2010 6:13 AM
Patrick,
I run a small design studio. I often hire freelance designers when the workload is too heavy. I'll look at equally talented designers and hire the one that will work for $25 and hour instead of the one who wants $30. And if I found one with the skills to do the work who would work for $20, I'd hire them.
If I could get the work done for $10 I would. But I know good talent will generally cost me more.
What I have left over after costs is what I have to live on. Therefore I seek to minimize costs.
It's that simple.
Stephen Macklin at October 3, 2010 6:14 AM
> Only someone who brings naught to a job
> but body warmth, a sense of entitlement,
> and anger that no one appreciates his
> obvious and superior talents could state
> this noble and empowering concept
> with a sneer.
> Posted by: bobby b at October 3, 2010 5:32 AM
You're my new favorite commenter on this blog. Can I date your big sister?
Wonderful comment, just wonderful.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 3, 2010 6:17 AM
That pesky minimum wage law. Of course, we could just do away with the minimum wage and let the free market competition give us fair wages
Are you suggesting the minimum wage is "fair"?
How so?
Who determines what is "fair" exactly?
Jay at October 3, 2010 6:17 AM
"You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services."
Yes.
And this is a problem somehow?
Jay at October 3, 2010 6:18 AM
Patrick struggles with all of these economic concepts because Patrick dreams of the land of 'should'. Everyone 'should' have the same standard of living. Someone 'should' take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The government 'should' punish the successful and reward the weak.
Unfortunately, Patrick lives in the land of 'is'. The hardworking and successful person 'is' more comfortable than those who sit around and whine about unfairness. The wealthy person 'is' the one who can afford to give the whiners a job, and give them the opportunity to differentiate what they offer, and achieve the same level of comfort. And the government in power now, that thinks like Patrick, 'is' being removed from power in November.
Welcome to the land of 'is', Patrick. Grab a shovel! There's plenty to do. Do it right and get rich! It really 'is' that simple.
Reality Check at October 3, 2010 6:43 AM
People get paid based on the market value of their work, which is "what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services." I suspect Patrick is perfectly happy to purchase any number of consumer goods by paying as little as he can get away with and still obtain the product or service he wants. He probably doesn't pay the doctor more than he is billed, nor does he pay the pharmacy extra for the medication he buys. He doesn't offer the gas station extra money for the gas that fills his car, or send the utility company a bonus check for the energy they provide to his home.
I don't think there's anything wrong with consumers looking for the best deal, but the reality is that they are trying to pay as little as they can get away with and still retain someone's service. Socialist wannabes never want to pay more for the things they want and need, they just want to get more for the products and services they provide.
JeanE at October 3, 2010 6:44 AM
We're all thinking together. I also just analyzed the IRS stats showing inflow/outflow of tax returns by state, correlating with top tax rate by state and actual population inflow/outflow. The result?
Taxpayers are leaving the high tax states (go figure!) but net outflow is less - so government service consumers (tax consumers) are moving in. Now you know why NY and CA are in a pickle. The response by those states? Raise taxes more.
Now extend the concept to the new global economy...
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2010/09/fun-with-statistic-tax-inflowoutflow-edition.html
Kevin at October 3, 2010 6:46 AM
When we speak of new and creative state taxes, few are aware of a peculiar new tax foisted upon the world over the past few years. Some tax official sat lying awake late at night wondering how to expand their tax base and came up with this brilliant (if twisted) method of socking it to out of state contractors....
If you are a contractor doing work for tax exempt governmental agencies in a state other than the one you live in, it used to be if the agency paid no sales or "use" taxes to your firm you were only required to report them as work and goods provided to a "tax exempt" agency. Then the accounting epiphany came in the middle of the night...the real user of all the materials that went into the project was not the government agency or school district client but THE CONTRACTOR...he bought the goods so he could do a project and make money. So he is, under this theory, responsible to pay taxes on an entity the contractor could not legally collect taxes from. In case you are wondering...ignorance is not an excuse. We were just audited by another state and required to pay over 100k in use taxes. Think they will never connect the dots back to your firm? They have a collective reporting agreement where when one catches you, they ALL catch you. Surprise surprise surprise. You owe $1,000,000 on a tax theory that 99% of accountants and contractors have never heard of.
Hang5 at October 3, 2010 7:06 AM
"If the employer pays above market value for employees, he is going to have to charge above market value for the product."
That's the theory. In reality companies make a handful of people (owners, high management and occasionally stockholders) insanely rich while bleeding the average worker dry. They (the insanely rich people) *could* settle for being just sanely rich *and* give decent wages to the average workers but they don't want to. They don't have to because they can get away with anything.
Things were a lot more "fair" a few decades ago (even blue-collar workers got decent wages) but we're headed south and there's no light at the end of this tunnel. The gap between the poor and the rich keeps widening.
Aphelix at October 3, 2010 7:10 AM
Things were a lot more "fair" a few decades ago
Well, except for the fact the average "poor" person lives better than a middle class person did back then.
while bleeding the average worker dry.
Something that is unsupported by any actual data and quite frankly is being typed by you due to ignorance.
Jay at October 3, 2010 7:21 AM
They (the insanely rich people) *could* settle for being just sanely rich *and* give decent wages to the average workers but they don't want to.
This view is so out of line with reality it is sad.
I'm guessing you've never worked for an actual for profit business.
Jay at October 3, 2010 7:22 AM
Patrick struggles with all of these economic concepts because
...I'm willing to guess either works for the government or at a public university.
Jay at October 3, 2010 7:24 AM
"People get paid based on the market value of their work, which is "what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services." I suspect Patrick is perfectly happy to purchase any number of consumer goods by paying as little as he can get away with and still obtain the product or service he wants."
I don't want to be rude but this is hypocritical and deluded.
Consider this example:
"New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. (...) my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day."
He wouldn't have to shut down his company or raise his prices if he would be made to pay a few percent more to his employees. He'd only have to be satisfied with a little less money. He still would be FREAKIN' RICH. Maybe his income tax wouldn't be $13,800 a day, only a pathetic $11,500 or so.
Aphelix at October 3, 2010 7:30 AM
He wouldn't have to shut down his company or raise his prices if he would be made to pay a few percent more to his employees.
Huh?
You don't have the foggiest clue as to how businesses operate.
Jay at October 3, 2010 7:32 AM
if he would be made to pay
Yes, made!
I love watching you freedom loving "progressives" in action...
Jay at October 3, 2010 7:34 AM
"Well, except for the fact the average "poor" person lives better than a middle class person did back then."
Of course you know that has nothing to do with wages and everything to do with the evolution of technology and government handouts.
The real spending power of wages are constantly dropping.
"Something that is unsupported by any actual data and quite frankly is being typed by you due to ignorance."
Oh yeah, I am ignorant and in reality there are no such thing as people working two minimum wage jobs just make ends meet. In reality every working man is a millionaire.
Aphelix at October 3, 2010 7:40 AM
Other counties, notably China, produce the majority of our products because of no minimum. This inequity has put our jobs overseas. It truly is 'not worth it' to hire Americans to make, say, lighting.
If Patrick buys any imported goods from these Countries he is a hypocrite, or a racist, of the highest order. We certainly don't deserve the luxuries we enjoy, such as computers for those living on welfare, when the poor in counties making these computers have to dig a hole in order to crap.
However, Patrick and his ilk support competition with their actions and despise it with their egos. It's the central enigma of progressiveness.
Jerry at October 3, 2010 7:41 AM
"I'm guessing you've never worked for an actual for profit business."
LOL
I live in the EU. I've worked for a US international company. I was a computer technician and my net monthly wage was around 500$.
You read that right.
Some unlucky people below my level got 350$/month.
And the average prices of food and stuff are not that much lower here than in the US.
Tell me with a straight face it's not shameless exploitation.
Aphelix at October 3, 2010 7:49 AM
I was a computer technician
Hence the bitterness.
there are no such thing as people working two minimum wage jobs just make ends meet. In reality every working man is a millionaire.
Huh?
That has nothing to do with this:
bleeding the average worker dry.
And you can't see that.
There is a reason for that.
Jay at October 3, 2010 8:04 AM
that has nothing to do with wages and everything to do with the evolution of technology and government handouts.
Um, inflation-adjusted hourly compensation of middle Americans rose by almost 30 percent from 1975 to 2005.
Additionally, inflation-adjusted median household income for most household types increased by roughly 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006.
But you wouldn't know that being in the EU and all...
Jay at October 3, 2010 8:14 AM
its of a piece with pelosi's remark about 'spending' 700b to retain the top marginal rate. By that logic our generous govt 'spends' 15.5t to let them keep anything at all. That mindset is tyrannical. I dont make much myself but I dont want to take what others have. My ambition is not to make alot of money but I admire people who are very successful. Nor do I think money is always the motivating factor for financially successful people, but I dont care if it is. One of the pillars of the left seems to be a deep envy that I cannot relate to. I find it repulsive.
john at October 3, 2010 8:16 AM
Oh, now you act like some kind of wise sage. I couldn't help noticing though that you didn't have any answers.
I'm not bitter, I'm just saying the net income of a company can be divided in more than one ways.
"just TO make ends meet" - that was a typo.
Aphelix at October 3, 2010 8:32 AM
"hourly compensation of middle Americans"
Even the sources you most probably use admit that the gap between rich and poor people is widening.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4049
And to tell you the truth you're quite mistaken about me and my motives. I'm a libertarian/conservative and I was never a fan of taxes or wealth redistribution. But I find it somewhat depressing that some people work their a**es off in mid-level jobs for some spare change while their employers buy private jets made of gold. (It's figurative speech for the US but damn near literally true for other parts of the world.)
I'd be quite content with rich people buying jets made of silver & ordinary people getting fair wages. And no government handouts paid for by taxes.
Aphelix at October 3, 2010 9:00 AM
Aphelix, you're showing classic ignorance of the modern phenomenon which allows everyone like you to complain about "the rich": market communication.
If Madonna had no distribution network, she'd still be talented - and singing for family and friends, possibly working as a waitress for ahem-no-kidding less money.
It's only the apparent ease with which people who understand marketing make money that makes this envy so virulent, resulting in demands that money change hands by government force.
And you know what? Part of taxation is such stunning bullshit that I can only clear the windshield briefly with this statement:
You've been driven so insane by idea that someone else is "rich" that you insist that the same government you know is wasteful and corrupt take their money!
And guess what: millionaires spend their money.
Who do you think is paying you?
Even if you get your check from a government agency, millionaires paid you!
Hate yourself yet?
Radwaste at October 3, 2010 9:12 AM
"Give them tax breaks, and they just go overseas and create sweatshops."
Ummm, no. BMW, Pirelli, Bridgestone got breaks from the state of South Carolina and they all built factories there.
Radwaste at October 3, 2010 9:15 AM
I happen to know someone who is living in high enough clover to fall prey to Pres. Obama's latest class war salvo.
Because his wife is a nurse, because they planned ahead and decided to spend $35k of their own money for her to get the RN degree. Should Obama get his way, she will take a 20% pay cut, whereupon she will decide to just stay home.
Funny how class warriors are quick to socialize the returns, but never the costs, of working to get ahead.
They never learn about the law of unintended consequences, either.
Nonsense on stilts.
The flip side of the evolution of technology is the drop in cost. The technical term is "hedonic inflation". How much would it cost to buy a car the quality of a 2010 Ford Focus in 1980?
So true, yet the poor are still richer in real terms.
Socialism instead makes everyone equally poor, except for the nomenklatura.
Hey Skipper at October 3, 2010 9:27 AM
It's actually worse than Stossel posits. The government isn't just stealing from us and spending it on others, it's stealing from us and just handing the money to others. There isn't even a mutual-benefit trade going on, unless one counts a purchased vote as a "good."
Jeffersonian at October 3, 2010 9:44 AM
" I was a computer technician and my net monthly wage was around 500$.
You read that right.
Some unlucky people below my level got 350$/month.
And the average prices of food and stuff are not that much lower here than in the US.
Tell me with a straight face it's not shameless exploitation."
Shameless exploitation? No- reality. Why do you think you "deserve" some arbitrary income? You are "worth" precisely the value of your labor in the market- and apparently in the EU there are lots of people just as good as you are, which keeps prices low.
It's called supply and demand. Read up on the concept
Incidentally- that $500/month you claim is an utterly absurd gross-income figure; US minimum wage for four 40-hour weeks is over double that, $1160.00. Or perhaps you're referring to your net takehome, after paying all those lovely European taxes.
What "EU country" are you talking about? Slovenia? If it's true that "food and stuff costs nearly as much" as in the US, you can't possibly be in Western Europe, where the cost of basic goods ranges from 30% to 80% higher than the US average.
Bohemond at October 3, 2010 9:55 AM
BMW, Pirelli, Bridgestone got breaks from the state of South Carolina and they all built factories there.
Yes, and don't forget Toyota too.
On Friday, Toyota will officially open its new $1.2 billion assembly plant here... [In San Antonio]
Jay at October 3, 2010 9:58 AM
Patrick:
The value of something is the point at which someone is willing to sell and someone is willing to buy. Thus, the value of an employee is the value for which he will render services and someone is willing to pay for those services.
This value changes over time based on available resources and demand. Increased demand and lower resources will increase the value. Increased resources along with lower demand will lower the value.
Two yeas ago, my value was 50% higher than it is today, but because of the situation in the economy, it is only 2/3 what it was before. Likely after Obama leaves the presidency, my value will rebound as more companies decide to hire.
astonerii at October 3, 2010 10:02 AM
Patrick: "You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services."
So Patrick, since you obviously disdain allowing a free market to determine how much a given job is worth, please tell us how you think the money paid for a multitude of jobs in a multitude of industries and services that does not entail market forces.
Dr. Deano at October 3, 2010 10:06 AM
Ooops... Distractions abound this morning and I neglected to finish my request of Patrick...
Patrick: "You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services."
So Patrick, since you obviously disdain allowing a free market to determine how much a given job is worth, please tell us how you think the money paid for a multitude of jobs in a multitude of industries and services that does not entail market forces should be determined. Specifically, who makes the determination and what criteria are used as the deciding factors.
Dr. Deano at October 3, 2010 10:10 AM
the gap between rich and poor people is widening.
And I guess this silly bromide somehow requires more taxes or something?
Yes, punish the people hiring!
That will work out real well for "the poor"...
Jay at October 3, 2010 10:15 AM
@IRA Darth,
If you look carefully at your last sentence "You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services." says in effect that he is paying what you are worth. If you were worth more he would not be able to retain your services because you could find another job. Logic is not your strong suit is it?
Zainuddin at October 3, 2010 10:33 AM
Regrets. Wrong attribution. Patrick is the one I should have referred to in my little lesson in logic.
Zainuddinm at October 3, 2010 10:35 AM
Monty Python's Dennis Moore, parts 2 and 3, discovers "this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w
Robert Hanson at October 3, 2010 11:00 AM
So far, the feds have left property taxes up to the state and local governments, but they have driven up the national debt so high that I wouldn't be at all surprised if they turned to taxing property next.
And why not? Being rich isn't just a matter of how much you make. It's mostly a matter of what you own. Why should John Kerry and/or Mrs. Kerry be allowed to own a luxury yacht or multiple luxury dwellings around the world, when so few other Americans do? I'm sure an inventory of Nancy Pelosi's property or that of her husband would turn up a lot of stuff that is unfair for them to own.
President Obama jokes about how much he needs a break with some Tuscan sunshine, hinting broadly that John Phillips and his wife, Linda Douglass, should invite him to spend some time at their Tuscan Villa. Why isn't he demanding that they sell it and come to the aid of their country?
It would be interesting to see how liberals who are so anxious to tax the rich, especially their estates, would react to taxing their estates before they die, in addition to the gift tax and AMT.
flataffect at October 3, 2010 12:15 PM
"So true, yet the poor are still richer in real terms."
Please note the poor folk, getting the personal attention of the First Lady: uniformly overweight, and snapping pictures and videos with their cell phones!
Radwaste at October 3, 2010 2:08 PM
You're only going to be paid what someone feels they can get away with paying you and still retain your services.
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." — Publilius Syrus, over 2,000 years ago.
So far, the feds have left property taxes up to the state and local governments, but they have driven up the national debt so high that I wouldn't be at all surprised if they turned to taxing property next.
Property taxes are a direct tax under Constitutional law, and thus explicitly must be apportions to each state in accordance with its population, not the value of the land. So there's a pretty good reason why they've left it to the states.
Stephanie at October 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Wait, you're arguing that the feds respect the constitution?
Explain drug laws & income tax then
lujlp at October 3, 2010 3:52 PM
Golisano should be arrested for tax evasion and sent to federal prison. He is stealing tons of tax money with no shame, yet no one seems to care and lets him get away with it? Why is that? I am sure it is because he is a white Republican. Sickening what people like him get away with.
Vinny B. at October 3, 2010 5:11 PM
While the comments of the new person Aphelix are tragically confused, I've been gratified as hell by most of the responses in these comments. Many, many people here seem to have a clear understanding about the nature of our economy, and what it really means to be useful to other people.
Seriously, that's wonderful.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 3, 2010 5:20 PM
Vinnie, you forgot your /sarc tag.
5ftflirt at October 3, 2010 6:50 PM
It amazes me how so many people think that somehow anyone is any poorer today than at any point in human history. The definition of poverty hasn't changed. Buck naked in the wild with no skills or knowledge to change the situation. That is as bad as it gets in nature.
Go back a few zillion years and the guy with a knowledge of what local plants are edible is immensely better off than the first guy. Fending off immediate starvation is a very basic form of wealth. Every bit of useful knowledge acquired (which rocks are best for throwing at small prey animals) or skill mastered (shaping rocks to make them better for throwing or cutting) is a bit of wealth that gives great advantage over those lacking them.
Move up the timeline and we find the most basic poverty is the same condition but the utmost wealth offers more and more. Along the way, people in the middle have to numerous improvements to survival and enjoyment of life that were previously unknown to EVERYONE.
In 1980 the richest man on the planet couldn't obtain an Xbox 360 and game library. This luxury and its infrastructure took a business model that gave access to tens of millions to be brought into existence.
I am by no means wealthy. I not even middle-class. Yet my home is filled with modern luxuries unknown to all but a few just twenty years ago. This didn't happen because a government bureaucrat was put in charge of deciding how much the talent behind these product should be paid.
epobirs at October 4, 2010 12:42 AM
Americans living and working overseas can exempt the first $82,000 they make from taxation. After that, they get a dollar-for-dollar credit for what they pay the government of the country where they're living.
So basically, you're giving up your citizenship for how much? A few thousand - maybe - a year? Is that worth never returning to the land of your birth?
Yeah, it's a screwed up policy. But there are sensible arguments for it (the Swiss don't benefit from NATO?). And it's not like you're being drafted to fight into a war you feel is evil.
kevin_m at October 4, 2010 6:24 AM
I'm really hoping Vinnie's comment is sarcasm.
If not, why stop there? There are hundreds if not thousands of state and city workers who have taken their pensions and established residency in Florida. It's still legal to leave the state. Should we imprison them all, because they used to work here? Or just Golisano, because he's rich?
Mario Cuomo tried to argue that pensions (and 401Ks and anything else that was earned in NY should be taxable by NY. The Supreme Court disagreed.
MarkD at October 4, 2010 9:35 AM
Obviously Patrick believes in -
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)
I wonder who came up with that?
Crusader at October 4, 2010 11:06 AM
Kevin, as I said I'm not giving it up. I know of some people who are.
But the thing is, if you're an American citizen, you're taxed at whatever the highest rate is. If the American rate is higher, you're taxed at that, and if the country you're in is higher, you're taxed at that rate. Above and beyond the 82k, of course. Which is messed up.
A lot of people don't think it is worth it, hence the year and a half wait at the consul. Apparently they don't think the benefits of being an American citizen make up for the extra taxes that they have to pay. Since taxes tend to be lower here, they do better to give up their US citizenship. Because it's not like Swiss people can't visit the US as tourists... if they want to go see their relatives, they do.
The tax laws have recently changed to make the taxes on Americans abroad slightly higher, and apparently this is enough to make lots of people give up their citizenship. Perhaps they ought to feel more loyal, and more supportive of NATO... evidently they don't. The fact is, people seem to have been pushed beyond their tax limit, and as a result, as this article points out... they leave. Providing the US with NO taxes from them.
NicoleK at October 5, 2010 9:25 AM
How can you know that? Do you work for NASA?
Shelton Laspina at July 28, 2011 6:59 PM
A fine effort, but what about 5,000 years of gold being the worlds primary currency up until 1971 when the U.S. broke its promise to the world in the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement to keep the U.S. Dollar as good as gold through backing by gold bullion held in reserve at the U.S. Federal Reserve? Since that time, the U.S. Dollar has simply been a fiat currency with no real value, and since all other major currencies used to be pegged to the U.S. Dollar, now all other currencies in the world are also fiat currencies with no real value. The world has experienced more booms and busts in the past 38 years all due to the world now being run on currencies that float in an unstable manner with nothing of real, hard value backing them. Never before in human history have all the worlds currencies floated freely against one another. Distortions are everywhere as a result, leading the human herd mentality toward ever more irrational exuberance more frequently. Malinvestment and economic crises can only ensue naturally in such an unstable monetary environment. To fix the global economy once and for all, the U.S. needs to bring back a form of the gold standard to the U.S. Dollar to correct the regretful mistake the US made back on August 15, 1971.
Stewart Boocock at August 20, 2011 4:52 PM
I was very happy to find this site. I need to to thank you for ones time
due to this fantastic read!! I definitely savored every
bit of it and I have you book-marked to check out new information on your web
site.
french downloads quickly at September 12, 2014 4:24 AM
In fact, not much else. These fats are fully bonded,
and fat per se though, the Microsoft Store and direct from Toshiba at toshibadirect.
If you live, energy levels. Sugar busters diet asdfasdf basically.
But some cleanse parties are about can be used to packaged and processed food?
Roast two slices of bacon with one piece of advice: Learn from the slightest symptoms on consuming the foods you are buying medicines from has secure payment gateway.
Pour the sesame oil, plus you don't want you to differentiate whether Total Wellness Cleanse
process and privacy policy.
Oren at September 14, 2014 7:25 PM
Leave a comment