Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

2009-05-18 09:42:39
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03442.html


I love this.

Maryland's attempt to punish the rich has backfired. Their millionaires tax has driven millionaires ( along with their money) from their state to the point where the increased tax has actually forced a reduction in state revenues. The reason? The millionaires simply left the state.

Same thing with businesses, if you tax the shit out of them, they will simply leave the state or the even the country, taking all of their jobs and money with them. They understand the one thing big govt. does not. Govt. needs them, they do not need govt.
2009-05-18 09:45:26
13rin
Member
+977|6887
They didn't get rich by being stupid about finances.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-05-18 10:01:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

DBBrinson1 wrote:

They didn't get rich by being stupid about finances.
Yer right, they are at least smarter than the liberals that think they are entitled to the rewards of another persons achievements. but then again how smart do ya have to be to trump that.
2009-05-18 10:04:09
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5951|Toronto
Michael Lindblom- The Market as Prison.

Good quick read to summarize exactly what's happening.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
2009-05-18 10:11:30
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7048|Your moms bedroom
I doubt they left

probably just got a condo in NH/FL/NV and got a drivers license

which is also known as cheating on your taxes

How many pro-athletes/celebrities and people who have multiple homes get away with this........ a lot

im not even a millionaire but a NH drivers license would save me 4800 a year

Last edited by Locoloki (2009-05-18 10:14:29)

2009-05-18 10:17:35
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6990|SE London

It's always a delicate balance and this has happened many times across the globe, with varying levels of success/failure.

It not exactly strange that tax receipts are down on this time last year. In fact the income tax receipts are down by a smaller margin than the rise in unemployment across the state due to the state of the economy, the sales tax receipts are similarly affected. You really expect tax revenues to rise in the current economic climate?

What does any of this prove? Not a lot. It is just another example of an exodus of the rich in the face of tax rises, which is a fairly common phenomenon and is always the concern when increasing tax rates for those on higher incomes. Have Maryland got the balance right? Who knows, it's probably too soon to say.
2009-05-18 10:18:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Locoloki wrote:

I doubt they left

probably just got a condo in NH/FL/NV and got a drivers license

which is also known as cheating on your taxes

How many pro-athletes get away with this........ a lot
They buy a house in a different state and claim that state as their primary residence. Not cheating at all or are you saying people should no longer have the right to buy a house where they want to anymore?

Anyway, the result of punishing achievement is apparent and there isn't any denying it.
2009-05-18 10:20:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

It's always a delicate balance and this has happened many times across the globe, with varying levels of success/failure.

It not exactly strange that tax receipts are down on this time last year. In fact the income tax receipts are down by a smaller margin than the rise in unemployment across the state due to the state of the economy, the sales tax receipts are similarly affected. You really expect tax revenues to rise in the current economic climate?

What does any of this prove? Not a lot. It is just another example of an exodus of the rich in the face of tax rises, which is a fairly common phenomenon and is always the concern when increasing tax rates for those on higher incomes. Have Maryland got the balance right? Who knows, it's probably too soon to say.
I read contradiction in your post. You say it does not prove anything in the same sentence that you admit that punishing the rich ( raising their taxes) drives them away resulting in lower revenues. Sounds like proof to me.
2009-05-18 10:20:31
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7057

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.

EDIT: A bit like saying making child pornography illegal is pointless because all the child pornographers will move to Cambodia.

Last edited by ghettoperson (2009-05-18 10:21:30)

2009-05-18 10:21:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.
I see, so they should not be able to live where they want to live to get more bang for their buck any more? Why not just throw them in prison that way you ar assured they can not leave.

your edit: no, since moving is not illegal or immoral ( yet) and child porn is.

By your post I will also assume that you made sure you bought your house in the most highly taxed area of your state in order to, ya know, not "cheat the system". I will further assume that if your property taxes gets raised to the roof that you will also stay put and not move for the same reason. Proving your intention to pay your "fair share" in taxes.

Last edited by lowing (2009-05-18 10:30:43)

2009-05-18 10:29:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6990|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's always a delicate balance and this has happened many times across the globe, with varying levels of success/failure.

It not exactly strange that tax receipts are down on this time last year. In fact the income tax receipts are down by a smaller margin than the rise in unemployment across the state due to the state of the economy, the sales tax receipts are similarly affected. You really expect tax revenues to rise in the current economic climate?

What does any of this prove? Not a lot. It is just another example of an exodus of the rich in the face of tax rises, which is a fairly common phenomenon and is always the concern when increasing tax rates for those on higher incomes. Have Maryland got the balance right? Who knows, it's probably too soon to say.
I read contradiction in your post. You say it does not prove anything in the same sentence that you admit that punishing the rich ( raising their taxes) drives them away resulting in lower revenues. Sounds like proof to me.
Where's the contradiction?

Some will be driven away. This will have an impact. What that impact is can vary greatly and much of the time the increased revenues from those who stay more than offset any losses by those leaving. From a national perspective there can be further knock on effects of having rich entrepreneurs leaving, but on a more localised level this is not such a crucial factor.

Nowhere have I said that it results in lower revenues (it can, but doesn't always). They currently have lower revenues than they did last year, but that is to be expected in this sort of economic climate. As I said earlier, we'll have to wait and see how it works out, it is far too soon to say.
2009-05-18 10:32:26
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6990|SE London

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.
I see, so they should not be able to live where they want to live to get more bang for their buck any more? Why not just throw them in prison that way you ar assured they can not leave.
No, but their primary residence should be the house they actually live in. Not a second home bought in a low tax region specifically for tax avoidance purposes.

Reminds me of the MPs second homes allowance fiasco.
2009-05-18 10:35:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's always a delicate balance and this has happened many times across the globe, with varying levels of success/failure.

It not exactly strange that tax receipts are down on this time last year. In fact the income tax receipts are down by a smaller margin than the rise in unemployment across the state due to the state of the economy, the sales tax receipts are similarly affected. You really expect tax revenues to rise in the current economic climate?

What does any of this prove? Not a lot. It is just another example of an exodus of the rich in the face of tax rises, which is a fairly common phenomenon and is always the concern when increasing tax rates for those on higher incomes. Have Maryland got the balance right? Who knows, it's probably too soon to say.
I read contradiction in your post. You say it does not prove anything in the same sentence that you admit that punishing the rich ( raising their taxes) drives them away resulting in lower revenues. Sounds like proof to me.
Where's the contradiction?

Some will be driven away. This will have an impact. What that impact is can vary greatly and much of the time the increased revenues from those who stay more than offset any losses by those leaving. From a national perspective there can be further knock on effects of having rich entrepreneurs leaving, but on a more localised level this is not such a crucial factor.

Nowhere have I said that it results in lower revenues (it can, but doesn't always). They currently have lower revenues than they did last year, but that is to be expected in this sort of economic climate. As I said earlier, we'll have to wait and see how it works out, it is far too soon to say.
The article already admitted that the extreme loss could really only come from the departure of the rich from the area. Allowing that some of it could be economy.

It is pretty simple really, if you have a state where the tax is heavy, and a state where it is not, given a choice, ( and rich people certainly have a choice) people are gunna choose to live in the least taxed state.
2009-05-18 10:36:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.
I see, so they should not be able to live where they want to live to get more bang for their buck any more? Why not just throw them in prison that way you ar assured they can not leave.
No, but their primary residence should be the house they actually live in. Not a second home bought in a low tax region specifically for tax avoidance purposes.

Reminds me of the MPs second homes allowance fiasco.
No problem, I am sure a millionaire can afford that. Or are you now going to govern where a person spends his time?

Last edited by lowing (2009-05-18 10:37:14)

2009-05-18 10:37:41
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|7048|Your moms bedroom

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.
I see, so they should not be able to live where they want to live to get more bang for their buck any more? Why not just throw them in prison that way you ar assured they can not leave.

your edit: no, since moving is not illegal or immoral ( yet) and child porn is.
last time i checked cheating on your taxes is immoral and illegal

You say "live" ,you spend one more day than half a year in that state, that is where you should morally and legally pay your taxes just because you own a fucking condo and visit it twice a year doesnt mean its ok to not pay taxes. You think this is a great idea? maybe if these rich fucks paid their taxes we would get to pay less. Obama is already closing a loophole where offshore American business avoid paying
American taxes by having their money deposited in offshore accounts. America should level the playing field and every state should pay damn near the same in state taxes or if you got multiple residences in multiple states you pay taxes for both or imho at least split it. you live there half the year? fine pay half a years taxes there.
2009-05-18 10:46:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6990|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


I read contradiction in your post. You say it does not prove anything in the same sentence that you admit that punishing the rich ( raising their taxes) drives them away resulting in lower revenues. Sounds like proof to me.
Where's the contradiction?

Some will be driven away. This will have an impact. What that impact is can vary greatly and much of the time the increased revenues from those who stay more than offset any losses by those leaving. From a national perspective there can be further knock on effects of having rich entrepreneurs leaving, but on a more localised level this is not such a crucial factor.

Nowhere have I said that it results in lower revenues (it can, but doesn't always). They currently have lower revenues than they did last year, but that is to be expected in this sort of economic climate. As I said earlier, we'll have to wait and see how it works out, it is far too soon to say.
The article already admitted that the extreme loss could really only come from the departure of the rich from the area. Allowing that some of it could be economy.
No it didn't.

At least part of the drop-off in Marylanders whose returns showed more than $1 million in taxable income was certainly due to the recession and the decline it has brought in earnings from capital gains and real estate. And the figures do not include taxpayers who filed for extensions.
2000 returns are in so far. From a total of 6000 affected. Last year 3000 returns were in by now. Until the end of the year this tells us very little.

Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), whose office released the data, said he, too, suspects that the more likely explanations are "the savaging of the stock market by the economic downturn" and possibly a larger number of people filing for extensions on complex tax returns. His office said it would have a more complete picture after October, when those extensions are due.
The article highlighted both sides of the argument, yet you have only paid any attention to a single point made by a single individual within it.
2009-05-18 10:47:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Locoloki wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.
I see, so they should not be able to live where they want to live to get more bang for their buck any more? Why not just throw them in prison that way you ar assured they can not leave.

your edit: no, since moving is not illegal or immoral ( yet) and child porn is.
last time i checked cheating on your taxes is immoral and illegal

You say "live" ,you spend one more day than half a year in that state, that is where you should morally and legally pay your taxes just because you own a fucking condo and visit it twice a year doesnt mean its ok to not pay taxes. You think this is a great idea? maybe if these rich fucks paid their taxes we would get to pay less. Obama is already closing a loophole where offshore American business avoid paying
American taxes by having their money deposited in offshore accounts. America should level the playing field and every state should pay damn near the same in state taxes or if you got multiple residences in multiple states you pay taxes for both or imho at least split it. you live there half the year? fine pay half a years taxes there.
I see,so you are in favor of governing a persons whereabouts.

Sorry, the "rich fucks" already pay more of the tax bill than any other groups combined.  All kinds of proof of this. http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no … -the-taxes

Obama will do nothing but turn those American companies into German companies or Japanese companies, whoever will give them the tax incentives to set up shop in their country.
2009-05-18 10:54:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Where's the contradiction?

Some will be driven away. This will have an impact. What that impact is can vary greatly and much of the time the increased revenues from those who stay more than offset any losses by those leaving. From a national perspective there can be further knock on effects of having rich entrepreneurs leaving, but on a more localised level this is not such a crucial factor.

Nowhere have I said that it results in lower revenues (it can, but doesn't always). They currently have lower revenues than they did last year, but that is to be expected in this sort of economic climate. As I said earlier, we'll have to wait and see how it works out, it is far too soon to say.
The article already admitted that the extreme loss could really only come from the departure of the rich from the area. Allowing that some of it could be economy.
No it didn't.

At least part of the drop-off in Marylanders whose returns showed more than $1 million in taxable income was certainly due to the recession and the decline it has brought in earnings from capital gains and real estate. And the figures do not include taxpayers who filed for extensions.
2000 returns are in so far. From a total of 6000 affected. Last year 3000 returns were in by now. Until the end of the year this tells us very little.

Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), whose office released the data, said he, too, suspects that the more likely explanations are "the savaging of the stock market by the economic downturn" and possibly a larger number of people filing for extensions on complex tax returns. His office said it would have a more complete picture after October, when those extensions are due.
The article highlighted both sides of the argument, yet you have only paid any attention to a single point made by a single individual within it.
I guess the fact that the comptroller is a democrat has nothing to do with his conclusions, since admitting that millionaires have left, would strike at the heart of his entire ideology of taxing achievement to reward non-achievement.

Also the massive drop in revenues is forcing them to review this. If they are so convinced that the rich are staying gladly accepting punishment for being rich why the need for a review?
2009-05-18 11:00:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA
Virginia is already prepping for the migration lol

http://blog.brianblock.com/public/item/201479
2009-05-18 11:04:00
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5983|The Wild West

lowing wrote:

Virginia is already prepping for the migration lol

http://blog.brianblock.com/public/item/201479
lol, somebodies blog counts as a whole state "prepping"

lol northern virginia is full of liberals lol
2009-05-18 11:05:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA
"Comptroller Peter Franchot wrote in a letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley and legislative leaders   "The revenue figures are ugly," Franchot said in an interview. "Right now, we're digging through a pile of tax returns and trying to understand this."  "


Any chances this was his idea to generate revenues and now he is trying to save his job? lol


kinda strange since this tax was supposed to generate 110 million dollars a year in new revenue.

Last edited by lowing (2009-05-18 11:17:42)

2009-05-18 11:09:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

Man With No Name wrote:

lowing wrote:

Virginia is already prepping for the migration lol

http://blog.brianblock.com/public/item/201479
lol, somebodies blog counts as a whole state "prepping"

lol northern virginia is full of liberals lol
it is a blog and I took it as a real estate agents blog, and yes it appears he is prepping for this, as he should.

It might be, but thus far they are not punishing achievement like Maryland is.
2009-05-18 11:16:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA
"As an alternative to the surcharge on millionaires, Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery) proposed cutting $150 million a year in transportation projects. O'Malley's proposal for repealing the computer services tax, which is to take effect July 1, calls for curbing transportation spending by $50 million for each of the next five years. The millionaires' tax is expected to generate about $110 million a year.

Madaleno's proposal, which also drew the support of Sen. Rona E. Kramer (D-Montgomery), was rejected by the committee, 6 to 9.

Madaleno and Kramer told their colleagues that the surcharge on millionaires would prompt Montgomery residents to move to Virginia. The tax would also hurt small businesses that report their income on the personal income tax returns of their owners, they said.

"We can't afford to lose them, and we certainly can't afford not to have new people moving in," Kramer said. "



taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02624.html


looks like a few saw this coming.
2009-05-18 11:21:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7060|USA

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Proof that punishing the rich doesn't work: they cheat the system.
I see, so they should not be able to live where they want to live to get more bang for their buck any more? Why not just throw them in prison that way you ar assured they can not leave.

your edit: no, since moving is not illegal or immoral ( yet) and child porn is.

By your post I will also assume that you made sure you bought your house in the most highly taxed area of your state in order to, ya know, not "cheat the system". I will further assume that if your property taxes gets raised to the roof that you will also stay put and not move for the same reason. Proving your intention to pay your "fair share" in taxes.
bump: where ya at ghettoperson, I thought you would have confirmed your intentions of making sure you find the highest area in your state to move to so you make sure you are not cheating the govt. or at least confirmed you would never leave a highly taxed area to avoid payment in favor of a more taxpayer friendly area.
2009-05-18 11:23:13
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6990|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The article already admitted that the extreme loss could really only come from the departure of the rich from the area. Allowing that some of it could be economy.
No it didn't.

At least part of the drop-off in Marylanders whose returns showed more than $1 million in taxable income was certainly due to the recession and the decline it has brought in earnings from capital gains and real estate. And the figures do not include taxpayers who filed for extensions.
2000 returns are in so far. From a total of 6000 affected. Last year 3000 returns were in by now. Until the end of the year this tells us very little.

Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), whose office released the data, said he, too, suspects that the more likely explanations are "the savaging of the stock market by the economic downturn" and possibly a larger number of people filing for extensions on complex tax returns. His office said it would have a more complete picture after October, when those extensions are due.
The article highlighted both sides of the argument, yet you have only paid any attention to a single point made by a single individual within it.
I guess the fact that the comptroller is a democrat has nothing to do with his conclusions, since admitting that millionaires have left, would strike at the heart of his entire ideology of taxing achievement to reward non-achievement.

Also the massive drop in revenues is forcing them to review this. If they are so convinced that the rich are staying gladly accepting punishment for being rich why the need for a review?
What massive drop in revenues?

16% drop in revenues is what I read in the article. Which is less than the increase in unemployment. It's big, but not really taking the markets and employment into consideration.

Why have a review? Because there has been a drop in revenues. It only seems prudent.

As I have said before - come back to us with complete figures at the end of the year when everyones tax returns have been filed. At the moment it's mostly just speculation.

Yes, one of the people saying the drop in revenues isn't caused by the tax increases is a democrat, but likewise the one person saying it is is a republican. What's your point? The opposition party opposes it and is quick to criticise it - what a tremendous surprise.

Your "proof", is nothing of the sort.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-05-18 11:25:00)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard