TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[Aecetia]

What ridiculous taxes will cause as in New York an exodus of the wealthy:

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK#ixzz0lsBdDESG

Another consequence will be the creation of an even larger underground economy where there will be no cash.

P.S. The comments on the article are hilarious, especially the ones by gulfstreamliberal

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved.[/quote]

Aecetia, I think that the joke from Hobbie is that the chances are slim that I marry a woman who makes more money than me (women usually don’t go for that, but they do more often now). And even if I did, it’s be hard-pressed to get her to pay 70% of the household expenses.

[quote=Aecetia]the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. [/quote]

The wealthy use more because wealth is derived from society.

The courts, police, military, etc.. protect the wealth and give it value.

I’m not asking that the wealthy pay more than their share. They should pay proportional to their ownership of the total wealth.

If someone owns 80% of the value of land, shouldn’t they pay 80% of the land taxes?

(that’s why SK said that property taxes were progressive except for Prop 13).

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved.[/quote]

Aecetia, I think that the joke from Hobbie is that the chances are slim that I marry a woman who makes more money than me (women usually don’t go for that, but they do more often now). And even if I did, it’s be hard-pressed to get her to pay 70% of the household expenses.

[quote=Aecetia]the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. [/quote]

The wealthy use more because wealth is derived from society.

The courts, police, military, etc.. protect the wealth and give it value.

I’m not asking that the wealthy pay more than their share. They should pay proportional to their ownership of the total wealth.

If someone owns 80% of the value of land, shouldn’t they pay 80% of the land taxes?

(that’s why SK said that property taxes were progressive except for Prop 13).

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved.[/quote]

Aecetia, I think that the joke from Hobbie is that the chances are slim that I marry a woman who makes more money than me (women usually don’t go for that, but they do more often now). And even if I did, it’s be hard-pressed to get her to pay 70% of the household expenses.

[quote=Aecetia]the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. [/quote]

The wealthy use more because wealth is derived from society.

The courts, police, military, etc.. protect the wealth and give it value.

I’m not asking that the wealthy pay more than their share. They should pay proportional to their ownership of the total wealth.

If someone owns 80% of the value of land, shouldn’t they pay 80% of the land taxes?

(that’s why SK said that property taxes were progressive except for Prop 13).

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved.[/quote]

Aecetia, I think that the joke from Hobbie is that the chances are slim that I marry a woman who makes more money than me (women usually don’t go for that, but they do more often now). And even if I did, it’s be hard-pressed to get her to pay 70% of the household expenses.

[quote=Aecetia]the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. [/quote]

The wealthy use more because wealth is derived from society.

The courts, police, military, etc.. protect the wealth and give it value.

I’m not asking that the wealthy pay more than their share. They should pay proportional to their ownership of the total wealth.

If someone owns 80% of the value of land, shouldn’t they pay 80% of the land taxes?

(that’s why SK said that property taxes were progressive except for Prop 13).

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]
You are going to be a forever bachelor if you use those math arguments on your dearly beloved.[/quote]

Aecetia, I think that the joke from Hobbie is that the chances are slim that I marry a woman who makes more money than me (women usually don’t go for that, but they do more often now). And even if I did, it’s be hard-pressed to get her to pay 70% of the household expenses.

[quote=Aecetia]the wealthy have more so they should pay more regardless of whether they use more. Your system is inherently unfair. [/quote]

The wealthy use more because wealth is derived from society.

The courts, police, military, etc.. protect the wealth and give it value.

I’m not asking that the wealthy pay more than their share. They should pay proportional to their ownership of the total wealth.

If someone owns 80% of the value of land, shouldn’t they pay 80% of the land taxes?

(that’s why SK said that property taxes were progressive except for Prop 13).

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at.[/quote]

Again – it isn’t the taxes, it is the spending.

Spending around 5 or 10 percent of GDP would be just fine with me.

I agree – you need the courts and cops. Problem is, the gov has gotten out of the business of enforcing property rights and regulating fraud, and is more interested in regulating an outcome.

If they just stuck to policing violent criminals, theives of all kinds, and contractual liars, they wouldn’t need money to try and regulate/police us into a perfect society with no poverty and endless economic growth.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at.[/quote]

Again – it isn’t the taxes, it is the spending.

Spending around 5 or 10 percent of GDP would be just fine with me.

I agree – you need the courts and cops. Problem is, the gov has gotten out of the business of enforcing property rights and regulating fraud, and is more interested in regulating an outcome.

If they just stuck to policing violent criminals, theives of all kinds, and contractual liars, they wouldn’t need money to try and regulate/police us into a perfect society with no poverty and endless economic growth.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at.[/quote]

Again – it isn’t the taxes, it is the spending.

Spending around 5 or 10 percent of GDP would be just fine with me.

I agree – you need the courts and cops. Problem is, the gov has gotten out of the business of enforcing property rights and regulating fraud, and is more interested in regulating an outcome.

If they just stuck to policing violent criminals, theives of all kinds, and contractual liars, they wouldn’t need money to try and regulate/police us into a perfect society with no poverty and endless economic growth.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]I understand that taxes will always seem too high, no matter what level they are at.[/quote]

Again – it isn’t the taxes, it is the spending.

Spending around 5 or 10 percent of GDP would be just fine with me.

I agree – you need the courts and cops. Problem is, the gov has gotten out of the business of enforcing property rights and regulating fraud, and is more interested in regulating an outcome.

If they just stuck to policing violent criminals, theives of all kinds, and contractual liars, they wouldn’t need money to try and regulate/police us into a perfect society with no poverty and endless economic growth.

[Author]

Posts