Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › TAX TAX TAX and more TAX
- This topic has 765 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 22, 2010 at 8:04 PM #543568April 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM #542683
CA renter
Participant[quote=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.
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[/quote]
I’ll bet that has much more to do with the high cost of living vs. high taxes. It mentioned that 2005 was the peak year for out-migration, and the trend was observed during the 2000-2008 credit bubble period. So much money was being made by people in the financial industry, that I’m sure most “regular” people weren’t able to afford living there. They were probably pushed out by the high-income earners with all their ill-gotten $$$$.
😉April 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM #542800Participant[quote=Aecetia]What ridiculous taxes will cause as in New York an exodus of the wealthy:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.
Another consequence will be the creation of an even larger underground economy where there will be no cash.
P.S. The comments on the article are hilarious, especially the ones by gulfstreamliberal[/quote]
I’ll bet that has much more to do with the high cost of living vs. high taxes. It mentioned that 2005 was the peak year for out-migration, and the trend was observed during the 2000-2008 credit bubble period. So much money was being made by people in the financial industry, that I’m sure most “regular” people weren’t able to afford living there. They were probably pushed out by the high-income earners with all their ill-gotten $$$$.
😉April 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM #543277Participant[quote=Aecetia]What ridiculous taxes will cause as in New York an exodus of the wealthy:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.
Another consequence will be the creation of an even larger underground economy where there will be no cash.
P.S. The comments on the article are hilarious, especially the ones by gulfstreamliberal[/quote]
I’ll bet that has much more to do with the high cost of living vs. high taxes. It mentioned that 2005 was the peak year for out-migration, and the trend was observed during the 2000-2008 credit bubble period. So much money was being made by people in the financial industry, that I’m sure most “regular” people weren’t able to afford living there. They were probably pushed out by the high-income earners with all their ill-gotten $$$$.
😉April 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM #543369Participant[quote=Aecetia]What ridiculous taxes will cause as in New York an exodus of the wealthy:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.
Another consequence will be the creation of an even larger underground economy where there will be no cash.
P.S. The comments on the article are hilarious, especially the ones by gulfstreamliberal[/quote]
I’ll bet that has much more to do with the high cost of living vs. high taxes. It mentioned that 2005 was the peak year for out-migration, and the trend was observed during the 2000-2008 credit bubble period. So much money was being made by people in the financial industry, that I’m sure most “regular” people weren’t able to afford living there. They were probably pushed out by the high-income earners with all their ill-gotten $$$$.
😉April 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM #543642Participant[quote=Aecetia]What ridiculous taxes will cause as in New York an exodus of the wealthy:
New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.
More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.
The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City — meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.
“The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource — people,” the report said.
Another consequence will be the creation of an even larger underground economy where there will be no cash.
P.S. The comments on the article are hilarious, especially the ones by gulfstreamliberal[/quote]
I’ll bet that has much more to do with the high cost of living vs. high taxes. It mentioned that 2005 was the peak year for out-migration, and the trend was observed during the 2000-2008 credit bubble period. So much money was being made by people in the financial industry, that I’m sure most “regular” people weren’t able to afford living there. They were probably pushed out by the high-income earners with all their ill-gotten $$$$.
😉April 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM #542693Aecetia
ParticipantPoint taken, but I still think high taxes are not the great panacea that politicians think they are. There is always the trickle down consequences that impact the working wage earners and tax payers even though they are not the intended target of the tax.
April 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM #542810ParticipantPoint taken, but I still think high taxes are not the great panacea that politicians think they are. There is always the trickle down consequences that impact the working wage earners and tax payers even though they are not the intended target of the tax.
April 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM #543287ParticipantPoint taken, but I still think high taxes are not the great panacea that politicians think they are. There is always the trickle down consequences that impact the working wage earners and tax payers even though they are not the intended target of the tax.
April 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM #543379ParticipantPoint taken, but I still think high taxes are not the great panacea that politicians think they are. There is always the trickle down consequences that impact the working wage earners and tax payers even though they are not the intended target of the tax.
April 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM #543652ParticipantPoint taken, but I still think high taxes are not the great panacea that politicians think they are. There is always the trickle down consequences that impact the working wage earners and tax payers even though they are not the intended target of the tax.
April 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM #542754sdduuuude
ParticipantWhat invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.
At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.
If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.
Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.
April 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM #542870ParticipantWhat invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.
At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.
If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.
Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.
April 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM #543347ParticipantWhat invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.
At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.
If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.
Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.
April 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM #543438ParticipantWhat invariably gets lost in discussions like this is – do we really want the government to be involved in MORE of our lives and making MORE decisions for us? If we limit the tax revenue, they will limit their involvement in only the things they should be involved in – cops/courts/defense, and maybe a few other things. If there was a limit, there would be much discussion about what those things are and a line could be drawn.
At some point, it has to stop. Like I said – 10% of GDP would be a nice limit. If they need more than that, they are extending the role of government into areas they are best kept out of.
If I were king, it would be a hard and fast law to keep govt spending below 10% GDP and we wouldn’t be having this discussion of new taxes at all. People would have to fend for themselves w/o the gov to step in and “save” (i.e. screw) them. People would be smarter, better educated, more leery of slick sales people, more self-sufficient, better savers, and less likely to do stupid things that damage their own self-interest.
Forget the progressive/regressive question. THe question is – why is spending at 35% GDP? And we need MORE tax? Really? Unimaginable that this is a good thing, to me.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.