Taxing those who make money

[CMike]

The theory about the government letting businesses and people keep more of their own money is that they have more of their own money to spend how they see fit, rather than the government making those decisions for them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The theory about the government letting businesses and people keep more of their own money is that they have more of their own money to spend how they see fit, rather than the government making those decisions for them.

Wow that's so deep

 

[CMike]

The theory about the government letting businesses and people keep more of their own money is that they have more of their own money to spend how they see fit, rather than the government making those decisions for them.

Wow that's so deep

I agree. One would figure liberals would understand it, but they don't. That's because they are

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The theory about the government letting businesses and people keep more of their own money is that they have more of their own money to spend how they see fit, rather than the government making those decisions for them.

Wow that's so deep

I agree. One would figure liberals would understand it, but they don't. That's because they are

Hey lets just let everyone keep all their money, get rid of all taxes. We'll fund the security of the united states with annual bake sales and get Jerry lewis to do a telethon.

 

[American Horse]

Taxes are taxes. If an increase in taxes of less than 5% for upper earners in a state can cause them to leave and take their money with them, or find another place for their money, the same can happen in a country, and has for a long time. Wealth can, and does leave this country, both as capital and as jobs. The good thing is that we can look at states and see our country in microcosm.

You talk about leaving the U.S.A. as if it were an equivalent decision as moving from one state to another within the U.S.A.

Yes, it can happen. As a result of Sarbanes-Oxley, and due to the costs it added to new IPO creation (More at LINK) there was an immediate drop in new IPOs in this country. This last year China led the US in the launching of new IPOs (New Initial Public Offerings) by a factor of more than 2-to-1 rated by dollars and about 3.5-to-1 by sheer numbers. They had 45% of all new IPOs globally.

Right now in this country wealth can flee one state for another - Re: New Jersey. But there is a systematic de-powering of states. Once a state like California is bailed out (not to mention NY State) the independence of states will be further abrogated and made moot. Once there is an overarching economy, like for instance that which has evolved out of and will continue to evolve out of the commerce clause, there will be no place to flee within US borders. Wealth can easily move across the border to Canada, or even to the American Colony in Mexico or others. Meanwhile the jobs will continue to go to the Pacific Rim, while the immigration INTO the country will (with current policies) increase, but be less skilled, less educated, and more demanding of the same sort of government largess as has burdened California.

I posted the situation in New Jersey to show both the rapidity of response to incentives, but also to show exactly the effect of those incentives to things like fleeing capital and household wealth for "expected giving" fleeing also. Canada is a much more matured “socialized” economy, and like most of Europe better able to manage that type system. America’s very hostile bureaucracy, imbedded as it is, will make our social scene more resemble the former Soviet Union than a Canada.

There will also be less new wealth creation. Consider the (generic) bank I mentioned in an earlier post. If wealth held by elderly citizens leaves (not stored in local banks), there will be less wealth available to stake new ventures from which new wealth is created. No, it won't be as sudden as immigration between states, but over the longer haul it will be devastating, especially when you add to this formula the Indifference (I actually think it is more like a passive hostility) to small business development, exemplified by the Obama Administration and the Liberal controlled House and Senate. Notice that I say Liberal as opposed to Democrat, because Democrats are not necessarily Liberals.

Proletariat said some of it well in THIS POST when he said this:

To be honest, I don't believe the US can ever truly succeed as a singular nation. We're twice the size of the EU and look at the problems they have. We can only succeed as a number of semi-antonymous States each handling most of their own affairs with a central governing body that handles only the essentials, such as the common defense, regulatory legislation for trade between the States, and working to help the States work together to develop infrastructure,. In other words, we must return to 'we united States' rather than 'the United States' which we have become.

Mole ruit sua... it collapses form its own bigness...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Anyone who wants to move to China solely because they think can make more money there is quite free to go. If they don't value freedom then they don't belong in the U.S. anyway.

 

[American Horse]

Anyone who wants to move to China solely because they think can make more money there is quite free to go. If they don't value freedom then they don't belong in the U.S. anyway.

Now you're just being silly. One doesn't have to move to China for IPOs to go to china, etc, etc, etc.