« Female Jewish race-realist | Main | Lawrence Auster, another Jewish HBD blogger »

December 06, 2011

Comments

Tax increases almost never cause an Atlas Shrugged event, unless they are really a significant increase, or you can "move" without really moving, like spend a few extra days a year in Florida each year.

Why is this? There's a lot of inertia in the world. People don't like to change too much stuff. Change is a big expense, especially moving to another state (you lose 6% of your house to real estate brokers). Not to mention your job, family, friends, etc. Even when change isn't expensive, people don't do it: a lot of people still use IE 6. It's good enough.

What higher taxes do, however, is they make it more unattractive for people to move into your state. NY has a lot to attract people (mainly, it's attractive because a lot of other people are there already).

If you don't believe the wealthy create any value, you should be happy they'll be leaving your state. Now they can't transfer your value away from you.

"but it’s not very easy at all for people to move to another country": it is in the EU. Perhaps that will soon be "it was in the former EU".

Technically it's high income not high wealth. Anyone with half a brain (or who can hire half a brain in a tax attorney) and a billion dollars can play all sorts of games with their inocme.

Talk to me about taxes on the super rich when New York starts talking about taxing the anything close to the wealth held in the stocks on the NYSE.

This could be bad for New York, because the wealthy have multiple residences. They don't even have to move. The just start using their other residence for tax purposes.

This happened in Maryland and we 'lost' a huge proportion of our millionaires, who simply filed taxes elsewhere. Revenue instead went down and they had to drop the tax hike.

[HS: I am sure that anyone eligible to claim residence in Florida is already doing so.]

Agreed. State income taxes should be very low for the reasons you stated with the difference being made up in property taxes. This probably wouldn't work where you live (commuting from another state is easy) but in California it would help immensely.

This isn't going to cause any exodus out of NY because bluto is correct - when you're extremely wealthy, the legal definition of taxable income is what determines how much tax you pay, not marginal rates. If the legal definition isn't changing, or is changing in favor of the wealthy, nobody's moving.

I predict they will raise a lot less than forecasted. The top 1% income spike that happened in the last 30 years and gets quoted everywhere is actually very small (2%, ie, the percentage of GDP for the 1% went up from 14% to 16%) if you exclude capital gains. So in reality, the market went up heavily from 1982 to 2007, and so did the income of the people that invested heavily in the market. The returns this year will be horrible, so there will be a lot less to tax, plus people will stay in the market longer. Another type of income that changed the distribution of the top 1% was real estate income. (unfortunately I haven't seen an analysis of this, but my guess is that the 1% may be even doing worse nowadays salary-wise) This went up by a factor of 20-40 in some places of NY like Hell's Kitchen. Now, they most likely can only go down. In any case, they'll probably not appreciate, and people will stay on their house longer... less revenue to the government.

In other words, NY state is screwed if expects to raise as much tax as in the recent years.

By HS-ian reasoning, all one-percenters are thieves on a grand scale. So stop being a wuss and advocating high taxes. We should throw them all in prison because they've already proved that they are criminals. The producers will then live in a worker's paradise.

They won't "go Galt" because they can't produce anything. The ONLY thing they know how to do well is steal.

[HS: The laws allowed their behavior, so they are not criminals. For the most part. There's probably a lot of undiscovered and unpunished insider trading and tax fraud.]

Secret of Nam,

Putting WS crooks in jail would be a lot better then taxing them, but I guess you've got to take what you can get.

Posted by: Uh
"If you don't believe the wealthy create any value, you should be happy they'll be leaving your state. Now they can't transfer your value away from you."

Liberals believe rich people have the power to steal your money aka transfer value whether they are standing 5 feet away from you or 5,000 miles away in some foreign country.

This is actually a slight drop from the tax surcharge that was initiated in 2009 that set the rate at 8.97+/-.

Cuomo will be the Dem nominee in 2016. He's all they have right now to offer.

HS: The laws allowed their behavior, so they are not criminals.

So? Your Marxian reasoning indicates that the one-percenters are victimizing everyone around them. Taking a little more of their money and handing it out as food stamps for all (or whatever other brilliant entitlement you want) doesn't address those victims. But treating them as criminals will make them leave so that US producers can live in peace and Galt-free wealth. Imagine how much more stuff you would have if they weren't here keeping you down. Somewhat higher taxes and random redistribution doesn't solve the problem. Should we just tax convicted thieves at a higher rate? No?! Then why allow these leaches a free ride going forward?

God its so hard not to flame libertarians. Its like anti-semitism levels of fact ignoring, hyperbole, and dogmatism. Thinking that billionaire's created all the wealth they have is actually less plausible than that Jews are in a massive secret conspiracy IMO.

We need a maximum wage law as advocated by Roseanne Barr.
Aim it directly at greedy Wall Street and bankers.
Deride Ron Paul as crypto-jew-hater-fascist for proposing methods to end government theft which enriches Goldman-Sachs and George Soros.
Increase the scope of govt every year so that all good things come to the people via Opapa.
Then we'll all live as well as the New York richesse.
It's science.

Tax policy does not have to a choice between laissez faire liberty and stalinism. Nor does discussion about the proper scope of government have to be a choice between Hobbesian absolutism and John Galtopia. To think that it does is exactly the kind of intellectual rigidity which makes libertarianism a dogmatism.

When non-libertarians talk about taxing the wealthy they don't necessarily mean that the wealthy are evil or that we should redistribute all of their wealth. Instead we can ask more nuanced questions like:
-Is a non-progressive tax code the best possible tax code?
-Would greater income equality improve middle class American life?
-How do global free markets effect the proles in the developed world? Is it worth it?
-If we decided greater income equality among Americans would make for a better society, how could we accomplish it? How would these methods effect total GDP?

The libertarian answer to all these questions is overly simplistic and naive. Of course a progressive tax system is bad, it decentivizes the producers! The more you tax the rich, the more you reduce GDP! The more you pursue protectionism for your working class the more you reduce total wealth and efficiency!

These responses are all unarguable, as far as they go. Sure, progressive taxes or redistribution do decentivize some of the inventive risk takers which help create wealth. But how much? Surely not totally, otherwise there would be no motivated capitalists in Sweden or anywhere else. So what is the relationship between progressive taxes and total GDP? The answer is not in Atlas Shrugged.

What about globalization? Again, it is clear the libertarian is right when he claims anything but totally free markets reduce efficiency. More efficiency=more total global wealth. But we are not the globe, we are as a nation an interest group disproportionately a part of the developed world. Our people are (by world free market competitive standards) massively overpaid. As a result, our people enjoy standards of living far beyond their competitive skill set. What's good for total world GDP is not necessarily good for American per capita GDP. Sometimes they align, but not always. You have to do hard work in each individual case.

And that is the problem with libertarianism; difficult questions about economic policy get reduced to a "more or less GDP" analysis which misses the fact that total GDP is not the only or even the primary good.

"And that is the problem with libertarianism; difficult questions about economic policy get reduced to a "more or less GDP" analysis which misses the fact that total GDP is not the only or even the primary good."

You're not even trying. Libertarians value freedom from coercion. All government action is coercive. Libertarians therefore want to limit govt action.

Allowing Opapa to dictate what health care arrangements are allowable sucks.

The mob deciding to take more away to increase bread-and-circuses sucks.

HS yammers about value transference, which is specifically calling the weathy evil, like any good Marxist would.

"HS yammers about value transference, which is specifically calling the weathy evil, like any good Marxist would."

Yes, the world is black and white and we're stuck with only two possible extremes and anybody who dares to not be on *my* side is obviously rooting out for that other extreme. Please spare us your inability to think critically.

God americans are so fucking ignorant sometimes. You have had propaganda drilled into your tiny pee brains since the day you were born. Anyone who doesn't take marx seriously as to the political implications of capitalism is an uneducated moron.

http://online.wsj.com/video/nouriel-roubini-karl-marx-was-right/68EE8F89-EC24-42F8-9B9D-47B510E473B0.html

The comments to this entry are closed.