05 Oct 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, population growth via childbirth correlates with poverty, but population growth via migration generally correlates with wealth. Which form of growth are these low-tax states experiencing (or is it both?)
Population growth correlates with poverty, not wealth, not it's more likely that the no-income-tax states simply have more population growth (and the resulting economic growth) because they are poorer and/or contain more ethnic groups who have more children (e.g. Hispanics).
05 Oct 10
here's a pointed comment from the Comments section of the link in the OP:
* 4 hours ago
* Mike Percy replied:
The Gates can (and indeed have) structure their finances to bypass these income taxes. I'm not sure what Sr. is bringing home these days, but somehow I suspect his income pales compared to his wealth. I *know* Jr.'s income is but a pittance.
If they were serious, they'd be talking about taxing wealth. They're not, though.
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHere's a good quote from Wiki:
They could both just be correlations. However, you can easily see that the author of the OP is either ignorant or dishonest by not correcting for population size when talking about economic growth. Population growth correlates with poverty, not wealth, not it's more likely that the no-income-tax states simply have more population growth (and the resulti ...[text shortened]... per capita growth, but even then you would only be able to establish correlations, not causes.
"The relationship between tax rates and poverty is disputed. A study comparing high tax Scandinavian countries with the U. S. suggests high tax rates are inversely correlated with poverty rates. The poverty rate, however, is low in some low tax countries such as Switzerland. A comparison of poverty rates between states reveals that some low tax states have low poverty rates. For example, New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate of any state in the U. S., and has very low taxes (46th among all states). It is true however that in those instances, both Switzerland and New Hampshire have a very high household income and other measure to levy or offset the lack of taxation. For example, Switzerland has Universal Healthcare and a free system of education for children as young as four years old. New Hampshire has no state income tax or sales tax, but does have the nation's highest property taxes."
===
High property taxes are a great way of getting to the goal of taxing "net worth" rather than income -- so kudos to New Hampshire.
A home is not an investment because it doesn't earn any income and costs a pile to maintain. The only thing that got people buying homes like crazy was deducting mortgage interest -- which is nuts. All that did was drive property prices up -- and we see where that lead.
A crazy tax code really screws your economy.
06 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Like I said, the tax burden in Switzerland is (slightly) higher than in the US, so the comparison is not that great. The main reasons Switzerland manages to provide a decent living standard with fairly low taxes (and still be able to afford heavy subsidies on health care and education) are that Switzerland has no army and that it is a haven for people from other countries to evade taxes or harbor their criminal money. By the way, Switzerland does have a progressive taxation system, and also taxes property.
Here's a good quote from Wiki:
"The relationship between tax rates and poverty is disputed. A study comparing high tax Scandinavian countries with the U. S. suggests high tax rates are inversely correlated with poverty rates. The poverty rate, however, is low in some low tax countries such as Switzerland. A comparison of poverty rates between states prices up -- and we see where that lead.
A crazy tax code really screws your economy.
As for mortgage deductions, we can both agree it's a stupid measure.
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by kmax87I don't think there is a general answer to that question. It depends on what the public funds are spent on.
So whats the consensus. If the rich pay more taxes and there's more public funds to go around, are they likely able to make more money or less in that type of environment?
06 Oct 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraoh the usual suspects like infrastructure that benefits the poor, like affordable public housing widely distributed across the housing market in question,(to avoid a mass build up of psychological defeat, that is one of the great problems that tends to accumulate in the projects) so they can absorb positive pictures of successful families all around them.
I don't think there is a general answer to that question. It depends on what the public funds are spent on.
Add to this free access to education all the way through college and free healthcare as well.
I dont see why people distance themselves from other people doing it tough in their own back yard.
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf you had the government go after wealth instead of income they would be
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520241519315372.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
* OCTOBER 5, 2010
The Bill Gates Income Tax
* If Washington's most famous billionaires are really worried about their state's finances, they'd write personal checks to the government and leave everyone else alone.
by Arthur Laffer
...
Mr. ...[text shortened]... %, personal income grow by 64.1%, and population increase by 15.5%.
...
(table)
...
crying to big time. As it stands now they can hide what have, go after that, they
will no longer be sending in money to raise taxes on other people instead of them.
Kelly
10 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358"A crazy tax code really screws your economy."
Here's a good quote from Wiki:
"The relationship between tax rates and poverty is disputed. A study comparing high tax Scandinavian countries with the U. S. suggests high tax rates are inversely correlated with poverty rates. The poverty rate, however, is low in some low tax countries such as Switzerland. A comparison of poverty rates between states prices up -- and we see where that lead.
A crazy tax code really screws your economy.
10% should be the tax code, no matter what you earn, easy think of all the
trees you'd save and lawyers and accountants you'd put out of work. 🙂
Kelly