U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2020, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
9,699 posts, read 7,307,376 times
Reputation: 13678

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gemstone1 View Post
I have one response....Kansas

Regards
Gemstone1
The corollary could just as well be Illinois.

High Tax, low tax, I've lived in both types of places and visited plenty of others. I've lived in high tax states that were well run, and some that seemed perennially incompetent to manage a Popsicle stand. I've lived in a low tax state that was competently managed and I'm sure there are plenty that are very poorly managed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Good grief that is silly.

1). Where CA economic refugees were born does not matter.

2). And I didn't tell you CAers were moving intending to change laws. I'm saying a great number of people fleeing CA, and NY, NJ and some others who end up in say TX, Colorado, Georgia or Tennessee left in great part because of high taxes and government interference but many arrive at their new location and continue to vote for the party that drove them to move.
I don't see that as happening like some people say it does. I see a lot of middle to upper middle class folks that leave for a more favorably QOL which includes the tax environment, and short of having whatever Grocery store they liked "back home," don't really want to upset the apple cart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2020, 03:36 PM
 
1,918 posts, read 712,208 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses View Post
At one time the income tax rate for the highest earners was 92%. That gave us the GI bill and free tuition at many colleges as well as a lot of infrastructure improvements that the middle class didn’t go broke creating. Just a reminder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
That was the marginal tax rate. Effective tax rates were about 17% for the top 1% at the time, which is what actually matters.

But it’s good you read that high number once, and didn’t understand what it meant... and associate the tax rate as THE reason the U.S achieved economic success at that time. It couldn’t have possibly been other things like...being the only unwrecked power on Earth (holding 50% of world gdp) and having the pick of of the litter of former nazi scientists and all military and industrial secrets of the British empire dropped into our laps.

And as the marginal tax rate has fallen, the tax burden on the rich has increased.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

And, fwiw, federal expenditures have been effectively decoupled from tax receipts for about sixty years now so there's that 'magic' to consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2020, 07:06 PM
 
12,641 posts, read 16,073,698 times
Reputation: 8585
Any talk of "taxing the rich" is a nonstarter in American politics since the vast majority of US citizens expect to be rich someday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2020, 08:21 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3290
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Any talk of "taxing the rich" is a nonstarter in American politics since the vast majority of US citizens expect to be rich someday.
We have a winner.

"Don't get rid of lotteries that prey on the underclass because someday I might hit the big win!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2020, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
20,909 posts, read 23,325,406 times
Reputation: 32243
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
Good grief that is silly.

1). Where CA economic refugees were born does not matter.

2). And I didn't tell you CAers were moving intending to change laws. I'm saying a great number of people fleeing CA, and NY, NJ and some others who end up in say TX, Colorado, Georgia or Tennessee left in great part because of high taxes and government interference but many arrive at their new location and continue to vote for the party that drove them to move.
You have absolutely not one shred of proof that happens.

You just seem to want to blame Californians for all your and possibly any and all other issues. Most people move to areas where the ideology is in line with their ideology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2020, 09:38 PM
 
9,631 posts, read 10,247,083 times
Reputation: 8441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
You have absolutely not one shred of proof that happens.

You just seem to want to blame Californians for all your and possibly any and all other issues. Most people move to areas where the ideology is in line with their ideology
People misuse the term, "proof" all the time. This isn't a court of law so stow that that nonsense.

I don't have any, "issues". I am worried about my state turning blue after decades of economic success while red.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:43 AM
 
6,012 posts, read 1,775,621 times
Reputation: 10565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
You have absolutely not one shred of proof that happens.

You just seem to want to blame Californians for all your and possibly any and all other issues. Most people move to areas where the ideology is in line with their ideology
Not really. People move for many reasons with more frequency - job, career, taxes, recreation, climate, weather, population density, etc - none of which are about ideology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:31 AM
 
4,553 posts, read 3,917,213 times
Reputation: 10809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
You have absolutely not one shred of proof that happens.

You just seem to want to blame Californians for all your and possibly any and all other issues. Most people move to areas where the ideology is in line with their ideology
Actually, people just move for economic reasons, or to be near family, or for work. Californians flooded into Colorado and turned it into a politically liberal state, why? Not because they said "Oh, look, a conservative libertarian place! Let's move there and vote liberal!"

No, they said "Oh, pretty mountains! Cheap houses! Low crime!" And moved there by the thousands, pushing the state far to the Left politically. It's unbelievable how liberal Colorado is today, compared to even 30 years ago. Of course there was a hippy/artsy element there going way back, e.g. in Aspen, but it was relatively isolated compared to what it's become today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:16 PM
 
Location: New to the BA & l o v e it
4,040 posts, read 997,026 times
Reputation: 2933
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
I think a lot of the well-paid executives prefer to live in the smaller towns in the Valley, like Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Redwood City, Pacifico, etc. SF itself is more of a magnet for 20-somethings living 3-4 to an apartment and trying to invent the next Google or Facebook.






Most of the executives I know have homes in both smaller towns & in the city. It depends if they have families......or if they like suburbany or big city living IMO. Lots of the real estate in Sf is too expensive for 20 somethings......some of the luxury condos & penthouses near the financial district start at about $5 million dollars for the lower floors ....& penthouses for sale for $24 million & up.

Maybe the overpaid executive tax won't pass tho.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:19 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3290
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
I think a lot of the well-paid executives prefer to live in the smaller towns in the Valley, like Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Redwood City, Pacifico, etc. SF itself is more of a magnet for 20-somethings living 3-4 to an apartment and trying to invent the next Google or Facebook.
I'm unclear how "overpaid executives" who are fortunate enough to live in nearby enclave cities changes any aspect of this topic. The tax is/would be on their salary in SF, not on their residence in Half Moon Bay.

And I think you largely have it backwards. Those who can afford to live in the city or one of the very close enclaves. A vast number of "SF workers" live in the semi-sh*tholes further out on the BART lines and so forth, just as a vast percentage of those who work in Manhattan live in The Bronx and Jersey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top