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.
In Maryland they moved to Delaware and Virginia. Then Maryland taxes went up to make up the difference. No problem for the tax and spend while taxing the wealthy until they scream crowd.
Oh, Governor O'Malley and the leading legislators defined "wealthy" at that time as a married couple with a combined income of $100K.
Do you honestly believe that revenue wont suffer as a result of this? Why not be frank and embrace that spending will be cut and the disabled and the elderly will suffer have to bear the consequences?
Do you honestly believe that revenue wont suffer as a result of this? Why not be frank and embrace that spending will be cut and the disabled and the elderly will suffer have to bear the consequences?
Why? Because it, in my experience, won't be. Those states, if there's any impact at all, will just raise taxes.
Did you complain this much when John Kerry home ported his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts taxes?
And no, I don't think enough of the wealthy you want to protect will move from New York City to to East Ear Lobe, South Dakota to make much of a difference. Of course, they may keep a small 25 bedroom summer cottage there.
Even the ones who don't get a better job pay taxes, so that parents don't have to pay taxes.
Not necessarily. If you live in a state making a little over $7 per hour, work 30 hours a week. You won't even hit the $12,000 personal exemption. So no federal income taxes. And with that the new tax laws help. Previously you would be taxed on anything over about $10,000 assuming no dependents and single. So about a $200 savings. Not a lot but for someone making $200 a week that is an extra paycheck.
I am not sure what you are referring to regarding parents.
The burden of proof is on you to explain why it does; it's not on me to explain why it doesn't./QUOTE]
Because some fraction of rich/wealthy people will respond to the loss of their 'excess' SALT deductions by moving to other states, causing the high tax states to lose revenue, leading to some combination of tax reductions and spending cuts.
This will not happen overnight; it's more like this will accelerate the tipping point at which these people move out.
If they're not willing to pay their "fair share" then they should leave.
Isn't that what the Left says about businesses that don't want to pay $15.00/hr?
Isn't that what Cuomo says about Conservatives in NY?
You want all those extra services....
You want to be a sanctuary state for illegals?
(Who work under the table and don't pay income taxes)
You can pay for it yourselves.
Funny, States like NY didn't care about people and businesses leaving the state in droves for years......
Until now when it's because Trump and the Right aren't letting them pass the buck anymore..
Alaska, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming all have resource extraction taxes to the extent that other tax revenues are unnecessary - oil, gas and coal. The value of oil and coal has dropped significantly. The game is changing significantly.
Microsoft and software has sustained Washington. Washington has a significant business and occupations tax, a deductible business expense.
I don't know enough about Florida or Nevada's economies to comment.
The point is it can be done.
You don't need to tax citizens into oblivion in order to have roads and public services.
Why? Because it, in my experience, won't be. Those states, if there's any impact at all, will just raise taxes.
Did you complain this much when John Kerry home ported his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts taxes?
And no, I don't think enough of the wealthy you want to protect will move from New York City to to East Ear Lobe, South Dakota to make much of a difference. Of course, they may keep a small 25 bedroom summer cottage there.
Thats funny. You're one of the first right wingers I've heard say that. Right wingers usually claim that people vote with their feet, especially if the tax burden falls even more strongly on the middle class and poor. But you think otherwise: significantly higher taxes for worse services as federal support is cut. Lets see if you are right that this wont have consequences. I think not.
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.
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.
