Printed from StreetEasy.com at 11:11 AM, Jul 26 2014
http://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/22923-most-millionaires-live-in-high-tax-states
Talk » Market » Discussing 'Most Millionaires Live in High-Tax States'

Most Millionaires Live in High-Tax States
SAVE    RSS

32 comments

Sorry, Riversider & LICC - foiled again:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39405689

Exception: Alaska - which lives on the government - and New Hampshire. All the other Top Millionaire States are High-Tax States.

Wonder why....

Maybe Trickle-Down Economics doesn't work?

stevejhx I think it is time for you "progressives" to move to the next stage. Your criminality needs to be stepped up a little. After the elections you should just take property and money. Stop the pretense and just take what is "rightfully yours".

Ignored comment. Unhide
Ignored comment. Unhide
Ignored comment. Unhide

Actually, no, Jason: with very few exceptions the wealthy choose to live in high-tax areas, because they have things like roads and schools that low-tax areas do not.

Just a fact.

steve is as factually incorrect and backward-thinking as ever. So NYC is a major international location for business because of high taxes. Laughable. Taxes are high in areas that produce lots of wealth because that is where the money is. That is where the politicians can make taxes high.

Just another simple concept that steve is incapable of understanding.

I'm capable of understanding it, LICC, and that it makes no sense: "Taxes are high in areas that produce lots of wealth because that is where the money is. That is where the politicians can make taxes high."

Politicians can make taxes high anywhere they want, rich or poor. Taxes are just as high in the Bronx as they are in Manhattan. And if people don't like the high taxes, they can either a) move; or b) vote the politicians out.

They don't seem to do either.

No one ever said that "So NYC is a major international location for business BECAUSE of high taxes." What I said is that the taxes don't really matter, to a point. Precisely what Hayek said.

I wouldn't call your concept "simple," LICC; I'd call it "simpleton."

steve also seems to think that high taxes lead to better schools. How is all that school spending in Newark, NJ (one of the highest levels of school spending in the country) working out?

More simple concepts that are too difficult for steve.

"steve also seems to think that high taxes lead to better schools."

High taxes don't necessarily lead to high school spending, and high school spending does not necessarily lead to a better education. It's a far more complex problem than that, LICC.

Though you don't seem to be able to understand complexity.

Spend a moment in Newark and tell me if you think that spending is the problem there, or if you think they have other problems far more serious than dollars.

Low taxes don't lead to better schools either, do they, LICC? Or do you contend that they do?

So if taxes don't matter, as you now say, then your original premise that millionaires choose to live in high-tax states is faulty. You seem to like to argue with yourself.

steve also undermined his argument with his comments about high taxes in the Bronx. Taxes are just as high in the Bronx as in Manhattan steve???? Really??? Absolutely not. The Bronx doesn't have nearly as many high income earners, businesses and corporations as the Bronx. Look at the tax rates paid by Bronx taxpayers and compare to Manhattan and you will find more filers paying higher rates from Manhattan than the Bronx. Politicians can raise the rates on high earners in the Bronx all they want, they are not going to get any more tax revenue.

Thanks for making my point and losing another argument steve.

As far as people being able to vote politicians out if they don't like high taxes- well some people do like high taxes: socialists and welfare recipients. As for voting politicians out, I guess you haven't been reading any newspapers about how this November's elections are going.

Correction to above: The Bronx doesn't have nearly as many high income earners, businesses and corporations as Manhattan.

So, LICC, your argument is that the Bronx doesn't have the same tax rates as Manhattan? That would mean that all I would have to do is move to the Bronx and my taxes would be lower?

Really? Is that REALLY your position?

"well some people do like high taxes: socialists and welfare recipients."

Then how come the Socialists don't move to Canada, and the welfare recipients to Nassau County?

Just foolish, LICC, unless Socialists and welfare recipients are the ones who want to pay for the military, which costs far more per person than welfare, and agricultural subsidies: ditto.

Thanks for making my point and losing another argument LICC.

I never said the Bronx has different tax rates than Manhattan. No wonder you lose every argument, you don't understand what is being said.

LICC: "Taxes are just as high in the Bronx as in Manhattan steve???? Really??? Absolutely not."

LICC: "I never said the Bronx has different tax rates than Manhattan."

No wonder you lose every argument, LICC: you don't understand what is being said.

Steve is too slow to understand that "Taxes" and "tax rates" are different things. Not surprised.

LICC: "Taxes are just as high in the Bronx as in Manhattan steve???? Really??? Absolutely not."

LICC: "I never said the Bronx has different tax rates than Manhattan."

So in the bizarro world of LICC, the Bronx has lower taxes than Manhattan because the tax rates are the same.

Hmm.

steve really thinks that Bronx filers pay the same effective tax rates as Manhattan filers. This is another downward spiral by steve because he can't admit he is wrong, again.

"steve really thinks that Bronx filers pay the same effective tax rates as Manhattan filers."

Hmm. Is this the same LICC who denied the relevance of effective tax rates for mortgage deductions, yet now he claims that effective tax rates matter because it suits his "argument"?

Yet one more insight into the illogically bizarro thinking of LICC.

In fact, LICC, two people making the same amount of money living in identical apartments could have very different effective tax rates, depending on their deductions. Some living in subsidized housing in the Bronx could actually have a higher effective tax rate than a billionaire hedge fund manager living in Brooklyn Heights.

And in both cases the tax rates they are charged are the same - what matters is where the income comes from and what the deductions are.

This is another downward spiral by LICC because he can't admit he is wrong, again. First, he moves to Long Island City and thinks it's a good idea. Now this.

What are we to do?

Comment removed.

Ah, steve recalls when he idiotically argued that the mortgage tax deduction is best measured by a person's effective tax rate rather than his marginal tax rate. That was one of steve's more gloriously foolish arguments on these boards, where everyone was pointing out, in every simple manner possible for him to understand, how dumb was his argument, yet he stayed at it out of a combination of ignorance and stubborness.
Now steve, the Bronx-Manhattan tax rate issue just torpedoes your argument. Two counties right next to each other, with the same tax rates, both receiving the same government services and infrastructure, yet one is wealthy and the other as poor as it gets. It shows that millionaires are not choosing to live in high tax areas for the government services. Just the opposite. All the business and wealth located in Manhattan causes politicians to raise rates higher in the whole jurisdiction. More income is there, so the politician pigs can go after it.
And I said all along the tax rates are the same, but the taxes paid, and the rates of income paid, are far different. Manhattan filers, in total, will be paying at much higher rates than Bronx residents, because Manhattan filers make much higher incomes, in general. You have a lot of trouble comprehending two concepts of once, but please try.

Thanks for badly losing another argument. I know that by losing all these arguments to me these past couple of years,you have no credibility anymore with people on this board. But at least you still try . . .

Very interesting argument, LICC. Ridiculously dumb, but very interesting.

Ignored comment. Unhide

The income tax is immoral. It's a tax on one's life. All the other taxes are enough to run a society.. As long as people want to enslave others their will be an income tax. ERGO jason10006
Ergo.

"It's a tax on one's life."

It's a tax that is like most other taxes - a tax on a transaction.

:It's a tax that is like most other taxes - a tax on a transaction."

You have to work right stevejhx, unless you're a parasite. How is working like other transactionns. You don't have to have a car, you don't need that 10th shirt... But work you have to... If
I oppose the income tax, I starve, ERGO it's a tax on one's life.

Well you have to drink water too, juliag, yet they charge you for it. And heat. And clothes. And funerals. And they put a tax on those too, right?

Just foolish thoughts.

How about that! They tax things that are necessary for life. Can you imagine the nerve!

This I like: "you don't need that 10th shirt."

So the government should decide how many shirts you need, and tax you only on the ones you don't?

And after the first $500,000 you make, you don't need more, right, so the government should take it away from you, right?

Your argument necessarily leads to exactly what you don't want: the government involved in making decisions for you.

Idiocy.

steve... User taxes steve USER. So you have more freedom. I want the government to have extremely limited control and power. You steve WANT other people to have power and control. PATHETIC.

New York is a particularly troubling case. According to IRS records examined by the Tax Foundation, more income has left the state than any other — $71.7 billion from 1993 to 2008. For every dollar that migrated to New York from other states in that time period, $1.71 left, which is also the highest of any state.

Public officials must be asking themselves, “What can we do to reverse the trend?”

While few comprehensive studies have been able to isolate the role of taxes as a motive for fleeing, state-to-state migration statistics are often cited as anecdotal support that high taxes matter. For example, despite powerful demographic trends — such as seniors retiring to Florida from all Northeastern states — famously low-tax New Hampshire has partially offset that out-migration with an inflow of people from neighboring states.

Another anecdote in favor of low taxes is California. The Golden State has high taxes on virtually everything except property, and the state has witnessed a net outflow of residents to other states, especially to many low-tax states in the West such as Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. From 2000 to 2008, approximately 1.7 million people left California for those five states while only 940,000 made the reverse trip, a ratio of almost 2 to 1.

/how_new_york_state_lost_billion_BXeAE5fDZxv1G1xpLLza9N#ixzz11JoqqHNF

32 comments

Add your comment

 

Categories:

Rentals (2,681)
Market (1,456)
Neighborhoods (565)
Boards (253)
Renovation (1,699)
Anything (2,311)
Sales (22,689)
Developments (574)
Financing (471)
Schools (100)
Brokers (339)
Services (468)