NY's high taxes push out business

So your point is that FDR and LBJ's rural modernization and anti-poverty policies worked, and formerly impoverished areas of the south and west (e.g. Texas) now have viable economies?

Let's see:

"Which states gained at New York's expense? The answer begins with New Jersey, which attracted more than 60,000 jobs from former New York firms, roughly a third of that total in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, while Connecticut attracted roughly 20,000.

So now, in LICC's bizarro world view, New Jersey and Connecticut are "low-tax states."

LMFAO.

well atleast NJ and CT dont have the nyc corporate tax. another 9% on top of everything else is brutal!!!

steve doesn't think that New Jersey gave long term tax incentives for companies to relocate jobs there?

Ah, in his world of lunacy, NJ did not.

LICcomm doesn't think that companies wanted to severely deconcentrate their operations away from NYC after 9/11?

Ah, in his world of lunacy, they did not.

"steve doesn't think that New Jersey gave long term tax incentives for companies to relocate jobs there?"

And NYC didn't give long-term tax incentives for Goldman Sachs to stay in NYC?

NYC even moved a road for Goldman Sachs.

So in the bizarro world of LICC, it's good that the wealthiest pay the lowest taxes, and that children live below the poverty level.

Because that's what the Tea Party is all about!

Yipee!

20,000 of the over 400,000 jobs that moved out of NY were attributable to 9/11. In alan's world of ignorant depravity, that accounts for all the job loss.

youre kidding-- nyc has been blowing corporations through tax policy for decades--corps play our politicians like violins

and here's what our government does to small weak startups and self-employed:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/business/business_tax_ubt.shtml

Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT)

A tax is charged to every individual or unincorporated entity carrying on a trade, business, or profession – in whole or part – in New York City.

Tax Rates
A tax is charged at a rate of 4 percent (4%) for taxable income allocated to New York City.

LICC would have us raise the UBT and cut taxes for powerful corps, which is what's been going on for the last several years

NJ & CT? What happened to all of the jobs that were relocating to Charlotte, NC? Isn't Charlotte, NC the new capital of finance?

"Isn't Charlotte, NC the new capital of finance?"
I thought it was Dubai {RIP}

So in steve's world without knowledge, he would raise taxes on businesses so they don't create jobs anymore, and more children would be pushed into poverty. Dependency on government- A liberal's dream!

I think it was JuiceMan who said that BofA was moving to NYC. HAHAHAHA!

In LICC's bizarro world, when the country last followed his voodoo economics, mass poverty and unemployment, slavery, and no social network of any type. That's what LICC thinks is "good for America."

I've already demonstrated that most millionaires live in high-tax states, yet LICC justifies this by claiming that New Jersey and Connecticut are actually LOW TAX STATES, and that's why industry is moving there.

Dream on, LICC.

The more steve is losing an argument, the sillier his responses become. And whenever he says he has demonstrated or proven something, you can be certain it is entirely inaccurate.

Slavery. Err, sure steve . . .

"Which states gained at New York's expense? The answer begins with New Jersey,"

Your such a dimwit. NJ is a high tax state. NJ has HIGHER property taxes than NY does.

LICC: "Which states gained at New York's expense? The answer begins with New Jersey, which attracted more than 60,000 jobs from former New York firms, roughly a third of that total in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, while Connecticut attracted roughly 20,000."

steve: "So now, in LICC's bizarro world view, New Jersey and Connecticut are "low-tax states.""

LICC: "The more steve is losing an argument, the sillier his responses become...."

Hmm. Yup, LICC. Just like you said that the best reason for living in Long Island City is that it was easy to get into Manhattan.

Guess what: it's even easier to get into Manhattan if you live here.

HAHAHAHAHA!

What I particularly like about you Tea Party Folk is that you read THE POST, and consider it authoritative.

You'd get much better information from Mad Magazine, I think, LICC, than THE POST.

I see that NJ tax incentives to companies that relocate there is too difficult a concept for steve to understand.

I never said the best thing about LIC was that it is easy to get into Manhattan. That is another steve tactic- lie.

What is the best thing about your 900sf rental in a dumpy building on 52nd and 8th? I recall you being very proud of being near a subway . . .

"I see that NJ tax incentives to companies that relocate there is too difficult a concept for steve to understand."

Aren't those the same tax incentives that you teabaggers and libertarians are supposed to be against?

Hey, I have an idea LICC: How about we lower taxes by privatizing services, like the fire department! What a great idea! What could possibly go wrong???

LICcomm's Tea Bag vision for a low-tax United States: http://tinyurl.com/2ub5ygg

Can someone give me an example of a SUCCESSFUl country with low taxes and limited government? I cannot think of a single one.

>Can someone give me an example of a SUCCESSFUl country with low taxes and limited government?

Switzerland

Are you sure about Switzerland???

Healthcare in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country).

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

Sounds like ObamaCare on steroids to me... Pay close attention to the part that says "They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance." Not exactly small govt.

"I think it was JuiceMan who said that BofA was moving to NYC. HAHAHAHA!"

Nice try steve. Never said anything like this. However, this is what you said:

"There are no more investment banks. Bonuses are down 40% this year, awarded to a smaller number of people, and a lot of these jobs will be shipped to Charlotte.”

hahahahahaahahahahahahaahah

Yes I am sure. I don't know why da fuck you're showing me the healthcare, when you asked a completely different question.

Actually, Swiss healthcare is nothing at all like what Obama wants. It isn't tied to employment and it isn't single payer.

Switzerland is also a low taxation country.

Pres has a habit of not allowing facts to interfere with his opinions.

Switzerland is not a "low-tax" country. Not only does it have federal and state income-tax equivalents, it has an "asset tax," which the US doesn't have, and V.A.T.

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jswpetx.html#income

LICC thinks that only New Jersey subsidizes companies. Yet again, a bizarro impression of reality:

"With its clear glass-curtain exterior and faceted crystal design, the BOA Tower (pictured in a nighttime rendering) will add a distinctive presence to New York’s skyline. But BOA is getting much more aid from $650 million in Liberty Bonds from the city and state. The federal government created the $8-billion Liberty Bond program in 2002 to help revitalize Lower Manhattan and New York’s post-Sept.-11 recovery. The tax-exempt, low-interest bonds offer major savings to recipients, who assume no risk. Some of those incentives are coming from the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDC at www.newyorkbiz.com). The IDC in February approved 25-year subsidies that include up to $38.5 million in sales and real estate tax benefits and $3.5 million in energy benefits over 25 years."

Plus Switzerland has an inheritance tax ... and a stamp tax!

From steve's own citation: This tax is levied at federal, cantonal and communal level. Personal income tax is progressive in nature. The total rate does not usually exceed 40% and in most cases, the maximum tax rate is much lower than this. For example, in the Canton of Schwyz, the top rate, inclusive of federal, cantonal/communal tax is approximately 22%.

The basis of assessment is as follows:

Residents are taxable on their worldwide income other than the income arising from enterprises and real estate located abroad;
Non-residents are taxable on income arising on permanent establishments and real estate located in Switzerland, but the rate of tax is based on the individual's world-wide income.
Personal income tax rates are progressive, rising to a maximum of 11.5% for incomes over SFR664,300 at federal level, and approximately twice that at cantonal level. There is considerable variation between cantons. Municipal rates are usually a small fraction of cantonal rates.

That seems to be about half of US rates.

The Swiss tax rates for companies and individuals are among the lowest anywhere in Europe. Corporate taxes are approximately 16-25%, while individuals are taxed at rates between 5% and 20%. A stable political situation, a liberal legal framework and the tax competition between cantons and municipalities result in a constantly low tax burden.

Low corporate taxes
Compared with other countries in Europe, corporate taxes are very low in Switzerland. Federal taxes are charged at a flat rate, while cantonal tax rates vary by location and sometimes by level of capital or profit. Taxes are currently levied in the following ranges:

Direct federal taxes on profits 7.83% (effective rate)

Cantonal tax on profits
4.4-19%

Communal tax on profits
4-16%

Cantonal tax on capital
0.03-0.3%

Communal tax on capital
0.04-0.25%

Total tax burden
16-25%

Taxation on after-tax profits (effective taxes)
Direct federal taxes are charged at a regular rate of 8.5%. Because taxes are levied on after-tax profits, this yields an effective tax rate of 7.83%.

Other reductions through company-specific tax models
Tax optimization makes it possible to lower tax rates to below 10%. Companies may solicit a binding (advance) tax ruling for their effective tax burden from the tax authorities. Tax benefits are granted on a case by case basis, depending on the location and the type of business.

Low taxes for individuals
Natural persons (employees) pay taxes at their place of residence. Federal tax varies by income, while cantonal and communal tax rates vary by place of residence, income and size of assets. Taxation is progressive, whereby the maximum rate takes effect only at very high income levels. For self-employed people, special regulations apply.

Federal income tax (maximum rate)
11.5%

Cantonal and communal income taxes (examples)

Taxable income of CHF 50'000
5-13%

Taxable income of CHF 500'000
11-27%

Cantonal and communal taxes on assets

Assets CHF 100'000
0-2.25%

Maximum rate
8.9%

Church tax (depending on denomination)
0-2.3%

Lowest value-added tax in Europe
Switzerland has by far the lowest value-added tax (VAT) anywhere in Europe. Regular VAT is 7.6%. Hotels are taxed at 3.5%, and necessities/convenience goods at just 2.4%. Other goods and services, such as medical care and education, are completely exempt from VAT.

No inheritance taxes for immediate descendants
No inheritance tax is charged at the federal level. In most cantons, immediate descendants are exempt from inheritance taxes. The inheritance and capital transfer tax rates for third parties range between 10 and 50%

steve- seldom right and wrong again!

Not at all, LICC: add them all up, and you'll seee tha it's not that different from the US. 1 Swiss Franc = $1 dollar, approximately.

So you have a maximum federal income tax rate of 11.5%, a maximum state income tax of 27%, a maximum asset tax rate of 8.9%, a maximum "church tax" of 2.3%, and V.A.T. of 7.6%.

Seems not all that different from the US, where our gross rates are slightly higher, but there is an endless supply of deductions and exemptions (not had in Switzerland), and the cost of living is much lower.

Plus you don't have to serve your lifetime in the army.

LICC - seldom right and wrong again!

"It isn't tied to employment and it isn't single payer."

Healthcare in Switzerland is COMPULSORY; it's a big word, LICC, but it means that you HAVE to buy it.

The US system isn't single-payor, either.

steve must have missed this part: Tax optimization makes it possible to lower tax rates to below 10%. Companies may solicit a binding (advance) tax ruling for their effective tax burden from the tax authorities. Tax benefits are granted on a case by case basis, depending on the location and the type of business.

steve misses lots of things in his fantasy land.

Obama and progressive liberals want a single-payer system.

Thanks for losing another argument steve.

LICcomm, please provide examples of the case by case cases in which tax optimization lowers tax rates to below 10%.

Switzerland has made hiding assets from taxation an art form, as well as hiding art from its rightful owners.

Whatever the above posters said the tax is lower in Switzerland then in most (or all "west") european countries, it's an effective tax haven. The question was asked about tax rate and small government, not healthcare. I don't like the current US healthcare system anyway, so stop beating the dead horse.

While it's quite difficult to avoid U.S. taxes by moving to a foreign country, it's very easy to avoid state tax by moving to a different state, so high state income taxes do indeed push people out. Do you think it's a coincidence that so many rich people have second homes in income-tax-free Florida? Or that all the hedge fund guys moved their operation to Connecticut?

Healthcare in Switzerland is relevant because it shows that Switzerland has a BIG government by forcing peopel to buy insurance and prohibitig insurance companies from making a profit.

I wonder how many Swiss are on food stamps?

why don't you move already?

or do you just enjoy complaining and blaming everyone?

Typical liberal argument. They pre-determine that the government elite should control your life, so when the facts show something different, they distort or change the subject.

Swiss healthcare is not tied to employment and is not single payer. Switzerland also is not bound by the U.S. Constitution, which should prohibit the government from acting like a dictatorship and mandating individual purchases of health insurance.

"why don't you move already?"

As soon as I lose my job, I plan on retiring to some less expensive state.

But LICC, the Swiss FORCE everyone to buy health insurance. Isn't that a big govt. policy that conservatives like you hate?

That wasn't the question. You asked for a low taxation country with a good quality of life. Swiss government spending is lower as a percentage of gdp than the U.S.

how much do you think the swiss spend on defense?

"That wasn't the question. You asked for a low taxation country with a good quality of life."

NO, I did not. Here is the question I asked word for word:

"Can someone give me an example of a SUCCESSFUl country with low taxes and ** limited government?" **

LICcomm, when you're done acknowledging that The_President is right and you are wrong, please provide examples of the case by case cases in which tax optimization lowers tax rates to below 10%.

"Tax optimization makes it possible to lower tax rates to below 10%."

Explain to us how this works, LICC. And then - you who are so worried about the Soviets invading Czechoslovakia again - explain to us how we accomplish what the Swiss accomplish, what with their might navy and their motley-colored army guarding the pope.

Just fantasy, LICC. Bizarro fantasy. Switzerland, structurally, is nothing like the US. Unless you want to get rid of the armed forces and preemptive wars of aggression, then we can achieve what they do.

Tool.

"Switzerland also is not bound by the U.S. Constitution, which should prohibit the government from acting like a dictatorship and mandating individual purchases of health insurance."

What part of the Constitution says that the government can't make you buy health insurance? They can make you buy car insurance. They can draft you into the army. They can put you in jail. It is the government who ultimately pays for people who don't have health insurance, so they have a direct interest in it.

Moreover, silly LICC, one of the reasons that insurance rates are so high in NYS is that we have a law that prevents people from being denied health insurance based on preexisting conditions. Therefore, no need to pay into the health system UNTIL you get sick - which is, of course unsustainable.

"Swiss government spending is lower as a percentage of gdp than the U.S."

I'm surprised about that, LICC, because the Swiss pay so much per-capita on military spending, you'd think it'd be a lot higher.

What a fool.

I'm really glad steve posted that comment, because it shows what happens when the obnoxiously arrogant meets the spectacularly stupid.

The man wants to opine about European affairs and he still thinks Czechoslovakia exists. I've already pointed out his ignorance about the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but he makes the same moronic mistake. I guess in steve's land of the stupid, Czechoslovakia is still a country.

The government can make me buy car insurance? Really? If I don't own a car, it can make me buy insurance? State governments can require the purchase of car insurance as a condition for someone to voluntarily purchase a car. You must be an imbecile to not understand the difference.
Military and criminal justice matters are addressed in the Constitution. steve, you don't understand complex things like Constitutional law, I get that, but try to realize that the federal government is supposed to be limited to the powers provided to it as enumerated in the Constitution. That means the Constitution doesn't have to say that government can't do things. The government can only do things provided in the Constitution. It does not provide any power for the federal government to require a U.S. citizen to enter into a private commercial transaction.

The question Pres posed was to point out a low taxation, limited government with a good quality of life. Switzerland has low taxation and lower government spending as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. Of course now you progressives try to change the subject and distort the argument after you have been shown to be wrong.

Talking to steve really is like talking to a 5 year old.

The definition of LICC looking into the mirror: "it shows what happens when the obnoxiously arrogant meets the spectacularly stupid"

You mean Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union don't exist anymore, LICC?! Really?! Then why on earth do we have all those military bases in Germany, Spain, Italy, the UK, and Turkey?

"Military and criminal justice matters are addressed in the Constitution"

Really, LICC? YOU'RE KIDDING! Might they be found here:

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...."

Now let's see: Congress can pass laws to "provide for the common Defence...."

Fair enough. But it can also provide for the "general Welfare of the United States...."

And if Congress thinks that health insurance is in the "general Welfare of the United States..."?

Moreover, Congress "shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts...."

You know what an "Impost" is, LICC? Look it up.

"It does not provide any power for the federal government to require a U.S. citizen to enter into a private commercial transaction."

Under the law, LICC, you're not "forced" into buying anything; merely penalized if you don't.

"The question Pres posed was to point out a low taxation, limited government with a good quality of life. Switzerland has low taxation and lower government spending as a percentage of GDP than the U.S. "

Right. Now let's get rid of the military and switch to an all-volunteer army where all able-bodied men spend one weekend a month in the woods singing songs and roasting marshmallows around a campfire, and we can have that selfsame "limited government with a good quality of life."

Talking to LICC really is like talking to a 5 year old: you put everything together, and nothing makes sense.

Tool.

Thanks again for showing everyone how dense you are steve. You don't know the knowledge or intellectual ability to understand complex Constitutional issues.

The clause you cited is a spending clause. It empowers the federal government to tax and SPEND tax revenues for the purpose of the general federal interests. It does NOT empower federal legislation for that purpose. Under your ignorant interpretation, the federal government would have unlimited powers, which is clearly unconstitutional.

Under Obamacare, a person is forced to make a private commercial transaction to buy health insurance. If they do not, they must pay a tax penalty which, if unpaid, is subject to criminal prosecution. But in steve's alternate reality, that does not mean anyone is forced to buy insurance.

Thanks for going down in flames in another argument steve.

Constitution: Congress "shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts...."

LICC: "The clause you cited is a spending clause."

Hmm. In LICC's bizarro world of illogic, "the power to lay and collect taxes" = "the power to spend money."

Hmm.

"A person is forced to make a private commercial transaction to buy health insurance."

Well, if you don't like that, then you must support single-payor. Right?

It was Mitt Romney's idea, in any case. It's what Switzerland has, which is the country you extoll just a few posts above.

The other easy way around it would be to have everyone enroll in Medicare. I'd support that. You?

"It does NOT empower federal legislation for that purpose."

Where does it say, "The government may not force people to buy health insurance?" Is that in there somewhere?

"Under your ignorant interpretation, the federal government would have unlimited powers...."

No. However, the federal government does have broad powers regarding interstate commerce - which is the basis of federal drug laws, FYI - and to set public policy. This matter falls under both.

The federal government can make it illegal to smoke a plant that grows wild in Long Island City - marijuana. If they can do that, why can't they force you to have health insurance, if it's in the public interest? (Which it is, as the federal government winds up paying for the health care of the indigent, anyway.)

"If they do not, they must pay a tax penalty which, if unpaid, is subject to criminal prosecution."

Not paying your taxes is a crime, LICC. Do you wish to decriminalize tax evasion? Perhaps you even think that the income tax is unconstitutional? If so, you should renew your membership in the John Birch Society.

Thanks for going down in flames in another argument, LICC.

There are sure ways to improve the health care system in this country. Giving individual tax credits rather than tying health care to employers, allowing a national market, allowing small business pools, combined with effective insurance regulation and funds for the very small percentage of those who are uninsurable would improve the system and lower costs. But liberal Dems who pray at the altar of big government control oppose such solutions.

steve, you are becoming denser as you get older. I explained to you that the federal government power is limited to the powers provided to it by the Constitution. It doesn't need to say the government can't do something. You need some basic intelligence to understand this.

The Supreme Court has expanded commerce clause power beyond the Constitution since FDR. It is one of the most heinous results of progressivism. The federal government has the power to REGULATE interstate commerce, not force individual commercial transactions.

So know you admit that Obamacare forces people to buy insurance.

Thanks for making yourself a fool again. It's kind of like telling people that your 900 square foot rental in a dumpy building on 52nd and 8th is really 1200 square feet.

"I explained to you that the federal government power is limited to the powers provided to it by the Constitution."

And the Constitution says the government can levy taxes and imposts. Case closed.

"The Supreme Court has expanded commerce clause power beyond the Constitution since FDR."

You're funny! The most recent biggie case on the commerce clause was Gonzales v. Raich, which was concurred by ANTONIN SCALIA - a bastion of liberality if ever there was one!

You need some basic intelligence to understand this.

"There are sure ways to improve the health care system in this country. Giving individual tax credits rather than tying health care to employers, allowing a national market, allowing small business pools, combined with effective insurance regulation and funds for the very small percentage of those who are uninsurable would improve the system and lower costs."

So basically you want the govt. to subsidize insurance companies? No, that is NOT what the govt. should do. The govt. should create a SINGLE PAYER insurance market. I will say it again, because I know you teabggers hate it so much: SINGLE PAYER.

Single payer is collapsing in the UK and even Canada is trying to reform it. Single payer is socialist health care.

Nothing I said above advocated government subsidizing insurance companies.

Sure you did. You said "funds for the very small percentage of those who are uninsurable would improve the system and lower costs."

Under that premise, the govt. would give FUNDS to people and the people would then give those FUNDS to the insurance industry.

And single payer is not collapsing in Candada and the UK. If it was, I am sure the new conservaive British PM would privatize it. But he is NOT. Nor did the "great" Conservative Margaret Thatcher.