I wish I could pay my fair share; not 43.6%.

"...Michele Bachmann says top 1 percent pay 40 percent of all federal taxes...

...Here’s the rundown of the federal tax burden for the top 1 percent:

Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share
Federal payroll taxes: 4.1 percent share
Federal corporate taxes: 57.0 percent share
Federal excise taxes: 4.7 percent share

Total federal tax share for the top 1 percent: 28.1 percent..."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/18/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

If you add in state and local taxes, which in EVERY state but Vermont are in aggregate regressive, then you end up with essentially a flat tax system when Federal, state and local taxes are combined.

What? Bachmann was caught lying? Who could have seen that one coming?

thanks, jason. sooooo helpful. how is that mediterranean climate out in sf lately? you know, i hear the fog rolling in from the hills in sardenia has nothing on monterey bay....

can you please school us plainfolk on the inner workings of derivatives? or the credit markets? isnt it about time for you to call someone an idiot?

btw, bachmann will likely implode within a year or two without the "assistance" of your gotchas on something so elementary.

I recently went to SF. Definitely not a mediterranean climate.

bob420, of course it's not ... It's a northern coastal climate, driven by the icy Japan current.

Bloated payroll taxes are about 36% of all federal taxes. That's the broken part.

"I recently went to SF. Definitely not a mediterranean climate."

What was the temperature in Nice or Milan in January?

New York Times Alamanac - says...guess what? The same thing the national park service says, and Stanford and Berkeley's botony depeartment, and the national weather service...I have posted 20 sources on this and alan keeps insisting on something she has not supported with any data.

http://books.google.com/books?id=G81HonU81pAC&pg=PA464&lpg=PA464&dq=almanac+%22san+francisco%22+mediterranean&source=bl&ots=0yiZ11J4FT&sig=gvalgcuwz_8niEU6tBtgVBWZnYk&hl=en&ei=7p-sTfSUN4eQ0QGh78X5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scary video you posted, julialg.

>You need to deal with entitlements, plain and simple. Its just too much of the total.<
Exactly, somewherelse. The US cannot be a Nanny State.

For a look at the ideology of the supposed intelligentsia elite, I recommend "DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century" by Paul Kengor. Vladimir Lenin referred to such folks as "Useful Idiots".

here's a taste from CSPAN's Book TV:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296924-1

Here is a world map of climate classifications. Notice what places have the same classification as the entire bay area? I see southern France. I see not ONE SPEC of Japan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Koppen_World_Map.png

San Francisco's climate is further modified by the location of the City on the northern end of a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by the relatively cool waters of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. In addition to the normal cool temperatures of the mid-latitude Pacific Ocean, the water temperatures are modified by the upwelling of cold water along the California coast. This phenomenon is caused by the persistence of the Pacific High and the northwest winds that are constrained by the Coast Range to blow parallel to the coastline. The effects of these winds, the Coriolis Force and resultant sub-surface Ekman Spiral, causes a net transport of surface waters away from the shore. Consequently, as the surface waters drift away from the coast, they are replaced by the upwelling of colder waters from below (Ahrens, 1991).

Summertime in San Francisco is characterized by cool marine air and persistent coastal stratus and fog

and click to get it to magnify, dumb asses.

Wet and cold every trip.

"...Dry-summer subtropical or Mediterranean climates (Csa, Csb):

...Examples:

* Amman, Jordan (Csa)
* Antalya, Turkey (Csa)
* Athens, Greece (inland) (Csa)
* Cape Town, South Africa (coastal) (Csb)
* Cape Town, South Africa (inland) (Csa)
* Coimbra, Portugal (Csa)
* Izmir, Turkey (Csa)
* Jerash, Jordan (Csa)
* Jerusalem, Israel (Csa)
* Lisbon, Portugal (Csa)
* Los Angeles, California, United States (inland) (Csa)
* Los Angeles, California, United States (coast) (Csb)
* Madrid, Spain (Csa)
* Malaga, Spain (Csa)
* Marseille, France (Csa)
* Medford, Oregon, United States (inland) (Csa)
* Palermo, Italy (Csa)
* Perth, Australia (Csa)[10]
* Porto, Portugal (Csb)
* Risan, Montenegro (Csb)
* Sacramento, United States (Csa)
* San Francisco, California, United States (Csb)
* San Jose, California, United States (Csb)
* Sanremo, Italy (Csa)
* Santiago, Chile (Csb)
* Seville, Spain (Csa)
* Split, Croatia (Csa)
* Tel Aviv, Israel (Csa)..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#GROUP_C:_Temperate.2Fmesothermal_climates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAjkvc4Dlxs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-buR2S2rA&p=FE758B688748BDA5

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13401680

President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported income of $1.728 million for last year, much of it from the sale of the president's pre-presidency books. They paid federal taxes totaling $453,770 after receiving a $12,334 refund.

I wonder if they'll donate the $12,334 refund to deficit reduction.

why should they? or is that just meant to be yet another nasty crack?

The leader of the regime.... A socialist with other people's money.

I don't get why the "rich" people calling for the "rich" to be taxed at a higher rate, don't just donate the amount they would be taxed if there was a higher rate. Nothing is stopping them.

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
—Margaret Thatcher

'“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
—Margaret Thatcher"

The top marginal tax rate under thatcher was 40%. End of story.

PS - she never ONCE even suggested dismantling National Health. Curtains rise.

The MOST conservative mainstream politicians in Europe are to the left of most Dems in the US.

"I don't get why the "rich" people calling for the "rich" to be taxed at a higher rate, don't just donate the amount they would be taxed if there was a higher rate. Nothing is stopping them."

So by this logic, you shouldn't use any government services that you don't believe should exist, right?

jordyn, i think the bell just rang in the other room. its called getting a clue. hear it, hear it???

oh, dang. you missed it - AGAIN!

And under the new British conservative leader, David Cameron, the top tax rate is 50%.

"I don't get why the "rich" people calling for the "rich" to be taxed at a higher rate, don't just donate the amount they would be taxed if there was a higher rate. Nothing is stopping them."

Do you people not understand the concept of Democracy? Each individual is not tasked with deciding his own fair share of the tax burden. It's a collective decision by elected representatives how much each of us should pay. You guys seem to think that each of us should get to say "I think my fair share is...$20" and leave it at that.

I understand Democracy. It's not about deciding their own fair share of the tax burden. But if they really feel that it is the "rich" person's patriotic duty to be forced to contribute more, why wait years until the rate is changed. Nothing is stopping them from contributing more now.

You and Steve Rattner, with your abusive carried interest provisions and your second homes, now pretend to feel guilty so you can goad others - who don't have your abusive tax special interest tax benefits - into paying more

Happyrenter, with his two homes, talks a lot about Democracy, but is probably one of the first people to want to restrict free speech and contribution rights of the wealthy towards politicians.

It's a good thing Steve Rattner didn't have to go to jail, he and happyrenter can continue their crusade to make sure they themselves are more relatively wealthy.

But did anyone say anything about a "patriotic duty" or a "contribution"? Paying your taxes is not a contribution. That's the point: it's not a patriotic duty, it's a legal obligation. Tax policy has nothing to do with patriotism.

So happyrenter, despite your abusive tax benefits and your calls for higher taxes, you personally don't make any contributions? Even Steve Rattner makes contributions.

I have heard many "rich" people say they need to pay more taxes, should be paying more taxes and are willing to pay more taxes. Why don't they just pay above and beyond? Why wait until the rates change?

>Tax policy has nothing to do with patriotism.

What a surprise, Happyrenter isn't even a patriot.

bob, if a rich guy wants to make contributions to federal or state government, then great. that has nothing to do with tax policy. it's irrelevant to the larger question of what tax rates are appropriate and necessary in the context of current fiscal and economic conditions.

When does "taxation without representation" become an issue? If the approximately 50% of Americans who do not pay taxes vote for representatives who promise to "tax the rich" and promote entitlement programs that are phased out for the "wealthiest" - is that democracy? On the other end of the spectrum are the corporate types who influence politicians through campaign finance and get their "vote". So the real "wealthy" we are talking about are those in the middle - paying their full share, naked to the political winds and targets of scorn from just about everyone.

Bob, you're wasting your time. The progressive are happily facilitating the demise of a once great country. 15 trillion in debt and the community organizer only ideas are to demonize the producers.

Happyrenter, why do you hate America?
Even Socialist loves this country.

>When does "taxation without representation" become an issue? If the approximately 50% of Americans who do not pay taxes vote for representatives who promise to "tax the rich" and promote entitlement programs that are phased out for the "wealthiest" - is that democracy?

It's an interesting question for Lani Guinier.

"15 trillion in debt"

5 billion of which came in a period when GWB was President for 8 years and both houses of Congress were in GOP hands for 6.

i.e. BURN.

happyrenter, don't preach your version of what democracy means and how that translates into the tax code and fiscal policies. see nys budget "process" in play two years ago. our esteemed democratic "leaders" (patterson, shelly and sampson) "negotiated" a budget behind closed doors with no public sunshine and INCREASED the state budget by 9.2% in the absolute WORST economic times we have seen in this generation. all to feed the special interests. absolutely putrid. you think informed taxpayers are simply going to swallow your bs.

Happyrenter hates America, but for the special tax breaks that he and Steve Rattner get.

The Obama Speech Downgrade
S&P's 'negative' outlook on the President's budget strategy.

The ratings agencies are hardly the last word on U.S. economic health. But the S&P outlook is a warning to the White House that financial markets have noticed that this President seems to have decided that his path to re-election lies in demonizing his opponents rather than seeing to the nation's fiscal well-being.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576270970186305348.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

>When does "taxation without representation" become an issue? If the approximately 50% of Americans who do not pay taxes vote for representatives who promise to "tax the rich" and promote entitlement programs that are phased out for the "wealthiest" - is that democracy? On the other end of the spectrum are the corporate types who influence politicians through campaign finance and get their "vote". So the real "wealthy" we are talking about are those in the middle - paying their full share, naked to the political winds and targets of scorn from just about everyone.<

Excellents points, sjtmd. Huge problem: Nearly 50% pay no income tax, yet they elect reps who have the power to impose taxation on the 50% that do pay. Meanwhile, those unable to afford a lobbyist have no voice.

dwell,

"I have stopped paying any attention to anything that S.&P. says or does. Its performance over the past decade has revealed it to be incompetent and corrupt – it sold its AAA ratings to the highest bidder. It is the broker who lost all your money, the girlfriend who cheated on you, the partner who stole from you. Since the portfolios we run never rely on its judgment or analysis, we simply do not care what it says about credit ratings."

-- Barry Ritholtz, NYT

diversion tactics.

you think that house on fire over there is a spectacle, come look over here - the whole block is on fire!!

Alan, I know this is the position some are taking, to disregard & demean S&P's warning. But, it does have meaning. However, if you want to disregard it, than just look at the pronouncements coming from the BRICK countries & especially China, our creditor.

BRIC, although BRICK might be more accurate if you are defining what is coming out of the azz of alan with some of these posts. and theyre not gold either.

So your guys' theory is that people in the bottom 50% have more political power than people in the .1 - 10% range? (Let's assume it's people in the top .1% that are hiring lobbyists.) Is that seriously the argument that you're trying to make to justify your whining about taxes at this point? If this is the case, why have effective tax rates gone down more for these people than for people further down the income scale? That would be the opposite of the expected outcome of that ridiculous hypothesis.

jordyn, ding, ding, ding...can you hear it????

"..For the well-off, this could be the best tax day since the early 1930s: Top tax rates on ordinary income, dividends, estates, and gifts will remain at or near historically low levels for at least the next two years. That's thanks in part to legislation passed in December 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

"This is clearly far and away the most generous tax situation that's existed," says Gregory D. Singer, a national managing director of the wealth management group at AllianceBernstein (AB) in New York. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity...

...For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. And for the approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29 percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true, but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so...."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_16/b4224045265660.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

Fair share!

fiddlesticks, missed it AGAIN!!

sorry, extra K

>So your guys' theory is that people in the bottom 50% have more political power than people in the .1 - 10% range?<

No, rather this goes to the issue of tax w/o rep & no skin in the game. Yes, I know the "bottom 50%" are subject to sales tax & payroll tax, but, we're talking income tax.

I think this issue is way more pressing in jurisdictions like NYC, where we are subject to fed, state & local income tax vs. a place which only has Fed or Fed + state income tax.

"...Few Sympathize With Upper-Income Americans, Corporations on Taxes...

...Middle-income earners are perceived as the most aggrieved taxpayers: 44% of Americans say they pay too much, while only 5% say they pay too little and 50% say they pay "their fair share." By contrast, 13% of Americans say upper-income people pay too much and 59% believe they pay too little. Views about lower-income people are the most mixed, with 40% saying they pay too much vs. 21% too little and 37% their fair share. On the subject of taxes, Americans are the least sympathetic to corporations, with 67% saying they pay too little and only 9% too much...."

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_ui1mex8aeyebbczxeehja.gif

and

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147152/Americans-Split-Whether-Taxes-High.aspx

again, great post by jason. benchmarking the top 400 US taxpayers. helpful, insightful and truly compelling....next post, derivatives lessons 101. followed up by calling everyone an idiot. to be topped off by a final post (with substantive proof of the balmy mediterranean climate of sf). truly not to be missed.....

"...Few Sympathize With Upper-Income Americans, Corporations on Taxes..."

Yup, this is a problem because ultimately those "Upper-Income Americans" & Corporations will flee the US & then, the US ain't gonna have a tax base. If almost 50% don't pay income tax % the 50% that do pay leave, won't be anyone left to pay. In a global, mobile world, this is a reality.

Like Maggie said: “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When the payors split, ain't no more $.

actually, can someone explain why we are double, triple, quadruple taxed? I pay tax on income, tax on clothes, tax on food, tax on my phone bill, tax tax tax!!!

If you look at OECD stats, the best performing economies include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Canda, and the Netherlands...while the richest nation in the OECD per capita for years has been Luxembourg. Meanwhile, in ultra-low tax Ireland and Iceland...

They COULD flee to say Switzerland, where they would find a healthcare system very much like Obamacare.

Or to utterly non-democratic Singapore or Hong Kong...

Or this is an utterly hollow and empty threat. They did not flee when rates were MUCH higher than they are now from the 1940s-2000.

"If you look at OECD stats, the best performing economies include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Canda, and the Netherlands...while the richest nation in the OECD per capita for years has been Luxembourg. Meanwhile, in ultra-low tax Ireland and Iceland..."

Well you fail to mention that sweden, finland, denmark, norway have populations of 5-10mm or about the size of new york city. Size does matter.

>actually, can someone explain why we are double, triple, quadruple taxed?<
Because we are sheep. We got to fight it & make sure we don't put anymore socialists in government, esply in the WH.

http://www.renunciationguide.com

The young producers will be taxed at 70% to pay for the old people's retirement. They're very grateful to the hard working producers. Thanks for the transfer of wealth from the young to old. Unlike obama, the old people are grateful and will mot demonize the "rich".
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lJXo6d3Xs58/TEB1wLMeDtI/AAAAAAAAABw/9YqS3NxWsz8/s320/grumpy+old+people.jpg

So you guys think our economic policies should be dictated by the pronouncement of BRIC countries? If you hate the United States of America so much, why don't you move to Russia?

"actually, can someone explain why we are double, triple, quadruple taxed? I pay tax on income, tax on clothes, tax on food, tax on my phone bill, tax tax tax!!!"

Yes, gladly: you're highly taxed because the ultra-wealthy are not.

http://www.renunciationguide.com/

This is becoming an increasingly popular law practice: lawyers who assist the wealthy to legally renounce US citizenship & obtain citizenship elsewhere.

I foretell a lot of starving attorneys in America. Oh, yeah, I see your point ...

*foresee*

liberals really make the silliest, most unsound arguments. jason's list of countries included major oil exporters with small populations, and this is his example of high taxes being good.

Only beggars who love handouts support government taking high percentages of income from the most productive and redistributing it to others.

Alan,
I assume you're not in that tax bracket, so, it's not w/in your realm.

You mean like saudi Arabia or like Germany? LICC, I hope you are a troll, no-one should be that inept.

"...Taxes reach historic low

While Republican lawmakers appear unified against tax increases and many Tea Party activists want existing rates rolled back, statistics consistently show that federal taxes are at a historic low.

For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation. The highest income-tax bracket is its lowest since 1992. At 35 percent, it's well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s...."

I have posted about 15 articles now showing that taxes are NOT high relative to either other OECD nations or to US post WW2 norms. In return I get Tea Party platitudes.

Once again, reality and the facts both have a well-knows liberal biases.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/-117079-ocprint--.html

"This is becoming an increasingly popular law practice: lawyers who assist the wealthy to legally renounce US citizenship & obtain citizenship elsewhere."

About 400 people have ever done this, and the trend is NOT accelerating.

The biggest downside to renunciation: not being able to bitch and moan about taxes. The fellow-citizens in the new country won't want to hear it.

400 is too small a sample size? Didn't you just use the top 400 tax payers in your example. So if they leave, then your little post and linkies don't mean anything.

I can' believe jason10006 didn't comment in that thread about summer houses in Europe. The guy was looking for a mediterranean climate.

to know jason is to dismiss jason. as far as bitching and moaning and whining - all those adjectives suggest railing about sound system that is generally defendable in its construct, fairness and outcome. it has been blatanly apparent to anyone with a fair amount of reasoning and intellect that the model is severely broken and moreover - unsustainable. abuses are rampant and the conflicts are laughingly borderline criminal. ESPECIALLY here in nyc/nys. federal is a whole other pile of dung but it would be nice to clean up our backyard first.
you can espouse your dogma till youre blue in the face, things will change because they have to change. even the liberal leaning dems in office realize it. see andrew cuomo. so eff you, i aint leavin but you might be.....

rangersfan, I don't know how you can possibly doubt jason's integrity. He's an adult in New York who drinks milk -- a symbol of old-fashioned purity, like the Ivory Girl.

You dummy bob: when taxes by ANY measure were the same or higher than what Obama proposes for 60 years, only a few hundred every did what you say will certainly happen, and of them only a handful were super wealthy. Many of them (Marc Rich, for ex) were facing criminal charges and went to high tax Israel or France (because they could and because France has no extradition). Only a few of the few went to Switzerland - which is about the only place they COULD go with lower taxes amongst OECD nations (as ours are lower than 27 or 28 out of 30.)

Fail.

I never said anyone was leaving. I was just commenting on the fact that you scoffed at 400 people having done it as a number that too small to matter but previously were using a sample size of the 400 top earners as being significant. Most likely nobody is leaving the country. Alec Baldwin is still around.

You dislike Jason's list of countries, but guess what? There is no rich democracy with low taxes. Not one. In order to have a well-ordered society the government requires significant revenue. UK, Canada, Australia, USA, France, Germany, Japan, not to mention Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands, are all high tax countries. It's not a coincidence that all rich democracies have high taxes.

alan, you never followed up on my sidecar invite....it hurt for awhile but i'm okay now.

A salve made from cognac, Grand Marnier and lemon juice will help ease the pain.

You guys are all hilarious. Anyway, a bigger problem than the taxes themselves is the abuses by the true parasites - not the really needy through no fault of their own - but the ones looking to scam or to be taken care of by everybody else. That would be the young woman at the fish counter asking if she can use her food stamps to buy lobster, the able-bodied young couple going in to a charity food distribution center to pick up fresh produce that has been picked in sweltering fields by senior volunteers, or the many-generations family living on welfare, food stamps, and in subsidized housing with their steady stream of illegitimate children born in the hospital with all expenses paid - all of them absolutely able to work, just not willing. Just a few examples, of say "gazillions," observed just by me.

I suspect the bleeding hearts posting here that think the "rich" should just open their bank accounts to such scum (there, I said it) must be very young with little life experience, so think that money goes only to the needy. Or maybe they're sheltered, or naive, or just plain dumb. Fix the welfare state, even if taxes stay the same, I'll feel better that my $$ may be going to education, infrastructure, national security. Not to that guy who just doesn't want to work.

Gabolly, listen to yourself. You really think those are the real scammers? What about the hedge fund managers not paying taxes on their income? The bankers being bailed out by the federal government? I love all these ridiculous examples of things you have supposedly witnessed that tell us absolutely nothing. The idea of many generations living on "welfare" for instance. What programs are they living on? We have no programs that pay for healthy adults to live indefinitely on assistance. That simply doesn't exist.

By "observed", Gabolly means "fabricated out of malice".

happyrenter - ding, ding, ding - can you hear it?? like a dog whistle to you and jordyn.

Ya, no you are both incorrect. It's interesting that you'd rather pontificate than consider someone's real life experience. Just proves my point that you haven't really "been out there" to have any useful perspective. I agree - some of what goes on is quite ridiculous indeed - to the extent that you won't even believe it.

Switzerland has low taxes, that is an exception - though as with the US, the cantors have taxes SEPERATE fromthe central goverments. Put together, national and local taxes are on par to lower than in the US.

However, as i said before, they have Obama-style healthcare, complete with an indivudual mandate and susidies for the poor to buy insurance. They also have sooooo many silly little regulations on the big and most mundane things, it would drive any Ayn Rand or Tea Party lover insane.

In other words, they would be "socialist."

Jason,

Switzerland is not low tax by the standards of the people complaining about current tax rates for the rich in the US. It is the lowest taxed of the rich countries, obviously, but still far more taxed than almost any poor or developing country, as well as the non-democracies.

Gabolly,

What program have you "witnessed" multiple generations of healthy adults living on without working? Your "real life experience" must have been with an actual government program that exists, right?

Happyrenter - not sure why you keep implying that I've made up the examples above. You are clearly someone who can not accept information or someone else's pov if it doesn't fit neatly with your thinking. You condescendingly say "listen to yourself" - maybe because that's all you do. Open your eyes, ears and mind. You'll have a more balanced perspective, and sound a lot more intelligent if you do.

i have opened my eyes, ears and mind. still not understanding what you're talking about.

gabolly, what do you do that has made you personally cognizant of such things? social worker maybe?

i'm not sure why you keep implying that such examples are typical. you are clearly someone who can not accept that the exceptions that you see are exceptions, because that wouldn't neatly fit within your thinking.

i'm neither particularly young, nor naive, and i've very much "been out there."

btw, can you quantify who you view as the "true parasites" for us? is it one percent of the population? two, five, ten, twenty? how much does it cost us, or you?

Anyone who takes from other people are parasites . Anyone who demands that other people provide for them are parasites. Anyone who believes in fair share and shared sacrifice are parasites.

Large One, are you referring to robber barons?

Anyone who speaks in absolutes is a .....

Wait, don't stop your sentence there, tell us the answer, please.

>liberals really make the silliest, most unsound arguments. jason's list of countries included major oil exporters with small populations, and this is his example of high taxes being good.

I actually kind of feel sorry for Jason. He clearly likes the west coast, so he can only be here for career reasons or a girlfriend. But yet, there's no indication his career is going well at all (I think we are at columbiacounty level of failure) and he doesn't even try to pretend he's got an attractive girlfriend or spouse while people like Wbuttocks are so easily able to talk about their "girlfriend in Brooklyn".