http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/02/16/studies-high-tax-rates-dont-drive-people-away-low-rates-dont-attract Comments On: Studies: High tax rates don't drive people away; low rates don't attract by Max Brantley en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Mon, 20 May 2013 13:00:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”


A question of values predicated on repudiating one’s God in order to pursue power & wealth answers itself, it’s just not the answer some claim.


“The truth points to itself.”
Joseph Michael Straczynski
Posted by Zatharus]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:14:54 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by wannabee conservative]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:49:41 -0600 Arkansas Times Last week Governor Sam Brownback continued the post-2010 reform trend among GOP Governors by signing the biggest tax cut in Kansas history. The plan chops the state income tax rate to 4.9% from 6.45% and eliminates income taxes on about 190,000 Kansas small businesses. …Mr. Brownback says the income tax cut will put Kansas “on a road to faster growth.” Although no one in Europe or the White House agrees with the philosophy, tax-cut initiatives have been spreading in the states. Already this year Tennessee has eliminated its gift and estate tax, Arizona has cut its capital gains tax (to 3.4% from 4.54%), and Idaho and Nebraska have cut income tax rates. Oklahoma is expected to cut tax rates. The tax cutting Governors all say they hope to be more like no-income-tax Texas, which has far outpaced other states in job creation.

_____________
Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted:
Sadly, the folks in the White House aren’t hopping on the tax cut bandwagon.

Instead, they want America to be more like the President’s home state of Illinois, a fiscal basket case. But it’s not just Illinois that’s in trouble because of a bloated and expensive public sector.

It turns out that millions of Americans are voting with their feet to escape states with excessive taxes.

Here are some passages from a CNS report on some fascinating data from the Tax Foundation.

New York State accounted for the biggest migration exodus of any state in the nation between 2000 and 2010, with 3.4 million residents leaving over that period, according to the Tax Foundation. Over that decade the state gained 2.1 million, so net migration amounted to 1.3 million, representing a loss of $45.6 billion in income. Where are they escaping to? The Tax Foundation found that more than 600,000 New York residents moved to Florida over the decade – opting perhaps for the Sunshine State’s more lenient tax system – taking nearly $20 billion in adjusted gross income with them. Over that same time period, 208,794 Pennsylvanians moved to Florida, taking $8 billion in income. …California is also known for more onerous taxes and regulations, and the foundation shows similar trends of migration from there to other states like Texas and Arizona. The Tax Foundation ranked the Golden State sixth highest in the nation for state and local tax burden in 2009. Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income. Texas has no state income tax or estate tax. …Another 28,088 from California relocated to Nevada and 30,663 to Arizona, a loss of $699.1 million and $707.8 million in income respectively.

While these are remarkable numbers, they shouldn’t be a surprise. I’ve written about the failures of New York and California, and I’ve also commented on the success of Texas.

And for those who prefer international evidence, I’ve cited the differences between successful low-tax jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Singapore and decrepit high-tax nations such as France.

This doesn’t mean that fiscal policy is a silver bullet. There are reasonably successful nations with big governments, but they compensate with ultra-free markets in other areas. And there are also low-tax nations that languish because of mistakes such as excessive regulation and failure to protect property rights.

But all other things being equal, big government and high tax rates are a recipe for decline. Yet that’s the only item on the White House menu.
http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/06/08/high-t…
Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:41:33 -0600 Arkansas Times >>If people don't move to states that don't have state income taxes then why did Huckabee move from Arkansas to Florida.<

What stupidity! Here, try this:

If people do move from states that have income taxes then why did the Clintons move to New York where taxes are higher than in Arkansas?
Posted by eLwood]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:36:29 -0600 Arkansas Times >why did Huckabee move from Arkansas to Florida.

To live on the ocean beach, closer to where his tv show is produced, NYC.

Why did Alice Walton move to Texas? To get away from NWA police.
Posted by eLwood]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:31:48 -0600 Arkansas Times
The people who really love their home state wouldn't leave for love nor money. Right here is where I belong even if the Waltons gave me all their money.
Posted by DeathbyInches]]> Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:29:14 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by SalineRepublican]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:26:04 -0600 Arkansas Times
Syli- proving that Mickelson is only partially lying? And someone in that tax bracket receiving Medicaid? Too bad ReTHUGliconS have fired all the Medicaid fraud investigators!
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:07:03 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Ron Rizzardi]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:29:17 -0600 Arkansas Times
Surely, you must mean MediCARE, not MediCAID. Big difference.
Posted by Olphart]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:22:15 -0600 Arkansas Times
Say what?! Where, in your opinion, has God endowed those attributes? I may be a "dumb ass meth-head" but I'm fairly certain those kinds of places don't just pop up free of charge. I'm no economist but surely all this bounty is paid for, largely, out of taxes. I'm no mathematician either but you don't get something for nothing.

I really shouldn't comment at all, I suppose, because your comment speaks volumes for itself--in an ironic sort of way.
Posted by Olphart]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:19:47 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by dottholliday]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:01:46 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by couldn't be better]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:53:54 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Uncomfortable Taxpayer]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:53:55 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Tim Oppenheim]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:25:06 -0600 Arkansas Times
Only for Social Security. Medicaid taxes apply to everything.
Posted by Gylippus]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:08:34 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by YossarianMinderbinder]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:40:03 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Mean Gene]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:01:59 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by TX-Travler]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:12 -0600 Arkansas Times
We both know at this point in Mickelson's tax game he's plugged into several investments which allow him to report investment income as
"carried interest", like Mitt does, and such income is taxed at capital gains rate of 15%.
For some of his backend money (product endorsements) he can opt for deferred compensation and get even more tax advantages.

The portions of income Mickelson has likely shifted to off-shore havens is not taxed at all.
That shift is relatively easy to do. You could do it with your broom & squeegee business Everette provided you have some proprietary identity or a post office box in Cayman Islands. Ask your pal, Mitt.

"Taxes are for little people." --Leona Helmsley
Posted by eLwood]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:48:07 -0600 Arkansas Times
Life is too short to live in a state lead by ignorant, or worse yet whoring, people.
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:40:14 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by GrizLee Bear]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:39:12 -0600 Arkansas Times
>>If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate’s 62, 63 percent,” said Mickelson, who lives in Rancho Santa Fe.

I'll bet you every ounce of gold, every piece of silver, every dollar in my checking and investment accounts, my clothes and 15 fishing rods/reels plus an old Ford that there is NO WAY Mickelson paid anywhere within 75% of those rates. I was a tax accountant too many years to swallow that camel.

SR, you're not accountable for the LIES you are told, you are accountable for the LIES you embrace. You know, that's how the Lord figures it.

I watched the lowlife Shawn Hannity, during an interview with Michael Moore, try to claim he's paying 60% taxes. Moore challenged him to prove it with his tax returns and naturally the lowlife refused.

We're calling yer bluff SR. Time for another cut n' run for you.
Posted by eLwood]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:23:20 -0600 Arkansas Times
However, regardless of what they are called, these rates are paid on only the first $113,700 of income. So, Mickelson doesn't pay any social security or medicare taxes/premiums on the vast majority of his huge income, i.e., he pays 0% on most of his income. So his effective rate is probably something like 0.1% for social security and medicare. Again, this is why you can't just add a bunch of tax rates together the way Mickelson did. Doing so exposes your ignorance, but that's what Republicans are best at.
Posted by Hume N. Bien]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:07:47 -0600 Arkansas Times
For example, the first chunk of income is not taxed at all---zero percent taxes on your exemptions and deductions. The next chunk of income ($17,850 for a married couple) is taxed at the low rate of 10% by the IRS. The next chunk ($54,650 for a married couple) is taxed at 15%. So, for married couples with a taxable income of $72,500 or less, they are paying a combination of 0%, 10%, and 15% on different parts of their income, for an actual effective tax rate of far less than 15%.

The highest bracket is for those making more than $400,000 (like Mickelson), and the rate on that income is 39.6%. However, Mickelson is not paying 39.6% taxes on all of his income---that rate only applies to taxable income above $400,000. His effective tax rate will be lower than 39.6%, perhaps much, much lower, depending on his deductions or tax credits. Many wealthy people (like Mitt Romney) pay an effective tax rate of about 15% or less.

Most states also have progressive tax rates like these federal rates. So, you can't just add your top bracket tax rates together and claim that you pay 62% taxes. It's just not true.
Posted by Hume N. Bien]]> Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:37:47 -0600 Arkansas Times