Quote from: elmerfudd on October 06, 2011, 07:22:44 AM
I don't see anything wrong with that sentence.  On to more important things.  Ciao!

What the heck is "learn structure?"

At least mine is a mere typo.

I see, when I give evidence to the contrary, you run off...

10% of the taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes.

That means that 90% of the taxpayers pay only 30% of the taxes.

Does this 90% consume only 30% of the government resources or is this an issue of the 90% prostituting their vote to sieze what others have earned for their own benefit.

The utter lack of shame from the hateful mooches on the left is why I have lost hope and see no reason to try to deal with these people in good faith. They genuinely feel entitled to live off the hard work, risk and talent of others and they don't care who knows about it.

Amazing.

Quote from: Solar on October 06, 2011, 07:30:48 AM
At least mine is a mere typo.

I see, when I give evidence to the contrary, you run off...

And you accuse me of not proofreading????

You've given no evidence to the contrary of anything whatsoever.  All I said was there does not appear to be a link between high taxes and low prosperity.  And you come back foaming at the mouth about California's overspending.

Well, no offense, but Californis generally considered to be lala land by the other 49.

Is there a link between the rate of commission you pay a sales rep and what they produce?

Is there a link between rate of pay and the level of talent you can hire?

How is a tax rate any different? Some marginal activity will obviously become less attractive as the rate of take home pay goes down.

Believe it or not most capitalists do this to help themselves and their loved ones. Not everyone is dedicated to funding a secular progressive paridise on earth.

Quote from: elmerfudd on October 06, 2011, 10:29:22 AM
And you accuse me of not proofreading? ???

You've given no evidence to the contrary of anything whatsoever.  All I said was there does not appear to be a link between high taxes and low prosperity.  And you come back foaming at the mouth about California's overspending.

Well, no offense, but Californis generally considered to be lala land by the other 49.

I gave you a example of what happens when the State over taxes the populace, they leave, but you have yet to make your case to the contrary.

Quote from: Solar on October 06, 2011, 11:27:42 AM
I gave you a example of what happens when the State over taxes the populace, they leave, but you have yet to make your case to the contrary.

They don't seem to be leaving Connecticut at the same rate you allege they're leaving California, and its taxes are higher than California's.  I submit that no state overtaxes to the point that people leave mostly for that reason.  Most, if not all, do overspend, though.  California is just an extreme example. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on October 06, 2011, 11:34:38 AM
They don't seem to be leaving Connecticut at the same rate you allege they're leaving California, and its taxes are higher than California's.  I submit that no state overtaxes to the point that people leave mostly for that reason.  Most, if not all, do overspend, though.  California is just an extreme example. 

LOL, No they are not higher than Ca, which is why I challenge you to make your case.
The author seems to trying to make the same case as you, but neglecting key points.
Like our sales and gas taxes, not to mention electricity rates and natural gas, which has high fes attached as well.

In raw numbers, California collects more tax than any other state, as you might expect. Receipts rang in at $104.8 billion in 2010, according to U.S. Census data. Even though the sales tax declined by a percentage point on July 1, it remains among the country's highest. Gas taxes are the second highest in the nation. In July, the state doubled the motor vehicle fuel tax from 17.3 cents per gallon to 35.3 cents per gallon.

Maryland, New Jersey and New York are all counterpoints to fudds conclusion. All lost millionaires once they shifted into agressive mooch mode.

Quote from: Dan on October 06, 2011, 12:14:13 PM
Maryland, New Jersey and New York are all counterpoints to fudds conclusion. All lost millionaires once they shifted into agressive mooch mode.

No, they are not.  They prove my conclusion.  My conclusion is that high state taxes do not retard state prosperity and low state taxes do not promote state prosperity.  There is no link. 

They may well have lost millionaires, I dunno.  But I bet state taxes were not the only nor even the primary reason. 

If California's taxation is as bad as brother Solar suggests, sounds to me like he'd be better off just to abandon his property and move.  He'd save enough in taxes over the first few years to more than compensate him for his loss, sounds like . Or maybe they're not really THAT BAD?

Quote from: elmerfudd on October 06, 2011, 12:48:39 PM
They may well have lost millionaires, I dunno.  But I bet state taxes were not the only nor even the primary reason. 

So your proof is your assumption after you just said you don't know?  :o ???

Quote from: Dan on October 06, 2011, 12:49:54 PM

So your proof is your assumption after you just said you don't know?  :o ???

No.  It's an opinion.  Where did I assert "proof?"

Edited to add this link:

http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires_household.htm

Those millionaires don't seem to be flocking from those "high tax" states.

Quote from: elmerfudd on October 06, 2011, 12:48:39 PM
No, they are not.  They prove my conclusion.  My conclusion is that high state taxes do not retard state prosperity and low state taxes do not promote state prosperity.  There is no link. 

Generally you need proof to prove a conclusion.  ;)

Quote from: Dan on October 06, 2011, 12:53:39 PM

Generally you need proof to prove a conclusion.  ;)

Now you're talking about a different assertion.  ;)  I think I have submitted sufficient proof to state that there is no direct link between low state taxation and high state prosperity or high state taxation and low state prosperity. 

My assertion that millionaires are not leaving states primarily for tax reasons is just an opinion, but I linked to something that would tend to support that opinion in a slightly earlier post.  ;)

Quote from: elmerfudd on October 06, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
Now you're talking about a different assertion.  ;)  I think I have submitted sufficient proof to state that there is no direct link between low state taxation and high state prosperity or high state taxation and low state prosperity.

Not at all. You are trying to plot a line off of one point because that gives you the picture you wanted to see.  ;)

As for the netstate link, it tells you how many millionaires are there now. Not the net movement one way or another since tax policy was changed. And as such, it isn't a useful tool in our discussion.