Tax the wealthy and they will leave.

[Fantine]

I was looking for something more comprehensive, but Wallet Hub lists the 15 states with the highest tax burdens (combining sales, income, property, and excise taxes.) Believe it or not, there are some real surprises in the top 15. Mississippi, Iowa, West Virginia, Maine...the others are not as unexpected (including NY, NJ, CT, CA, RI, etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/us-states-with-the-highest-tax-burdens.htm.
The real revelation is that the difference between the highest taxed states and the lowest are only in about a 5 point spread. The property taxes in states with no income taxes are horrendous. The sales taxes in states with low property taxes are almost 10%.
The super rich are not likely to care much if one state's total tax burden is 3% more than another's. And income opportunities are usually much greater in the coastal states.
Young people, in particular, often want to move to places with the quality of life they want. That might include nightlife, culture, parks and green space, nearby educational options.
Very few people choose where to live based on taxes alone.

 

[Albion]

List of U.S. states by GDP per capita - Wikipedia

Which highly taxed, rich states are losing GDP, as you would expect if the rich were leaving?

It's not that they are losing GDP; it's that they are losing rich people to states where they will be taxed less.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's not that they are losing GDP; it's that they are losing rich people to states where they will be taxed less.

If losing rich people doesn’t result in a loss to GDP, why is it a problem?

 

[Sparagmos]

The original GND was pulled that was posted on AOC's website. And after the outrage, a sanitized version was posted, but you of course will refuse that truth. And not a single democratic senator voted for the GND when it was brought up in the senate for a vote. Because it is DOA, and it still is.
Politicians are political animals, and if they are again defeated in 2020, you can bet this GND will go away for any serious consideration, most likely forever.
https://nypost.com/2019/03/26/senat...-deal-in-57-0-vote-blasted-as-a-sham-by-dems/

Feel free to refer to any version of the GND. That vote was a stunt and everyone knows it. The GND represents the values and intentions of the young people who will be coming into power. It’s not going away.

 

[zephcom]

But wait! If the Waltons left all the wal-marts would close! What would we do without them?

I think we would do quite well.

 

[Albion]

If losing rich people doesn’t result in a loss to GDP, why is it a problem?

It obviously represents a loss of revenue -- and possibly also jobs -- to another state. However, my part in all of this was little more than reporting the fact of the out-migration..

 

[sdowney717]

Feel free to refer to any version of the GND. That vote was a stunt and everyone knows it. The GND represents the values and intentions of the young people who will be coming into power. It’s not going away.

Here is the GND as published by AOC on February 7, she later took it down and sanitized it by deleting various references to the cows and other things, when she was laughed at and soundly criticized.
I saved a copy at the time and glad I did becuase it has been scrubbed from the internet.

Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf
An excerpt about the farting cows, airplanes and shutting down all nuclear plants and all utilities that use n gas, coal, oil for electricity generation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels?
Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
Is nuclear a part of this?
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan
together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we will do that.

And this is all impossible.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/07/ten-most-insane-requirements-green-new-deal/

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Elect a Socialist as president and the next step will likely be to tax any move out of a high-tax state.

No need to raise taxes anyway. Just borrow some more money from the Chinese. Whats another 23 trillions....

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[KCfromNC]

It's the same old "slippery slope" rant--if we let the government give money to lazy poor people pretty soon we won't even own our own underwear.

Except once people turn a magic age, it is no longer SOCIALISM! to give them a bunch of free stuff.

 

[KCfromNC]

Economies are a lot more fragile than you think.

Except when it comes to tax cuts for millionaires, of course. No one seems to talk about the scary unintended consequences when those are being considered. Makes it seem (to me at least) that this isn't a real concern and more just an attempt at a diversion.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not that they are losing GDP; it's that they are losing rich people to states where they will be taxed less.

That's the assertion, yes. Too bad no one seems to be able to find actual data supporting that particular guess.

 

[Sparagmos]

It obviously represents a loss of revenue -- and possibly also jobs -- to another state. However, my part in all of this was little more than reporting the fact of the out-migration..

I would think that a loss of jobs and revenue would be reflected in the GDP. But understand if that’s not a point you’re focused on debating, no problem.

 

[Sparagmos]

Here is the GND as published by AOC on February 7, she later took it down and sanitized it by deleting various references to the cows and other things, when she was laughed at and soundly criticized.
I saved a copy at the time and glad I did becuase it has been scrubbed from the internet.

Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf
An excerpt about the farting cows, airplanes and shutting down all nuclear plants and all utilities that use n gas, coal, oil for electricity generation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels?
Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
Is nuclear a part of this?
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan
together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we will do that.

And this is all impossible.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/07/ten-most-insane-requirements-green-new-deal/

And you’ve turned “get rid of farting cows” to “kills all the cows.”

The GND endeavors to make most air travel obsolete over time, replacing flights over land with high speed rail. Not “ground all the airplanes.”

Retrofitting buildings, not “reconstruct” them.

If the truth was compelling, you wouldn’t need to exaggerate and reword it. You wouldn’t need to lie.

 

[Albion]

I would think that a loss of jobs and revenue would be reflected in the GDP.

That's not at all necessary.

 

[whatbogsends]

Economies are a lot more fragile than you think. Ripping everything apart as in destroying it to create a different way of life, devastates people's lives. History proves it. Hitler came to power because of the great depression, which is what the GND would create. It depends on invention of fabulous new technologies that don't exist, and when that all fails to occur, the fallout will be worldwide, like a 3rd world at war.

You're right, just slap some tariffs on without any analysis and you should be good to go.

 

[Albion]

You're right, just slap some tariffs on without any analysis and you should be good to go.

I think we need to know how you are knowledgable about this part. What sources can you cite, etc.?

 

[whatbogsends]

I think we need to know how you are knowledgable about this part. What sources can you cite, etc.?

I think you need to back up numerous claims in various threads that you've made and never supported. Once you've done that, you can get back to me.

We can start with this thread:

It's not that they are losing GDP; it's that they are losing rich people to states where they will be taxed less.

We all need to know if you're knowledgeable about this part. What sources can you cite, etc.?​

...
Of course, what does my knowledge about analysis of tariffs have to do with the obvious fact that Trump pushed tariffs without performing analysis on them?

 

[Sparagmos]

That's not at all necessary.

Can you flesh that out?

 

[Albion]

The point was that wealthy people are moving out of state. It is not necessary to show that the GDP of the state has been affected in order for this to be so...or for it to be important.

Besides, GDP is based upon a number of factors. It would not be an optimum situation if hundreds of corporate executives left the state for Florida BUT some other developments helped soften that blow or even offset it. Obviously, the loss of the first group would still be a negative for the state.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Many of the people moving aren’t wealthy. I know several who accepted job transfers from CA to TX.

True .CA's a wonderful place to live. What taxes are spent for. Is worth it. Unless you're poor, greedy or uneducated.And not able to look at the bigger picture.