Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Yes; although revenues to tax accountants and offshore havens might go up.

can we at least wait until the dust settles from the "no tax raises" due to HCR?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

One smug reply deserves another, I guess.

Did you read what I said about taxing the rich not providing anywhere near the revenue needed to cover what we owe and have promised? What do you propose, a 90% bracket?

Say this with me: "If you tax them, they will leave." It is fact. It is already happening even without increases. Raise taxes all you like, revenue will remain near constant.

(And don't cite me old studies showing the converse. Money's moving a lot faster, and the emerging markets are a lot bigger and more business friendly than they were historically, and that trend is accelerating exponentially. Whatever you cite will be hoeplessly dated.)

There was an article in the WSJ yesterday that several states are actively wooing hundreds of large companies away from CA based on corporate tax rates. Apparently a couple hundred left in 2010 and the trend is expected to continue.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you really think that raising taxes would cause revenues to drop? I mean, really.

It a fantastical situation where the only tax increase is on personal, ordinary income over $1mm (or something like that)? Absolutely possible.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The argument against that proposition - "Clinton did it and it raised revenues!" - isn't applicable in an economy this globalized.

Speed of money v. speed of legislation. Not even a race. And the drop in activity in advance, based on mere fear of a raise in taxes, doubles the negative effect.

If I were to move off shore, where to go? I am currently considering deals in the UK and N. Africa, but not sure I want to reside in either place.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

I think the issue is an interesting one, but I don't attribute this kind of deep thinking to the neocons and GOP stalwarts (or to any hawkish Dems, for that matter.) After all, sometimes a dunderhead blathering on cable is simply a dunderhead.

Niall Ferguson's simple view: Protectionism > Trade wars > Disruptive regional conflicts > Perhaps a world war. The Big Reset.

Historically the cycle persists.

I don't care about what the dunderheads say on Fox. I'm guessing what might be said in smoky rooms off the Potomac. Yeah, I know it sounds nuts. I don't even believe it. But as far as Bilderburger/Trilateral Commission paranoias go, it's a plausible one to consider a student of history like Cheney saying, "We're fucked economically. Only one way out. Let's have a war!"

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

There was an article in the WSJ yesterday that several states are actively wooing hundreds of large companies away from CA based on corporate tax rates. Apparently a couple hundred left in 2010 and the trend is expected to continue.

Define "large".

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

There was an article in the WSJ yesterday that several states are actively wooing hundreds of large companies away from CA based on corporate tax rates. Apparently a couple hundred left in 2010 and the trend is expected to continue.

California? FAIL! Buh-bye!

eta: ps: no offence

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Define "large".

I'll have hank's wife forward you the sexts I sent her. that should give you guidance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

There was an article in the WSJ yesterday that several states are actively wooing hundreds of large companies away from CA based on corporate tax rates. Apparently a couple hundred left in 2010 and the trend is expected to continue.

The question I want answered is, if it comes to this, which state breaks the "moral hazard" firewall on Federal Bailouts to avoid bond defaults? It's got to be a huge one the govt can characterize as systemically essential, because every other state will cry for the same treatment and claim preferences are unfair.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I acknowledge my error. As Cletus noted, they may go down. I assume you assume they'll go up.

The movement will be minimal. The tax can never be implemented fast enough to beat the money running offshore or employing structures to avoid it.

If we'd just invest more in basic science research, we could have cold fusion and not need to pay for oil. If we'd adopt net neutrality, we could have massive innovation that would drive full employment. Hey, this is fun.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

It a fantastical situation where the only tax increase is on personal, ordinary income over $1mm (or something like that)? Absolutely possible.

You're hugely discounting the anticipatory adverse effect.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're hugely discounting the anticipatory adverse effect.

I'm not discounting anything; I'm saying that a hypothetically possible, but politically impossible, type of tax increase definitely could result in decreased tax revenue. If you disagree with my view of the political-reality of a tax increase *solely* on people who actually can manage their income stream, please to explain.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The question I want answered is, if it comes to this, which state breaks the "moral hazard" firewall on Federal Bailouts to avoid bond defaults? It's got to be a huge one the govt can characterize as systemically essential, because every other state will cry for the same treatment and claim preferences are unfair.

I don't think that it can be California. The rest of us will be glad to see it go; and we always have Florida for the Disney experience and France for wine. No offence.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

There was an article in the WSJ yesterday that several states are actively wooing hundreds of large companies away from CA based on corporate tax rates. Apparently a couple hundred left in 2010 and the trend is expected to continue.

Why go to California (or Massachusetts for that matter) unless you need a highly educated, world class work force or proximity to a major market and significant capital?

You can't be everything to everyone. But I'd rather be California than Arizona or Kansas.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Jolly Vindaloo Day!

Curiously enough, a dish that was introduced to India by the Portuguese.