punked Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Over taxing people who make $200,000 does not help us because those are the doctors we need, and other professionals like engineers, scientists and so on. These people are also spending more which helps create businesses. If we start taxing businesses and business people to much they will go elsewhere. Yah but that just isn't true. Plenty of studies have shown people do not move in order to avoid taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 It's time stop bailing out the businesses with taxpayers money and start bailing out the consumers with their own money. After all, it is the consumers that decide through their purchases what businesses, products and services are worth bailing out. The threat that jobs will be lost is played out. If there's a demand for what they offer, jobs won't be lost. The whining about income redistribution is a smoke screen for the fact that income already is being redistributed through the government's constant bending over for corporate interests. Without allowing the consumers to determine what businesses should get their money and what businesses shouldn't, the government bails out business and it doesn't much matter if the labour pool buys from them or not. They're getting our money through the government anyway. It's time to put the money back into the hands of the consumers in the market and let them decide who deserves the bailouts with their purchasing decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Yah but that just isn't true. Plenty of studies have shown people do not move in order to avoid taxes. So you're trying to say that people would rather be doctors in Halifax, where they are highly taxed, then say Saskatoon or Calgary, where taxes aren't super high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 So you're trying to say that people would rather be doctors in Halifax, where they are highly taxed, then say Saskatoon or Calgary, where taxes aren't super high? Well, such a thing could presumably be found out, rather than assuming it to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 So you're trying to say that people would rather be doctors in Halifax, where they are highly taxed, then say Saskatoon or Calgary, where taxes aren't super high? I think that for a middle class professional, such as a doctor or engineer, there are many other factors to consider in where they choose to live besides the tax rate. For example, I choose to live where I live in large part due to the opportunities for outdoor recreation and the presence of many good friends here, even though I could certainly move to another state where the taxes are lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted August 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 This is the mentality of our NDP in Newfoundland and Labrador. Debt not the priority with oil windfall: MichaelNewfoundland and Labrador would be better served if unexpected oil revenues were directed to public programs, not the accumulated debt, NDP Leader Lorraine Michael says. Michael was reacting to Finance Minister Tom Marshall's revelations that the government is poised to collect about $600 million more than expected this year, because of higher-than-expected production at the province's three offshore oil fields. Marshall said it is too early to guess how much larger the province's surplus will be, but that it will go towards the total debt, which stands at about $8.2 billion. ... http://t.co/zKpGcrf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yah but that just isn't true. Plenty of studies have shown people do not move in order to avoid taxes. I plan to move to Belize in 32 months. There I will attain a tax free status, and the damned government will have to send me every nickel they compelled my pension fund to withhold from me. It is not a simple process, but that is exactly what I intend to do....move to avoid taxes. Besides I have no desire to retire surrounded by snowflakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 All people are not created equal - all people are not the same - all people have the right to be who they are - so the NDP can kiss my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 I plan to move to Belize in 32 months. There I will attain a tax free status, and the damned government will have to send me every nickel they compelled my pension fund to withhold from me. It is not a simple process, but that is exactly what I intend to do....move to avoid taxes. Besides I have no desire to retire surrounded by snowflakes. You need to promise to not work to move to Belize. A Doctor who wants to work would not move there to avoid taxes. You must promise you wont work to move there it is a retirement tax heaven. Know why they do that? Because their GDP per capita is 4000 dollars per person. They need the in flow of capital. So you are arguing something a little different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yah but that just isn't true. Plenty of studies have shown people do not move in order to avoid taxes. Where are these studies anyways punked? Where's your proof, you're the one that always wants people to back up everything they say so prove this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Where are these studies anyways punked? Where's your proof, you're the one that always wants people to back up everything they say so prove this statement. http://www.stanford.edu/~cy10/public/Millionaire_Migration.pdf It is from Standford was published in the Tax journal just two months ago. The conclusion? Most people who live in a place have a job, or earn their money because they live in that place and a tax hike of even more then 5% to take the state of NJ from one of the lowest tax rates to one of the highest lead to no migration from the rich. Why do you think I would ever lie. I would think at this point you would take me at my word after I showed how you were wrong on NS taxes. Edited August 21, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 The conclusion? Most people who live in a place have a job, or earn their money because they live in that place and a tax hike of even more then 5% to take the state of NJ from one of the lowest tax rates to one of the highest lead to no migration from the rich. ...but lots of migration for the "poor" with no jobs. Why do you think I would ever lie. I would think at this point you would take me at my word after I showed how you were wrong on NS taxes. Study you cited was from/for the USA (as usual). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 ...but lots of migration for the "poor" with no jobs. Study you cited was from/for the USA (as usual). No the study on NS tax rates. That was in another thread where Newfoundlander was lying about tax rates and got called on it. Yep people with out jobs migrate not sure your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Yep people with out jobs migrate not sure your point? Higher tax locations are at a disadvantage for creating new private sector jobs. Since you love New Jersey: TRENTON, NJ (AP) -- New Jersey's accelerating population loss is starting to have significant economic and fiscal consequences for the state The report found the state lost 231,565 people between 2002 and 2006, including 72,547 people last year. The latter was the fourth highest loss in the nation behind only California, Louisiana and New York. Meanwhile, North Carolina grew by 807,000 people over the four-year period, displacing New Jersey last year as the nation's 10th most populous state, the report stated. When lost income and sales taxes from the people who left New Jersey are considered, the population drain is estimated to have cost the state $680 million in tax revenue last year, the report found. Edited August 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Higher tax locations are at a disadvantage for creating new private sector jobs. Yah right. Nice try on making up a lie then passing it off as a fact. http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/01/corporate-tax-cuts-do-they-really.html In fact if you look at the graph on this NYT blog you will see there is not correlation between tax rates and employment. Try again. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/texas-is-not-the-only-red-state/ Edited August 21, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 In fact if you look at the graph on this NYT blog you will see there is not correlation between tax rates and employment. Try again. Sorry...blogs are great for opinion...not primary references. But at least you are consistent with American references! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Higher tax locations are at a disadvantage for creating new private sector jobs. Since you love New Jersey: TRENTON, NJ (AP) -- New Jersey's accelerating population loss is starting to have significant economic and fiscal consequences for the state The report found the state lost 231,565 people between 2002 and 2006, including 72,547 people last year. The latter was the fourth highest loss in the nation behind only California, Louisiana and New York. Meanwhile, North Carolina grew by 807,000 people over the four-year period, displacing New Jersey last year as the nation's 10th most populous state, the report stated. When lost income and sales taxes from the people who left New Jersey are considered, the population drain is estimated to have cost the state $680 million in tax revenue last year, the report found. So when they had one of the lowest top tax bracket they lost more then 200 000 people? That is a great argument you have there for low tax brackets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Sorry...blogs are great for opinion...not primary references. But at least you are consistent with American references! Yah this blog is from a Noble prize winning economist who cites the United States department of Labour. So you want me to cite them instead? He just took the numbers in the blog and put them on a graph to show how ridiculous it is to believe your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 So when they had one of the lowest top tax bracket they lost more then 200 000 people? That is a great argument you have there for low tax brackets. New Jersey had/has high property taxes. The point of this is to take focus off of keeping "rich people" while "poor and middle class people" leave anyway. Net population loss means less tax revenue from all demographics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 New Jersey had/has high property taxes. The point of this is to take focus off of keeping "rich people" while "poor and middle class people" leave anyway. Net population loss means less tax revenue from all demographics. Got it. So people didn't move away because of a tax increase they moved away because they already had high taxes? Yor argument is changing pretty fast there bub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yah this blog is from a Noble prize winning economist who cites the United States department of Labour. So you want me to cite them instead? He just took the numbers in the blog and put them on a graph to show how ridiculous it is to believe your argument. Oh snap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Got it. So people didn't move away because of a tax increase they moved away because they already had high taxes? Yor argument is changing pretty fast there bub. People moved away for many reasons, including higher taxes and the scarcity of jobs influenced by tax policy at many levels. I personally know Canadians who left Canada for the USA because of taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yah this blog is from a Noble prize winning economist who cites the United States department of Labour. So you want me to cite them instead? He just took the numbers in the blog and put them on a graph to show how ridiculous it is to believe your argument. Yes...I can make up graphs too. But please stick with US data as it is very relevant to Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 People moved away for many reasons, including higher taxes and the scarcity of jobs influenced by tax policy at many levels. I personally know Canadians who left Canada for the USA because of taxes. Yep there are many reasons people move around but on the whole taxes make up such a small percentage that it would be wrong to claim they are a driver in anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yes...I can make up graphs too. But please stick with US data as it is very relevant to Canada! Well then you better, oh also please back them up with the opinion of a Nobel prize winning economist eh because so far your opinions haven't been worth much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.