bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 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. Nonsense....no income tax states draw many people from high tax districts....it is a driver...literally. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Nonsense....no income tax states draw many people from high tax districts....it is a driver...literally. Sure you keep claiming that. However as we see on the Graph I cited employment is in no way linked to tax rates in the US. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Sure you keep claiming that. However as we see on the Graph I cited employment is in no way linked to tax rates in the US. Employment and employment rates are different than population gain/loss....maybe you should find another American blog reference if you don't believe me. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Employment and employment rates are different than population gain/loss....maybe you should find another American blog reference if you don't believe me. Yah don't like numbers so you change the rules of the game. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Yah don't like numbers so you change the rules of the game. No, you changed the rules, not I, starting with data for New Jersey (of all places). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 No, you changed the rules, not I, starting with data for New Jersey (of all places). That is because that is where someone actually did a study on how raising the top tax rates would impact migration and know what? They found people don't move because of taxes. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 That is because that is where someone actually did a study on how raising the top tax rates would impact migration and know what? They found people don't move because of taxes. Except when they do....top rate or not. I wish there were more rich people for you to tap for more NDP socialism, but shucks, there are only so many to go around. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Except when they do....top rate or not. I wish there were more rich people for you to tap for more NDP socialism, but shucks, there are only so many to go around. Yah got it. The scientific study and Nobel prize winners are wrong and you are right because you know a guy. If it walks and talks like a duck it is probably a conservative right. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report 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. Leaving Canada for the US because of taxes is pretty stupid considering income tax is roughly the same (as a percentage of gross income) for the majority of people and the social support programs aren't nearly as good. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Leaving Canada for the US because of taxes is pretty stupid considering income tax is roughly the same (as a percentage of gross income) for the majority of people and the social support programs aren't nearly as good. It is if you have higher income and don't rely on "social support". Hell, just the much larger number of opportunities in the US is worth more, besides the lower tax/consumption rates. Each year 25,000 Canadians emigrate to the USA, and about 2,500 Americans go to Canada. The math is left to you.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Newfoundlander Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 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. I used a published report that supposedly had incorrect data, how do I know your one report is correct? Quote
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 I used a published report that supposedly had incorrect data, how do I know your one report is correct? You can go read it to start. Quote
Newfoundlander Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 You can go read it to start. It's a US report, get me a Canadian one. Quote
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) It's a US report, get me a Canadian one. It is a study on how migration is affected by tax rates. You explain to me how you think the data is changed by it being a US state and not a Canadian province (you know besides moving out of a state is easier then a province because they are smaller so you can move an hour away and be in a new tax bracket but still be close to your community) and maybe I will think about it. Right now I just think you are moving the goal posts because you are wrong and wont admit it. Edited August 21, 2011 by punked Quote
Newfoundlander Posted August 21, 2011 Author Report Posted August 21, 2011 Punked do you really think a doctor or an engineer that could make upwards of $200,000 is not influenced by the fact that their tax rates in Nova Scotia are over double what they are in Alberta? Quote
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Punked do you really think a doctor or an engineer that could make upwards of $200,000 is not influenced by the fact that their tax rates in Nova Scotia are over double what they are in Alberta? They weren't in NJ. I live in the province I live in so I don't have to drive 5 hours to see my mother, or fly across the country to see my friends. There are many reasons why people live where they live maybe 1-2% on 100,000 dollars is one of them but fact is for the 1000 dollars I save I would end up spending it on hotels, flights and other things because my roots are somewhere else. Not to mention the cost of an average house in Alberta is 400,000 dollars plus property taxes vs an equal home in NS which is 250,000. In the end when cost of living is factored in you are not saving anything. That is the point. Taxes are a small part of it and only a poor financial manager would look at the one piece of the pie. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 It is if you have higher income and don't rely on "social support". I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Everyone uses the health care system. All parents receive the universal childcare benefit. Employees and employers alike benefit from worker's compensation (it's insurance for the employers because the employees cannot sue for compensation). It's pretty obvious that regardless of income, every Canadian benefits from our social supports. Quote
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Everyone uses the health care system. All parents receive the universal childcare benefit. Employees and employers alike benefit from worker's compensation (it's insurance for the employers because the employees cannot sue for compensation). It's pretty obvious that regardless of income, every Canadian benefits from our social supports. Yah we had this argument BC thinks you can go your whole life with out having health care it is one of the reasons he is against forcing people to buy insurance. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) Yah we had this argument BC thinks you can go your whole life with out having health care it is one of the reasons he is against forcing people to buy insurance. By your own admission taxes do play a role in population movement, so now you are just arguing degree. You can't point to a study for Canadian provinces and you can't explain away huge net emigration from Canada to the USA. And remember, aborted babies don't need health care! Edited August 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 By your own admission taxes do play a role in population movement, so now you are just arguing degree. You can't point to a study for Canadian provinces and you can't explain away huge net emigration from Canada to the USA. Nope I can not explain facts you make up out of your head BC. Sorry I only address real things. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 Nope I can not explain facts you make up out of your head BC. Sorry I only address real things. That's what I thought...when challenged, you melt away. So much for the power of "Guidelines" and "Research". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 That's what I thought...when challenged, you melt away. So much for the power of "Guidelines" and "Research". I have no idea what you are talking about BC. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 I have no idea what you are talking about BC. I know...and suspect that you wouldn't like "New Jersey" either. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Posted August 21, 2011 I know...and suspect that you wouldn't like "New Jersey" either. Still have no clue what you are talking about? Quote
Socialist in Oil Country Posted August 22, 2011 Report Posted August 22, 2011 Our provincial NDP here is probably the least significant in the country In my riding I would vote PC to avoid the Wild Rose winning the seat :/ Quote
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.