One Top Taxpayer Moved, and New Jersey Shuddered

[Jonnusthegreat]

Universally taxing more across the country and then allocating it back to states is sure to be handled evenly and fairly without any re-alocation or appropriation to plug leaks in other areas, because the government never robs peter to pay paul. /s

Instead, we have a system where if you don't like how much your state is spending and want to pay lower taxes, you can move to a state you like better - just like this guy did.

And that's a system I don't approve of. O is for Opinion.

[zebreck]

People are taking the wrong lesson from this. It's not that state taxes are too high (they aren't, American taxes are comically low for a post-industrial democracy) it's that the tax base is far too small. If we encouraged (by changing tax and investment law) corporations and those running them to pay their workers more, we'd expand the tax base and not end up in a situation where one person makes up such a disproportionate part of a state's budget. We don't need to be "nicer" to these people, we need to actively redistribute their wealth downward so our system can function correctly.

[exochaft]

I would say that the fact 1 person can destroy a state's balance is proof that the rich don't need the wealth they have and should be taxed more universally.

Quite the opposite, as you can see what will happen: you'll lose if you keep taxing them more. The real problem is that state governments (and many other non-state governments, national or international) craft their state spending based upon fleecing the wealthy to the point where the majority of the annual budget comes from a handful of people. This is a very idiotic idea, the idiom "don't put all your eggs in one basket" has been around for centuries and is very applicable here. In fact, the whole "rich don't need wealth, they should be taxed more" has been played out time and again over the course of human history with very predictable negative results based upon human nature: people not contributing feel like they don't have to do anything because the State will provide, those contributing the most feel like they're being exploited so they'll stop producing wealth, net wealth and quality of life diminishes as a result, everyone loses. If anything, wag your fingers at the governments in charge for setting up a system with a proven history of high failure rates.

*edit* - Beyond this one guy in this story, people have this assumption that the top 1% or 5% or whatever are the same people forever, which is not true. The truth of the matter (at least in the US) is that the people in this wealth bracket change constantly, because you can rise up into the bracket and you can fall out of this bracket. Not many places in the world can allow such upward wealth mobility.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Quite the opposite, as you can see what will happen: you'll lose if you keep taxing them more. The real problem is that state governments (and many other non-state governments, national or international) craft their state spending based upon fleecing the wealthy to the point where the majority of the annual budget comes from a handful of people. This is a very idiotic idea, the idiom "don't put all your eggs in one basket" has been around for centuries and is very applicable here. In fact, the whole "rich don't need wealth, they should be taxed more" has been played out time and again over the course of human history with very predictable negative results based upon human nature: people not contributing feel like they don't have to do anything because the State will provide, those contributing the most feel like they're being exploited so they'll stop producing wealth, net wealth and quality of life diminishes as a result, everyone loses. If anything, wag your fingers at the governments in charge for setting up a system with a proven history of high failure rates.

*edit* - Beyond this one guy in this story, people have this assumption that the top 1% or 5% or whatever are the same people forever, which is not true. The truth of the matter (at least in the US) is that the people in this wealth bracket change constantly, because you can rise up into the bracket and you can fall out of this bracket. Not many places in the world can allow such upward wealth mobility.

I don't agree with you. The governments allow these problems to happen, yes, but it's my viewpoint that no single person should overshadow millions. I am not saying we shouldn't have the super rich - I am saying they shouldn't be as rich. Their money could be used in more positive ways. Will it be misused sometimes? Sure. But I'd rather see money in the hands of the many than in the hands of the few.

[melodramocracy]

So we have no reason why he moved, but it must be taxes, because reasons. Sounds legit and not at all like shit journalism.

[Rasulis]

An article from 2016?

[Deletedaccount1]

Noam Chomsky as your avatar and Oscario-Cortez 2020 as your sig?

Could you be more obvious about what you're doing?

More obvious about wanting to have a fairer, more compassionate society that doesn't leave certain groups out to dry?

[Enfilade]

The real question is... why the fuck did it take him so long to leave Jersey...

Yeah, why would someone want to live in one of the wealthiest, most educated states?

[Deletedaccount1]

No, more obvious about living under a bridge and making those who pass by pay a toll.

It's not like that. I have experienced a political awakening.

[Frogguh]

I agree. States need to pass stricter laws on the wealthy who try dodging taxes. It isn't too much to ask that they pay their fair share.

Just looking at your signature, you are aware that she is a complete idiot who says something incredibly stupid in every interview, don't you? She makes Sarah Palin look brilliant.

[NoRest4Wicked]

I'm not sure moving away from the armpit of America to be with Florida Man is a great idea.

[Deletedaccount1]

Just looking at your signature, you are aware that she is a complete idiot who says something incredibly stupid in every interview, don't you? She makes Sarah Palin look brilliant.

She's made a blunder here or there but I think there's a few things to consider. For one, she is young and will gain more knowledge from on the job experience in DC.

Second and most importantly, she is correct on the larger scope of issues. She is a vehicle for change in a party that has, for too long, ignored real solutions to the problems created by the neoliberal paradigm that we live in. So I can overlook some blunders if it means she helps us achieve common sense policies like single-payer healthcare, gun control, secure abortion rights, and improved public schooling.

[McFuu]

The real question is... why the fuck did it take him so long to leave Jersey...

Yeah, why would someone want to live in one of the wealthiest, most educated states?

Real talk, I was born in NJ and lived here until I was 23, then moved around the country until I was 30 and came back home. The rest of the US sucks compared to NJ, and that's including both Southern and Northern CA, which for some reason people seem to think are so great.

I've had multiple friends from other states come back to NJ to "vacation" for a weekend or week with me and they fall in love with the place.
There is a reason why NJ has some of the highest taxes both income, state, and property, people don't want to leave. Sadly the people that do leave, usually do it because it just becomes cost prohibitive to live here if you don't have a degree or 2, or if you are an exceptional tradesmen.

[Zan15]

NJ is a donor state. They give more taxes to the feds then they get back.

States like Florida are not. For every dollar they pay they get back more from the feds.

NJ was helping to fund FL govt.

If they all move that just means the rolls will reverse and FL will have to support NJ.

If every state got back the same percentages then a lot of these high taxed states would not have such high taxes and budget deficits

Just take medicaid funding. NJ gets 50% funded from feds on the majority of medicaid spending. FL gets 60.78%

That equates to billions less that have to be made up by state taxes

[Shadowferal]

The weather rarely makes the news beyond heat and humidity. Diversity in most of the state is incredible. (There are various denoms of christian churches, and Jewish and Islamic mosques, and a Jain temple within several miles of each other from where I currently live.)
And despite that one taxpayer that moved two years earlier, the state is still in one piece.

[Derpling]

Another thread to throw on the gigantic pile of Evidence that Libertarians Don't Understand Basic Economics.

[Deleted]

I would say that the fact 1 person can destroy a state's balance is proof that the rich don't need the wealth they have and should be taxed more universally.

yes that is great, then they move their businesses or operations off shore and you loose their income anyway! great way to loose even more!

[Themius]

Quite the opposite, as you can see what will happen: you'll lose if you keep taxing them more. The real problem is that state governments (and many other non-state governments, national or international) craft their state spending based upon fleecing the wealthy to the point where the majority of the annual budget comes from a handful of people. This is a very idiotic idea, the idiom "don't put all your eggs in one basket" has been around for centuries and is very applicable here. In fact, the whole "rich don't need wealth, they should be taxed more" has been played out time and again over the course of human history with very predictable negative results based upon human nature: people not contributing feel like they don't have to do anything because the State will provide, those contributing the most feel like they're being exploited so they'll stop producing wealth, net wealth and quality of life diminishes as a result, everyone loses. If anything, wag your fingers at the governments in charge for setting up a system with a proven history of high failure rates.

*edit* - Beyond this one guy in this story, people have this assumption that the top 1% or 5% or whatever are the same people forever, which is not true. The truth of the matter (at least in the US) is that the people in this wealth bracket change constantly, because you can rise up into the bracket and you can fall out of this bracket. Not many places in the world can allow such upward wealth mobility.

Oh stop that fucking bullshit

"You'll lose it you tax them more!"

You mean instead of 6 billon he gets 5.9 billion and he'll move because he made 5.9 billion and how dare to take any of it in taxes to fund the fucking state he is living in?!

Are you serious here?

- - - Updated - - -

Real talk, I was born in NJ and lived here until I was 23, then moved around the country until I was 30 and came back home. The rest of the US sucks compared to NJ, and that's including both Southern and Northern CA, which for some reason people seem to think are so great.

I've had multiple friends from other states come back to NJ to "vacation" for a weekend or week with me and they fall in love with the place.
There is a reason why NJ has some of the highest taxes both income, state, and property, people don't want to leave. Sadly the people that do leave, usually do it because it just becomes cost prohibitive to live here if you don't have a degree or 2, or if you are an exceptional tradesmen.

parts of NJ are alright... there are plenty areas I'd rather stay away from

[Jonnusthegreat]

yes that is great, then they move their businesses or operations off shore and you loose their income anyway! great way to loose even more!

Like I said, that's the problem.

[psiko74]

just have a bunch of illegals come work there and pay taxes...oh wait, nvm. They don't pay taxes.