Millionaires Go Missing: Maryland's fleeced taxpayers fight back.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



KidRock
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Great read.

Maryland imposes a new tax on only millionaires, 1/3 of the millionaires leave and the state ends up losing 100 million dollars the next year.

Symmetric Chaos
Obviously those millionaires are freedom hating terrorist supporters that want to destroy America.

But more seriously: "No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession."

KidRock
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously those millionaires are freedom hating terrorist supporters that want to destroy America.

More like racist, black hating, elitists that just want to step all over the poor working class man trying to put food on his kids table.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
More like racist, black hating, elitists that just want to step all over the poor working class man trying to put food on his kids table.

We should put them in Guantanamo.

KidRock
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We should put them in Guantanamo.

Rich white men don't go to prison.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
Rich white men don't go to prison.

As it should be. That's why we declare them enemy combatants first.

Darth Jello
Or you could just prevent them from leaving the state, confiscate their passports and issue arrest warrants for those of whom were delinquent on their taxes... If we actually collected on all delinquent/illegally sheltered taxes, even after all the spending we'd have a $2 trillion budget surplus form these ****ing deadbeats.

KidRock
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Or you could just prevent them from leaving the state, confiscate their passports and issue arrest warrants for those of whom were delinquent on their taxes... If we actually collected on all delinquent/illegally sheltered taxes, even after all the spending we'd have a $2 trillion budget surplus form these ****ing deadbeats.

So arrest people because they move away to avoid unfair and outrageous taxes?

Darth Jello
If they're guilty of previous egregious tax evasion, yes. As in hiding millions or more in offshore bank accounts or not filing returns for decades. I'm talking about collection.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
If they're guilty of previous egregious tax evasion, yes. As in hiding millions or more in offshore bank accounts or not filing returns for decades. I'm talking about collection.


But what about those who resided in another state for 6 months and 1 day out of the tax year, specifically to avoid the tax hike. (BTW, that's the point of the thread.)

Darth Jello
Leave em alone but make them ineligible for any tax credits and prevent them from voting in Maryland.

KidRock
Originally posted by Darth Jello
If they're guilty of previous egregious tax evasion, yes. As in hiding millions or more in offshore bank accounts or not filing returns for decades. I'm talking about collection.

Ok so you're talking about something completely unrelated to the thread.

Darth Jello
do you really think that at least some of those millionaires aren't evading taxes? If you're under investigation for something like that, you shouldn't be able to leave the state or country. Best way to stop them from leaving maryland and pay their fair share is to investigate the ones with reasonable suspicion and use opinion polls regarding the distribution of wealth in America and taxation to form the basis of a campaign of public shaming against the rest. No matter where you live, life's pretty hard when everyone thinks your an ass and hates you.

KidRock
Originally posted by Darth Jello
do you really think that at least some of those millionaires aren't evading taxes? If you're under investigation for something like that, you shouldn't be able to leave the state or country. Best way to stop them from leaving maryland and pay their fair share is to investigate the ones with reasonable suspicion and use opinion polls regarding the distribution of wealth in America and taxation to form the basis of a campaign of public shaming against the rest. No matter where you live, life's pretty hard when everyone thinks your an ass and hates you.

Did the article say anything about them leaving to evade taxes?

They left because they didn't want to pay the higher tax bracket anymore. If they were evading taxes all these years..why would they leave? They obviously haven't been caught yet hiding the money, so why would the new taxes affect them?

And if you haven't noticed it seems like the lower classes already think the rich are asses and hate them, even if they are law abiding citizens. It is a shame though that because you have money it's assumed you must be hiding some or evading taxes.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Leave em alone but make them ineligible for any tax credits and prevent them from voting in Maryland.


Removing a tax credit is the same thing as raising taxes. And why would they be registered voters in Maryland if they resided in another state a minimum of 6 months and 1 day out of the year? Why would they even want to register to vote in that state? Well...to change the law, for sure. big grin

Darth Jello
those tax rates are nothing, nothing compared what they would have been paying 30 years ago or if they were anywhere else on the planet that wasn't a crap hole.

King Kandy
The tax raise should be enforced on a federal level.

KidRock
Originally posted by Darth Jello
those tax rates are nothing, nothing compared what they would have been paying 30 years ago or if they were anywhere else on the planet that wasn't a crap hole.

Yeah, nothing, and people are leaving over just that. Imagine if it was higher and enforced at a federal level..devastation, only a complete idiot would want something like this.

dadudemon
Originally posted by King Kandy
The tax raise should be enforced on a federal level.


I agree. They don't pay nearly as much, relative to their income, as I do. that's not fair, now is it?

If they had to pay..what? 20%, they wouldn't be happy campers.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, nothing, and people are leaving over just that. Imagine if it was higher and enforced at a federal level..devastation, only a complete idiot would want something like this.

Actually if you raise taxes high enough they'll all leave and take over a small weak country (let's say England) and then, free of regulation and taxes, found a utopian society where craps dream dust. Seeing this everyone will follow their example and bring about the end of all problems in the world.

So if you think about it from position of economic conservatism insanely high taxes are a good thing.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually if you raise taxes high enough they'll all leave and take over a small weak country (let's say England) and then, free of regulation and taxes, found a utopian society where craps dream dust. Seeing this everyone will follow their example and bring about the end of all problems in the world.

So if you think about it from position of economic conservatism insanely high taxes are a good thing.


AHA!

Did you piss your Poli Sci professors off?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA!

Did you piss your Poli Sci professors off?

Just a little.

Darth Jello
Where would they go? Saudi Arabia? Oman? UEA? Qatar? Maybe they can go to Somalia or Syria to escape progressive taxation.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Where would they go? Saudi Arabia? Oman? UEA? Qatar? Maybe they can go to Somalia or Syria to escape progressive taxation.

They'd go to Uranus.


How about North Dakota or Montana?

KidRock
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually if you raise taxes high enough they'll all leave and take over a small weak country (let's say England) and then, free of regulation and taxes, found a utopian society where craps dream dust. Seeing this everyone will follow their example and bring about the end of all problems in the world.

So if you think about it from position of economic conservatism insanely high taxes are a good thing.

Strong lack of historical knowledge.

King Kandy
Originally posted by KidRock
Strong lack of historical knowledge.
Strong lack of sarcasm detection.

If it was enforced at a federal level, we would either be rid of these pests, or they would foot the bill a bit more. That's a plus, and once the economy is destroyed maybe it'll teach america a bit of a lesson about keeping business inside the country.

Darth Jello
again, must I remind everyone what the upper income tax bracket was pre-reagan, especially under eisenhower?

inimalist
The poor oppressed rich

when will someone step in and fight the battles they can afford to fight for them?

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by KidRock
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Great read.

Maryland imposes a new tax on only millionaires, 1/3 of the millionaires leave and the state ends up losing 100 million dollars the next year.

Much like yourself, the article makes a lot of noise but doesn't provide evidence for the conclusions it reaches. Several times it makes it clear that it operates on the direct assumption that because taxes rose for a tiny minority that they packed up all their worldly possesions and headed fer Beverly. The article is a prime example of that media bias you spend so much of your time sqwaking about. It spends the first half of itself talking about all these logical conclusions that it reasches and then manages a couple of times to mention that it has no evidence for all those assumptions. The article starts with the words "A two minute drill in soaking the rich', then goes on to mention that their taxes went up to 6.25% and we're supposed to think what tried and true Americans they are because they're refusing to pay their fair share of taxes? See, it's that tea party mindset at work. Thousands of Americans getting together, bemoaning an election and president and a reasonable tax increase, simply because the rich are convincing them that those tax increases are keeping them down when 99.7% of people are not being effected at all. Or maybe they pay their taxes because they can't afford to pick up all their shit and move. only a total moron would fall for the argument "The Plight of the Rich". Give me a break.

KidRock
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Much like yourself, the article makes a lot of noise but doesn't provide evidence for the conclusions it reaches.

Stopped reading there. Everything I post I back up with charts or graphs and sources. It would take a true partisan hack not to see that though, hence you will not get my attention.

jaden101

King Kandy
Originally posted by KidRock
Stopped reading there. Everything I post I back up with charts or graphs and sources. It would take a true partisan hack not to see that though, hence you will not get my attention.
Speaking of charts and graphs, i'm still waiting for the national debt projection for Obama.

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
Speaking of charts and graphs, i'm still waiting for the national debt projection for Obama.




Judd Gregg says Obama's budget doubles the national debt in five years

Unless you feel the man Barack Obama nominated as his commerce secretary is just a bias and slanted Republican.

Budget Deficit:

http://reynosawatch.org/minstrel/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/forecast.gif

King Kandy
I'm not asking about the damn BUDGET DEFICIT. You've posted that graph like five times already. I'm looking for NATIONAL DEBT figures.

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not asking about the damn BUDGET DEFICIT. You've posted that graph like five times already. I'm looking for NATIONAL DEBT figures.

I was just adding it in.

See the quote above for a national debt projection. Good day.

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not asking about the damn BUDGET DEFICIT. You've posted that graph like five times already. I'm looking for NATIONAL DEBT figures.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/judd-gregg/judd-gregg-says-obamas-budget-doubles-national-deb/


To check the claim, we relied on an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, released on March 20. The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, projects that the national debt will go from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $11.8 trillion by the end of 2013; and to $17.3 trillion in 2019. By that count, Gregg's claim of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in 10 years, is correct.

King Kandy
Completely false. US treasury reports that US debt was 10 trillion in 2008. So that's a 10% increase there. Nowhere near doubling.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
Completely false. US treasury reports that US debt was 10 trillion in 2008. So that's a 10% increase there. Nowhere near doubling.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Incorrect.

Historical Debt Outstanding

Add public and government holdings together, and you get your number.

Look at the damn deficit numbers.

IF YOU'RE RUNNING A DEFICIT, YOU'RE GOING MORE AND MORE INTO DEBT.

How do you not understand this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

King Kandy
All I want you to do is provide the projected debt outstanding under Obama.

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
All I want you to do is provide the projected debt outstanding under Obama.

And I have already..with the budget deficit to back up the claims.

Unless you want to try and prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Is that what you want to argue?

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by KidRock
Stopped reading there.

Seems to be a habit you have; just reading the first few words and when they disagree with you, you just stop reading.

Originally posted by KidRock
Everything I post I back up with charts or graphs and sources. It would take a true partisan hack not to see that though, hence you will not get my attention.

You call me a partisan hack? You do nothing BUT post along party lines. You posted an article that you believe illustrates how the rich are being screwed by the current state of American politics. All the article really managed to point out was that the rich will go out of their way to avoid taxes, even to the extent of packing up their belongings and fleeing to that second home..even when the tax hike is minimal. It's just dribble. Not only are you holding this article out to be representative of your feelings, but it actually contradicts it's own title by pointing out that "it's way too early" to tell where that 1/3 of millionaires went and that this is actually typical during a recession.

King Kandy
Originally posted by KidRock
And I have already..with the budget deficit to back up the claims.

Unless you want to try and prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Is that what you want to argue?
No, I want you to provide me with specific national debt numbers, not deficit.

KidRock
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Seems to be a habit you have; just reading the first few words and when they disagree with you, you just stop reading.




Not disagree, just find incorrect and slandering..never mind feeling sorry for how ignorant the poster is.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves


You call me a partisan hack? You do nothing BUT post along party lines. You posted an article that you believe illustrates how the rich are being screwed by the current state of American politics. All the article really managed to point out was that the rich will go out of their way to avoid taxes, even to the extent of packing up their belongings and fleeing to that second home..even when the tax hike is minimal. It's just dribble. Not only are you holding this article out to be representative of your feelings, but it actually contradicts it's own title by pointing out that "it's way too early" to tell where that 1/3 of millionaires went and that this is actually typical during a recession.

How does that article go along party lines? It was an article about how if you push people far enough they will just leave and now allow them liberties to be suppressed with tyrannical taxes. Never once did I mention the Democrats or Republicans in this because both are to blame. But again you're showing how partisan you are.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/judd-gregg/judd-gregg-says-obamas-budget-doubles-national-deb/


To check the claim, we relied on an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, released on March 20. The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, projects that the national debt will go from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $11.8 trillion by the end of 2013; and to $17.3 trillion in 2019. By that count, Gregg's claim of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in 10 years, is correct.

"In January, the CBO projected the one-year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Remember, that's the 2009 fiscal year, which began in October 2008. That deficit was worse because of the recession, and grew because of a financial bailout plan in the fall. To be fair, we don't think Obama's record ought to be saddled with something that passed under President Bush.

So let's add that $1.2 trillion that was largely started under Bush to the $5.8 trillion in national debt accumulated through fiscal year 2008. That comes to roughly $7 trillion. Under that scenario, the CBO's projections don't quite translate to a doubling of the national debt in 5 years ($7 trillion to $11.8 trillion). Nor does it fully support the claim that the debt would triple in 10 years ($7 trillion to $17.3 trillion). But it's not outrageously off either."


Food for thought.

KidRock
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I want you to provide me with specific national debt numbers, not deficit.

I did..look back and read the words DOUBLING..it means multiply the current number by 2 and you have your answer.


Now: Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"In January, the CBO projected the one-year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Remember, that's the 2009 fiscal year, which began in October 2008. That deficit was worse because of the recession, and grew because of a financial bailout plan in the fall. To be fair, we don't think Obama's record ought to be saddled with something that passed under President Bush.

So let's add that $1.2 trillion that was largely started under Bush to the $5.8 trillion in national debt accumulated through fiscal year 2008. That comes to roughly $7 trillion. Under that scenario, the CBO's projections don't quite translate to a doubling of the national debt in 5 years ($7 trillion to $11.8 trillion). Nor does it fully support the claim that the debt would triple in 10 years ($7 trillion to $17.3 trillion). But it's not outrageously off either."


Food for thought. ]

Look! Look! The debt wont go up by 10 trillion dollars! It will go up by 8 trillion! Obaaaaaama!

Quark_666
Originally posted by KidRock
I did..look back and read the words DOUBLING..it means multiply the current number by 2 and you have your answer.


Now: Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt? so we're now in 26 trillion dollars of debt?

KidRock
I have posted multiple graphs and projections. It's time for some of the Obama supporters to convince me otherwise:

Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will not raise the national debt.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by KidRock
Look! Look! The debt wont go up by 10 trillion dollars! It will go up by 8 trillion! Obaaaaaama!

Hey, you posted the link I got it from. Best to put the other figures out there, especially when they suggest existing figures could be $10 trillions dollars off (which you seem happy to ignore).

King Kandy
...So by the end of four years we'll have a 20 trillion national debt? Is that your claim. Because none of your sources backed that up at all, in fact they say after TEN years the debt would be only 17 trillion.

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by KidRock
And I have already..with the budget deficit to back up the claims.

Unless you want to try and prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will somehow not raise the debt?

Is that what you want to argue?

So, perhaps the rich should pay their taxes...

KidRock
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
So, perhaps the rich should pay their taxes...

Yeah, because the top 10% of this country only pay 68% of the countries taxes. Who do they think they are?

While the bottom 50% pay an outrageous..3%

inimalist
sort of OT, but I have always hated the way this conversation has been framed.

The rich, as in rich enough to move away to avoid taxes, pay more in absolute and relative terms, sure, but they are so much less adversely affected by their contributions than any other bracket (with the exception of the very poor, who largely pay no tax).

Taxes aren't right in any instance, and government spending (re: rampant corruption and waste) is probably a better place to target fiscal reform than is raising taxes, but to frame the rich as "hard done by" or "having their liberties oppressed" is pretty BS. If that is the case, then one would have to appeal to concentration-camp-esque imagery to describe the plight of the middle class.

In any sense that considers how adversely affected people are by their government, a flat tax is ridiculous (unless it is so low that nobody is put out), and this pandering to the "suffering" of people who could buy each of us several times over is entirely reflective of our martyr complex society that never wants to address real social problems.

Quark_666
Originally posted by KidRock
Prove how a 1.84 Trillion dollar deficit will not raise the national debt. Maybe try not exaggerating, and we'd get a lot farther without everyone stating the obvious so much.

KidRock
Originally posted by Quark_666
Maybe try not exaggerating, and we'd get a lot farther without everyone stating the obvious so much.

Don't tell me, tell the white house.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-forecasts-higher-rb-15199396.html?.v=6

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by KidRock
Not disagree, just find incorrect and slandering..never mind feeling sorry for how ignorant the poster is.



How does that article go along party lines? It was an article about how if you push people far enough they will just leave and now allow them liberties to be suppressed with tyrannical taxes. Never once did I mention the Democrats or Republicans in this because both are to blame. But again you're showing how partisan you are.

If the poster is ignorant, then perhaps you should debate his points and educate him. Instead, you call names. It shouldn't be too long before you're claiming victory.

You go along party lines. You posted it, along with any number of your other threads, to illustrate your continuing point that America is finished because the democrats won the elections. Your point is that "tax payers are fighiting back' against this government invasion of their wealth. All it really manages to do is illustrate the lengths to which those poor rich people will go to avoid, take advantage of or outright break tax laws to get what they want...and they're the only ones that can afford to do it. You think that's just a kick ass 'Merican spirit of fightin back. To me, it sounds like shirking responsabilites. But, then again, your own article can't seem to track down where this 1/3 of millionaire level filers went, so I certainly can't say for sure where they went.

KidRock
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
If the poster is ignorant, then perhaps you should debate his points and educate him. Instead, you call names. It shouldn't be too long before you're claiming victory.

You go along party lines. You posted it, along with any number of your other threads, to illustrate your continuing point that America is finished because the democrats won the elections. Your point is that "tax payers are fighiting back' against this government invasion of their wealth. All it really manages to do is illustrate the lengths to which those poor rich people will go to avoid, take advantage of or outright break tax laws to get what they want...and they're the only ones that can afford to do it. You think that's just a kick ass 'Merican spirit of fightin back. To me, it sounds like shirking responsabilites. But, then again, your own article can't seem to track down where this 1/3 of millionaire level filers went, so I certainly can't say for sure where they went.

I educate all the time, post sources, graphs, charts and quotes. Then people get mad because it proves them and their arguement of "Obama said he would lower the deficit" wrong.

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by inimalist
Taxes aren't right in any instance, and government spending (re: rampant corruption and waste) is probably a better place to target fiscal reform than is raising

Absolutely

Originally posted by inimalist
If that is the case, then one would have to appeal to concentration-camp-esque imagery to describe the plight of the middle class.

We call them FEMA camps here.

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by KidRock
I educate all the time, post sources, graphs, charts and quotes. Then people get mad because it proves them and their arguement of "Obama said he would lower the deficit" wrong.

In that instance, Obama said he would do exactly that. But, he isn't responsible for their tax hikes this soon, so I'm not sure what he has to do with this.

This thread isn't about raising the national debt. This thread is about 1/3 of millionaires fleeing their homeland to find greener pastures and lower tax rates, where they're free to roll naked on their stacks of untaxed, neatly ironed thousand dollars bills and the raging erect middle finger they have while they're doing it.

Quark_666
Originally posted by KidRock
Don't tell me, tell the white house.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-forecasts-higher-rb-15199396.html?.v=6 it annoys me that I was trying to tell you that you were exaggerating and you responded as if I was telling you that you were responsible for the national debt.

KidRock
Originally posted by Quark_666
it annoys me that I was trying to tell you that you were exaggerating and you responded as if I was telling you that you were responsible for the national debt.

I assumed you meant I was exaggerating the 1.84 trillion dollar deficit, correct? Or was I wrong to think that?

Quark_666
Originally posted by KidRock
I assumed you meant I was exaggerating the 1.84 trillion dollar deficit, correct? Or was I wrong to think that? well no, I meant your estimate that the total national debt would double in the next eight years or whatever.

King Kandy
Originally posted by KidRock
I assumed you meant I was exaggerating the 1.84 trillion dollar deficit, correct? Or was I wrong to think that?
No it was the 20 trillion debt in four years you were exaggerating.

Ace of Knaves
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, because the top 10% of this country only pay 68% of the countries taxes. Who do they think they are?

While the bottom 50% pay an outrageous..3%

When 90% of the money is in the hands of 10% of the people then they should pay their taxes, yes. But, what people like yourself never seem to realize you're doing is arguing for breaking the law and going out of one's way to cheat and manipulate every loophole that has been built into the tax codes. I'm not sure I buy your statistics, but I am sure you're sure of them, so basically you advocate the rich being justified in not paying their taxes or shifting the cups around until the government can't find the pea.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"In January, the CBO projected the one-year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion. Remember, that's the 2009 fiscal year, which began in October 2008. That deficit was worse because of the recession, and grew because of a financial bailout plan in the fall. To be fair, we don't think Obama's record ought to be saddled with something that passed under President Bush.

So let's add that $1.2 trillion that was largely started under Bush to the $5.8 trillion in national debt accumulated through fiscal year 2008. That comes to roughly $7 trillion. Under that scenario, the CBO's projections don't quite translate to a doubling of the national debt in 5 years ($7 trillion to $11.8 trillion). Nor does it fully support the claim that the debt would triple in 10 years ($7 trillion to $17.3 trillion). But it's not outrageously off either."


Food for thought.


This is a gross misrepresentation. Obama fought to get the bailouts approved. However, we can certainly pin the bailouts of the 2009 fiscal year prior to Obama's inauguration, part of the Bush Administration.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.