The “1 Percent” Exodus

I can find no confirmation of your claim of his permanent resident status. The only thing I see is that he withdrew his application for US citizenship back in 2004 in protest of President Bush. Please provide proof of your claim or admit that you only parroted when you repeated what you read on the interwebs, either intentionally or ignorantly.

Interesting how the article failed to find a single instance where anyone in the "exodus" (hard to call 186 individuals an exodus) renounced their citizenship merely based on tax rates. Once again distortions and misrepresentions without facts by the conservatives.

Soulshiner wrote: Good thing they loved the country that gave them the opportunity to become the 1%. Good riddance.

Don't let the door hit ya. (Now if we could just get the Koch Brothers on the next boat.)

IF the top 1% WERE to leave, then those left would still have a top 1%. What do we do about them?

So in the minds of the conservative wingnuts, .0006 percent of the 1% constitutes an "exodus". Anything for an outrage.

Soulshiner wrote: I can find no confirmation of your claim of his permanent resident status. The only thing I see is that he withdrew his application for US citizenship back in 2004 in protest of President Bush. Please provide proof of your claim or admit that you only parroted when you repeated what you read on the interwebs, either intentionally or ignorantly.

If you are ignorant of the pathway to citizenship for immigrants Soulshiner, perhaps, just perhaps mind you, it might be worth your while to learn about it. For those of us who are less ignorant of the process, it is known that before one can apply to become a naturalized citizen, an immigrant must be be a lawful permanent resident for a set period of time. You, yourself, have found evidence of Cameron applying to become a naturalized citizen, and so he had therefore, as an immigrant from Canada, already been granted lawful permanent residence status prior to that.

I can clearly see now that it was ignorance at the root of your earlier incomplete submission, no further confirmation will be requested or required. :thumbsup:

Regarding Oprah Winfrey (if anyone cares), she owns several homes (including one in Colorado). Her show was produced in Chicago and she had an apartment there. She has a home in California (paid about $50 million) and is now living there as the main residence I believe.

No matter where she lived, she'd of still owed property tax on the Calif home. If she worked in Calif for any length of time while living there, she still would owe Calif income tax even if she wasn't a Calif resident and lived only a few days there. For instance, professional athletes have to pay income tax in any state they play a game in (imagine how complicated their tax returns must be). Income tax in Calif is 10.3% max vs. a fixed 5% in Illinois.

I think the way it works is if you live more than 1/2 a year in a state, you are considered a resident of that state and Oprah is now a resident of Calif. The only counting she would of had to do in the past would of been to make sure she didn't live more than 1/2 a year in Calif. Even if she did, the tax for the money she made on her show would of gone to Illinois because that's where she worked. Tax for other general income would go to Calif.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Interesting how the article failed to find a single instance where anyone in the "exodus" (hard to call 186 individuals an exodus) renounced their citizenship merely based on tax rates. Once again distortions and misrepresentions without facts by the conservatives.

You did see that this figure was an average per quarter for 2009, and that this average per quarter jumped to over 350 in 2010, and was nearly 500 for the first quarter of 2011, right? I would call 2,000 households per year (presuming that the numbers seen in the first quarter of 2011 remained true for the rest of the year) from a single, and small (top 1% of income earners) demographic significant, wouldn't you? If that trend were to hold steady for a decade, which seems to be the length of time that Obama favors for purposes of coming up with tax numbers, it would mean the loss of nearly 20,000 households from the rolls of the demographic that pays over a third of the income taxes collected by the general government each and every year. If we presume that the average per quarter is going to continue to increase as it has since 2008, from under 60 per quarter to nearly 500 per quarter over a 3 year period, the numbers look even bleaker than this. Anytime a metric changes by 900% in a short 3 year window, it is statistically significant. I can't imagine what the headlines would be if the CO2 level shot up 900% in 3 short years, or if the public debt got 900% larger in only 3 years, can you?

PrintSmith wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: I can find no confirmation of your claim of his permanent resident status. The only thing I see is that he withdrew his application for US citizenship back in 2004 in protest of President Bush. Please provide proof of your claim or admit that you only parroted when you repeated what you read on the interwebs, either intentionally or ignorantly.

If you are ignorant of the pathway to citizenship for immigrants Soulshiner, perhaps, just perhaps mind you, it might be worth your while to learn about it. For those of us who are less ignorant of the process, it is known that before one can apply to become a naturalized citizen, an immigrant must be be a lawful permanent resident for a set period of time. You, yourself, have found evidence of Cameron applying to become a naturalized citizen, and so he had therefore, as an immigrant from Canada, already been granted lawful permanent residence status prior to that.

I can clearly see now that it was ignorance at the root of your earlier incomplete submission, no further confirmation will be requested or required. :thumbsup:

From your previous post:
"....who applied for, and received, status as a permanent resident of the United States."

So, your post stating that he applied for, and received is complete BS. You are presenting no proof of your claim, only conjecture. Just admit it, you took information from a website without verifying it for yourself. I'm sorry you got busted for posting misinformation...

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Interesting how the article failed to find a single instance where anyone in the "exodus" (hard to call 186 individuals an exodus) renounced their citizenship merely based on tax rates. Once again distortions and misrepresentions without facts by the conservatives.

You did see that this figure was an average per quarter for 2009, and that this average per quarter jumped to over 350 in 2010, and was nearly 500 for the first quarter of 2011, right? I would call 2,000 households per year (presuming that the numbers seen in the first quarter of 2011 remained true for the rest of the year) from a single, and small (top 1% of income earners) demographic significant, wouldn't you? If that trend were to hold steady for a decade, which seems to be the length of time that Obama favors for purposes of coming up with tax numbers, it would mean the loss of nearly 20,000 households from the rolls of the demographic that pays over a third of the income taxes collected by the general government each and every year. If we presume that the average per quarter is going to continue to increase as it has since 2008, from under 60 per quarter to nearly 500 per quarter over a 3 year period, the numbers look even bleaker than this. Anytime a metric changes by 900% in a short 3 year window, it is statistically significant. I can't imagine what the headlines would be if the CO2 level shot up 900% in 3 short years, or if the public debt got 900% larger in only 3 years, can you?

Wow, 500 individuals per 300 million are an EXODUS, I think not. Speculating on future trends merely based on a year of data is ridiculous.

Again, you failed to address the point that there is not a single bit of evidence that this EXODUS of 500 individuals is due to tax policies.