Mein Gott Soulshiner - I realize that logic and reason have no place in the mind of the "progressive", but seriously - you need his green card number? The man lived here since he was in his teens, married 4 or 5 women, worked in the film industry for going on 30 years, applied to become a naturalized US citizen and all the rest and you are really going to sit there and say it is conjecture that he was a granted lawful residency status? Really? You would have us believe what, that he was an illegally employed migrant for all of that time and residing illegally in the union as one of the most well known directors in all of Hollywood?
Now, I suppose there exists a chance, perhaps even a large one, that an avowed "progressive" such as Cameron, particularly one associated with Hollywood, could have applied to become a naturalized citizen, in full knowledge that it would never be accepted, simply for the grandstanding headlines that would accompany withdrawing it and banking on no one ever finding out that it was all little more than a publicity stunt and that this was the sole reason he applied to be a naturalized citizen of the union. Given for what passes for logic in progressive circles, this has to be the most reasonable, the most logical, and the conclusion most likely to be true and the rest should simply be ignored. Forgive me Soulshiner, I forgot that there was no reason for the madness of how a progressive thinks and conducts themselves. If I could only similarly completely divorce myself from any hint of reasoned and rational thinking, I might have come to this obviously true understanding much earlier without any help from you.
Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.
There is only one individual in the James Cameron household? I'm sure that this would come as a surprise to his wife and children. Have to stick with one metric for a change Dog - individuals, of which there are indeed in excess of 300 million currently, or taxpaying households, whose number is significantly less than this.
The data was collected over the course of at least 3 years, not a single one, remember? There was the data for 2008, which showed an average loss of 58 per quarter; the data from 2009, which showed an average loss of 186 per quarter; the data from 2010, which showed an average loss of 384 per quarter, and the data from the first quarter of 2011 which showed a loss of 499 for that single 3 month period. No matter how you slice it, the trend is based on more than a single year's worth of data. If we were talking average increase in global temperature, why, it would almost look like a hockey stick!
Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.
There is only one individual in the James Cameron household? I'm sure that this would come as a surprise to his wife and children. Have to stick with one metric for a change Dog - individuals, of which there are indeed in excess of 300 million currently, or taxpaying households, whose number is significantly less than this.
The data was collected over the course of at least 3 years, not a single one, remember? There was the data for 2008, which showed an average loss of 58 per quarter; the data from 2009, which showed an average loss of 186 per quarter; the data from 2010, which showed an average loss of 384 per quarter, and the data from the first quarter of 2011 which showed a loss of 499 for that single 3 month period. No matter how you slice it, the trend is based on more than a single year's worth of data. If we were talking average increase in global temperature, why, it would almost look like a hockey stick!
Hmm, you keep avoiding the fact that there is no evidence that this massive exodus of less than one hundred thousandth of one percent of the US population has anything at all to do with tax policies. Since you are so fixated on James Cameron, his sole stated reason is that he and his family desire to live in a buculic rural setting working on a farm. Not one single fact that he is doing so to avoid taxes. In fact, in his income bracket he will be paying more than 35% income tax in New Zealand. And New Zealand further has a double taxation agreement with the US, where he may very well be taxed twice on the same income. If he truly wanted to leave the US based on tax policies, he would certainly go to another location rather than New Zealand. Or is it that he desired to take advantage of the socialized health system there?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
I think you forgot to carry a couple of decimal places. 2500 households becoming ex-pats in the last 3 years (2008-2010) with an average of 4 people per household would mean that the loss was 10,000 individuals out of the current 300,000,000 - which equates to 1 in every 30,000 - which is 300% greater than the figure you are citing. In addition to that, these 2500 households were in the top 1% of income earners - averaging $1.5 Million in 2011 (which is actually lower than what it was prior to the recession) - meaning that the net loss to the economy of the union, just for their income mind you, is $3.75 Billion a year, and a loss of federal tax revenue, presuming that all are paying less than their fair share at 15%, of $562 Million dollars - we'll forget about the tax revenues lost by the States in which they formerly lived as that would only complicate matters.
Regarding taxation of income, the top marginal rate in New Zealand is currently lower at 33% than it is in the union at 35%. Corporate taxes are lower as well, at 28% compared to 35% and no, as in zero, taxes levied on capital gains. One might also note that New Zealand doesn't charge an additional income tax of 5.65% on the first $106K of income to their citizens, nor do they levy an additional 7.65% excise tax on those wages against the companies which employ them, lowering the tax burden of both citizens and companies further still.
And please spare me the comparisons between a nation of 5 million citizens and a union of 300 million for the purposes of socialized medicine. The cost of providing that socialized care is not a linear equation given the disparities that exist in both population density and total land area encompassed, though abandoning any tethering to logic has not proven to be an obstacle thus far in any "progressive" argument regarding socialized medicine.
I will stand behind my numbers. I am basing on an the latest annual basis, otherwise if you really want to skew the numbers, why not combine the last 50 years to really get a big number. Further, there is no evidence that each individual expatriate had 4 or more in their household. More than likely, they are older having accumulated their wealth, and have only one or two per household. And you still refuse to answer where there is any actual facts that any of these expatriates are fleeing because of tax policies. But anything for an outrage.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Just as we do not negotiate with terrorists, we should not be blackmailed by any of the 1% who may claim they are leaving because of tax policy. Good riddance. I would, however, be interested in any supporting evidence that this is indeed why they are leaving.
"The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates."
archer wrote: Just as we do not negotiate with terrorists, we should not be blackmailed by any of the 1% who may claim they are leaving because of tax policy. Good riddance. I would, however, be interested in any supporting evidence that this is indeed why they are leaving.
Ask John Lennon why he left Britain, tax codes do create wealth flight. Or the rich just buy lobbyists & tax lawyers to find loopholes and get a 15% rate of confiscation.
If Park County added a income tax of 5% on everyone, would you consider moving? Or threatened to do, like the current commander in chief?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
