A common theme in these 2 pieces and their related comments, are that some Liberals seem to want to hold those who fail in school and "life" blameless, while they want to guilt those who succeed in school and "life" for making good financial decisions. Thoughts?
MP MN Vote with their Feet
MP Things are Getting Better
MP MN Vote with their Feet
"Hi Guys, I agree that you made a very rational decision... I am pretty sure everyone here would make a financially sound decision to move to a low tax state when they can work it into their life. My parents changed their residence to SD 10 years ago or so, and they spend the Winters near Miami. (for the concerned folks here, as farmers / landlords they still pay a boat load of MN property taxes)
I am curious who would willingly pay 10+% to the government and pay a state estate taxes when they really don't need to. I mean who would say "I want to pay $10,000+ per year in taxes rather than save it for my children or help them with their bills...
I know it is hard for some Liberals to understand, however people with good money management skills (aka rich), take many things into account before making big decisions. And $10,000+ / year in unnecessary expenses will make the list.
After paying 100's of thousands of dollars in MN taxes during my working career, I will have no problem changing my state of residence when it works for my family..." G2A
"It is unfortunate that you think so poorly of the folks in other states who see the world differently than you do. And for people with a million dollar net worth at the time of their retirement and much of it taxable, we are not talking "a few dollars"... We are talking 10s of thousands of dollars. I think I will give it to charity or my children rather than the bureaucrats. State by State Guide" G2A
MP Things are Getting Better
"Like all organizations of people, our country will only maximize the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" promise if everyone is a productive and responsible citizen. Meaning that everyone helps to row the boat.
Unfortunately though our society provides welfare for many and free K-12 education for all. Many of our young citizens are failing to become academically proficient and seriously employable. In a large part because of their parental role models and because the public education system rewards tenure over results.
Ironically as I have said before... The 10% will make money whether the American workers succeed or not. They and our consumers just invest in the countries and companies where the government and citizens support excellence, effectiveness and efficiency. And the countries and citizens who don't will continue to struggle." G2A
"I have no desire to cut kindergarten. My point is that society and tax payers are investing between $130,000 to $260,000 into each and every child in America. (more in some cases) Much of which goes into the pockets of Teachers and Administrators. Unfortunately millions of students each year can not achieve basic academic proficiency.
And after the Parents, Teachers and Students have failed to make good use of this huge investment, the folks on the Left demand that we continue to send more money to these folks... I am curious about the rationale?
What does it mean to be a responsible citizen from your perspective? I like Kennedy's view.
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy" G2A
43 comments:
I am curious who would willingly pay 10+% to the government and pay a state estate taxes when they really don't need to.
This is a good question. What are some possible answers? Why are people willing to pay higher taxes in Minnesota than they would elsewhere?
--Hiram
I think there is a secondary effect here that answers the question. I came here because the best job I could get was here, and they offered me a 20% pay increase to take it, mostly because of the "cost of living." I think those moving out of state who are of working age are doing so because the high taxes force /businesses/ out of state, and the jobs and people go with them. Our company, along with many others, has talked for years about moving our headquarters someplace else to escape the onerous business climate.
The problem with liberal thinking is that it doesn't work very well in a free society. They think they can impose higher taxes and not have businesses leave, and then they turn around and "attract" businesses like MOA with big tax breaks. They are not even logically consistent.
I came here because the best job I could get was here, and they offered me a 20% pay increase to take it, mostly because of the "cost of living."
And that is of course, one common answer. Minnesota is a prosperous state, one in which people are willing to pay more to live in a number of different ways. KSTP used to run these commercials, maybe they still do, in which some guy from South Dakota used to encourage people living in Minnesota to move to South Dakota because it was close to Minnesota. He was always delightfully impervious to the irony of his sales pitch, I always thought.
I have spent time in low price of living states, and I can tell you the price of living in those states is low for a reason. Those states often don't produce wealth, instead they import it. They attract wealthy people from places like Minnesota because those people have ceased being productive and are now content living of the wealth that they generated in high price states. And that's ok, because the high price states have no problem replacing them. When a million dollar a year surgeon retires to Florida from Minnesota, does Minnesota lose that million dollar a year income? Or is she replaced long before she can even reach the Wisconsin border?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I am impressed that you are okay with wealthy people leaving the state to save money. And technically MN does not lose the $1 million/yr surgeon salary, however MN does lose the ability to tax the retirees for 20+ years as they pull millions from their tax deferred investments.
I am fine with MN having high tax rates if my wages are higher to pay for them.
What I am fascinated by is that Liberals seem to think that people and businesses should just blindly pay them and not consider going elsewhere? Like Greg here who wants to shame people into staying...
"Why Do We Think All Those with Resources are Alike? I have no doubt that there are people who, having made an excellent fortune in Minnesota,...
due to a combination of ingenuity, luck, hard work, and the blessings provided by God,...
but equally due to the quality of all the infrastructures and the quality of life Minnesota provides,...
and due, as well, to the work ethic of their fellow citizens,...
believe they should get a free ride after they retire.
Of course it's not that they lack the money to pay their taxes after they've retired,...
just that they think they, being retired, should now be allowed to ride on the backs of all those who are still working.
When such people leave the state of Minnesota for other places where they can get such a free ride,...
they do us all a gigantic FAVOR,...
because they're EXACTLY the people with a lot of time and resources on their hands,...
who are perfectly willing (and dysfunctional enough),...
to use that time and those resources fighting AGAINST keeping strong,...
all the infrastructures and quality of life features of Minnesota that enabled their success in the first place,...
exactly the people who will scream about local property taxes,...
while being the first ones to call up the local highway department if a crack or pot hole appears in the street near their house.
We don't need such people in Minnesota.
In their retirement, they are a fiscal, intellectual, emotional and spiritual drain on every place they live.
They do their best to create societal blight,...
all the while complaining when their efforts cause it to happen.
They do us a favor when they leave.
We all know who they are in our communities and we're only to happy to see them depart.
There are far MORE people with resources who stick around,...
and in their retirement, willingly pay their taxes so that the NEXT generations can benefit from the same state, county and local systems which enabled their own successes,...
who seek to enhance and enrich the communities, churches, and society which surrounds them.
These are the ones who stay.
They bless us all with their continuing presence and we're happy to help them in any ways we can as they grow older." Greg
"And technically MN does not lose the $1 million/yr surgeon salary, however MN does lose the ability to tax the retirees for 20+ years as they pull millions from their tax deferred investments."
The retirement years aren't necessarily the higher income years.
"What I am fascinated by is that Liberals seem to think that people and businesses should just blindly pay them and not consider going elsewhere?"
I may seem to think that, but that's not something I actually think. What I do think is that people and businesses move all the time for all sorts of reasons, and that fact shouldn't necessarily be a prime driver of tax policy. And the reality is, we can never run our state as cheaply as Florida, nor would we wish to.
--Hiram
Hiram,
There is no doubt that the low net worth retirees will stay in MN. (ie unless they really hate Winter) Great state, great communities and great public assistance. Please remember that it is likely that these folks will likely cost MN more than they pay in. I mean they likely don't even pay income tax, and it is unlikely they will be buying a lot of taxable goods.
It is the baby boomers who saved hard, invested hard, got "rich", etc who are most likely to analyze the trade offs closely. Folks like the Dayton family...
"that people and businesses move all the time for all sorts of reasons, and that fact shouldn't necessarily be a prime driver of tax policy"
That is an interesting statement... What do you think should be the prime drivers for tax policy?
I mean we could eliminate all taxes for the bottom 90%... And charge all the bills to the businesses and the upper 10%...
Here's a silly question for those "happy to pay for a better Minnesota" types. WHAT, exactly, does that high-tax, high-regulation business climate buy you? Slightly better education, if you are "above the gap"? Better police protection, if you happen to live in North Minneapolis? Renewable power that kills birds and prevents the global warming you wish you had? A Mall of America getting tax breaks that you pay for? Fancy choo-choo trains and crumbling roads? What?
And for those same types, why do YOU shelter your income in SD and take every tax break to which you are even marginally entitled? Remember when Massachusetts made their top tax bracket voluntary and it collected less money than a Girl Scout cookie sale despite thousands of millionaires in the State? Anyone want to bet what would happen here under the same circumstance?
I have a family member who is Left leaning and fairly well to do. He told my Conservative Father that he would be happy paying more in taxes. Of course my Father and I found that funny because that family member and his partners are suing the State because of some low income housing deal they took part in to get a tax credit of some kind, and now they want out of...
It sure is easy to say more taxes are okay... If you personally can avoid paying them.
Just as a point of information for your family... There is absolutely no law and no reason that prevents you from paying more in taxes than what you owe. You can make any size "contribution" you like to the IRS or State Revenue. If you would be happy paying more in taxes, DO IT! And leave the rest of us be.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both of whom have argued strenuously for higher taxes on the rich, collectively gave $60 Billion to the Gates Foundation rather than to the IRS. Why do you suppose they did that?
"There is no doubt that the low net worth retirees will stay in MN. (ie unless they really hate Winter) Great state, great communities and great public assistance."
I have friends who weren't rich who moved out but not very many. And I have friends who are pretty rich who left the state for tax reasons, and are eager to come back. To set tax policy to address this very narrow issue is to allow a very small tail to wag a very large dog.
--Hiram
"And for those same types, why do YOU shelter your income in SD and take every tax break to which you are even marginally entitled?"
To save money on taxes I suppose. Is there another reason?
--Hiram
There is absolutely no law and no reason that prevents you from paying more in taxes than what you owe.
Well of course there are reasons not to pay more than one owes. When I buy a car, I don't toss in a couple of hundred bucks to the salesman because I feel the commission rate he gets paid is too low. I don't tip my doctor, but I hear in Russia they do. On the other hand, I always tip the waitress.
It seems to me an odd question to ask, but it's certainly ok to ask it. Faced with a debt or obligation of some sort, under what circumstances should we pay more than we owe?
--Hiram
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both of whom have argued strenuously for higher taxes on the rich, collectively gave $60 Billion to the Gates Foundation rather than to the IRS. Why do you suppose they did that?
Because it allows them to retain indirect control of their money.
--Hiram
Hiram, the question is only asked of those who think "the rich" or "somebody else" should pay more taxes. They never do it themselves, and often go to great lengths to avoid doing so. There is obvious hypocrisy in this, but never admitted, and the unacknowledged truth is that these folks, just like everybody else, really believes that they can spend their money more wisely (and compassionately) than can the government.
The answer to the question of how much taxation is best, therefore, is to tax as little as is absolutely necessary. Minnesota exceeds that by at least 50%.
So jerry, what do you cut from state government spending in order to reduce the tax burden?
Remember, a budget isn't simply a financial document. It shows us what our priorities and morals are as a community.
Notice I said "community". Yes, I'm aware that individuals have their own morals and they can prioritize their giving as they see fit. But that is not what we're talking about here. We are talking about our communal life as citizens of Minnesota.
Should we spend less on our parks?
Even less than we now do on transportation?
How about we spend less on agriculture?
Energy?
Maybe you don't think public art is a good investment?
How about clean water? Maybe we can let it get a little polluted?
Or perhaps we should let the poor suffer even more for their "bad decisions" by placing them at the whims of the market?
So, tell me. Which benefits of our communal sharing of resources are you willing to do without?
Joel
the question is only asked of those who think "the rich" or "somebody else" should pay more taxes.
Was this the question you were referring to? "Why do you suppose they did that?"
Lots of folks, rich and not so rich, are in favor of changing policies that would result in paying higher taxes. That doesn't mean that once a policy is established they don't comply with it. When IRA's were first established, I questioned their underlying policy rationale, but I still took full advantage of them. I support policies that might result in my paying higher taxes but I still take full advantage of the deductions to which I am entitled. I don't really see a problem with that.
--Hiram
Hiram,
"Well of course there are reasons not to pay more than one owes. When I buy a car, I don't toss in a couple of hundred bucks to the salesman because I feel the commission rate he gets paid is too low. " Why not?
And I think gov't/taxes is a little different. I mean I don't think you are lobbying that others should be forced to pay more, or trying to shame them if they choose to do otherwise.
Joel,
Here are some sources to work from:
3 Minute Budget
MN Spending
My view is that collective bargaining and tenure should be eliminated, right to work should be adopted and the prevailing wage rules that make government projects cost more should be eliminated.
I find it amazing that we are paying bureaucrats to ensure that people are paid a high wage when they work on government contracts...
MN Budget 2016-17
Total Spending $59.1 billion
Pensions $4.4 billion
Health Care $13.0 billion
Education $19.0 billion
Welfare $2.5 billion
Protection $3.6 billion
Transport $5.5 billion
Public pensions should be reformed so that employees make a greater contribution-- "defined contribution"-- as the private sector does, rather than "defined benefit" as they have now. It won't save much in the short run, but over the long term it can make these plans solvent, which is not the case today.
I would freeze K-12 spending, institute merit pay for teachers, prescribe "universal vouchers" good at any school including publics, change State aid to a strictly equal state average and then require every district to come to the legislature with specific plans and costs to raise academic performance. I would eliminate most of the mandates on the public schools and let the local boards allocate money in the most efficient way to accomplish the objectives. Some of these things would actually increase costs, while others would simply eliminate waste.
Health care is easy. Abandon Obamacare and Medicaid as we know it, and go back at least to MNsure, saving some money. Better yet, go to a "premium support" system where (once Obamacare finds the ash heap of history), people can buy on the open market for much lower cost.
Similarly with welfare. It looks like the smallest item in the budget, but it is accomplishing even less! Reform it to require and reward work; offer family, living, parenting and job counseling, and penalize free-loading, drug use, child neglect, and baby daddies. It isn't about what we spend, here, it's about what the recipients give back to the economy and the society.
Transportation, also easy. No more choo-choo trains, and existing train and bus lines have to pay for themselves, no more direct subsidsidies. That's easily 1 billion$. And we can fix the roads with the rest.
What's not shown here is the SECOND LARGEST expense, $15B for "other." Zero it out, and then let those folks spending it come back and justify each and every dollar.
My Father mentioned that one of his renters liked working State Highway jobs because he doubled his income from $16/hr to ~$35/hr for doing the same work.
Now why again would we want to raise additional taxes for transportation construction when the currently the jobs are costing more than is necessary?
Hiram, again the point was that those who publicly espouse paying higher taxes never attempt to do so for themselves, not even after their taxes are supposedly raised. If you increase a millionaire's taxes (especially a liberal one), he will choose to hire a tax accountant to dodge the increase rather than pay it to the government.
again the point was that those who publicly espouse paying higher taxes never attempt to do so for themselves
It seems unlikely to me that advocacy of higher tax rates is linked to tax evasion.
"he will choose to hire a tax accountant to dodge the increase rather than pay it to the government.
Does anyone here know how millionaires dodge taxes legally? Does it depend on the accountant they hire?
--Hiram
First off, finding the loopholes isn't tax evasion. The guy with $40,000 of income might try it, but it isn't worth the time or money involved. The guy with $1M of income, however, has more loopholes to exploit and can arrange his financial affairs to take advantage of them, saving more in taxes than it costs to hire someone to find those loopholes for him. Lower tax rates make it less likely that it pays to find loopholes and can actually increase government revenue.
Advocacy of higher tax rates is indeed linked to those who do NOT wish to pay more taxes themselves. It's perfectly obvious from the fact that NOBODY pays more than what is due, while many advocate for higher taxes.
First off, finding the loopholes isn't tax evasion.
I didn't meant to imply that it was. And I would also suggest that the reasons rich people don't pay taxes go to the very heart of how we assess taxes, they aren't the result of isolated loopholes. It's a reason tax reform is so difficult; it requires fundamental changes in our theory of how we tax.
"The guy with $40,000 of income might try it, but it isn't worth the time or money involved."
Mid to low income earners have what some would call "loopholes" available to them in theory they just aren't in a position to employ them. Mitt Romney achieved vast tax savings by putting financial instruments he got through his employer which were not available to the public in IRA's. Poor people can have IRA's too, they just can't benefit from them the way Romney can. That's just one example.
Since everyone wants to pay less in taxes, it isn't surprising that that class of people includes a substantial number of people who advocate higher tax rates. Anything to the contrary would be a logical fallacy.
--Hiram
"Anything to the contrary would be a logical fallacy. "
It would also be the height of hypocrisy and an example of liberal double-think.
We need to recognize that everybody in Congress loves to put special favors into the tax code-- far easier than special interest legislation-- which they can then turn around and berate as loopholes when somebody actually takes advantage of them to escape some part of their tax bill. There is no such thing as a loophole, only legal ways of avoiding taxes as passed by Congress, for some purpose of "social engineering" or economic tinkering or crass political corruption. It doesn't matter. The solution is the "IRS Termination Act" introduced in Congress to wipe out the IRS code and come up with a system that is fair and exceedingly simple. If it were clear that everybody paid the same rate on everything (with that one "family exemption at the base), it would be clear what government spending was costing each of us and, without that feeling that I'm getting a disproportionate gouging or reward, or somebody else is getting off cheap or sucking in my tax dollars, we might get government spending-- the real villain here-- under control.
We need to recognize that everybody in Congress loves to put special favors into the tax code-- far easier than special interest legislation-- which they can then turn around and berate as loopholes when somebody actually takes advantage of them to escape some part of their tax bill.
Sure, but that's not why millionaires avoid a lot of taxes. Romney's thing with putting assets in his IRA's wasn't any sort of special favor. People like Gates and Buffett got hugely rich in ways that were untaxed because they have have huge unrealized tax gains, again nothing that constitutes a special favor.
"The solution is the "IRS Termination Act" introduced in Congress to wipe out the IRS code and come up with a system that is fair and exceedingly simple."
One problem with that is that fairness and simplicity tend to contradict each other, and the other problem is that there is hardly any support for either fairness or simplicity when it means paying more in taxes, which they almost always do.
This time of year, I always like to propose Hiram's tax test. When you did your taxes, what did you spend the most time on? Things that saved you money or things that cost you money? Much as we say we hate complications, it's the complications that almost always reduce your tax bill.
--Hiram
In terms of state budget, what government is spending money on is health care and education. In terms of reducing state budgets that where cuts have to be made.
--Hiram
Kevin Drum has a few thougths on your tax topic:
Do Lucky People Feel Better About Paying Taxes?
there is a Vox link written by the author of this book Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy
It wasn't supposed to be about taxes...
"And after the Parents, Teachers and Students have failed to make good use of this huge investment, the folks on the Left demand that we continue to send more money to these folks... I am curious about the rationale?
What does it mean to be a responsible citizen from your perspective? I like Kennedy's view.
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy" G2A
It wasn't supposed to be about taxes, but that is what "ask not" has become. The solution to every problem, societal or individual, seems to be to throw government money at it, and then to micromanage the economy and the society through thousands of nitwitted, nitpicking, complications of the IRS code.
"One problem with that is that fairness and simplicity tend to contradict each other,..."
That is an interesting comment. It comes about because each of us believes that we pay less in taxes by "taking advantage of loopholes" available to us, and the fact that doing so makes the system unfair to those who do not or cannot find those loopholes is a source of satisfaction, not concern. We "beat the system." Vice versa, when we remove a loophole for simplicity's sake, it delights us when it is somebody else's loophole, and we scream if it is one that we have used. The solution therefore must be to remove the whole tax code and replace it with a simple flat tax with only ONE deduction, a "family exemption." That makes the code absolutely transparent and fair, with no advantage that can be taken by anybody (unless you want to have kids to save on taxes) and the exemption makes the marginal tax rate "perfectly progressive."
Only after the miscegenation that is the current IRS code is eliminated can we go back to the more fundamental question of "ask not...."
The solution to every problem, societal or individual, seems to be to throw government money at it,
I wish my doctor would treat me without my throwing my money at him, but that has proven not to be the case. I did try throwing money into a pothole once to fill it up, but I do admit, that proved to be only a temporary solution.
My boss once asked me if he should throw my check at me, but I opted for direct deposit instead.
--Hiram
throwing money
I am curious who would willingly pay 10+% to the government and pay a state estate taxes when they really don't need to.
I would say that it would be people who feel that certain areas of the government are under funded or who want the government to do more. Education comes to mind. Public schools and universities do all kinds of fundraising despite the fact that they are also supported by our tax dollars. Of course we don't fund all government activities. We pretty much leave the government to pay for nuclear missile silos, there doesn't seem to be a lot of fundraising for that. But even there, we do fundraising to support the people who work on those silos in a variety of ways.
--Hiram
Would Venezuela have the same problem if the currency they were printing were negotiable American dollars?
--Hiram
"I am curious who would willingly pay 10+% to the government and pay a state estate taxes when they really don't need to. "
Nobody in their right mind would do so, and it appears that not even Left minds will either. But most of us seem willing to let "somebody else" pay more in taxes and on that the Leftists are clearly better qualified and hypocritical. Those on the right admit to finding the loopholes in the law and abiding by them, while many Leftists just want taxes raised on "the rich." Except for themselves.
Nobody in their right mind would do so, and it appears that not even Left minds will either.
I suppose it's possible to believe that, but the fact is, I encounter people all the time who are making private contributions to government activities who display no visible signs of insanity whatever. The possibility that government schools might not have the same priorities as the parents of the kids who attend them, and who might therefore make contributions to reflect that seems to me to be beyond dispute.
" But most of us seem willing to let "somebody else" pay more in taxes and on that the Leftists are clearly better qualified and hypocritical."
I don't really understand how my personal hypocrisies should determine public policy. But let's also be aware that hypocrisy in this case, involves acting against one's financial interest. Someone like Mitt Romney who advocates policies that benefit himself personally, isn't a hypocrite, but don't we have other labels for things like that? Words and phrases like "conflict of interest" and "corruption"?
--Hiram
"But let's also be aware that hypocrisy in this case, involves acting against one's financial interest."
But that is the problem to which I keep trying to call attention. Those calling for or at least willing to accept higher taxes are NOT acting against their own financial interest. "Tax the rich" means "somebody with more money than me," and for those already rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet-- who call for higher taxes on the rich-- it means "I've already got my loopholes." The obvious hypocrisy is in asking others to "do as I say, not as I do."
Talking about voluntary contributions to public school programs is a poor example. Heck, even I do that. It is because those forced into public schools as the "only game in town" deserve better than what is being delivered. Since what we pay in taxes is INvoluntary, I don't consider this voluntary service to be the same thing as simply writing a bigger check to government. In short, more TAX money doesn't buy better schools, where more parent money/time does.
Maybe that's what we should mean by "ask not"?
Here is an example on the conservative side of people making large contributions to a government school.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/us/koch-brothers-antonin-scalia-george-mason-law-school.html
--Hiram
Those calling for or at least willing to accept higher taxes are NOT acting against their own financial interest.
And of course that's true. A big reason why liberals are comfortable with higher government expenditures and higher taxes is because they believe that in the long run, what those taxes and expenditures do will create a better society for all of us, roughly the same reasoning by the way, the Koch brothers are using when they contribute zillions to George Mason.
"Since what we pay in taxes is INvoluntary, I don't consider this voluntary service to be the same thing as simply writing a bigger check to government."
Many taxes are voluntary of course. And for rich people the tax burden they choose to assume is largely voluntary. While many rich people choose to arrange their affairs in ways to avoid taxes, and let me be clear here, I am assuming that to be legal, many choose not to be so aggressive in their tax planning. When I raise the issue of the taxes paid by someone like Mitt Romney, it's not in a sense of criticizing him personally, but as an example illustrative of our tax policy generally.
We have chosen to live in the United States voluntarily, and contained within that choice is a voluntary assumption that we will abide by our country's laws. If you don't like the fact that living in the United States means you have to pay US taxes, you can make the voluntary decision to move elsewhere.
--Hiram
"you can make the voluntary decision to move elsewhere. "
I hear that all the time, but the fact is I was born here and have the right to be here, and I should not be forced out by the actions of those who believe they are entitled to the fruits of my labor. I am not their slave.
And if you think I can just move elsewhere, you need to check into the "exit taxes" that the IRS imposes. They are huge.
And I still point to the fact that, when higher tax brackets were made voluntary in a couple of states, the amount collected in "voluntary" taxes was a mere pittance in the first year, and lower in successive years as people figured out that these rates truly were voluntary. The folks claiming we should be" happy to pay for a better Minnesota" are talking through their hats, at best. My response is always, "you first."
Post a Comment