Shared publicly  - 
Wealthy Californians reeling from a new state income tax are preparing to pack up and bail out. What would you do?
Dejan Jancevski's profile photoAaron Comeaux's profile photoDarrick “Spicy Ginger” Yahnke's profile photoNichole Murphy's profile photo
Yep.  Liberals never learn that high taxes don't solve anything.  Of course they don't care, it's all about class warfare to them.
Move, Move Move to a more tax friendly location. When there are no more people to pull the wagon then the people riding in the wagon will be forced to get out and start pulling then they will start to care.
Blast me if you want but this it a BS post. 1000s of milllionaires per year would have to leave CA for this to be actual news. 

Finding 12 "high net-worth" residents that want to keep their identity a secret because the believe they will be audited is BS also.  If you are obeying the tax laws, stating who you are in an interview about raising taxes shouldnt be an issue.
It should be noted that a higher tax rate doesn't have a negative effect on the economy, and taxing the rich most definitely does not hurt growth. The evidence actually shows that higher taxes are more closely associated with growth. Now if a rich person wants to pay less taxes by moving then that's perfectly fair, it's their money and their choice after all
I'd move out. Heck, I'm not rich but I'd like to get out of California anyway. Looking like I will within the next couple of years. 
+Mike D'Agostino Higher taxes associated with growth?  Association doesn't mean causation, but here we go with Keynesian logic. Govt is the least efficient user of capital - send it to Washington and watch it collect dust until a politician finds a way to buy a vote with it - then it goes back into production.  Children need to find out the hard way that the parents are correct - in the meantime we wait for Santa.
And THIS is yet another reason why I've always said:'s a nice place to visit...but I'd NEVER want to live there.
Head to another country. Renounce my citizenship and quit paying US taxes to make Obama's bolshevik fantasy become a reality.
Pam B
Hypocrites, all of them. least in Serbia and can own any firearm you like AND everyone pays a FLAT tax (12% in Russia...15.75% in Serbia).
I never thought California was even a nice place to visit. I was down there for a week, the air made me sick. Never been to a place where I could see the air before.
+Dwayne Mattson, well...I have family around the San Diego area...and that area was actually pretty least as far as California goes.  
+Aaron Comeaux Well the point is that there's no correlation with tax rate and growth. And your right, the association of higher taxes with higher growth doesn't necessarily prove the two correlate.  Its just that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy and higher taxes don't hurt the economy. It's not Keynesian logic, it's just the truth. Data and history prove this.
YOU CHANGE THE LAW AND ADMIT YOU'RE STUPID.  Set the taxes to 100%: see what happens. It's predictable.

THEN set it to 5% and see what happens. You'll be flooded with people.

Liberals are such IDIOTS.
I used to laugh whenever someone falsely equated "Keynesian" with "the government has to do everything".  Now I just shudder.
For those of you who are too ignorant to do a five-second Google search, here's the assumption of Keynesian economics:  the aggregate supply and demand might not be equal.

Now that that's out of the way, the idea of progressive taxation can be traced back to two very influential texts in the development of free enterprise, The Wealth of Nations and Common Sense.
When the inventor of capitalism argues for the rich to pay taxes "in proportion, or perhaps slightly more", you might want to take notes.

All things said, it doesn't bother me that much that people may or may not believe in taxation, especially considering tax collectors are about as popular as plague rats.  The real umbrage is taken with the weasel wording in the article and with the fact that the sources being weasel worded into the article have already admitted to tax evasion.
Next time, find people who would otherwise be inclined to follow the law.  It makes your argument stronger, albeit only slightly.
Well we are trying it your way - lets watch it work.  We have four more years.  Still amazes me how people will jump through rings of fire to validate illogical thought that has been proven wrong over and over again.  So is the world, filled with utopians with no money but more than willing to figure out a way to spend others.
In the interest of being fair and balanced, this moderate registered independent voter, reads man political blogs.  I think reading all views is necessary in forming an opinion. I even read the Nation on occasion, which is a stretch. One thing strikes me about some conservatives, at least the outspoken ones. Some of you seem completely incapable of imagining anyone else's point of view. Rather than stretch your mind beyond your own experiences to see how and why another view is formed, you call them names indicating your lack of respect for their intellectual capacities. That kind of communication instantly tells a reader that is in fact the writer who lacks range, not the object of his ire. You seem quick to judge, hyper focused, uncomfortable with debate and tempermentally unsuited to  the democratic process. I couldn't differ from you more. But, being democratic, I don't call you names, I uphold your right to air your view in equality with everyone else.  
-Mary enough with the bs - if you don't understand - just say - "I really don't know anything about this and I won't talk about it" - problem is that you do indeed have an opinion - state it.  It is not conservative vs progressive - it is a really simple concept - taking money from the people who have demonstrated that they are the most successful at using "our" capital is indisputable.  Now if you want to take their money to give it to yourself and others who have proven otherwise - just say it.  I'm not saying you won't be successful - just state what you want.  Stop beating around the bush - you want other people money and you will justify it any way that you can.
Anyone who can "save" $30,000 a month by moving to another state is so far removed from the reality most of the world lives in he is irrelevant to the discussion. You have become a social cancer, a profoundly diseased member of society, ill with greed, power  and gluttony. There should be treatment programs for the lot of you.
You can move to Colorado but that is turning into a liberal hell hole too.

+Mary Caulfield, how are they "removed" from society?  Since when is it OK to steal one's hard earned money?  Just because someone makes a TON more than you do doesn't mean that they don't deserve it.  And heck, to save $300/month, I'd move out of California too...let alone to save $30K/month!  The problem with people today is that they want to put the blame on anyone and everyone EXCEPT on the person looking back at them in the mirror. 

Don't blame the rich for your problems.  The rich never forced you to buy their product, their service, or their anything.  They have money because they DID WORK HARDER and ARE SMARTER than you.  If you don't like it, well...then YOU work harder and smarter.  But blaming the rich and insisting that someone or something (e.g., government) make it "right" is so essentially are anti-social since you advocate STEALING from one person who worked hard for it, and giving it to someone who hasn't.    And if you do work hard and are having a hard time getting paid what you THINK you deserve, perhaps the problem is that you overvalue what you do and overestimate the value that others place on that work. 
Leave.  Who wouldn't.  You can't tax your way out of debt.  You have to cut spending even though you will piss off some people.
Paul F.
Congratulations California...way to show the rest of the country what NOT to do.  Attention Governors of American: Lower the taxes, reduce the regulation, grow your state's economy.
Dejan You make so, so many absurd assumptions in your argument it falls apart instantly. You betray your  emotional response to my comments with your sputtering use of capitals to scream your intentions because you haven't taken the time to form a cogent argument made with solid sentences. Read something besides economic philosophy, please. Read some history, literature, look at some great art. It all says more about being a human being on the face of this earth than any economic theory or spread sheet printing out in florescent lit offices all over the worldwide business community. It seems the 1% thinks they did this all by themselves, as if they are the first people on the face of the earth to be smart enough to get as rich as they have. Well, you are not. You are simply maniacally focused on using every thing in the world around you to enrich yourself. Einstein never enriched himself because he used his prodigious intellect to help all of humanity. Exploiting markets, labor, tax and accounting laws doesn't amount to intelligence it amounts to self-interest bringing no light to the world, only the darkness of greed. See that I made an entire argument without using ellipsies or strings of capital letters to make it "seem" strong without actually being so.
So...let's see.  Because people have, as I've said before, worked harder or are smarter...or in most cases...are both...than compared to think you have the right to play God? NICE!

You can claim what you like, but the facts support my point, not yours.  The it man's law or God's Law...both show that you do NOT steal from another human being.  People do not become rich because of stealing from others per se.  They become rich because they provide some kind of service that others value and appreciate.  Simple.  If that then means that people pay the person in gold...and the person opts to purchase a "famous painting" for their own enjoyment while excluding such enjoyment from others...that is their right.  After all, nothing is stopping you or me from doing the long as we provide enough of society with some product or service that they value and will pay us for.

BTW, spare me of the Einstein and Nikola Tesla arguments.  They only point to their eccentricity and nothing more.  Mother Teresa died poor as could be...but I would argue that she was rich beyond anyone's means.  I would no sooner take away her wealth as I would anyone else's.  Yet your holier than thou attitude is telling.  It screams that you HATE those that are more successful than you.  And that's honestly a shame.  If you stopped worrying so much about "the 1%" and instead worried and worked at what you love and provide society a benefit, then you too will be rich beyond your needs.  However, I can tell by your writing that you are far too shortsighted to realize that...and most likely won't without therapy.
One last boils down to one simple thing:  is man inherently good or evil?  I choose to believe that man is inherently good...otherwise I have a great deal to ask about why I chose my profession.  You, however, see man as inherently evil. 

Well, if man IS inherently good, then we obviously have NO NEED to force any individual (let alone a group) into helping their fellow man, do we?  However, let's assume man is inherently evil.  Well, I suppose you are going to FORCE the evil in man to leave.  Well, that's fine; however, since man is inherently evil, any and every entity or organization (yes, even the government) will ALSO be inherently evil since it too is possessed of evil men!  So...if an individual is inherently evil...then how can an organization be good if it too is made up of the same inherently evil men?!? 

The point is this world does have some who choose to act in an evil way.  To choose to punish the innocent because of the sins of those who are evil is the problem.  You are never going to correct the problem.  Instead, all you are doing (whether you are talking about the 1% and how "evil" they are or not) is perpetuating that evil.  Congrats on having no basis for a logical argument.  All you can put forth is your emotional bias.  Sad really.
+Mike D'Agostino Lowering taxes do stimulate the economy - and the best way to do it is in taxes directly reduced from all worker's pay.  It is the most efficient stimulus that an economy can expect.  Indeed it is Keynesian logic to believe that a centralized govt can slowly extract a significant percentage of a nation's total capital, and in large measure, put it on the sidelines for months - and expect growth - or a healthy economy?  No worries, mon.
I passed up a good paying job in California. Cost of business and living is too high and taxes are too. I cannot blame them.
Aaron--I don't know what you mean, specifically. Dejan--No one makes mythological amounts of wealth by providing a necessary service or product. Else farmers, seamstresses, dishwashers, nurses aids, nannies, etc. would be massively wealthy. Who makes that much money? People who manage to gain control of the processes necessary to do as they do, make what they want to sell and sell it for the highest price. Now, I provide services and goods that are necessary, but I don't control any of the processes. Hence, I'm not rich. I'm intelligent but not in a strategic way. But does that  mean brilliant strategic thinkers have the right to put me into poverty because of it? And why would that thinker want to? Make a profit, go ahead, I do when I can. From what I see that kind of thinking is what brought us massacres over imagined gold and real land when Europeans conquered the Americas and the slave system in North America that has created an underclass that persists to this day. No one wants to prevent anyone from profiting; I'm delighted my brother has profited enough in his privately owned business to send all his children to Ivy League colleges. Your argument, again, makes so many false assumptions it doesn't stand. How, in any reasonable manner, could you ever, ever, ever conclude I am a hater? I may be frustrated with sick people, angry with their abuse of our laws, disgusted with their blind  self-interest and appalled by their greed, but I don't hate them. If I use the word hate it is as an exaggerator such as "I hate it when I drop a anvil on my toe," but nothing more. I don't like Al Queda but neither do I hate them. They are people, like me. I just think they are badly educated and don't take other points of view into consideration.  I think the same about you, no matter how rich you are. You are very tiresome in your imprecise, loud way of communicating.
+Mary Caulfield Here's a thought - can't claim it as my own - think God said it first (via Moses) - Thy Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods - of course he did rank it 10th out of 10 - so I guess it is fine for you to disregard it - God also mentioned a bit about not having false idols - that got a higher billing
+Mary Caulfield Mary you are clearly dissatisfied with your pauper status - to call people who are far more successful than yourself a "cancer" is very sad - sad, sad, sad.  Your jealousy overwhelmeth - you are consumed by it.
Why would anyone stay in a state where the taxes border on extortion?
Oh, you are so silly. To call me a pauper is beyond ridiculous. And to deny that the wealthy are changing the laws of this nation so they can take up more and more of the resources in this world for themselves to the detriment of the body of humanity is also beyond ridiculous. Should the Walton family have all that it has while the people who make their goods and sell their goods live in poverty? Would they have any of that if there weren't millions living in deeper and deeper poverty all the time? This may be the kind of smart you admire and it may be legal, but only a very narrow minded cold hearted selection of the human race would call it right. And that we--fellow Americans both benefiting enormously from the freedom in this nation--can be so vastly divided in perspective by economics is what is sad. You obviously believe in your own view as I do mine, both are only a part of the truth. Thank God we have a deliberative body with over 500 points of view to help guide this nation. 
+Mary Caulfield News alert - the economic policies we are currently pursuing will bring greater and greater disparity between wealth and poverty - I know that you don't believe that and you have plenty of company.  Unfortunately, your minions need much more economic pain in order to swallow reality and accept what history has taught and do what the parents say.  Its all so simple to fix - Don't Covet Your Neightbor's Goods - really don't covet them - worry about yourself, not others - release your jealousy and everything will work out for the best.  Until then, we whine.
The super wealthy get that way by changing the rules in their favor through political and economic pressure. It may all be legal, but it is far from right. To continue to make your points by ignoring my rational arguments and calling me names proves a part of the point   I am trying to make, the need to accumulate power and wealth to the extent some people have is quite human but it isn't rational. It seems to be greed on an unprecedented scale. 
@Aaron Are you drunk? You are obviously irrational. I'm blocking your comments from now on, so go ahead and block mine.
Paul Jr
Move and leave those mismanaging tax hikes to themselves to swallow! The ninth largest economy in the World and they just don't get it! " go on pass more bills, make more laws that cost more money.... and see where that has gotten you, just like the nation-bankrupt!!!!
Sam Walton got rich because he engineered a system of logistics never before seen and managed it so effectively to make huge profits and expand quickly. He also built the brand buy selling domestically made products. I know many who happy work there. Though I will not work or shop there because the reliance now on foriegn made goods of shoody quality. His innovation made him rich and one of the biggest employers in the world. Microsoft and Costco have contributed greatly to the Obama camp. Clearly not to keep their money. Do they have influence on the political process? Most likely they can get an ear if needed. They would have to purchase the vote of 60% of congress and the President while keeping pressure on the judiciary. Though frustrating as hell if your policies and agenda don't get to see daylight like both sides today, the system is working so that one group does not get too crazy. Undoubtedly business throw money into politics because they want a party or person to win for other reasons than altruism. Private donors do the same. Businesses are effected by government as much, if not more directly than people. They are taxed at local, state, and the federal levels and often for the goods and services they provide. In this case they have been hit by high overhead and abusive taxes to fund extensive social programs and idealistic egalitarian policies. I'm glad to see them voting with their feet. 
+Mary Caulfield, your comment and then subsequent blocking of +Aaron Comeaux's [future] comments only further proves my point that your basis (i.e., foundation for making the argument in the first place) is SERIOUSLY FLAWED!  You generalize that people who make a ton of money are the ONLY people that are evil...and furthermore, that all people who make tons of money at the expense of others are also evil.  Here's a lesson to take home:

The Walton family created Walmart.  They hire workers to work in their stores.  If people do NOT like what Walmart has to offer, then don't shop there.  You are free to shop where ever you please.  I personally don't shop at Walmart because I don't think the quality of food and other products is up to the standards I have.  However, plenty of other people DO shop there...and work there...and do so happily!  I do not despise the Waltons...I may envy them on a small scale, but not really that much.  I like having to work for what I have.  It's the struggle that is what makes us who we are.

To claim that the Waltons make "too much money" only proves that you hate others that are far more successful than you.  As Aaron said, stop coveting your neighbor's things.  You want to blame companies like Walmart for "influencing our elected officials into making bad policies and laws"?  Then vote to get them out of office!  Stop bitching that we need more government and that the 1% are the problem.  The real problem is that people who are without or complain about those who are without (such as yourself) do NOTHING to fix it...except blame the rich.  Stop blaming the rich.  Blame yourself since you didn't bother to fix the problem by voting out those idiots in office in the first place.

And for the record, I didn't vote for Obama...and I'm proud of it.
Ron N
+Mary Caulfield . You mean like being called a racist because you want liberty, freedom and a free market?
Ron N
+Mary Caulfield . Funny word that is, greed. What is greed? Is it people wanting to keep the money they earned through their own labor? Or is it other people who want to take that money from someone else who has earned it through there own labor?
Ron N
+Mary Caulfield . Your reply to Dejan pretty much makes you a hypocrite to your first post doesn't not?
+Jeffrey Koontz, my thoughts exactly.  It's one thing if a company or person paid a politician to vote for/against a specific regulation/law.  But I don't blame the rich person or company for doing that...that's what lobbying is all about.  I instead place the blame exclusively on the politician who was the REAL greedy one who took the money to vote for/against a bill according to what the rich person or company wanted WITHOUT honestly thinking of how that vote would impact the constituents that s/he was sworn to represent.
+Alexa Antonaras how do you go off calling "Americans" selfish? Everyone has the right to do with the property they earned as they wish, within the laws of this country.
What is selfish is the constant whining for more from those who do not work for it - and expect things handed to them.
Generosity with other people's money is not honorable - it’s called theft.
Alexa sounds like the voice of somebody who benefits from high taxes. 
+Alexa Antonaras, why did those corporations flee to China, Japan, and Korea (and now India)?  Because we have passed the dumbest laws that make it impossible for these companies to compete internationally because we hold our own companies to a HIGHER standard (for no real reason other than because we can get more tax revenues from them) than we do foreign based companies.  Heck, even domestic companies that IMPORT products can save money instead of building the product domestically. 

As I poor person ever hired someone.  But the rich do.  The smart ones create their own jobs.  And the gifted create new companies to employ themselves and others.
  But at no time do any of them BEG to be taxed more.  And as you increase taxes...the rich will leave.  So then what will you do?!?
Boy this subject has gotten pretty tired.  First we had Mary and now we have Alexa.  Look the arguments in favor of socialism, marxism, communism, dictatorships - they are all super simplistic - easy to make - and exceptionally easy to sell to the masses.  That is why mankind has been primarily ruled by these systems for the vast majority of man's recorded history.  America and its founders changed that.  They were learned men that had carefully studied those failed systems of govt.and they gave us something that inspired the best in mankind (by limiting a federal govt in favor of the individual) in order to inspire individuals and ultimately create more for all. It worked so well  that we no longer have very many good examples of the failures of communism/socialism/progressive/liberalism - they have been eliminated for the most part.   A pure form still exist in North Korea, but no one cares.  N. Korea is small and so insignificant that no one even takes it seriously.  When we lost the Soviet Union, and Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia - we lost those huge example of progressivism failure.  And so, we repeat history to re-learn what fails every time its tried because of its opiate-like lure to the masses (Mary,Alexa) - sad, so sad, but here we go.again.  Remember, Thy Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Good - live this, follow, obey and everyone prospers economically, personally, and spiritually.
We need to get off this topic - there will always be plenty of people who are willing to ride the Marxist train of mob theft, hoping that they will get something out of it.  Even more important to them - they think they are getting back at people who have more or better goods than they do.  It is a topic as old as man - which is why it is well addressed in The Ten Commandments.  It is covered there because it is timeless - jealousy, coveting and theft will always be with man - no need to discuss or debate.  There is no solace living in envy and no action by a government will ever fix that problem for the envious.
+Alexa Antonaras, actually quite the contrary.  Those banks were told by our own elected officials on the banking committee in Congress that such loans would be backed by the U.S. government.  That's the problem.  So, the REAL problem was that they WERE regulated.

Now, let's talk about regulation.  Yes, regulation can prevent some problems from ever occurring; however, regulation can also severely stifle innovation.  And in a true free market society, those banks that failed would have been allowed to fail without burdening the taxpayer via that stupid TARP concept.  As such, many of your small and medium sized banks would have taken over the assets of those banks that did have to declare bankruptcy.  So, in the end, the result would have been much more efficient and fewer taxpayer dollars would have been involved in the first place.

Lastly, let me say this: the free market is the most efficient type of market that there is.  It deals with fraud, poor management, and other unsavory items far more swiftly and harshly than any "governed" market ever could.  And isn't that what we want?  A market where doing the bad thing leads to your company's demise?!?
As you can see, Alexa's understanding of the financial crisis is sadly what many people truly believe.  What Dejan stated is exactly correct but how many people actually understand and appreciate what happened? - probably not many.  Our financial crisis was 100% caused by our government coercing banks and also backing via Freddie and Fannie Mac loans made to people who had no possibility of paying them back - all in the name of buying votes. AIG was needed to provide additional insured security to the underlying loans because any large investor (who would buy them) knew that these were loans were absolutely toxic - but they were in essence U.S. Govt backed.  AIG made a calculated decision to provide additional security (so the loans could be sold) knowing the loans would eventually blow up, but also knowing the U.S. Govt would have to back them.  This is not a great mystery - it was known well in advance and numerous efforts were made to stop this ridiculous vote buying scheme - but to no avail - they were immediately called racists (each time) and run out of town.   Today, we are all paying the price of our politicians buying votes from the ignorant.
Alexa - I would agree with that to some extent .  I would say however that the far more concerning trend is the flagrant vote buying that is going on with taxpayer money.  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are essentially government agencies and they backed the vast majority of those toxic loans - so who benefited?  The Top Brass at Freddie and Fannie got massive paychecks - The poor and ignorant got homes with attached loans they could not afford, and - Politicians got votes.  Check out which politicians got the votes and you know where the problem is.
Politicians created the problem - not poor/ignorant people or private corporations.  
Our Govt. bailed out private corporations because they had purchased the toxic assets that Our Govt. created - Our Govt  created this whole situation, so if anyone thinks that Our Govt regulating more will fix these types of problems - we are doomed to see more of this.  The best regulator of risk is the free market (with the possibility of loss for bad decisions) - when a Govt removes risk with regulations to buy votes - we get these types of problems.
+Alexa Antonaras I am 100% in favor of term limits.  In fact, I have come to believe that term limits are probably the only way to fix our broken government.  Thing is - I don't really think that it is realistic - foxes are guarding the hen house and the hens don't have a chance. 
Interesting discussion, you 2.  With regards to term limits, I'm all in favor of it!  To me, term limits ensures that no one politician can be bought...after all, if you run for office, odds are you are doing so NOT because you're being backed by some high paying/financing entity, but because you genuinely want to make this country better (be it via your liberal or conservative point of view).  And term limits, because of the reason people run for office, makes it ultra hard (though obviously not impossible) to have wealthy companies lobby successfully to enact legislation that prevents competition.

Secondly, as for getting the "bums" out of office...that means redistricting.  I say redistricting should be outlawed and instead, at the federal level, it should be based on the counties you have in your state.  Make the total reps in the House based on a simple factor of 1 State House Rep for every 10,000 people in your State.  And the Reps represent the county that they are from.  That and take away the salaries of these elected officials.  What ever happened to SERVING your country...instead of mooching off of it?
You just took ALL the fun out of being a Politician !!!
+Aaron Comeaux, and who ever said being a politician was supposed to be fun?!?  It was meant to be a civic duty...nothing more.  The fact that we've allowed politicians to make a civic duty into a high paying career is what is wrong with this country.
Add a comment...