« prev   random   next »

2
0

Economists say 800,000 people will leave NY and CA over the next three years due to the new tax bill

By someone else following x   2018 May 5, 3:21pm 1,683 views   23 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/800000-people-are-about-to-flee-new-york-california-because-of-taxes.html?recirc=patrick.net

Conservative economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore are predicting a new mass exodus of wealth from New York and California because of the new tax law. But academics who have studied taxes and migration call the forecast "pure nonsense."

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal headlined "So Long, California. Sayonara, New York," Laffer and Moore (who have both advised President Donald Trump) say the new tax bill will cause a net 800,000 people to move out of California and New York over the next three years.

The tax changes limit the deduction of state and local taxes to $10,000, so many high-earning taxpayers in high-tax states will actually face a tax increase under the new tax code.
1   RC2006   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 3:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Just wait for when CA raises the corporate tax rate 7% to offset Trump tax cut there will be another exodus of jobs leaving with them if they have their way.
2   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 May 5, 3:52pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Conservative economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore are predicting a new mass exodus of wealth from New York and California because of the new tax law.

Shouldn't those Socialist leanings States be happy about spreading the wealth?
3   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2018 May 5, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

We should be so lucky. If rich people were leaving CA in droves, housing prices would be coming down. In fact rich people are moving into CA in droves and buying up CA severely limited housing supply and driving real estate prices to record highs. Prop 13 more than offsets CA income tax on the rich. People who are not rich are leaving CA not because of taxes or business regulationsbut because of the high cost of housing. Actually if increased taxes on the rich would drive rich people to leave CA, it would be a quick and easy way to solve our housing crisis and It would get widespread support.
4   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 4:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RC2006 says
Just wait for when CA raises the corporate tax rate 7% to offset Trump tax cut there will be more be another exodus of jobs leaving with them if they have their way.


"Another"... because CA high taxes have killed so many jobs so far the state is bordering bankruptcy.
5   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 7:39pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Nonsense. High state tax deductions were capped by AMT before, so most "high-earning taxpayers" are paying less taxes under the new tax bill.
6   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 7:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you look at migration statistics, people leaving CA are those earning under $30k. The number of high-earners in CA keeps increasing.
7   TrumpingTits   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 8:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ThreeBays says
Nonsense. High state tax deductions were capped by AMT before, so most "high-earning taxpayers" are paying less taxes under the new tax bill


That's true, in general. But I know personally of one friend who is not rich but can't deduct as much as he used to and so comes out screwed despite the doubled Standard Deduction.
8   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 5, 9:06pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

someone else says

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal headlined "So Long, California. Sayonara, New York," Laffer and Moore (who have both advised President Donald Trump) say the new tax bill will cause a net 800,000 people to move out of California and New York over the next three years.


NY and CA lost 250k last year anyway. At that rate they would lose 750k over the next 3 years if the tax blll was never passed. Big DUH moment for Laffer and Moore.

Isn't everyone still waiting for the Laffer curve (as in Arthur Laffer) and trickle down economics to work after 40 years? Not my go to guy for economics.
9   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 9:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Isn't everyone still waiting for the Laffer curve (as in Arthur Laffer) and trickle down economics to work after 40 years? Not my go to guy for economics.



Have to agree with you there.
10   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 May 5, 11:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WarrenTheApe says
ThreeBays says
Nonsense. High state tax deductions were capped by AMT before, so most "high-earning taxpayers" are paying less taxes under the new tax bill


That's true, in general. But I know personally of one friend who is not rich but can't deduct as much as he used to and so comes out screwed despite the doubled Standard Deduction.


I would guess your friend is single and pretty rich then. The tax changes favor married vs single filers.

For single filers in California, there's not much impact unless earning over $350k, where they start having a loss under the new tax law.

For married filing jointly in California, it's pretty much a win across the board. The largest tax savings are for families with children with the largest saving at $400k income mark where the new child credits start to phase out. For example a couple with 2 kids earning $400k would receive an effective tax cut of ~$17k. No wonder family home prices in Santa Clara shot up at the start of this year.
11   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 6, 5:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WarrenTheApe says
Supply Side economics works as predicted every time it is properly implemented. Worked for Reagan (US income tax revenues DOUBLED during his two terms) and even Bush (the first tax breaks...rebates were NOT supply side tax policies...the second round was). Oh and Kennedy's worked for LBJ. Worked for post-War Japan and Germany. The list goes on and on.


Really? How exactly was it predicted to work pray tell? Tax receipts as percentage of GDP fell under Reagan from 19% to 17%. . GDP growth was less in the 80's than the 70's or 90's. Tax revenue didn't double. it went from 599 to 991,. The previous 8 years it went from 202 to 517, well over doubled. The 8 years after reagan it went from 1t to 1.7t about the same increase as reagan percentage wise. Debt also quadrupled under reagan. Nothing like writing a bunch of really big blank checks.

You also curiously failed to mention the raising of taxes a lot in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987. You couldn't resist falsely lying that to him anyway, could you?

Want to try again?



WarrenTheApe says
Laffer never said anything about 'trickle down', either. But you couldn't resist falsely tying that to him anyway, could you?


The way I read it was the that at the infamous meeting with cheney and rumsvelt where lafer presented the curve the idea of trickle down was hatched. I went and read further and that is not true, stockman came up with trickle down.. My apologies to mr laffer. Let me restate. Laffer's theory, which has never been proven to work in real life, was the basis for trickle down which after almost 40 years we are still waiting to see work.
12   Booger   ignore (1)   2018 May 6, 5:52am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Isn't everyone still waiting for the Laffer curve (as in Arthur Laffer) and trickle down economics to work after 40 years?


It trickled down to Mexico and China.
13   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 May 6, 6:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says
bob2356 says
Isn't everyone still waiting for the Laffer curve (as in Arthur Laffer) and trickle down economics to work after 40 years?


It trickled down to Mexico and China.


That's so true it's both funny and not funny.

It was the best of times and the worst of times.

The top got to export all the factories and import illegal labor, boosting them higher than ever. The bottom got less than nothing.
14   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 6, 8:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
The top got to export all the factories and import illegal labor, boosting them higher than ever. The bottom got less than nothing.


Voting republican in the post reagan era has consequences.
15   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 6, 8:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Voting republican in the post reagan era has consequences

Clinton and Obama champion of free trade are republicans?
16   marcus   ignore (4)   2018 May 6, 9:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
Voting republican in the post reagan era has consequences

Clinton and Obama champion of free trade are republicans?


IT's established fact that we are a center right country, trending to the right since the Reagan days. (yes at the same time for inconsequential social issues such as gay marriage - we are at times progressive - but nobody - not even TPB is claiming that the SJWs on college campuses or "political correctness" are having big effects on such things as tax and budget policy or foriegn policy. THat is other than giving the overlords anti leftist rhetoric to get the votes for republicans for all the policies that matter).

As a center right country, the left (as it pertains to politics - not as it pertain to SJW whackos on college campuses), is only the relative left.

THat is, Obama and Clinton were hardly leftists regardiung significant policies. THey were just the left side of the center right right politics of this country.

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
consequences


IT's the left of center range of our politics and policies that is the legacy of too much voting for republicans.

One of the most fascinating aspects of all of this is that some of the most important economic policies that history will attribute to republicans are not "Conservative" in the traditional sense. There's nothing conservative about setting up the plutocrats to have ever increasing wealth and power at the expense of future generations of workers in this country.

There's nothing conservative, in the traditional political sense about the recent tax cuts. And it's no accident that we won;t know their impact until after the 2018 elections.
17   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 7, 4:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says
bob2356 says
Voting republican in the post reagan era has consequences

Clinton and Obama champion of free trade are republicans?


and I thought congress wrote trade laws and approved trade treaties..That constitution thing.

I'm taking it that you have never read the republican party platform. http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Free_Trade.htm

Everyone one knows that reagan, bush, bush were against free trade.
18   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 7, 4:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

marcus says


There's nothing conservative, in the traditional political sense about the recent tax cuts.


Tax cuts (and borrowing to increase spending) have been the raison de etre of the conservatives since Reagan was elected in 1980. When does tradition start?
19   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 7, 6:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WarrenTheApe says
Yes, while they receipts in total DOUBLED in amount. YES, they doubled.

As for percentage of GDP, do you even know what Hauser's Law is?

And I like how you put in a graph that doesn't even talk about taxes at all, but GDP growth rates. Nice try to trick people.



Conservative math, it's an amazing thing to see in action. Sort of like watching 2 jumbo jets collide. .
20   pkennedy   ignore (0)   2018 May 7, 7:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You don't live in California because it's cheap, you live there because of the weather, amenities, opportunities, similar minded people (entertainment industry, computer industry, biological industry), entertainment and of course everything those high population areas offer.

If you leave California, most likely it's to move to another expensive state, with similar offerings.
21   marcus   ignore (4)   2018 May 7, 10:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WarrenTheApe says
bob2356 says
Tax receipts as percentage of GDP fell under Reagan from 19% to 17%

Yes, while they receipts in total DOUBLED in amount. YES, they doubled.


THe dirty little secret is that it was done partly using unprecedented government spending. The other big driver was that Carter's appointee Volker was finally successful with his interest rate games, and interest rates fell like a rock from the stratosphere.

Newsflash: Government spending goes to salaries (taxed), which in turn get spent (sales tax) which in turn ends up in salaries (taxed) again. To some extent tax cuts get spent too. The lions share get invested, driving up rents and market prices.

The piper will be paid in one way or another. MY theory is simple. The Ayn Randian types think the ultimate good comes from pure selfishness. With this in mind they can think, "Hopefully paying the piper is something that happens after I die, If we can postpone it long enough, then,...Not my problem."

I'll say it again. Republicans are definitely going to need a democrat in the PResidency in 2020, to blame everything on, when Trumps policies especially the growth time massive deficits hit the fan.
22   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 8, 4:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WarrenTheApe says
bob2356 says
Conservative math, it's an amazing thing to see in action. Sort of like watching 2 jumbo jets collide. .

Nice try again...too bad I outed your outright trolling, eh?


ROFLOL. Let's see. Something happens like say tax receipts more than doubled doubled over say 8 years. . Then you pass a tax cut and tax receipts don't even double over the next 8 years. That of course means the tax cut brought in more money than not cutting the taxes. Of course, I get it now Klingon (or conservative) logic at work.
23   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 May 8, 4:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

pkennedy says
You don't live in California because it's cheap, you live there because of the weather, amenities, opportunities, similar minded people (entertainment industry, computer industry, biological industry), entertainment and of course everything those high population areas offer.


But, but, but you could live in rural north dakota and pay much less taxes. Make californania north dakota again. MCNDA,MCNDA, let's get some hats made up.




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions