Originally posted by my2sonsSo how do you feel about that then?
Sorry to break the bad news to you, but it already exists in New Jersey where if you sell your house and relocate within New Jersey there is no tax, but if you move out of state, you have to pay the New Jersey exit tax - up to 1% of the sell price. They of course gave it a fancy name of Realty Transfer Fee.
1 edit
I'm not very good at deciphering legal jargon, but from what I can gather from a quick Google is that it is a tax on property transfer in general. It's also not 1% but varying in a progressive scale from 0.4% to slightly over 1.2%. Having a property transfer tax is not really unique (it used to be 6% in the Netherlands, although it was lowered to 2% in 2011 for residences only) and not necessarily worse or better than taxing income. An advantage of a property transfer tax is that it will reduce speculation on real estate (remember the causes of the 2008 crisis?). A disadvantage is that it reduces the mobility of people.
1 edit
Originally posted by my2sonsA property transfer tax (which is common, if not universal) is hardly the same as a tax on moving out of state, which would presumably apply to renters too.
Sorry to break the bad news to you, but it already exists in New Jersey where if you sell your house and relocate within New Jersey there is no tax, but if you move out of state, you have to pay the New Jersey exit tax - up to 1% of the sell price. They of course gave it a fancy name of Realty Transfer Fee.
Still, I would be interested to know whether a move-in-state exception has ever been challenged on constitutional grounds. To give you a loose comparison, a NY City commuter tax (that applied to people living outside of NYC and working in NYC) that exempted New York State residence was struck down as unconstitutional.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"For instance, it is a given that a nationalized health care industry is more efficient than a private health care,"
The kind of analysis in the OP doesn't even get you past ECO 101. For instance, it is a given that a nationalized health care industry is more efficient than a private health care, yet people employed in a nationalized health care system would be "takers" even though they are producing health care services more efficiently than the "givers". Is a teache ...[text shortened]... workers in a private company who are working on a government-funded infrastructure project?
When such a dubious and arguable assertion is given as a premise, almost anything is possible in the following argument.
Originally posted by my2sonsThe Nazis and Communists just shot people who tried to leave.
It looks like California and New York in order to pay down their debt will soon have to impose a exit tax on any state citizen looking to move to another state. Early estimates for California given their deficit and population, an individual moving from California would be assessed a fee of $15,000 per person. Coming to your Democratic State soon.
Oh by ...[text shortened]... is was a favorite tactic of the Nazis in Germany and Communists in Russia during their hey days.
Originally posted by normbenignIf you had read the whole post, you would have seen that there were several independent criticisms. In any case, the assertion is hardly dubious or arguable and is accepted by anyone who does not dispute easily accessible empirical evidence.
"For instance, it is a given that a nationalized health care industry is more efficient than a private health care,"
When such a dubious and arguable assertion is given as a premise, almost anything is possible in the following argument.
Originally posted by my2sonsOf course what they are actually doing is giving reward for staying in state, but hey ho.
Sorry to break the bad news to you, but it already exists in New Jersey where if you sell your house and relocate within New Jersey there is no tax, but if you move out of state, you have to pay the New Jersey exit tax - up to 1% of the sell price. They of course gave it a fancy name of Realty Transfer Fee.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI read the whole post, but when I disagree with the premise the rest is based on, it is fruitless to pursue the arguments.
If you had read the whole post, you would have seen that there were several independent criticisms. In any case, the assertion is hardly dubious or arguable and is accepted by anyone who does not dispute easily accessible empirical evidence.
Never fear, the libs in the government are eagerly looking at new ways to tax the bejeezus out of the working man, Thank God the Conservatives in Congress stood their ground and said no fricking way to any tax increase unless accompanied by entitlement cuts. I can't wait to go over the so called fiscal cliff.
Taxes may go up but at least 500 billion will be cut out of the bloated govt budget.
Originally posted by my2sonsCareful what you wish for. The "Cliff" is a 5% reduction in GDP. That's what happened to Greece in 2012.
Never fear, the libs in the government are eagerly looking at new ways to tax the bejeezus out of the working man, Thank God the Conservatives in Congress stood their ground and said no fricking way to any tax increase unless accompanied by entitlement cuts. I can't wait to go over the so called fiscal cliff.
Taxes may go up but at least 500 billion will be cut out of the bloated govt budget.
Originally posted by normbenignThen I guess you have a reading comprehension problem since there is no "premise the rest is based on", rather, several independent criticisms explaining why it is useless to divide the economy in "givers and takers" in the way suggested in the OP. The observation that public health care tends to be more efficient than private health care has nothing to do with the observation that private companies can benefit or may largely depend on government spending. But I suppose you subscribe to the "givers and takers" hypothesis in defiance of basic economics. Then tell me: what does a construction worker who works for a private construction company mainly getting infrastructure jobs from the government belong to? The givers or the takers? The analysis in the OP puts them in the "givers" category. A high school teacher in a public high school would be a "taker", suggesting that education is harmful to the economy. Would you say a high school teacher is a "giver" or a "taker"? And if a voucher system was implemented to privatize education, would that suddenly transform those same teachers into "givers" even though they were doing the same job using the same resources?
I read the whole post, but when I disagree with the premise the rest is based on, it is fruitless to pursue the arguments.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo long as public sector workers don't receive favorable treatment from those of us who bargain in the market they are not takers. When they are paid above market level, out of tax payer funds, they are takers.
Then I guess you have a reading comprehension problem since there is no "premise the rest is based on", rather, several independent criticisms explaining why it is useless to divide the economy in "givers and takers" in the way suggested in the OP. The observation that public health care tends to be more efficient than private health care has nothing to ...[text shortened]... into "givers" even though they were doing the same job using the same resources?