AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where would you go?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where would you go?

post #1 of 30
7/14/11 at 10:00am
Thread Starter 
Inspired by a tangent conversation in another thread with MJ1970, I ask my fellow POers who are U.S. residents:

If you had to leave the U.S. permanently (or at least long-term) where would you go and why?

Here's MJ's post from the other thread and my reply to get things started:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Looking at Chile. Have considered Hong Kong, New Zealand and Mauritius. But Chile is in our hemisphere and the more I read about it, the more I like it. Need to visit though.

I've heard some good things about Chile. Their economy is thriving (perhaps because it is among the freest in the world) and they have proven that a privatized social security system works.

I've also looked at New Zealand, which is also doing fairly well economically. And they seem to be very welcoming to immigrants. Although I'd probably stay away from Christchurch and surrounding area, which apparently is very prone to destructive earthquakes.

Macau is interesting to me because it's similar to Hong Kong in many ways, but it's a former Portuguese colony so I'd be able to communicate with folks there, as their official languages are Portuguese and Cantonese. I also like this, with respect to their economy:

Quote:
As prescribed by the Macau Basic Law, the government follows the principle of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget, and strive to achieve a fiscal balance, avoid deficits and keep the budget commensurate with the growth rate of its gross domestic product. All the financial revenues of the Macau Special Administrative Region shall be managed and controlled by the Region itself and shall not be handed over to the Central People's Government. The Central People's Government shall not levy any taxes in the Macau Special Administrative Region.

As for other places in this hemisphere, I've mentioned Brazil in other threads before, but for the sake of this thread I'll again share my reasoning. I lived there for 2 years (as a missionary) and as a result of my service I already have connections throughout the country. I speak, read, and write Portuguese so there would not be a communication barrier to overcome. My wife minored in Russian and is good with languages so I'm sure she could pick up Portuguese. Their economy is on the rise, and they are almost completely energy independent. They have tremendous untapped potential.

I'd consider Canada, but I don't think they'd be far enough away from the turmoil that would ensue when the statists finally destroy the U.S. economy. They'd probably be swept up in the most damaging waves of the fallout along with much of Europe.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2 of 30
7/14/11 at 10:31am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
I'd keep my Canadian citizenship, ditch US citizenship - have a permanent home in Switzerland, and live part of the year on the World condo cruise ship (if I could afford it all, which I can't right now - minimum $20-$30 million net worth for that kind of a life).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #3 of 30
7/14/11 at 10:52am
My sister likes Chile (she lives there)... personally, I just don't care for it. Of the places I've been, I'd be most likely to move to Australia. Specifically north Queensland, somewhere between Townsville and Port Douglas.
I never made it to New Zealand... but after a visit, I could see it being high on my list as well.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #4 of 30
7/14/11 at 11:12am
I can't tell you where it's at but John has all the good folks there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 30
7/14/11 at 11:29am
People who believe in big government outnumber people who believe in capitalism all over the world. Moving is no solution. In the end the only safety is in winning the battle of ideas.

And the left totally has a stranglehold on higher education and even childhood education. In this situation, their long term victory in inevitable. Arguing over debt ceilings at best just buys you time, and at worst plays in to their hands.

If Republicans ever get control of the legislative process again, their first priority should not be balancing the budget, or increasing military spending, but getting government out of education.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 30
7/14/11 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

People who believe in big government outnumber people who believe in capitalism all over the world. Moving is no solution. In the end the only safety is in winning the battle of ideas.

And the left totally has a stranglehold on higher education and even childhood education. In this situation, their long term victory in inevitable. Arguing over debt ceilings at best just buys you time, and at worst plays in to their hands.

If Republicans ever get control of the legislative process again, their first priority should not be balancing the budget, or increasing military spending, but getting government out of education.

You're right. I agree the battle of ideas must be fought and the separation of education and state would be a tremendous first start.

I would add that the problems with the US aren't just about a drift further away from capitalism toward socialism and corporatism. There are larger issues unique to the US not the least of which its imperial tendencies. It has become a bully both internationally and domestically...and culturally, socially, politically some of this is loudly praised by one half of the people and other stuff is loudly praised by the other half. I think The US is just too big. Split it into 5-10 smaller nations and things would be much better. Those new nations that chose freedom, trade, capitalism will prosper and attract lots of people and lots investment and will create much wealth for its citizens. Those that chose the centrally planned, socialist, corporatist, controlling nanny-state, technocratic approach will just die a long, slow painful death. This is why I've begun to consider living in a smaller country. One that doesn't feel like it runs the whole world.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 30
7/14/11 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I would add that the problems with the US aren't just about a drift further away from capitalism toward socialism and corporatism. There are larger issues unique to the US not the least of which its imperial tendencies. It has become a bully both internationally and domestically...and culturally, socially, politically some of this is loudly praised by one half of the people and other stuff is loudly praised by the other half. I think The US is just too big. Split it into 5-10 smaller nations and things would be much better. Those new nations that chose freedom, trade, capitalism will prosper and attract lots of people and lots investment and will create much wealth for its citizens. Those that chose the centrally planned, socialist, corporatist, controlling nanny-state, technocratic approach will just die a long, slow painful death. This is why I've begun to consider living in a smaller country. One that doesn't feel like it runs the whole world.

I don't think size is the fundamental problem, it's that politicians really believe what they are doing is right.

Even if breaking up the country slowed them down, they would eventually find a way to get back on track, whether that be through the UN or something else. The only way to stop them once and for all is to change their minds. To convince them that statism is immoral.

Because Americans are very moral people. You can argue until you're blue in the face that something is too expensive, bad economics, against the constitution, blah blah blah. It's unconvincing if the other side can say it's the right thing to do.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 30
7/14/11 at 1:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't think size is the fundamental problem, it's that politicians really believe what they are doing is right.

Even if breaking up the country slowed them down, they would eventually find a way to get back on track, whether that be through the UN or something else. The only way to stop them once and for all is to change their minds. To convince them that statism is immoral.

Because Americans are very moral people. You can argue until you're blue in the face that something is too expensive, bad economics, against the constitution, blah blah blah. It's unconvincing if the other side can say it's the right thing to do.

I think it stems from a prevailing belief that it is okay to use government to force others to live in accordance with your own morals.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 30
7/14/11 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I think it stems from a prevailing belief that it is okay to use government to force others to live in accordance with your own morals.

Yes but the reason they believe it's ok to use government to foist their moral code upon you, is that they believe their moral code is right to being with.

Their code is that if someone in society has a need that is not being met, that puts a moral obligation on the rest of us to provide it for them. Unless you can argue against that, you will lose every argument and government will get bigger and bigger. And no one will care that it will eventually lead to European style bankruptcy for the United States, because morality is more important than money.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 30
7/14/11 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Their code is that if someone in society has a need that is not being met, that puts a moral obligation on the rest of us to provide it for them.

Agreed but it's even more subtle than that.

Let's assume for the moment that there is a moral obligation to meet some need of a fellow person.

The next step is where the problem lies:

First is the presupposition that it is a moral obligation of some vaguely defined group of people (e.g., "society" or "the country") rather than a moral obligation of individual people.

Second is the presupposition that the obligation should be met using force if necessary.

Personally, I disagree with both presuppositions.

The first seems to be a moral precept built on a foundation of sand. Who is in the group? Who defines who is in the group? What if the composition of the group changes? Is the group bound by all moral obligations or just some? Which ones? Who decides? Voting? The group is really an abstract thing. The individual is not. None of this is to say that a group of individual who all feel driven by the same moral obligation cannot or should not band together as an organized group to help fulfill the moral obligation as a group. But this is an entirely voluntary arrangement. Which leads us to the second presupposition.

The second might follow from the first, though I don't think it does, but the second results in a moral contradiction about the use of an immoral action (force and coercion) to achieve a moral end (i.e., a wrong + a right != a right).

Mixed into all of this is two very common fallacious assumptions by statists:

1. If the need isn't met by government it cannot or will not be met at all.
2. If you oppose a government solution you, as a matter of fact, oppose (or, at least, don't care about) a solution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 30
7/14/11 at 6:12pm
It's absolutely confounding that people can claim that the last 30 years in US history has been a drift toward socialism. In that time, corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy have gone way down, and regulation has been slashed. I think they need to stop drinking the kool-aid and take a fucking look.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 30
7/14/11 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's absolutely confounding that people can claim that the last 30 years in US history has been a drift toward socialism.

I'm actually looking over a much longer time horizon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

In that time, corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy have gone way down, and regulation has been slashed.

Uh huh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I think they need to stop drinking the kool-aid and take a fucking look.

Maybe you need to.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #13 of 30
7/14/11 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I can't tell you where it's at but John has all the good folks there.

Not yet.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #14 of 30
7/15/11 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First is the presupposition that it is a moral obligation of some vaguely defined group of people (e.g., "society" or "the country") rather than a moral obligation of individual people.

Second is the presupposition that the obligation should be met using force if necessary.

Personally, I disagree with both presuppositions.

I don't agree that we can grant them their morality is correct, and then safely still defeat them on it being wrong to force people to do the right thing, or the group being ill-defined.

A group obligation may very well be ill-defined, but they could simply (with the power of computers) assign one-to-one, a needy person with a productive person, and say you have an individual obligation, and you would have no moral defence. Also the idea that X may be right, but forcing people to do X isn't necessarily, is itself a moral judgment, and so depends on the current moral code, which is this case is in the premises: You are your Brother's keeper.

I just think there's no way of avoiding challenging head on the idea that morality is about providing for the needs of others. In point of fact, they have no proof of this position. Why can't it be that moral obligations are something you owe to yourself, to live the most joyous productive life humanly possible before you die?

I personally think questioning statists on this fundamental point (their ultimate lack of proof) is the only way to make them listen. Because as long as they think they are in the moral right, and those on the Right just don't get it, they will be prepared to bully legislation through and justify anything to meet their moral goal.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 30
7/15/11 at 5:30am
America getting more socialist?

America’s less equal than it’s ever been. There’s LESS EQUAL WEALTH DISTRIBUTION THAN THERE’S EVER BEEN. It’s been getting worse year on year since the late ‘70s.

Wealth’s concentrated in a smaller number of bank accounts than it’s ever been.

And you're whining about socialism. You need to read blogs with facts in, not blogs where people call your president Obumma in the comments. Obamie (you know, places like News International's FoxNation.com.)

You're hysterical and historically-illiterate ideologues and you're making no contribution to the solution of your nation's problems whatsoever. Maybe you ought to go.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 30
7/15/11 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't agree that we can grant them their morality is correct, and then safely still defeat them on it being wrong to force people to do the right thing, or the group being ill-defined.

A group obligation may very well be ill-defined, but they could simply (with the power of computers) assign one-to-one, a needy person with a productive person, and say you have an individual obligation, and you would have no moral defence. Also the idea that X may be right, but forcing people to do X isn't necessarily, is itself a moral judgment, and so depends on the current moral code, which is this case is in the premises: You are your Brother's keeper.

I just think there's no way of avoiding challenging head on the idea that morality is about providing for the needs of others. In point of fact, they have no proof of this position. Why can't it be that moral obligations are something you owe to yourself, to live the most joyous productive life humanly possible before you die?

I personally think questioning statists on this fundamental point (their ultimate lack of proof) is the only way to make them listen. Because as long as they think they are in the moral right, and those on the Right just don't get it, they will be prepared to bully legislation through and justify anything to meet their moral goal.

I think we mostly agree. I was trying to begin making the argument against these moral presuppositions they hold.

What do you suggest? What is the pathway to persuading them of their error in thinking?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 30
7/15/11 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm actually looking over a much longer time horizon.

Of course you are.
Quote:
Uh huh.

In other words, you don't have a response.
Quote:
Maybe you need to.

I need to do what? Research whether America is becoming more socialist? I have and it's not.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 30
7/15/11 at 5:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course you are.

Don't know whether you're being sarcastic or not here and if so, why you either doubt that I am or it is bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

In other words, you don't have a response.

My response it that your wrong. Regulations have not been "slashed" and taxes have not gone "way down."


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I need to do what?

Stop drinking the kool-aid and take a fucking look.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 30
7/15/11 at 6:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Stop drinking the kool-aid and take a fucking look.

No, YOU need to take a fucking look.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

You need to take a fucking look at the facts, realise that you have the facts wrong, and then you need to change your mind.

Because you are wrong.

http://www.lcurve.org/

http://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm

just go to google, and type in American income distribution, and do some fucking reading, and when you realise that you are wrong, and America is not getting more socialist, and you've learned something, and grown up a bit, maybe you can stop behaving like a little child and pissing your pants because you have a centre-left president (who in global terms is basically centre right anyway.)
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 30
7/15/11 at 6:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

...and do some fucking reading, and when you realise that you are wrong, and America is not getting more socialist, and you've learned something, and grown up a bit, maybe you can stop behaving like a little child and pissing your pants...

It's nice to have you back.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 30
7/15/11 at 6:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Don't know whether you're being sarcastic or not here and if so, why you either doubt that I am or it is bad.

I know you're looking at a longer timeframe. Because if you were looking at the last 30 years, you'd be wrong to claim at the US is more socialist. Grossly wrong.
Quote:
My response it that your wrong. Regulations have not been "slashed" and taxes have not gone "way down."

Excuse me. Here, you're wrong. Please tell me, in the last 30 years, the effective tax rates of someone worth a billion dollars... Have they gone up, or way down? Be honest. The effective tax rates of a corporation like Exxon, have they gone up, or gone way down (I'll have you keep in mind here that they're now zero)? The regulations a corporation like Exxon, or a bank like Bank of America are bound to, have they increased, or decreased?
Quote:
Stop drinking the kool-aid and take a fucking look.

Looked. Still not socialism, not by a long stretch.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 30
7/15/11 at 9:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I Please tell me, in the last 30 years, the effective tax rates of someone worth a billion dollars... Have they gone up, or way down? Be honest. The effective tax rates of a corporation like Exxon, have they gone up, or gone way down (I'll have you keep in mind here that they're now zero)? The regulations a corporation like Exxon, or a bank like Bank of America are bound to, have they increased, or decreased?
.

Ah, no, but you see... these are facts.

MJ1970 is so depressed and scared that "America is becoming socialist" that he's discussing options for immigration.

And yet: the opposite is true. So he can stay. Because America isn't becoming socialist, but more unequal and more favourable to the very wealthy.

So it is VITAL that he... ignores these facts, all together.

In fact, I'm going to stop writing with consonants, because it doesn't actually make any difference to the doolally factless world view he holds what we write.

eiuiiieueiuaouoiuueeoiuaoiueoiuaueeueuaiaoaueeeoao ooiuaieuaoieuaoieuaoiu
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 30
7/15/11 at 9:49am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Over the last 30 years:

- corporate taxes are way down, but it is uneven, some industries benefit from the complex corporate tax laws a lot more than others

- revenue/gdp has stayed roughly flat since the end of WWII - tax rates have gone down, but revenue has not. Tax rates don't seem to affect revenue that much after a couple year adjustment period, people just adjust their behavior to pay less tax when taxes are high:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57794540@N06/5381226219/

- the number of people who don't pay any income tax has gone way up - 30 years ago the tax base was more broad than it is now. And before BR starts going off about how poor people pay lots of payroll taxes, they pay negative payroll taxes because the boomers are taking out $3 in SS and medicare benefits for every $1 they put in.

So, on the whole, we have a much bigger government than we had 30 years ago, with rich people paying a bigger share of government revenue. I don't know if that is "more socialist" or not though.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #24 of 30
7/15/11 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Over the last 30 years:

- corporate taxes are way down, but it is uneven, some industries benefit from the complex corporate tax laws a lot more than others

- revenue/gdp has stayed roughly flat since the end of WWII - tax rates have gone down, but revenue has not. Tax rates don't seem to affect revenue that much after a couple year adjustment period, people just adjust their behavior to pay less tax when taxes are high:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57794540@N06/5381226219/

- the number of people who don't pay any income tax has gone way up - 30 years ago the tax base was more broad than it is now. And before BR starts going off about how poor people pay lots of payroll taxes, they pay negative payroll taxes because the boomers are taking out $3 in SS and medicare benefits for every $1 they put in.

So, on the whole, we have a much bigger government than we had 30 years ago, with rich people paying a bigger share of government revenue. I don't know if that is "more socialist" or not though.

What are you on? According to the graph you linked to, revenue has dropped from 20% of GDP to just 15%. That's a HUGE drop, all things considered.

With regard to taxes, you certainly haven't factored in the very high increase in sales taxes, which definitely affects the poor. In fact I would expect there are many poor who are paying more in sales tax today than they were in income tax previously. That's not socialist.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 30
7/15/11 at 10:08am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What are you on? According to the graph you linked to, revenue has dropped from 20% of GDP to just 15%. That's a HUGE drop, all things considered.

With regard to taxes, you certainly haven't factored in the very high increase in sales taxes, which definitely affects the poor. In fact I would expect there are many poor who are paying more in sales tax today than they were in income tax previously. That's not socialist.

Smooth it out over the longer term - it is a flat line. We had things go up due to the dot com boom then down for the bust, then up (without any tax increases), then down in the current crisis - that is true, but it isn't my point. If you look at a graph of tax rates from 1945 to now, it is plain as day that tax rates have nothing to do with revenue.

It is also plain as day that economically, we have been unstable since the dot com crash - it is like we are a spinning top that got knocked off its base in 2000. I think that the late 1990s revenue was unnatural, and the drop after that got blamed unfairly on tax cuts when it was really due to the dot com crash. The bump and fall after that was due to the real estate boom and crash, but nothing to do with tax rates.

Good point about sales taxes though, I can't find any numbers on it - but maybe that evens things out so that rich and poor people are paying the same amount as they did 30 years ago. But I can't see any way for somebody to say that taxes are less progressive now than they were 30 years ago even counting sales taxes.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #26 of 30
7/15/11 at 10:09am
Thread Starter 
The "official" expatriation rate is up over 7 times from what it was when Obama took office.

And since the expatriation process is prohibitive to the poor and middle class, it is the wealthy who are fleeing.

Whatever their reasons for leaving, that is money that is no longer being invested here in the United States. That translates to fewer jobs being created and less tax revenue for the government.

In spite of the fact that the U.S. government has arbitrarily declared that if it puts you on a certain list it can still tax you for up to 10 years after you renounce your citizenship, they are still leaving.

Perhaps more and more people who have wealth and understand how money works feel that conditions are more favorable elsewhere for allowing them to keep the fruits of their labors and do with it as they see fit.

Or perhaps they just see the writing on the wall and are getting as far away as possible from the impending economic collapse and its fallout.

Source

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 30
7/15/11 at 10:29am
Another factor to look at (as e1618978 pointed out the actual rates are not the only story and may not even by the most important measure) is what percentage of the taxes are paid by the different income groups. The only data I can find* is back to 1999 and only for income tax...but these numbers look quite stable over time with the top 1, 5 and 10% actually edging up during the Bush years while the bottom 50% edged down during that time.

Either way it casts doubt on the taxes have gone way down. Perhaps rates have, but this is an extremely simplistic and superficial way to look at this question.

I suspect would be nearly impossible to gather this data for sales tax by income because, unlike income taxes, people's privacy is not usually invaded by the government when they buy most products in the market and pay the sales tax.

I can't, right now, find data on the change of sales tax rates over time across the US, but I'm sure tonton has this information and can give us a link.

*I found another that goes back to 1977. The consistency appears to remain with the highest 20% actually trending up over time. In fact from 1979 to 1989 (The US's great experiment with social and economic Darwinism and laissez faire...) the top 1% went from paying about 19% to 24% (they're now about 38%) of all income taxes. The top 5% went from 37% to 44% (now around 59%) and the top 10% went from about 50% to 56% (now about 70%).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 30
7/15/11 at 11:30am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The "official" expatriation rate is up over 7 times from what it was when Obama took office.

And since the expatriation process is prohibitive to the poor and middle class, it is the wealthy who are fleeing.

Whatever their reasons for leaving, that is money that is no longer being invested here in the United States. That translates to fewer jobs being created and less tax revenue for the government.

In spite of the fact that the U.S. government has arbitrarily declared that if it puts you on a certain list it can still tax you for up to 10 years after you renounce your citizenship, they are still leaving.

Perhaps more and more people who have wealth and understand how money works feel that conditions are more favorable elsewhere for allowing them to keep the fruits of their labors and do with it as they see fit.

Or perhaps they just see the writing on the wall and are getting as far away as possible from the impending economic collapse and its fallout.

Source

Bush repealed the 10 year rule, you just have to pay capital gains taxes on everything you own. Which is the main reason that people are leaving imho, it is easier now. Tons of illegal immigrants are leaving too - but that is because there are no jobs.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #29 of 30
7/15/11 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think we mostly agree. I was trying to begin making the argument against these moral presuppositions they hold.

What do you suggest? What is the pathway to persuading them of their error in thinking?

I think we mostly agree too.

I don't know ultimately how to convince them. The trouble is they (incorrectly) think they have the moral high ground, and people like that are notoriously difficult to reason with. The "old left" (even though they were awful communists) used to have intellectualism as part if their ideology, and would sit down at the table with you, but the new ones not so much.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 30
7/15/11 at 6:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Another factor to look at (as e1618978 pointed out the actual rates are not the only story and may not even by the most important measure) is what percentage of the taxes are paid by the different income groups. The only data I can find* is back to 1999 and only for income tax...but these numbers look quite stable over time with the top 1, 5 and 10% actually edging up during the Bush years while the bottom 50% edged down during that time.

Either way it casts doubt on the taxes have gone way down. Perhaps rates have, but this is an extremely simplistic and superficial way to look at this question.

I suspect would be nearly impossible to gather this data for sales tax by income because, unlike income taxes, people's privacy is not usually invaded by the government when they buy most products in the market and pay the sales tax.

I can't, right now, find data on the change of sales tax rates over time across the US, but I'm sure tonton has this information and can give us a link.

*I found another that goes back to 1977. The consistency appears to remain with the highest 20% actually trending up over time. In fact from 1979 to 1989 (The US's great experiment with social and economic Darwinism and laissez faire...) the top 1% went from paying about 19% to 24% (they're now about 38%) of all income taxes. The top 5% went from 37% to 44% (now around 59%) and the top 10% went from about 50% to 56% (now about 70%).

MJ, you can't look at percentages of wage earners. You have to look at percentages of wages earned. This is a common manipulation of the right.

The top 10 percent of wages earned result in what percentage of taxes paid? Has that gone up or down?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Where would you go?