Actually, the result of stupid politician tricks....
Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics: Howzabout 2 seconds: It. Don't. Work.
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy instead of cutting spending like normal people. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, Just like our beloved "I Won"....
declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it." Of course, neither bothered to actually ask any of the fleecees what they thought of it.
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates. Gee, guys - how's that "fleece the rich" thing working out for ya' so far? Are you ready to try something radical - like CUTTING SPENDING? Naaahhhh, I didn't think so.
No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. Now there's a shocker. Hooda thunk it?
For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey.
The Maryland state revenue office says we have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."
All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share." While Mr. O'Malley and his cronies don't.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/26/2009 10:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the immortal words of Frank Borman when he was at Eastern Airlines: "Come on Down". All those fleeced millionaires on the loose - come on down here to Florida and spend some money on a nice home on the golf course or the beach. We have no income tax and we have no snow shovels except to use on road kill.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
05/26/2009 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I am a little fuzzy what is 6.5% of nothing? Do they teach math in Maryland? California just makes sure businesses are regulated out of the state.
#3
How much of the decline in million-dollar tax returns was due to tax-payers leaving the state and how much was due to the decline in income as the stock market collapsed?
#4
Some of both, no doubt, Glenmore. It wasn't exactly a controlled experiment.
I would also expect that some of the former millionaires either earned less (why bother!) or found a way to hide it from the taxman. The bottom line is that this was a bad idea with a not-unpredictable result.
#7
Years ago, I worked with a fellow who was taking the H&R Block tax course. He made a comment that stuck with me: Rich people do not become and stay rich by being stupid. If they are being taxed, they will find a way around it.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/26/2009 22:45 Comments ||
Top||
U.S. President Barack Obama tapped U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.
If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.
Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.
#2
Hoover doesn't count - he is lost to revisionist history. They are playing her as the first "woman Hispanic" to be appointed. And to say she would bring more judicial experience because of her tenure and not her opinions or judgement is like saying that some guy who played 25 years in the big leagues batting .250 is a better hitter than Pete Rose.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
05/26/2009 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
A common reason for picking a second rater is that he/she will remember who got them the post.
#4
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life, said Judge Sotomayor...
The above is a quote from today's NYT. In a sane world that remark would be grounds for all the senators to laugh her out of DC. But in today's world you just never know.
#6
Imagine Lady Justice not only peeking out from under her traditional blindfold, but also putting her thumb on the side of the scale she deemed deserved to win Just Because.
It isn't justice, it's revenge.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
05/26/2009 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life," said Judge White...
#12
Parabellum, I was actually struck by the sexist part of it. But then again, I'm not one of those chicks who waste time with Oprah and The View (hack, spit....anyone got some Listerine around here?)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
