Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

What causes outsourcing, offshoring and tax avoidance? Greedy Democrat tax policies

I have to link to this Fox News editorial, because they linked to my blog, and because it features a sensible libertarian Wayne Allyn Root, whom I blogged about before.

Excerpt:

The signs are everywhere that a tax rebellion has begun.

The latest U.S. Census showed us that the states with low taxes enjoyed the fastest population growth- states like Nevada, Texas, Florida, and Arizona.

Not surprisingly, the states losing the most population are all high tax states like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, and of course Obama’s Illinois.

These states that Americans are running from are all governed just like Obama wants to govern the entire country. Soon these same Americans running away from California, New York and Illinois will instead be running away from America.

Ask the co-founder of Facebook, who recently renounced his citizenship and left for Singapore (where the capital gains taxes are zero).

Ask big-time Democratic contributor Denise Rich, who recently renounced her citizenship to leave for Austria.

The trickle is turning into a torrent. Record numbers of wealthy Americans are giving up their citizenship- eight times more than before Obama became president.

Of course we already know that only one year after the UK imposed a “Millionaires Tax” two thirds of the millionaires in England disappeared off the tax rolls.

High taxes have worked well in England…they are about to endure an unheard of in history triple dip recession…the third recession in 5 years. Folks that’s called a Great Depression.

We already know that millionaires are escaping France at a record pace because of high tax rates imposed by the new Obama-clone Socialist President of France. Even leftist actors like Gerard Depardieu have been forced to abandon the country they love.

The famous actor isn’t alone. Requests by citizens to leave France are up by 500%.

But then came the coup de grace. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has just announced he is leaving France because of taxes.

High taxes are even chasing away the presidents of their own countries!

High taxes work great in France. Their Labor Minister announced just this week that France is “totally bankrupt.” His words.

I removed all the links from the excerpt except the link to me. But you can see all the links on the original Fox News version of the article.

I think that there is this attitude on the left that the hardest-working people are like sitting pigeons. That they can be financially raped over and over by rhetoricians who preen themselves in the public eye, while demonizing their victims. It doesn’t go on forever. Eventually people who produce scale back their efforts, or just move somewhere else. Why work for other people who hate you? Charity is one thing, but slavery is something else entirely. Companies also respond to incentives, and shift to greener pastures where the socialists are not in charge.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Politifraud: Left-wing Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” is literally true

Here’s Politifact’s “Lie of the Year“:

It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign — that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep’s parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.

People often say that politicians don’t pay a price for deception, but this time was different: A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.

PolitiFact has selected Romney’s claim that Barack Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China” at the cost of American jobs as the 2012 Lie of the Year.

Now that the election is over, Reuters is reporting that… Chrysler is going to build Jeeps in China: (H/T The Weekly Standard)

Fiat (FIA.MI) and its U.S. unit Chrysler expect to roll out at least 100,000 Jeeps in China when production starts in 2014 as they seek to catch up with rivals in the world’s biggest car market.

Output could double, the Italian carmaker’s Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne, without giving a precise timeframe.

Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake, said on Tuesday it had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group (601238.SS).

[...]“We expect production of around 100,000 Jeeps per year which is expandable to 200,000,” Marchionne, who is also CEO of Chrysler, said on the sidelines of a conference, adding production could start in 18 months.

The Romney ad said: “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job.”

And the literal truth is that Fiat, an Italian car company, owns a 58.5% majority of Chrysler. And the literal truth is that Chrysler IS “going to build Jeeps in China” –  exactly what Romney said. We now know that for a fact because it has been reported by Reuters. Jeep production is starting up in China, it is not being expanded in the United States. Politifact has exposed itself as a left-wing organization that is willing to lie in order to get their Democrat candidate elected.

What happens when you raise taxes on businesses and punish people for working hard and playing by the rules? Very simple. They leave and move to a place where they can keep more of what they earn. Obama likes to hear the sound of applause from those who depend on government for handouts and bailouts, but he is being applauded for spending other people’s money. Money he himself did not earn. Eventually, people get sick and tired of being abused by big-mouth politicians and they take their capital and move on. It’s the Democrat Party that causes jobs to be shipped overseas.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Do conservative policies or liberal policies cause outsourcing? The case of California

Here’s an interesting article about a new paper published by the centrist Manhattan Institute about California, a state that is controlled from top to bottom by Democrats. Have the liberal economic policies of the Democrats caused a decrease or an increase in outsourcing?

Let’s see:

For decades after World War II, California was a destination for Americans in search of a better life. In many people’s minds, it was the state with more jobs, more space, more sunlight, and more opportunity. They voted with their feet, and California grew spectacularly (its population increased by 137 percent between 1960 and 2010). However, this golden age of migration into the state is over. For the past two decades, California has been sending more people to other American states than it receives from them. Since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 million residents through this migration.

This study describes the great ongoing California exodus, using data from the Census, the Internal Revenue Service, the state’s Department of Finance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and other sources. We map in detail where in California the migrants come from, and where they go when they leave the state. We then analyze the data to determine the likely causes of California’s decline and the lessons that its decline holds for other states.

The data show a pattern of movement over the past decade from California mainly to states in the western and southern U.S.: Texas, Nevada, and Arizona, in that order, are the top magnet states. Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah follow. Rounding out the top ten are two southern states: Georgia and South Carolina.

A finer-grained regional analysis reveals that the main current of migration out of California in the past decade has flowed eastward across the Colorado River, reversing the storied passages of the Dust Bowl era. Southern California had about 55 percent of the state’s population in 2000 but accounted for about 65 percent of the net out-migration in the decade that followed. More than 70 percent of the state’s net migration to Texas came from California’s south.

What has caused California’s transformation from a “pull in” to a “push out” state? The data have revealed several crucial drivers. One is chronic economic adversity (in most years, California unemployment is above the national average). Another is density: the Los Angeles and Orange County region now has a population density of 6,999.3 per square mile—well ahead of New York or Chicago. Dense coastal areas are a source of internal migration, as people seek more space in California’s interior, as well as migration to other states. A third factor is state and local governments’ constant fiscal instability, which sends at least two discouraging messages to businesses and individuals. One is that they cannot count on state and local governments to provide essential services—much less, tax breaks or other incentives. Second, chronically out-of-balance budgets can be seen as tax hikes waiting to happen.

The data also reveal the motives that drive individuals and businesses to leave California. One of these, of course, is work. States with low unemployment rates, such as Texas, are drawing people from California, whose rate is above the national average. Taxation also appears to be a factor, especially as it contributes to the business climate and, in turn, jobs. Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes. States that have gained the most at California’s expense are rated as having better business climates. The data suggest that many cost drivers—taxes, regulations, the high price of housing and commercial real estate, costly electricity, union power, and high labor costs—are prompting businesses to locate outside California, thus helping to drive the exodus.

Population change, along with the migration patterns that shape it, are important indicators of fiscal and political health. Migration choices reveal an important truth: some states understand how to get richer, while others seem to have lost the touch. California is a state in the latter group, but it can be put back on track. All it takes is the political will.

Also, California is absolutely dominated by corrupt public sector labor unions and teacher unions, who regularly interfere in elections to make sure that economic policy is very, very liberal.

What’s true of California is becoming true of the United States as a whole, under our socialist President Barack Obama. The more that Obama enacts left-wing economic policies that threaten job creators and investors with higher taxes and more burdensome regulations and wasteful spending and massive deficits, the more they will leave for other countries or expand to other countries. It turns out that the “greedy” businessmen and investors who advocate for lower taxes and less burdensome regulation are the real champions of low unemployment, economic growth and prosperity.

Filed under: News, , , , , ,

How well did tax hikes for the rich work in California?

Economist Art Laffer explains in Investors Business Daily.

Excerpt:

According to a new report from the Golden State’s Franchise Tax Board, the top 1% of earners paid $25.7 billion in state income taxes in 2007. Two years later, the most recent for which data are available, that figure dropped by half — to $12.3 billion.

Researchers note that the economic downturn contributed to this drop. But that’s not the only cause. A huge number of high-income taxpayers have simply left the state.

Between 1992 and 2008, California suffered a net loss of 869,000 tax filers. About 3.5 million moved into California, while 4.4 million left.

Those that left were disproportionately wealthy. The average adjusted gross income for people leaving the state over that period was $44,700. Meanwhile, the average person moving into California posted income of just $38,600.

So California lost wealthier, more productive residents. And poorer, less-productive folks took their places — some of them, at least.

Smothered under a growing thicket of taxes and regulations, the Golden State’s entrepreneurs and top earners have sought friendlier climes — taking their incomes and the taxes they pay with them.

For many people, moving out of California is equivalent to getting a big raise — because their tax rates plummet. Of the top nine states Californians are flocking to, the average top personal income tax rate is 3.44%. California’s is nearly triple that, at 10.3%.

Also, among those nine states, the corporate tax rate averages 4.59% vs. California’s 8.84%. And their combined state and local tax burden is 9%, versus California’s 11%.

Similarly, if tax rats get to be too high, people will just work harder at getting their capital out of the country. In the case of businesses, they will stop hiring people here and instead open factories and plants in other low-tax countries. It’s socialism that causes outsourcing – taxing and regulating businesses causes them to leave or expand elsewhere.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , ,

Would the Buffett Rule “stabilize our debt and deficits”?

The Buffett Tax (click for larger image)

The Buffett Tax (click for larger image)

The Wall Street Journal assesses Obama’s claims about the Buffett Tax.

Excerpt:

Forget Warren Buffett, or whatever other political prop the White House wants to use for its tax agenda. This week the Administration officially endorsed what in essence is the Obama Rule: Taxes must be high simply to spread the wealth, never mind the impact on the economy or government revenue. It’s all about “fairness,” baby.

This was long apparent to those fated to closely watch the 2008 campaign, but some voters might have missed the point amid the gauzy rhetoric about hope and change. Now we know without any doubt. White House aides made it official Tuesday in their on-the-record briefing on the new federal minimum tax that travels under the political alias known as the “Buffett rule.”

The policy goal is to impose an effective minimum tax of 30% on the income of anyone who makes more than $1 million a year. When President Obama first proposed this new minimum tax he declared that the rule “could raise enough money” so that we “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.”

Then he added: “This is not politics; this is math.” Well, remedial math maybe.

The Obama Treasury’s own numbers confirm that the tax would raise at most $5 billion a year—or less than 0.5% of the $1.2 trillion fiscal 2012 budget deficit and over the next decade a mere 0.1% of the $45.43 trillion the federal government will spend. When asked about those revenue projections, White House aide Jason Furman backpedaled from Mr. Obama’s rationale by explaining that the tax was never intended “to bring the deficit down and the debt under control.”

So if it doesn’t do what Obama says it’s supposed to do, what would really do?

The Buffett rule is really nothing more than a sneaky way for Mr. Obama to justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30% from 15% today. That’s the real spread-the-wealth target. The problem is that this is a tax on capital that is needed for firms to grow and hire more workers. Mr. Obama says he wants an investment-led recovery, not one led by consumption, but how will investment be spurred by doubling the tax on it?

The only investment and hiring the Buffett rule is likely to spur will be outside the United States—in China, Germany, India, and other competitors with much more investment-friendly tax regimes. The Buffett rule would give the U.S. the fourth highest capital gains rate among OECD nations, according to a new study by Ernst & Young, to go along with what is now the highest corporate tax rate (a little under 40% for the combined federal and average state rate). That’s what happens when politicians pursue fairness over growth.

When you make it less attractive for people with capital to invest their capital here at home then they will take their capital and invest it abroad. What Obama’s proposal accomplishes is to outsource jobs – the exact thing that he is always complaining about. It’s higher taxes and more regulation, especially EPA regulation, that causes capital (and consequently jobs) to move overseas. If you want capital to come into America, you lower the tax rates.

In other news, the Obama administration is suing a company owned by Warren Buffett for unpaid taxes.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wintery Tweets

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

RSS Intelligent Design podcast

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Evolution News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,511,425 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,156 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,156 other followers

%d bloggers like this: