Why Some Billionaires Are Bad For Growth And Some Aren't

[vt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...-others-arent/

How much wealth comes from political connections? In Hong Kong zero! The U.S. is low too.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/18/hon...ittlewood.html

[lektrode]

Re: Why Some Billionaires Are Bad For Growth And Some Aren't

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...-others-arent/

How much wealth comes from political connections? In Hong Kong zero! The U.S. is low too.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/18/hon...ittlewood.html

compared to what?

Given its remarkable successes, Hong Kong’s tax system tends to support the case for a flat tax. More particularly, Hong Kong’s tax history suggests that it is possible to design a flat tax in such a way that it enjoys very broad popular support; but that a flat tax might be feasible only at a very low level of public spending. It also suggests, however, that a very low level of public spending might be politically acceptable if paid for by a flat tax which has very generous allowances and which therefore concentrates the burden on the affluent.

seems to have worked for NH pretty well all these... centuries (like almost 4 of em) - however - given that NH already has (and enjoys) limited levels of public spending - even tho most of 'the burden' is already on the property owning class - which also seems to have worked out pretty well, given that if one has a lot of, or expensive property (ie: 'wealth' vs a lot of income) one pays commensurately more in tax (why NH is also considered one of the fairest of all the states in this regard) - it'll quite simply never work at the federal level, as the truly affluent will never stand for less public spending (mostly for their benefit or shall i say bailouts) while at same time it chokes the amount available for the political class to buy votes with (mostly for the benefit of the affluent, ie: the crony classes)

i think is what i'm trying to say...

[dcarrigg]

Re: Why Some Billionaires Are Bad For Growth And Some Aren't

compared to what?



seems to have worked for NH pretty well all these... centuries (like almost 4 of em) - however - given that NH already has (and enjoys) limited levels of public spending - even tho most of 'the burden' is already on the property owning class - which also seems to have worked out pretty well, given that if one has a lot of, or expensive property (ie: 'wealth' vs a lot of income) one pays commensurately more in tax (why NH is also considered one of the fairest of all the states in this regard) - it'll quite simply never work at the federal level, as the truly affluent will never stand for less public spending (mostly for their benefit or shall i say bailouts) while at same time it chokes the amount available for the political class to buy votes with (mostly for the benefit of the affluent, ie: the crony classes)

i think is what i'm trying to say...

I still don't know, Lek. NH doesn't do flat taxes. At all.

Flat taxes hit everyone on the same percentage of their income or spending. NH has no income or sales tax. What NH does have is the highest property taxes (one for state and one for town) and the second or third highest corporate taxes (8.5% with no exemptions for small business unlike Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Alaska, who have higher top rates, but a progressive scale with breaks for small biz). It also has the one of the highest meals and room taxes (9%), state owned liquor stores, and relatively high insurance and real estate transfer taxes.

In the end of the day, it means they're raising revenue in a more progressive way than the flat tax ever would.

Missouri has a flat sales tax or 4.225%, and an income tax topping at 6%, and New Hampshire brings in just as much money per capita.

So it's not as if NH has a system that fails to raise revenue. In fact, NH has more government workers per capita than MA or RI, and believe it or not, WY tops that list with most government employees per capita, followed by Alaska, followed by North Dakota.

Not sure it all means much of anything except things are more complicated than they seem, and simple silver bullets like a flat income tax or flat sales tax are not going to fix anything.

[lektrode]

Re: Why Some Billionaires Are Bad For Growth And Some Aren't

I still don't know, Lek. NH doesn't do flat taxes. At all.....
...
Not sure it all means much of anything except things are more complicated than they seem, and simple silver bullets like a flat income tax or flat sales tax are not going to fix anything.

yep - but it was the comment by littlewood "..that a very low level of public spending might be politically acceptable if paid for by a flat tax.."

was what i was pointing at - in my comment about NH already enjoys 'limited' state expenditures- compared to a lot of other states - by VIRTUE of the fact they dont have the slushfunds of 'broadbased' taxes, like sales or income -
in saying that it'll never work (since too many of the political + crony classes have their fingers in the cookie jar to gofer a flat tax)

i also tend to think that 'flat rate' taxation (on INCOME) is a bad joke on the working class - as 15% (or pick a number) sounds great for those that make a multiple of the 'median' income - but if one is at or something less than median (and anything less than 30k or so these daze - and i dont care where in the midwest or bayou country one is, you aint 'makin it' on less than 30k) - but 15% of not quite enough is a heluva lot more of a burden than 15% of say, 250k (or hell, the typical ball-bouncer/thrower salary and dont get me goin on the celebrity class' ridiculous income levels - if'n it was my call, on both groups i'd have a surtax of 50% levied on top of whatevah 'flat tax' ... never mind FICA on ALL of it)