The Rich Aren’t Getting Richer

Kevin D. Williamson gives a lesson on income mobility:

When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent. All that really means is that the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2010 made more money than did the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2000, the 100,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 100,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made more money this year than did the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 1,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 1,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, etc., which is not shocking. But, as the Treasury data show: They are not the same people.

Trusts for the Rich Flock to Low-Tax States

From the WSJ:

New Hampshire, in fact, has become a kind of mini-Switzerland for wealthy Northeast families. Trust assets under management by banks and trust companies up north have jumped 70% over the past five years, to $311 billion in 2010, from $184 billion in 2005, according to the New Hampshire Banking Department. State.

The Boston Herald says trust companies are “cropping up like tax-free liquor stores in southern New Hampshire.”

Can we blame them? Of course not.

No, we can't.

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."- Judge Learned Hand

Health Care a Right?

With his usual clarity, Walter Williams breaks down the real difference between negative and positive rights:

"...Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right.

Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another?...

...True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of noninterference.

If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings...

America's Richest Counties That You Pay For

Forbes has ranked the 25 richest counties based on median household incomes for 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Browse through the slide show and you will notice that 12 of the 25 are Virginia and Maryland counties surrounding Washington DC. Those two states have a combined population of around 13 million people in a country of over 300 million.

This illustrates just how much money is now inefficiently spent by industries, interest groups and assorted parasites to either protect themselves, gain advantages or just get taxpayer cash.

The federal government produces nothing and everything of value it has is artificially created through the force of law. Money spent for tribute to an overbearing government is money that wont be used to create jobs and wealth in the private sector. Instead it is used to enhance the wealth and power of the governing elite at the expense of the taxpayer. In short, we are funding the destruction of our liberties and our economic well being.

Obama’s Bank Tax – The Victim is YOU!

This isn't news to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics, which is why most Americans don't get it:

"As ABC News reports, the CBO wrote a letter yesterday to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in which it highlighted that the American people will bear the true brunt of the President’s proposal. From the CBO’s letter:

[T]he ultimate cost of a tax or fee is not necessarily borne by the entity that writes the check to the government.

The cost of the proposed fee would ultimately be borne to varying degrees by an institution’s customers, employees, and investors.

Customers would probably absorb some of the cost in the form of higher borrowing rates and other charges, although competition from financial institutions not subject to the fee would limit the extent to which the cost could be passed to borrowers. Employees might bear some of the cost by accepting some reduction in their compensation, including income from bonuses, if they did not have better employment opportunities available to them. Investors could bear some of the cost in the form of lower prices of their stock if the fee reduced the institution’s future profits.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone not guilty of the sin of earning more than $250,000. But what all too many don't realize is that any tax on anyone is ultimately a tax on everyone.

St. Pete Beach eyes federal stimulus money for marina, Corey boardwalk

It's nice to see that at least some of my federal tax dollars might be wasted closer to home:

ST. PETE BEACH — A city-owned marina and a boardwalk under the Corey Avenue Bridge are ideas that just won't die.

Despite past funding setbacks, the city is now pushing to get $500,000 in federal stimulus funds to build a 725-foot boardwalk beneath the Corey Avenue Bridge to connect the city's historic Corey Avenue shopping district with the new $8 million community center and park on the north side of the bridge.

Perhaps they could call it The American Economy Memorial Marina and Boardwalk. No one locally wanted to fund this thing, having decided it was a waste of money. But using borrowed and stolen money laundered through Washington is OK. The people (and their children) of St. Pete Beach will pay for this inefficient nonsense anyway, so they might as well put their snouts in the trough.

New York Re-Arranges The Deck Chairs

The state with the possibly the highest tax and regulatory burden in the country is going to make itself even more uncompetitive with a typically statist tax and spending plan:

"Movie tickets, taxi rides, soda, beer, wine, cigars and massages would be taxed under Paterson's proposal. It also extends sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and removes the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110."

This is how New York and other socialist states have always solved the fiscal disasters they create. More of the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.

As before, none of these taxes and fees will bring in anywhere near the revenue projected as New Yorkers will be turned into criminals when they avoid (evade?) these taxes by taking their commerce elsewhere. One just has to look at New York's thriving black market in cigarettes resulting from the highest taxes in the country on that legal product.

Ultimately, the New York government will chase even more of its most productive citizens from the state as it kicks the can down the road without reforming a government run by those who sit in the cart rather than pull it.

The New York Post knows all too well that this is more of the same:

"So he proposed a $121 billion budget for the fiscal year that starts April 1, ostensibly to close an estimated $15.4 billion revenue-spending gap through March 2010. Not good enough. Yes, the budget calls for relatively modest cuts in big-ticket items. But it "restructures" virtually nothing. It actually increases spending, by some $1.3 billion. And it seeks to impose tax and fee hikes in excess of $4 billion - larger than any New York governor has ever sought before. Can you say "business as usual"?"

For example, we're told without context that there will be a 3.3%, or $698 million, reduction in school aid. But as The Post points out: " ...the governor's proposed 3.3 percent dip in school aid will still leave districts with $6.2 billion - up fully 42 percent since '04."

Furthermore: "Now, as always, the Legislature is certain to bloat Paterson's modest economies beyond recognition.
He knows that - everybody knows it."

In other words, nothing has changed and when New York falls further in the hole, they along with California, Michigan and other irresponsible states will be asking the rest of the country to be bail them out.

The problem is that the Obamunists are proposing exactly the same type of government policies that have doomed New York. Now we'll have people and capital fleeing across the oceans rather than just down I95.

The Income Inequality Myth

IBD takes on Barack Obama's regurgitations of Socialist Dogma that animate his economic ignorance:

"Speaking to NBC's Tom Brokaw on Sunday, Obama laid out his views: "It turns out," he said, "that our economy grows best when the benefits of the economy are most widely spread. And that has been true historically."

He followed up by saying, in the last 15 years or so, "You've seen a huge shift in terms of resources to the wealthiest and the vast majority of Americans taking home less and less. Their incomes, their wages have flatlined at a time that costs of everything have gone up, and we've actually become a more productive society."

Our new president might want to talk to some of his sterling economic advisers about this, because he got virtually all of it wrong.

Start with the notion that our economy grows "best" when its benefits are most widely spread.

In fact, America's fast-growing economy has always bred differences in income. Some people are smarter, more talented, better educated and trained, or more entrepreneurial. In a free-market society — or relatively free, anyway — they'll do better. But they make the rest of us richer, too. We may envy them, but we're better off...MORE

There's No Free Lunch, Stupid

The economic ignorance of the general public is one of the most dangerous threats to freedom today. A majority of Americans actually believe the fairy tales of the Left and unwittingly voted for their own economic destruction.

Jamie Whyte at the London Times gives an excellent explanation of the real costs of a heavy handed government:

..."To an economic child, taxing companies sounds like an obviously good idea. Who cares about companies? Can a company be hungry, homeless, uneducated? Will you put the interests of these wealthy inhuman entities ahead of real, flesh and blood people, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet?

But companies cannot be rich or poor; only the people who own them or work for them can be. Nor can the cost of taxation fall on a company; it must ultimately fall on the company's owners, employees or customers. Before you can tell whether corporate tax is a good idea, you need to understand who bears the cost and how it affects their behaviour. Once you do, it turns out that taxing companies is a bad idea.

Research shows that the cost of corporate tax falls more or less evenly across a company's shareholders (in lower dividends), employees (in lower wages) and customers (in higher prices). So, in terms of the “social justice” so beloved of the Left, corporate tax is no better than a combination of income and sales taxes.

But, in terms of efficiency, it is worse. Research also shows that corporate tax has a greater “deadweight cost” than both income and sales taxes, because it discourages the allocation of resources to productive uses - in other words, it discourages investment.

Markets are another, increasingly popular, fantastical bearer of costs. The current financial crisis, we are told, was caused by “unfettered markets”. Fetter them! Alas, you cannot fetter a market. Markets are nothing but places (sometimes “virtual” places) where people enter into voluntary transactions. You can fetter a market only by fettering those who participate in it. You must dictate the terms on which they may do business with each other or conditions they must meet to participate in the market.

Market fetterists claim their shackles protect the vulnerable. That sounds plausible only if you ignore the effects on individual market participants. Complying with regulations imposes a fixed cost on businesses. It thus disadvantages small firms, creates a barrier to market entry and stifles the competition that delivers the best deal for consumers. In short, it shafts the little guy. That is why large incumbent firms lobby politicians to increase market regulation...

... When it comes to bearing costs, there are no companies or markets or other aggregations of people. Costs are always borne by individuals. That is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she denied the existence of society: “They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people.”...

The Fantasies of Steven Pearlstein

The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein has proved once again why he is the personification of the Peter Principle. As that paper's business reporter, he consistently shows his hostility toward the very subject he covers with calls for the failure of capitalism and increased government interference in private enterprise.
Now he does himself one better with the moronic claim that increasing taxes during a recession is a good thing:

“That there’s something wrong with raising taxes in the middle of a
recession – that it’s always a bad idea – not true,” Pearlstein said. “It
depends on what the government does with that money and what people would have done with the money if they already – if they had it and it wasn’t taxed.”

In other words, individuals are poor judges of the proper way to invest and spend their own money. Therefore the high priests of government, who are of course endowed with supernatural powers, should confiscate those funds by force in order to ensure it is used in the most beneficial (politically motivated) way. After taking a cut of 30% or so for the Church of Secular Government of course.

This glittering jewel of economic ignorance goes on:

“And it’s quite possible that if you raised taxes on people who
otherwise would have saved the money and you, and you invest it wisely – the economy can be better off,” Pearlstein said. “So it’s not always the case raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. It matters on whom and how you use the money.”

I find it quite amazing that Pearlstein doesn't understand that savings is investment. Where does he think interest comes from? I guess he really means that the anointed in government are the only ones who know how to invest "wisely". They've done such a good job with Social Security and Medicare contributions, so why wouldn't this dope think that?

Of course Pearlstein has history on his side, right? After all, Jimmy Carter raised taxes during recession in the 70's and that worked out well didn't it?
Herbert Hoover did the same thing 1929 and that...never mind.

Pearlstein says it's "quite possible" is dumb idea would work, which is like saying it's quite possible that the umpteenth email I got from Nigeria today really will be a way for me to make millions.

Pearlstein isn't going to find a lot of takers for his incoherent ramblings:

Even Democratic President-elect Barack Obama said tax increases could be detrimental to the overall economy. And as Murray Rothbard pointed out for the Ludwig von Mises Institute – raising taxes in this environment is a bad idea – under any school of economics.

“Every school: Austrian, Keynesian, monetarist, or classical, would react in horror to such a plan, which obviously worsens a recession by lowering saving and investment, and productive (as opposed to parasitic and wasteful government) consumption. Raising taxes does nothing to help the inflation, and does a lot to make the recession more severe; and it aggravates the deadweight burden of government on the economy.”

Related Posts:
WAPO's Anti-Business Reporter Wants Less Business
WAPO's Anti-Business Reporter, Steven Pearlstein

Tax Takers Aren't Doing Their Fair Share

Have you ever heard a Democrat seriously talk about the government doing with less? Of course not since the state is the secular church and that would be blasphemy. IBD gives us some facts:

..."Sacrifice" is evidently not lacking on the tax side of the federal
fiscal equation. The spending side is a different story, however.
If there is a lack of "sacrifice," it lies not with the taxpayers but with the "tax takers."...

...Washington's talk of "sacrifice" is no more than a stalking horse in the left's hunt for higher taxes. This call for higher taxes is not so much about funding the war against terrorism as it is about the left's desire to use the tax code to redistribute income.

The contrast between taxes and spending during the current and past three conflicts could not be starker. And it could not demonstrate more clearly the left's divergent view of taxes. It differs fundamentally from the rest of America's. For most, taxes are a necessary evil as disagreeable and inevitable as death.

For the left, they are a good to be pursued, a means to an end. Not simply needed to expand government, they are sought to smooth the perceived inequities arising from a market economy's distribution of wealth.

Washington's call for "sacrifice" therefore rings hollow on every front.

Socialism is Evil

In all the hub bub over Obama's Marxist redistributionist designs on the country, some say "what's so bad about that?" An old column by Walter Williams addresses that very question:

...Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first through intimidation, threats and coercion take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Part II

Enviro-Lawyer Wants Less Internet Speech

A lawyer by the name of Dusty Horwitt is suggesting that government tax all but the most deep pocketed Internet content providers because "The information avalanche coming from all sides -- the Internet, PDAs, hundreds of television channels -- is burying us in extraneous data that prevent important facts and knowledge from reaching a broad audience" and "It's possible that over time, an energy tax, by making some computers, Web sites, blogs and perhaps cable TV channels too costly to maintain, could reduce the supply of information."

In other words, people aren't consuming the information Mr. Horwitt thinks they should, so he wants to use the tax code to limit the amount of information available. And he uses one ridiculous rationale after another to desperately make his case.

Mr. Horwitt's interest in this crackpot idea goes beyond his obvious fascistic streak and plain nuttiness. He's an environmental attorney for The Environmental Working Group; a radical organization that exists to whip up public fear and emotion based on Pseudo-Science that is fed to friendly (Leftist) journalists. The froth created is then used by EWG's trial lawyer buddies to sue businesses already reeling from fighting in a tainted court of public opinion.

But now there's a problem. The Internet allows people to exercise their critical thinking skills and not just swallow the biased reporting coming from Horwitt's MSM buddies. The public today has the ability to give his BS the smell test and he wants the government to tax competing views out of existence. The fact that Horwitt"s obvious conflict of interest isn't disclosed is the strongest argument against his thesis.

In short, the parasitical trial lawyers and their Eco-Marxist clients are getting as frustrated as the Democrat Party is with all this pesky free speech stuff. So now we have a plan to impose a back door Fairness Doctrine on the Internet. Their ideas can't compete in the marketplace, so they'll just destroy the market.

One of Horwitt's complaints: "To achieve their goals, political movements need to reach and influence tens of millions of citizens. Despite conventional thinking that the Internet helps spread information, such reach is actually impossible online."

It would be nice if Mr. Horwitt's eltist plan does go viral and he gets plenty of feedback from all the fools who aren't reading his approved information.

Anti-Business States Awash In Red Ink

I've been writing for a while now (LINK, LINK) about the mass migration of economic refugees within the United States from oppressive states to more free ones. Now we have more evidence of the damage an out of control state (or country) can do to itself and its people. Those heavy handed governments still don't want to face their economic and moral failures. They are still doing their level best to chase away those who pull the cart; leaving behind those who just in it and whine.

"Shortly after he was confirmed as governor of New York earlier this year, David Paterson told a group of business executives that when he received congratulations from old friends he hadn’t heard from in years, he was surprised how many no longer lived in New York. "All of them basically said the same thing," Paterson told the group. "'Good luck in New York state, but we can't pay the taxes. The opportunities aren't there.'”

After that experience, Paterson presumably can understand the complaints of corporate executives recently surveyed by Development Counsellors International, which advises companies on where to locate their facilities. More than four in ten of them have ranked New York as the worst state to do business in--second only to California in unfavorable mentions. The most common gripes included high taxes and anti-business regulations. Joining New York and California on the list of most unpopular states were New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts...

Of the approximately $48 billion in accumulated budget shortfalls that the 29 states with projected deficits are facing, $33 billion, or two-thirds of the gap, is concentrated in those five states considered by corporate executives to be the least friendly to business. Meanwhile, among the five states ranked as having the best business environment, Texas and North Carolina have no projected budget gaps, and Georgia, Tennessee and Florida are facing shortfalls amounting to about $4.1 billion, or less than one-tenth of the states’ total."

What's the answer? Higher taxes that will chase even more businesses and individuals away. The stupidity and insanity of these socialist hacks never ceases to amaze me.

"Paterson’s former colleagues in the state legislature are lobbying for a new tax on millionaires, while across the country California’s legislators have called for boosting the state’s top tax rate from 9.3 percent to 11 percent. Since many firms, especially small ones, are organized corporately in such a way that they pay taxes on profits at their owners’ personal income tax rate, any increase in the top rate of income taxes will hit small firms hard, to say nothing of the impact on the personal taxes of executives at big firms."

But they also expect the rest of us to pay for their irresponsibility and corruption:

"...Paterson argued creatively that the rest of the country should come to his aid because the Empire State is home to the country’s financial markets and thereby contributes disproportionately to the America economy--although I can imagine that there are many states that would gladly take those financial institutions off of New York’s hands if the governor considers them such a burden."

Damn right we'll take them and we already are. Last one out, please turn off the lights.

Claire Shipman's Latte Economics

Claire Shipman shows us why it's important to actually know something, anything about economics before discussing it in front of millions.

First, the obligatory Bush Bashing on the deficit:

"a parting gift from one president to the next of the most unwelcome sort."

The President can't spend one dime without the consent of congress. But that pesky fact flies in the face of the "Everything is Bush's fault" narrative.

Then we have this asinine little exercise:

"Now, we came up with a few GMA solutions to try to put this in perspective. If every American were to pitch in $2,000, we could pay off this year's deficit. Or, if we handed over, each of us, 500 gallons of gasoline or, in terms we could all really understand, if every American gave up 666 lattes for a year, we could pay off this year's deficit. Robin?"

OK. Let's humor this moron for a moment. $2,000 a person equates to $8,000 dollars for a family of four that probably doesn't even drink lattes, much less 666 each. I know $8,000 isn't a lot of money to condescending snobs like Shipman, but it is a lot of good money thrown after bad to most people. And even if the deficit were paid off for one year, it just gives congress license to spend even more of our money. Shipman, like most lefties believes that government is the only entity that can never do with less.

Shipman also (unsurprisingly) fails to realize that the money she wants throw down the government rat hole would not be spent in the job creating private sector, which will slow down the economy, which will result in lower tax revenue. Then idiots like Shipman will call for even higher taxes and the downward spiral continues.

Rich States, Poor States

Here's more proof of the mass migration of people and businesses from high tax and regulation states to low ones. Capital and investment will always seek out the places with the lowest barriers to trade and that's exactly what's happening throughout the U.S.

Just look at the domestic migration rates of the four largest states. Compare highly burdensome California and New York to more economically free Texas and Florida. The added benefit to the country of these population trends will be a shift in congressional influence from fossilized socialist states to more vibrant and free ones.

NY Broke, Again

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, convinced the state faces its worst fiscal crisis since the mid-1970s, will deliver the grim news in an unprecedented special address to New Yorkers as soon as tomorrow night, The Post has learned.
The governor's address - which his aides hope will be televised by public and cable news stations - will say that plunging state revenues will force painful cuts in state services, necessitate a reduction in the state work force, possibly through layoffs, and require other difficult economic measures, source said.

Where have I heard that before. Look for the final solution to be higher taxes and another cave in to the unions and other parasites that hold the state hostage. This just means that more taxpayers, businesses and jobs will be heading for the exits in even greater numbers. Upstate New York is already the Detroit of the northeast and eventually the state will be empty outside of a hundred mile radius of NYC, which won't be far behind.

How do Democrats Define "Fair Share"?

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a
way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived
on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for
the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush
tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in
American history...The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a
figment of the Lefts imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more
than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has
ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax
cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the
budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.

Most of the "rich" are small business people who are the particular engine that drives the economy. Obama and his apostles in congress would like to throw a monkey wrench into that engine despite the fact that it will result in less money to the treasury. This will satisfy the mythical goal of fairness of outcome rather than opportunity which is really just a quest for power. The statist left doesn't care if the pie is smaller as long as they control more of it.

Remember this exchange from an April debate?

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the (capital gains) rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Maryland passes new "millionaire" tax

High end real estate brokers in Florida and elsewhere should start targeting the 6,000 taxpayers in Maryland who will now pay higher taxes for the sin of success.

"Howard Rensin, a successful Howard County businessman and developer, thinks many Maryland millionaires will decamp for less taxing locales."There's already been a substantial migration of people of high income out of Maryland," Rensin said. "I think you're going to see an increase in that type of flight."

Well, of course. Remember that the wealthier people are, the easier it is for them to move. All the revenues estimates that governments use in justifying tax increases are predicated on the assumption that the taxpayer will just stand there and take it in the shorts. It never happens and never will.

Meanwhile, New York passed yet another budget with an increase of twice the inflation rate. They almost imposed their own version of the millionaire tax but dropped it at the last minute, instead raising taxes and fees on everything from internet sales to manicures. And now New York cigarette taxes will be the highest in the country. They should call that the "Smugglers Full Employment Act"

The Cities (and states) that Liberalism Ruins

NRO's Rich Lowry comments that "Detroit is a stark statement on the failure of urban liberalism". Now we learn that Detroit has earned the distinction of having the lowest high school graduation rate of the fifty largest cities in the country, coming in at a disgraceful 24.9%.

It goes beyond that. Looking at domestic migration rates i.e. how many people move from one state to another, a pattern emerges that is an illustration of why the Berlin Wall was built. People are moving from high tax and regulation states to lower ones. It comes as no surprise to anyone but the left that states like Michigan, Illinois, New York and New Jersey have the highest amount of residents leaving for greener pastures. When the Hawaiian government can chase out 12% more residents than it gained in less than fifteen years, you would think a light bulb would go off in someone's head. The Tax Foundation posted a great April Fools send up of clueless governors on this subject.

These people are moving to places like Florida, Texas, Nevada and New Hampshire. Those four states are some of the few that have no income tax, among other benefits to the productive. And many of them aren't moving that far. New Hampshire gained 6.1% in net domestic migration from 2000-2004 while Massachusetts lost 6.6%. Visit the fast growing town of Nashua that sits on the northern border of Massachusetts and is within commuting distance of Boston and the high-tech I-128 corridor to see how incentives matter. The same trend can be seen in Nevada and Arizona as they accept more and more California refugees.

Unfortunately a lot of liberals are moving too and taking their bad ideas with them. They're also oblivious of what caused them to move in the first place.

It took Rudy Guilani, a conservative by New York standards, to repair some of the damage done by his predecessors. But even he couldn't solve the city's systemic problems that cause taxpaying citizens and businesses to flee, leaving behind an even higher percentage of New Yorkers living off of the public teat. Detroit is just the latest and most glaring example of liberal failure. Conservatives and Libertarians need to spend more time pointing out the empirical evidence that's right in front of everyone's nose.