The Theory of "soak the rich" Put Into Practice, and the preditable result...

[PositiveOutlook]

So, the idea was to make the rich pay for the inadequacies of the bloated Maryland government budget by raising the top marginal income-tax rate...  (notice the concept of making the government do with LESS is rarely discussed)...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

The result of this theory of soaking the rich?  The rich are taking a walk from Maryland resulting in LESS revenue, not more, even though the rates were higher...   So the insatiable appetite of the government will not be curbed, but more money BORROWED to cover the shortfall...

"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."

Go figure, the politicians predictions with regard to money are wrong again, and the rich actually want to keep THEIR money...   


"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."

And that is ALSO the case when you try to tax the "rich" corporations... EVERYONE pays more for the same services as it is passed along...

[Hooch]

It's funny how the radical leftists think that the end user will not end up paying for government punishment of the corporation.

So the business is in a predicament. Obama just left us with a tax bill of 3 million dollars more per year. What do we do? This will put us out of business. There is not enough profit floating around to cover this. Shut our doors and go out of business?  NO!  Make people work harder? Yes. Fire some people and have others do their job? Yes. Raise productivity. Raise the prices to the consumer? Yes.

[sellnbama]

I'm no elite college grad or nothing.But when your taking in less is'nt there less to be distributed?So we're supposed to believe the california theory will work for the rest of the country?Exactly what kind of economics does these elite schools teach?   

[PositiveOutlook]

Microsoft.... Tax us more?  I don't think so... result...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY

Interesting quote from the article...

"Microsoft reported an overall effective tax rate of 26 percent for 2008 in its last annual report. “Our effective tax rates are less than the statutory tax rate due to foreign earnings taxed at lower rates,” the report said."

So the "rich" in Maryland in effect said... "No thanks"... and moved out... Resulting in LOWER (negative) revenue even at the higher tax rate, that they now have to try to make up JUST TO BREAK EVEN...

Now MICROSOFT, one of the GREAT American success stories, and the LARGEST software manufacturer in the world, says not only "No thanks", but will also move employees offshore if Obama's tax policies are put into place...  So double the LOSS of tax revenue... and then ADD to that the displacement costs (i.e. - unemployement costs, revenue loss during rehiring phase, etc.) and it again becomes a HUGE negative revenue loss... across the board (i.e. - city, state, and federal)...

Currently 60% of their 95,000+ WORLDWIDE workforce are employed in America...

Keep in mind that Microsoft's average Administrative pay is over $50K (above norm) and the average IT job is over $100K (above norm), so higher salaries, higher tax revenue...  the higher the COST to cover when the jobs are gone...

What is there NOT to understand here?...

[Hooch]

Obama has said his proposals would protect or create jobs in the United States.
It's funny how Obama thinks that when businesses make less money due to higher taxes jobs are created and protected. Liberal economics.

[PositiveOutlook]

Hooch, problem is their attitude is that they'll get it by hook or by crook...

What they forget is the same people they are trying to "help" more often than not end up getting hurt...

Just look at how the Dem's want to do healthcare...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090606/D98L1MI00.html

They want employers to cover the costs or pay a FINE... so what do you think that will do to employment in small companies who employ 70% of the workforce?  Make these jobs harder to get... 

It will INCREASE costs ACROSS the board for EVERYTHING... electricians, plumbers, landscapers, CONCRETE layers, pizzaria's, grocery stores, restaurants, movies, etc. will ALL have to charge MORE.... IOW, EVERYTHING will go up in price to cover the costs...

So, you'll get nationalized healthcare, which you will STILL have to pay for... EVERYONE (from ALL income groups) will just have to pay MORE for everything else...  just think about food and entertainment ALONE how this will INCREASE costs...

We can do MUCH better than this...

[Hooch]

I have a few companies and employ over 60 people, most of which are low income. If we were forced to provide health care we would quickly be out of business. Raising the rates is not an option on a service that is a wanted item but not a necessity as the customer will just do without it. Many if not most service businesses fall into the category of being a desire but not a need. Raising rates = lost customers which = out of business.

I definitely don't agree with this "solution" to health care. But there are problems that need to be fixed relating to cost, diminishing coverage by insurance companies and financial ruin. The government hasn't been doing their job to protect the American citizen from corruption so this is where we are at today.

[sellnbama]

Someone needs to send economics 101 to the messiah.Its simple,just like in the real world down here among us pezants dear lord obama.We buy stuff when it's a deal right?This is how corporate works too,they hire when there is incentive to produce more/make more(aka tax cuts!!).Ding,ding schools out,do you understand barack or were you daydreaming of being the king of all mankind again?Nevermind,I can tell by your arrogant starring into the sky you did'nt get it(should've channeled it through rev. wright)..