US expats thinking of giving up their citizenship.

What do you have against sheep? Us Kiwis demand an answer!

 

A government that uses taxation as a whip to reduce economic activity or redirect peoples spending is an ugly idea. It is a government that picks winners and losers, dispenses punishment and reward.

Nothing really, but to get back on topic - I indeed am going to move in the next year or two. I want to live in the American southwest because of the great climate and the incredible natural diversity. In considering that, California is completely off the table because income taxes, property taxes, general cost (driven by taxes) are all double that of nearby states. In Arizona or New Mexico I can buy a nice home with some acreage around it for less than half what it would cost in California, and then pay property taxes of perhaps 1/4th that of California. I can actually live on my retirement income without jumping back on the treadmill to work just to afford my taxes. I can finish that book I've been struggling with for several years.

Low taxes free the individual.

 

Do you suppose anyone would notice a drought in Arizona?

 

We were discussing taxes.

I posted a reply showing how flawed KB's analogy was.

You leapt out and started talking about "Centrally Planned Economy", and somehow inferring from my post, that I was against "people enjoying the fruits of their labours". You then in the same post ranted on about how much you detested Marxists. If that remark was not showing your disdain for my comment, and inferring that I was a Marxist or espousing Marxist ideas, you made a poor show of explaining your logic. But perhaps you were waffling. Everyone can waffle and digress in a post. Lord knows I've done it often enough.

But then, after I explicitly write a message concerning your implication (however oblique), you then have the gall to go out and ask "Self admission, perhaps?"

Perhaps a little too tongue in cheek coming from you, considering what got me my warning point, for me to appreciate the humour.

 

Great. Further non-denial.

Seeing as to how you find it difficult to see what I have actually taken unction to, I'll ask directly:

Was it your intent to imply the ideas I was espousing, are Marxist, and therefore, by extension, I am a Marxist?

 

Give it up. You're going to lose dude.

 

Good advice. Maybe I will "lose". But if I do, it'll be everyone's loss, not just mine.

 

I like Marxism as a general ideal. I like capitilism as a general ideal..they are both overly flawed though in practice.

 

Thanks, that's clarification enough for me! I apologise for reading something into your message for which you did not intend.

 

Yes, I do - as do the Arizonians...

 

Enjoying this thread. Well said, Fred. Voted.

 

I disagree. Now I'm not suggesting it's a good idea in all cases but especially in cases of activity that have negative impacts on the comunity taxing them is IMO a good idea. I thus support the so called "sin tax" on both tobacco and alcohol. I'd support the same on cannibus. I do drink alcohol so it's not totally a case of saying "tax these cause I don't use 'em".

By the same token tax breaks that encourage people to spend money on some activities can also be justified IMO. For instance donations to educational institutions that carry a 50% tax credit and where said institutions are supported by the goverment actually allow the individual to allocate money to institution they desire and at the same time reduce the general need for tax money to go to said institutions. Organizations that are effiicent at disaster relief such as the Salvation Army may also be more efficient at using the money donated to them for that purose than the government would be and since the government would be on the hook for that then tax codes that encourage dontations to said activities may also be in the interest of both the government and the individual.

 

It might be a good idea to look at some of those charitable organizations. Some are worthy and some are not, but they all get the tax credits.

Really though, I'm talking about industry and commerce rather than charities. Look at the Chevy Volt - about 250,000 taxpayer bucks per car, which is then sold at 41k, and sales are awful!

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/17/the-madness-of-the-volt/

 

That's certainly true. I remember one year looking at the CFC booklet and there was one "charity" that had a huge overhead, I seem to recall well over 50%, and when you read what it was for it sounded like the remainder could be distributed to anyone as the organization saw fit. My take was the "administration" siphoned off most of the money and then gave the rest to friends....

 

yep. Full donations do not make it to the recipients. The administration takes a large bite. Bothers me that admin makes a lot of money....I installed a system at a guys house. He had many donated items within his house, not even bothering to remove the donation tags. I'm sure the donators were under the impression that the appliances were to be given to a worthy recipient.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478230/Bishop-Blings-26m-Limburg-mansion-turned-soup-kitchen.html