Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

third0burns t1_iub17jw wrote

Man I was kinda on the fence about this one but this guy makes me want to vote yes so hard.

55

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iub47lb wrote

Robbing Peter to pay Paul will always have the enthusiastic support of Paul.

−17

third0burns t1_iub9uz4 wrote

Taxation is not theft, obviously.

31

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iube7pn wrote

OK, then why not urge an across-the-board tax rate increase for all MA taxpayers? Why single out one tiny sliver of the taxpayer base?

−4

third0burns t1_iubfpht wrote

Because the ones being singled out are the ones who can afford it.

28

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubhlq4 wrote

Can I swing by your house and tell you what you're allowed to keep and what I can take because you can afford it?

1

jamescobalt t1_iubsljb wrote

He already paid taxes on all that stuff. It’s a social agreement made before you buy or earn stuff. If the farmer millionaire doesn’t want to participate he can take his business elsewhere. Mass would no longer benefit from his money and he would no longer benefit from things Mass taxes pay for like roads that his business uses or the employees educated by the state etc

11

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubh13s wrote

Because that tiny sliver doesn’t pay its fair share. Stop simping for the one percent. It makes you look like a jackass.

17

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubhq4o wrote

Do you have a job?

−1

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubj5ri wrote

You’ve obviously already assumed I don’t, so what’s my answer matter? Clearly because I think rich people should pay their fair share in taxes I must be lazy and unemployed, because that’s the only way you can pretend my opinion isn’t valid.

Fuck off.

16

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubjy2w wrote

Question answered.

1

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubkdv1 wrote

Sigh. This pathetic dismissal would be funny, if I hadn’t seen it a thousand times from libertarian dipshits like yourself. You assume anyone who actually gives a shit about anyone besides themselves must clearly be unemployed, because in your selfish, diseased brain, that’s the only scenario that makes sense.

16

Cerberus73 t1_iubkm0o wrote

Their fair share? You mean more. Doesn't matter what the base is or what the rates are, it's always more.

−18

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubl0k3 wrote

No, I mean their fair share—which they do not currently pay. Don’t put words in my mouth.

16

Cerberus73 t1_iubl8t0 wrote

They aren't paying the 5% everyone else pays? You know, like the state constitution says when it mandates everyone pay the same rate?

If they aren't paying their 5% there are laws in place for dealing with avoidance.

−20

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubll19 wrote

Okay, again: 5% to Daddy Warbucks here is couch change. 5% to someone who barely makes minimum wage? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.

They are not paying their fair share. Flat taxes are disproportionally harmful to the poor and middle class, and all the lolbertarian weirdos kissing millionaire ass here know it.

9

Cerberus73 t1_iubmcyn wrote

You don't know shit about anybody's situation but your own. You're awfully free with the idea of forcing your views on other people, using government force to get your way.

Your fiscal policy boils down to "They have money, I want it, fuck them and their families. And who cares about fairness or consequences."

−13

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iucscye wrote

Lmao, how’s millionaire boot taste?

The current situation ISN’T fair. This would make it fair-ER.

6

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubkyiv wrote

I've never seen Peter complain about Paul being well educated, skilled, and able to come to work due to the services that government provides.

15

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iublym9 wrote

If Peter's happy about that, he should willingly pay to support that.

Instead he needs to be compelled.

−2

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubmbx3 wrote

Peter is happy about it. If he wasn't, he'd set his business up somewhere with lower taxes and fewer services, like Alabama. Peter never wants to pay though, because no one ever wants to pay.

Everyone needs to be compelled. Literally everyone. You must have skipped econ 101, where they taught that an economy is a collection of self interested individuals.

17

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubnec8 wrote

Maybe you didn't hear about all the companies moving from California to Texas.

Don't worry, you'll hear about all the businesses moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire soon enough.

−2

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubo5p5 wrote

You seem to have confused this personal tax increase with a business tax increase. The only businesses that would move because of this tax are ones that are taxed/owned by unincorporated entities. Will some businesses move? Maybe. But there will always be a race to the bottom. None of the corporations that generate the majority of the jobs/income in MA will be moving as this won't even remotely affect them.

It seems you've picked a position and are now trying to find facts that support it instead of the other way around. My condolences.

18

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubp4i7 wrote

Will personal taxpayers earning over a million move over the border into New Hampshire?

Based on history and previous examples from Maryland to France, why wouldn't we believe this? And why wouldn't we believe there would be an actual drop in expected revenues just like those previous examples?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html

0

Ok_Wealth_7711 t1_iubpccp wrote

Taxes are paid where they're earned. Anyone who works in MA will still pay MA taxes. You seem unfamiliar with our tax code.

14