finknottle Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm sure people are aware of the liberitarian movement to move to a state and take it over legislatively... not going very well, but give them high marks for trying. Let's take this one step further. Suppose a fiscally responsible state, alarmed at the direction of the federal debt, entitlements, and other federal policies etc, said "That's enough, I want out." How should you divide the nations assets and debts? Should it be per capita, or should it be progressive? In other words, if all the rich people fled high tax states for this mecca, should they assume more national debt per person than those whose policies they are fleeing? And national assets - should they be credited with more or less per person than a non-tax payer for the purposes of dividing up assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm sure people are aware of the liberitarian movement to move to a state and take it over legislatively... not going very well, but give them high marks for trying. Didn't they already have this in New Hampshire? Unfortunately they forgot to build a wall to keep our all the Mass people migrating to cheaper real estate. I'm sure people are aware of the How should you divide the nations assets and debts? Should it be per capita, or should it be progressive? In other words, if all the rich people fled high tax states for this mecca, should they assume more national debt per person than those whose policies they are fleeing? And national assets - should they be credited with more or less per person than a non-tax payer for the purposes of dividing up assets? That would be the least logical solution of all. Wealthier people have already paid in far more than their share in the first place. The debt has been run up for the benefit of the non-taxpayers. Interesting though...if all the evil rich people left, wouldn't the remaining US be a liberal utopia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Not sure I understand the question, but many states already have policies that prevent this from happening. For example, NYS considers any income earned while you were within a sniffing distance of the state income earned in NY and they have a very broad definition of income earned in NY. Moving assets would be more cumbersome, as only liquid after tax assets wouldn't be impacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Let's take this one step further. Suppose a fiscally responsible state, alarmed at the direction of the federal debt, entitlements, and other federal policies etc, said "That's enough, I want out." The Progressive Taxers would never let a state do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Interesting though...if all the evil rich people left, wouldn't the remaining US be a liberal utopia? Ya, it's called Venezuela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Ya, it's called Venezuela Good point. The economic prosperity of the average man on the street has really improved in Venezuela. Speaking of the home of the left wing's favorite dictator, look who has decided to create a new militia that will report directly to El Presidente himself. Should come in handy to beat down any potential political rivals. I'm sure chicot is thrilled. And the rest of the fruits & nuts will be predictably silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 Not sure I understand the question, but many states already have policies that prevent this from happening. For example, NYS considers any income earned while you were within a sniffing distance of the state income earned in NY and they have a very broad definition of income earned in NY. Moving assets would be more cumbersome, as only liquid after tax assets wouldn't be impacted. Sorry - should have been more clear. I meant the state decides to leave the union, completely. A peacefull separation would involve a negotiated settlement regarding the distribution of assets and debts. In a nutshell, how much of the federal debt do I carry with me? 1/300 millionth? Or is it more, because I contribute more? And likewise, is 1/300 millionth of the parks and aircraft carriers mine? More, because I pay more? Or less, because I pay more? I'd like a supporter of progressive taxation to weigh in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm sure people are aware of the liberitarian movement to move to a state and take it over legislatively... not going very well, but give them high marks for trying. Let's take this one step further. Suppose a fiscally responsible state, alarmed at the direction of the federal debt, entitlements, and other federal policies etc, said "That's enough, I want out." How should you divide the nations assets and debts? Should it be per capita, or should it be progressive? In other words, if all the rich people fled high tax states for this mecca, should they assume more national debt per person than those whose policies they are fleeing? And national assets - should they be credited with more or less per person than a non-tax payer for the purposes of dividing up assets? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts