They want to amend the IL constitution to eAT tHE rICH

[Guest-5ty5s4]

Eek. Having a state income tax on top of outrageous federal income tax already sucks. This double sucks. Why would anyone want to do business there? Wow

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

We all have a crush on Hank Rearden, duh. In my mind he looks like Michael Fassbender and Jessica Chastain is Dagny Taggart.

being a straight male, I’d like to BE Rearden and get with Dagny.

anyways...

 

[BellaPippin]

I keep seeing the commercials for the "Fair tax" whenever I watch hulu. It sucks when you're trying to relax, then you see some political BS that gets you worked up. Gotta love election season.

UGH EVERYWHERE I remember when I couldn't even watch a YouTube video without seeing a Pritzker or Rauner ad.

 

[Jasper S]

It's what California is doing, And a lot of wealthy people are leaving NY city due to the instability, rioting and unfair lockdowns. These people in office pander to the politically ignorant, even if it messes up their state's tax revenue

Sounds kind of like Detroit around the 1950's-60's.

 

[BizyDad]

wow. I disagree with everything you said. Appeal to tradition, with premises I don’t believe in (no, FDR abusing his presidential terms was not our greatest period in history - the generation who fought in the wars are just called the “greatest generation.”)

the quotes you used also are not commonly used to raise taxes. You’re using power/ responsibility to replace the common communist phrase of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need,” which, if you actually talk to people, many disagree with. It’s a terrible way to build an economy because it’s designed to cannibalize itself.

Anyway, we can politely disagree, just thought I would point out your assumptions about what others believe are wrong...

If you want to know what the other side believes, ask them.

dont tell them what they believe.

Respectfully, I think you misunderstood everything I said.

I'm not telling anyone what they believe. I am not advocating for higher or lower taxes. I apparently have to repeat that several times, since two people think I am advocating for higher taxes and want to bait me into that discussion.

I am simply asking for more civility and a greater understanding of historical context so we don't revert to histrionics.

More history. Less histrionics. How can anyone disagree with that?

I am not "the other side". I am not saying "more taxes is good". I am saying that calling greater taxes "immoral" or "theft" isn't factual or necessary.

The quotes I used were about morality. I quoted the Bible and Spiderman, so it not like I was espousing any grand economic theory.

I deliberately chose a religious and secular conveyance of American morals. If these moral principles sound similar to the governing beliefs of Karl Marx (or Myles Standish or French Revolutionaries of the late 1700's, etc), perhaps it is because they based their governing systems on older moral principles.

See what I mean about history? I think it's really cool. There's a lot to how we got here. This stuff predates Marx. And I didn't bring up Marx, that was a straw man fallacy.

Just to continue the historical chat, FDR didn't begin the trend of dramatically raising taxes. We upped the top tax bracket in 1933, a year prior to FDR. He certainly continued the trend, and it far outlasted his presidency. Top tax rate was above 60% from 1933-1981 and it didn't drop under 50% until 1987.

That is over 50 years of generally prosperous times in an era of much higher taxation.

So that wasn't an appeal to authority. That was stating historical trends. We're in a sad state when historical facts are dismissed as appeals to authority.

If you want to examine those economic principles you believe so fervently, perhaps you can explain this to me.

Here's a chart of US GDP United States GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1948-2020 Data | 2021-2022 Forecast

We really haven't been able to grow GDP nearly as well in this era of lower taxes. And the lower taxes go, the lower growth rate goes. Now maybe that's a chicken and egg discussion, and I'm not suggesting a causal relationship between the two.

But I would certainly expect lower taxes to show a higher GDP growth rate, based on the economic theories bandied about by my conservative friends. Why hasn't it?

What has grown in leaps and bounds is the number of millionaires in this country. It is easier to become a millionaire here than almost anywhere in the world and it has gotten dramatically easier since Reagan.

So if we the people want rules that benefit individual enrichment, then sure, lower taxes is an effective policy to stimulate wealth accumulation. That's pretty obvious.

I recognize that saying anything doesn't fall into lockstep with "low taxes doctrine" on the "Millionaire Fastlane Forum" is likely akin to sacrilege, which is probably why people want to argue.

But I won't argue with someone who says that's the kind of country they want to live in because that's just an argument about opinion, and, fun fact, I too want a country that makes it easier to become a millionaire. I feel thankful and blessed to live here.

Just don't tell me raising taxes are 100% always stifling to overall economic growth. The data doesn't agree. I believe the truth is much much more nuanced than that.

For example, I think its funny that people who complain higher taxes killed California conveniently forget that lower taxes crushed Kansas. And they ignore than until the current downturn, California had grown to become the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world. It sure took a long time for higher taxes to "kill California". What a poorly run state with such poor policies. I wonder if it will ever recover?

If you ask me my opinion, I'd say both sides have good points, and I don't know the correct level of taxation for a society. But I also think it's self-evident that taxation is necessary for the functioning of a society. It's just that there is such a thing as too much taxation, and too little taxation.

So I argue against American socialists who would balloon our tax level, and I argue against American libertarians who want to revert back to just a system of tariffs to fund the government.

I recognize my words are not commonly used to defend one side or another, so I'll take that comment as a compliment.

I'd like to think that's in part because I think for myself and I don't fit neatly in boxes you may be used to. I strive to listen to the best points from all sides. I wish more people would do that.

Instead I feel like some people are just trying to fit me in a box. I find it ironic that you're advocating for better listening.

Seeming as you have said this is a moral issue... and given that we have two diametric opinions, one must be moral and the other immoral... why shy away from making a judgement?

Huh? I did not make it a moral issue. I am responding to your comment about morality.

We're seeing an inversion of morality.

My point is it shouldn't be a moral issue.

To answer your question about judgement, judgement is fine. I don't have a problem with it. Calling one economic tax policy better or worse or more or less effective is one thing. (And again I am not advocating either way so please don't put words in my mouth).

But calling it immoral?

You make it sound so simple. Like it's obvious there's a right and wrong.

Based on what system of morality? Secular morality? The concept of "greatest good for greatest number"? I'll refer you to the chart above. Or since "greatest good" shouldn't be a purely economic discussion, perhaps we look at the list of happiest countries on earth and examine what their societal & economic systems look like? Nah, that wouldn't be a good idea, would it?

Alternatively, I'm a Christian and the Bible says to pay your taxes. Surely Jesus Christ wouldn't advocate something immoral. Christ obviously doesn't think taxation is theft. Or punishment.

See we can go round and round "debating" the morality of it. What does that get us? And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that now I'm crossing the line into a religious discussion, and that's against the rules here. So I'll stop.

And that is my point.

A discussion about taxation shouldn't turn into a religious/moral debate. "The rich are selfish" is just as useless an attack as "Taxation is theft" and as such, I argue against my "lefty" friends just as vigorously as my "righty" friends.

We should stop painting those who we disagree with as evil vile people living little lives who can't comprehend or fathom the genius/wisdom of (insert your chosen group/belief/political party/religion/doctrine here).

Maybe I'm just being idealistic.

Other things that sow division: Straw man arguments, ad hominem. Random statements with no reasoning. Etc.

You have a good point. I don't think I did those things, but I get what you're saying. I recognize this post isn't terribly effective at winning hearts and minds.

It's a conundrum. I'm not sure how to confront something I see as wrong in a manner that will be accepted easily. I'm working on it.

For me, it's easy to accept criticism and say, you're right. You have a good point. I wish more people could admit when they hear a good counterpoint.

Taxation is theft. If you don't pay taxes, they violently put you in jail. By force. With guns. How is that moral.

They don't do that here in the United States. I don't want to comment on the morality of laws in other countries.

I'll make an analogy. To drive a car here you need to get a license. If you drive without a license you are in the wrong. Nobody makes you drive. Nobody tells you you have to get a car. It's a choice you make to theoretically improve your life. It is a privilege afforded to you by the society you live in. If you want to take part in the road system, you have to get a license.

To earn money here, you have to pay your taxes. If you earn money and don't pay your taxes, you are in the wrong. Nobody says you have to earn money. You can be a mountain man living off the land somewhere in the wild and see what you're really made of. That's still allowed in this country. You can go be a monk in a monastery and pursue the riches of the spirit. Getting a job or starting a business is a choice you make to theoretically improve your life. It is a privilege afforded to you by the societal system you live in. So if you want to take part in the economic system of your society, you have to pay your taxes.

If you live in a weak society, these kind of privileges and opportunities (roads, jobs, businesses) are harder to come by. And a great way to weaken the society is to reduce the tax base. I've had relatives who live in weaker societies get actually kidnapped and held for ransom. That's taking someone's freedom. That's theft. I don't want to live in a weak society, so I tend to argue against the "no tax" or "taxation is theft" types.

People who compare taxation to theft, to me, sound like teenagers complaining about a curfew while they're living under their parent's roof. "It's not fair! I'm my own person. You are taking away my freedoms!" It's petulant, impractical, and turns a blind eye to the reality of what's actually going on.

These are the rules. Everyone knows the rules. Government and parents will enforce the rules. Ostensibly, the goal of both is the greater good, but some parents and governments are better than others at accomplishing this. If you don't agree to the rules, go build your own society or house somewhere. Just don't complain about the consequences for being a rule breaker.

That said, personally I still won't call the rule breaker "immoral" or the rule enforcer "moral".

Just because I don't agree "taxation is theft" doesn't mean I think the person who believes these things is moral or immoral.

The west was at it's peak sometime pre-WWII, The U.S was just the last man standing. Pretty easy to compete when half of Europe is a smoking crater and the other half is mismanaged by communists.

True. Which is why I called that argument propaganda.

However, I'd argue the west, or at least the US, had a greater peak in the 1990's-2000's. I mean, pre WWII is WWI. Trench warefare. Ugh. And the industrial period was just a dirty dirty place. Life expectancy was poor. Terrible medicine.

And no air conditioning. Yuck. The no air conditioning thing really kills it for me.

And I think the music of the 1990's was better than the 1890's. A golden age...

(I think the best 1890s has to offer is Sousa. Cobain>Sousa. At least the early 1900s had the start of Berlin.)

 

[biophase]

So uh.. I just got this as a pamphlet in the mail, they want to change the flat rate income tax in IL to be able to randomly assign a tax rate to "the wealthy" and the arguments "pro-change" they give....... it's like Bernie wrote it. Idk, you be the judge. Somewhere in a deep forest a bald eagle loses a feather (?)
@Kak

https://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/con_amend/ca_english.pdf

View attachment 34902​

When I read about this a few weeks ago. It was in an article that said it would pave the way to taxing retirement income. Did you know that Illinois doesn’t tax retirement income? It’s one of a few states that don’t. So people living there save 5% a year. If that goes away you’ll see many more older people leaving as if they needed another reason.

 

[biophase]

Well, I just learned today that Arizona has its own "soak the rich" plan.

If Proposition 208 passes in Arizona it will be my last year as having Arizona as my primary residence. I will move. Prop 208 is basically a tax on the rich, compliments of the socialist idiots that have moved here, and the teacher's unions. If it passes, it will make Arizona one of the highest taxed states in the country, at least for people like me.

If it passes, I leave.

It is that simple.

View attachment 34957

Where would you go? Nevada? Wyoming? Texas?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Cyberthal]

"Fair" is losing your wealth, liberty and life if you won't fight for it.

Imagine how awful the world would be if sickly prey animals just lived forever, reproducing sickly children ad nauseam, instead of getting ripped apart and eaten alive by hungry predators while the herd indifferently moves on.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kid]

Now maybe that's a chicken and egg discussion, and I'm not suggesting a causal relationship between the two.

There is solution to egg-chicken problem.
If you have something to tax, you tax it, if you don't then you don't.

In other words if people start getting richer there is a opportunity to tax somebody. If everyone would be poor taxing wouldn't change a thing - most would be unemployed.

100% tax on 0 income is still 0.

You wrote about hearts and minds - i'm up for good discussion!

EDIT: it would be funny to know exactly how much raised taxes bring to table. I mean is it only PITA for rich, feel-good for poor and a way to get to cabinet?

 

[MHP368]

Wiki for the curious

Not seeing anything about it being random.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[abcdefgh]

Well personally I won't be affected. It starts at 250k/yr income. *cries in poor* but I still think even if they increase their revenue they're just gonna suck it all up in useless government spending. The amendment doesn't even say something like "fine, but this difference HAS go straight to underserved neighborhoods schools". It just gives them the power to put an arbitrary rate for higher earners but no accountability or control for it.

Honestly, I don't think it'll bring in much more revenue. With a threshold of $250k, it just acts as more of a confiscatory tax.

 

[abcdefgh]

When I first read this thread, my first thought was, "Whew, glad I live in Arizona, that would never happen here."

Boy was I wrong.



I've been in AZ for 23 years. Pretty much loved every year.

However this year something changed. We noticed it was the first year ever in 2+ decades that we considered to leave, at least the metro area. Between the traffic, the air quality, the shift in politics, the CV19 overreach, we started discussing it. The state has been infected with same disease that is killing Texas, and that disease is called California. And get this, our governor, senate, and house are controlled by Republicans, so this isn't just about left-wing ideology. And now after learning of this prop, the writing is on the wall, at least if it passes. I found it of a bit "prophetic" (and shocking) that such a proposition even made it to the ballot-- Arizona tends to stop these ridiculous things from making it to the ballot -- but insightful that our ideas about leaving were not unfounded.

I left Chicago 23 years ago for the same freaking reason, aside from lack of sunshine -- and it was the best decision I ever made in my life. At this point, I'm not even sure how Arizona can survive when it comes to the water supply. I live in a farming type area with horses, chickens and even cattle. When I leave my neighborhood, it's bumper to bumper traffic. It's a bit of an odd mix to feel like you're in the country, but gridlock is everywhere as soon as you leave the fields behind.

The good news is, I expect the proposition to be defeated. I have faith that Arizonians are smart and not stupid enough to fall for the "it's for the children" narrative. I refuse to be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars for an "education system" which teaches children that people like me, are the enemy -- and I should be punished accordingly. It's like being forced to fund the gallows for which I will be hung.

Nope.

I'll move to Costa Rica or the middle of Montana before I willingly accept that BS. And I'll be gloriously happy with the decision -- when you have a cancerous tumor, you remove it...

...in this case, you leave it.

I was considering moving to Arizona. Should I reconsider? Florida's starting to look better as each day passes.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[BizyDad]

I couldn't care less about public policy concerning "education." My only opinion is that they should be honest and rename it to obedience training and conditioning.

If my kids learn from me, of course, the world will label it "indoctrination." I call what public schools are doing "indoctrination."

Go look up and read the pledge of allegiance. My kids aren't saying that shit. I can't believe I did without thought.

They'll all say it is privilege that my kids got to learn from me. SO WHAT? Parents should be responsible for their kids. We don't have kids to create wards of the state.

They will be fortunate enough to be born into a home that believes in freedom and self-education. It is part of the legacy I can share. God only knows if my kids will ever be allowed to be my financial beneficiaries. If that is going to be how it goes, they damn sure will benefit from my name.

The question lies with who is right and who is wrong. Freedom, my friends, is right. No argument. You believe in freedom or you're wrong.

All of this said, my kids will never set foot in a public school building, which the mere existence of, churns my stomach.

Stupidity is the reason for the world's problems. Assumed and default education is the reason for stupidity.

View: https://youtu.be/YR5ApYxkU-U

 

[BellaPippin]

Well, I just learned today that Arizona has its own "soak the rich" plan.

If Proposition 208 passes in Arizona it will be my last year as having Arizona as my primary residence. I will move. Prop 208 is basically a tax on the rich, compliments of the socialist idiots that have moved here, and the teacher's unions. If it passes, it will make Arizona one of the highest taxed states in the country, at least for people like me.

If it passes, I leave.

It is that simple.

View attachment 34957

The resemblance of this ballot with the "sign up for our newsletter!" pop up window and the comment to close the window being "no thanks, I don't want to save 20%"/"No thanks, I love paying full price"

Might as well have written "A "NO" vote means you are the problem, we hate you, you filthy rich, you're the cause of all the state's problems"

 

[xmartel]

Because you (de jure) benefit from the protection and laws of the state. Human beings without government would kill, and steal from each other indiscriminately. Not many people would willingly live in an area where no rules exist. Human nature is brutal, violent, and self destructive. If some viking came around burned my house, and jacked my stuff I'd pay a dude (the state) to protect my property.

The problem with the state these days is the social contract (de facto) is being broken on many levels. It's losing it's legitimacy through incompetence and mismanagement, in some ways like a failed state.

It'd be nice if we didn't have to pay taxes but it's a necessary evil. I have a bigger problem with government incompetence.

Taxation is necessary and I think most people support it. I certainly enjoy the comforts of modern life that taxes help pay for.

But there are different types of taxation and how it is administered. We can't just say it's necessary, so it isn't theft, so we just have to live with it.

Taxing income, property taxes, etc. is theft. You are forced to pay by threat of force. Not to mention they are terribly unfair inefficient systems that are completely broken.

A consumption tax on the other hand is voluntary. It's also an incredibly efficient tax. Imagine no one ever having to file an income tax return again?
Quite a few economists estimate that the efficiencies in the system would result in the price of goods and services dropping up to 30%.

I also suggest people read The Magic Formula by Nathan Lewis. It doesn't push a consumption tax, but it does goes pretty deep into the data from hundreds of years of history behind low and high taxation, amongst other things, and it's affect on the economy.
@BizyDad you in particular might enjoy this book.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Guest1413tpa]

So glad I left IL for MI last year. I can list out many reasons why I left, but the biggest is nature is awesome here.

Every time I go back, I feel like I am going to get taxed to breathe.

Before COVID hit , I had recruiters begging me to move back.

Edit: I just read the proposed amendment and I love how they harp on “We want to lower taxes for the lower and middle class”, yeah, when pigs fly....

 

[abcdefgh]

Rulers should tax the borders. It's their job to watch them and search and hassle people crossing them anyway. Inserting the Fed's proboscis into everyone's business is accepted in the same way that other grossly hierarchical societies were accepted by their subjects.

Border taxes encourage community self-sufficiency, which is good. Subsidiarity works. That's why your body is made of cells and organs, instead of the brain running each mitochondria.

The USA is in the process of rediscovering internal borders. After enough random politically-sanctioned acts of violence by transient strangers, folks will decide that maybe it's best to know thy neighbor from thy invader.

But in order to get from here to there, one needs a dark age first! The fall of the Soviet Union was Very Exciting, but I think the USA's will be even Bigger, especially since there will be No Globo-cop to pick up the pieces this time! I really can't wait to see human nature reassert itself after its stint under the stultifying New York Times. What happens to Mutually Assured Destruction when the guy with his finger on the button goes MAD? The Russians loved their children too, but do the Boomers? One doubts it.

Everyone talks about Soviet Communist insanity, but the worst of that ended with Stalin, pre-nukes. We live in the truly exciting time of the first nuclear superpower entering a terminal Left singularity. This could really accelerate the global decline in wildlife fauna in the short term, but Chernobyl indicates that Nature is better than Man at tolerating the high-rad lifestyle! Stock up on vodka, just in case.

What the F*ck are you talking about?

 

[Cyberthal]

> What the f*ck are you talking about?

It's all just a little bit of HISTORY REPEATING

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Anyway, history is nothing more than the basic sociopolitics present in chimp and bonobo troupes, scaled. Which means alternation between the patriarchal and matriarchal principle. The bigger the boom, the bigger the bust.

EDIT:
Aha, I was thinking of Strauss-Howe generational theory:

Charting the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory in 2017 | Hawramani.com

hawramani.com

The spiral is good in general but obviously the last "Winter" period is incorrectly labeled, we're still in "Autumn" and on the cusp of a disaster comparable to Great Depression+WWII or the American Civil War. I suppose we might get lucky with an American Revolution, Glorious Revolution or Armada Crisis, but the history of mass migration argues against it. Do you feel lucky?

 

[WabiSabi]

> What the f*ck are you talking about?

It's all just a little bit of HISTORY REPEATING

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Anyway, history is nothing more than the basic sociopolitics present in chimp and bonobo troupes, scaled. Which means alternation between the patriarchal and matriarchal principle. The bigger the boom, the bigger the bust.

EDIT:
Aha, I was thinking of Strauss-Howe generational theory:

Charting the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory in 2017 | Hawramani.com

hawramani.com

The spiral is good in general but obviously the last "Winter" period is incorrectly labeled, we're still in "Autumn" and on the cusp of a disaster comparable to Great Depression+WWII or the American Civil War. I suppose we might get lucky with an American Revolution, Glorious Revolution or Armada Crisis, but the history of mass migration argues against it. Do you feel lucky?

Man, that stuff is just a load of pseudoscience BS, Just read Plato's Republic, specifically book VIII. No need to reinvent the wheel on some of this stuff, just stick to the classics.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Cyberthal]

Anacyclosis is equally "pseudoscience". The USA's de-facto ochlocracy presages the return of kings. For all the Trump Derangement Syndrome, the man barely has any control over the presidency, much less the country. He can't compare to King Putin.

It is arbitrary to accept anacyclosis and reject other equally evident historical models.

The trouble, as Machiavelli observed, is that a degenerate people such as the USA, deluded that they possess and deserve liberty, proudly rejects the supposed tyranny of kingship, and therefore requires extensive humiliation and horrific suffering before willing to advance to the next spoke of anacyclosis' wheel.

Not to worry however. The credentialed political scientist Francis Fukuyama assures us that history has ended and mass migration definitely doesn't equal war!