Nachtrag zu den letzten Abstimmungen
Eine der Vorlagen der letzten Abstimmung befasste sich mit dem Thema, die reichen noch mehr zu besteuern. Dies mit der Begründung man könne so mehr Geld einnehmen. Leider wurde nicht berücksichtigt, dass reiche Leute wohl einiges mobiler sind als der normale Durchschnittsbürger. Das heisst wenn die Steuern steigen wird einfach der Wohnsitz an den nächsten steuergünstigen Ort verlegt. Der nachfolgende Text von Vince Farrell (Börsenguru und bekannt aus dem Film “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”) zitiert aus dem online Informationsblatt “The Gartman Letter” (http://www.thegartmanletter.com leider kostenpflichtig) vom 28.12.2010, bringt einige Beweise, dass die Reichen wirklich verschwinden wenn die Steuern steigen.
"I know lots of people that can pay more in taxes." Barney Frank said that after having a Barney Frank moment. The folks in Oregon took him seriously and when faced with (another) budget shortfall last year decided to raise taxes on the highest income earners by 2%. They figured they would be in the electoral clear because everyone knows if you "tax Peter to pay Paul, Paul will vote for you every time" (George Bernard Shaw). That took the marginal tax rate on the "richest" to a high for state taxes of almost 11%. Eureka! The projected 2009 budget was balanced and worries were over. Except, according to a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, the lugheads (my description, not the Journal’s) failed to consider that people react to tax rates. They reacted big time in Oregon and the new levy took in one-third less than expected. The state legislature raised the rate to 10.8% on joint incomes between $250,000 and $500,000. And above $500K, the tax rate went to 11%. Dreams of $180 million in additional revenue were dashed when only $130 million was collected. The Journal editorial says fully one-quarter of the ‘rich’ filers have gone missing. 28,000 tax payers did ante up, but the state expected 38,000 to share the sacrifice. The legislature could have/should have asked the Cascade Policy Institute, which predicts Oregon will have over 80,000 wealthy filers moving on down the road the next few years. Also, since the tax wasn’t enacted until the middle of the year (June, 2009) and was retroactive to January 1, 2009 (that is not fair!), "wealthy Oregon residents weren’t able to take steps to avoid the tax ambush. This suggests a bigger revenue loss from tax migration strategies will show up on tax return data in 2010," opines the Journal. The state revenue office, not to be labeled dumb all the time, has revised downward tax collection estimates by 1/3rd. There are those in the state that insist this is temporary. They clearly did not look at Maryland’s results when that state did much the same in 2008. A "millionaire’s tax" caused one-third of the estimated victims, uh, taxpayers, to disappear from the rolls. Research a bit further, oh linear-minded tax assessors, and read the recently released census report. The average income tax in the fastest-growing states was 4%. In the slowest-growing states it was 6.9%. For states that gained population, therefore seats in the House of Representatives, the top personal states that lost population, the top personal rate was 6.05%. Texas gained four seats in the House and has a personal rate just about eleven percentage points lower than Oregon; that is, 0%. So often, the more you tax, the less you collect. This has nothing to do with political parties or arguments. It has everything to do with thinking smart and trying to maximize revenue the most efficient and fair way. The top 1% of incomes receive about 20% of all income. But they pay a bit over 40% of all taxes. Start the debate there. Define what is fair and why. To be Barney Frank-like and say rich people can pay more may be true. Maybe they can pay more. But they won’t. Rethink this.
– Vince Farrell (27.12.2010)