At any rate, the shape of the revenue curve for Washington is determined by the aggregate of all of the individual decisions. And in the Starbucks case, Schultz said no mas.
In a related story, the proposed wealth tax in California is aimed at billionaires. Of the top five (Ellison, Zuckerberg, Page, Brinn, Huang) which represent over half of the targeted wealth, three have already moved, and only #5 has committed to staying in the state. Once again, higher taxes don’t always produce as much government revenue as expected. We may not know how flat or steep the Laffer curve is, but it is describes something real.
As expected? Nope. The Laffer curve proposes that higher taxes don’t always produce as much revenue as lower taxes. Currently, we don’t know the outcome of the Washington law. If tax revenues go up as a result of the law, it really doesn’t matter if individuals move out of the state.
So what you’re saying is there’s this curve, we don’t really understand what it looks like, we don’t understand what the optimal tax rate is, but it’s real and we should base tax policy on it? Seems ridiculous.
Come on, you’re better than this! Patriot Fetch is garbage.
If state income taxes influenced sports teams, California would have a problem, NY would have a problem…you get the picture.
What the Laffer curve doesn’t take into account - people’s belief (or disbelief) that their tax dollars are funding something that provides value. If my tax dollars were going to pay an armed militia to terrorize US citizens…I might be more inclined to evade taxes.
For all those mentioning the deficit spending, please explain exactly what you mean by mentioning it. Are you claiming that that deficit spending will not be paid by the taxpayers? And if it won’t be paid by the taxpayers, then who will it be paid by? And if it won’t be paid by anyone, do you know what that is called? It’s called default. If you look at my original post, you will see that I mentioned that as the only case in which taxes do not equal spending over time.
The concept of the Laffer curve is that as you raise taxes there comes a point when revenue goes down. If Washington State collects even one dollar from the new millionaire’s tax, then revenues went up.
But….if the fact that over time taxes exactly equal spending means that we need not worry much about tax rates, then wouldn’t that same fact make it unnecessary to look at spending either? After all, all of that spending will - by definition - be paid for through taxes, right? Because spending always exactly equals taxes, in the very long term?
I’m not sure how the fact that they will always balance out over the very long term would affect whether you should worry about either of them or neither of them…
Here’s another alternative: the debt grows and is never paid. It is rolled over indefinitely.
In fact, if GDP grows, and debt grows but is constant or shrinks as a percent of GDP, then taxpayers never pay the debt and debt can grow in absolute terms indefinitely.
Somebody might have said something like that, but it doesn’t make a ton of sense. Two of the most successful pro sports franchises of the 2000s have been the Boston Red Sox and the New England Patriots. Massachusetts has much higher taxes than Washington. Same with California and the Dodgers, Lakers, Rams and 49ers.
How come taxes only affect Washington State pro franchises and not teams in higher tax states?
Many states have what is called “the Jock tax”, wherein players on professional teams have to pay the taxes for services rendered in that jurisdiction. So if a New England player has a game in New York, his portion of salary for that game is taxed at whatever the NY rate is. (He gets a deduction on his residence taxes.)
I don’t see why this should not apply to someone earning money for work in Seattle, even if they live in Miami.
The argument is that it’s super rainy in Seattle. I’m not suggesting it’s a sound argument, but that’s the argument.
Most of the squealing is coming from owners…because they’re primarily concerned with their players having to pay high taxes. It has absolutely nothing to do with them having to pay higher taxes.
Many have tax agreements with neighboring states. NJ has agreements w Pennsylvania and New York. You pay income taxes only where you live at their tax rates regardless of where you work. As PA has flat tax and NJ has progressive tax, many working in NJ live in PA and commute.
Similar agreements should be possible across the country.
It does. IIRC correctly I think California and other states were mentioned having that issue. It apparently is going to affect Washington State now.
I personally don’t care. I just mentioned it because I had seen it in the news the last few days and thought it was interesting. I was never good in sports, so million-dollar contracts were never in my future. And I don’t live in Washington State.
What did they get right? They pulled a story from the headlines, yoinked out all information that didn’t fit their narrative, and created a commentary piece. Then they labeled it news!
Here’s a snippet the Patriots didn’t want you to know, from the story as reported by ESPN -
“Another agent said he doesn’t think the tax will hurt the Seahawks in free agency, noting that two of their division rivals – the Los Angeles Rams and San Francisco 49ers – still land targeted free agents despite California’s much higher income tax. The agent also cited the New York Jets, New York Giants and Minnesota Vikings as teams that tend to be unaffected in free agency by their states’ income tax.”
When I play fetch with my pup, she chases the ball. But then she slobbers all over it, chews it up, runs away from me and won’t bring it back. That’s analogous to what Patriot Fetch is doing to your “news” feed.
I thought this wasn’t the case. I think that when a NJ resident works in NY, they have to pay NY taxes (state taxes, not city taxes), and NJ gives them a tax credit for the amount they paid to NY.
