Blue...no they don't :) and consider this:

"Many molehills a mountain doth make"

That's the point... it's molehill by molehill.

Gay Rights... activism..shaming...demonstrations... pressure... LAW change.

REFUGEES... hammering away and shaming... demonstrations... pressure.. LAW change.

HUMAN RIGHTS (sooooo called) VHRCEOC continually undermines Australian sovereignty.. Labor Politicians LIE (I have evidence) and 'bit by bit'....'Granny' slips of her clothes to reveal the WOLF inside.... ready to eat us up.

Your getting up-set. AL. Human numbers are the main risk. Why do all humans feel that this is all not happy-ness? You say............its all in the completed factions!...........that's bull.

See you tomorrow.

Just one other.......

If we and god were one and with nature............. What would all three say?

I wait your answer.

BLUE

All three, Blu would say "Exercise good stewardship" :)

Back to the case study... can you see the point and can you disagree with the main premise of this thread ?

ie... High taxing/big spending (left wing) governments simply don't 'get' that those who are being hurt by the taxes can simply 'move' off state and avoid it.

Maryland. "We'll tax those rich bastards and make $100,000,000"
The 'Rich bastards' moved to Florida and the state LOST over $200,000,000

High Taxing/Big Spending (for the sake of the working class vote mind you) is 'anathema' to those who get hit the hardest.

Low Taxing/Careful spending + VALUES (of do for your neighbour as you would want him to do for you) is a better approach.

If you just 'TAX' people it will become a mad scramble to 'avoid', and people will feel screwed and care less about their neighbour.

Pericles.. come on... here is your opportunity to make a meaningful (constructive) contribution...I'd value your thoughts on this actually.
CJ ?

Pelly?

All three, Blu would say "Exercise good stewardship" :)

Give that man a gold star.

I'll leave it there:)

BLU

I really doubt that, Boaz.

>>Pericles.. come on... here is your opportunity to make a meaningful (constructive) contribution...I'd value your thoughts on this actually.<<

You have provided one example that - possibly even coincidentally, given the impact of the GFC - meets your criteria of your "beat-up on Socialists" agenda.

From this we are required to extrapolate that an entire political philosophy is barren of ideas, integrity, rationality and values.

But as usual, you only shout the headlines. You never, ever look into the substance.

For a start, I doubt whether Maryland is going to miss those "absentee millionaires". Why do I think that? Because I have dug up some facts that you and your shock-jocks managed to ignore.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/21/news/economy/highest_income_census/?postversion=2009092203

"Maryland is the nation's top-earning state for the third year in a row, with a median household income of $70,545 in 2008, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released Monday"

In the same report, it points out that:

"Florida was the only state where median income actually declined, falling 0.01% before adjusting for inflation", which puts the "exodus to zero tax" in some perspective, does it not?

So, forgive my pragmatism, but I suspect Maryland will not significantly miss the departing revenue, if indeed it can be described as such, as it represents mere rounding errors in its overall $15 billion tax take.

But I guess that means nothing to a person who relies on carefully-selected sound-bites to support their every argument.

And let's be honest here, you don't actually do any research yourself, do you. You simply reproduce whatever dribble the shock-jocks hand out to you, and expect everyone to say "wow, how insightful".

I've said it before, and I'll no doubt need to say it again to you on a regular basis, Boaz.

Do. Some. Basic. Research.

Dear Pericles... thankyou for that additional perspective on Maryland, but you gave us some rather fanciful assumptions in that post.

1/ You assumed/stated "They won't miss it"

But the fact that they decided to tax more to raise revenue suggests the opposite ..no?

It's one thing to do research..it's another to draw correct conclusions.

The point is..they 'wanted' more revenue.
They 'taxed the rich' to get it.
They lost money.. lots. ...double what they planned to raise. *ouch*

Conclusion ? "raising taxes to increase revenue did not work" whether they will miss it ? hmmm seems to me they would.. after all they planned to raise $100,000,000 which must have had a purpose...no?

So..I suggest in like manner to you

Do. some. basic. thinking. :)

(your post is still appreciated)