| March 17, 2010
The Star-Ledger's Tom Moran is either 1) a hack ignorant of basic economic principles, or 2) just wanted to find something negative to say about Governor Christie's bold budget address. Take your pick.
Either way, he couldn't find anything to criticize in yesterday's speech save Chris's decision to allow the one-year "millionaire tax surcharge" to expire. The tax currently applies to anyone making $400,000 annually and, it's important to note, was scheduled to terminate automatically when Jon Corzine and the Legislature initially approved it.
He rightly called the steady growth in government over the last 20 years a threat to the state’s economy. He slammed schools and towns for adding 11,300 new employees last year, despite the recession, a move that he called "madness." It was all satisfying stuff. The new guy was making sense.
And then he blew it. Because he stuck with his plan to cut taxes for the rich. He asked no real sacrifice from them at a time when the state needs everyone to climb out of the car and help push.
With this tax cut, he would hand out $1 billion to families who earn more than $400,000, the richest two percent.
Have you been living in the same state as the rest of us for the past decade, Tom?
How many times, Save Jerseyans, does this blog discuss the negative impact of high-income earners being driven from the Garden State by excessive property, income and business taxes? Click here to read a more thorough explanation of this troubling and ultimately very costly outward-migration pattern.
What's most aggravating is how morons like Tom Moran always forget (or never knew to begin with) that these evil "rich" people are already responsible for shouldering most of the tax burden! Forbes magazine even ran a story last month specifically signaling out New Jersey as a place that punishes entrepreneur, investors and other upwardly mobile residents:
New Jersey was one of the first states to target the rich, adopting an 8.97% rate on income over a half-million dollars in 2004. On June 29, it reclaimed its position as a leader on this front, when Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine signed a one year (2009) increase in the rate on incomes over $500,000 to 10.25%, with a 10.75% one-year rate for incomes above $1 million.
Also for one year: a new 8% bracket on income between $400,000 and $500,000.
The rich disproportionately finance the federal tax burden, too. An illustrative pie chart from Rush Limbaugh's website tells the who story:
So do you now understand, Mr. Moran, why my head explodes when you say Chris Christie "asked no real sacrifice from" the rich? They've already been paying for most of Trenton's excess, and now they're finally fed up and heading for the bridges in record numbers. You might say that the well has run dry. The rich are also taking more than just tax dollars out of state -- they're eliminating or moving the middle class and lower income level jobs that they used to create right here.
The Democrat Party's war on the rich -- epitomized by financial raids like this millionaire surcharge -- is the major reason why our state is jobless and Trenton is penniless!
Do You Support Trenton's A.C. Takeover? 
Well Matt, if you're going to say that the highest earners pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes, then you also need to balance it by showing that they also own a disproportionate amount of the wealth.
In 2007, the top 5% of earners owned 62% of the net worth in this country, as well as a staggering 72% of the financial wealth.
In fact, the top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
This data is drawn from economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University
Reply to this
Own a "disproportionate" amount of the wealth?
First, your point is overly obvious. How isn't that inferred in my post? And secondly, wealth isn't finite, Rob. Your choice of phraseology sounds like it was lifted from a Soviet-era grammar school primer. Report to your local free market-friendly place of business for immediate reprogramming.
Reply to this
While we were all listening to the Gov's address yesterday, 400 jobs left New Jersey to go to Rockland County NY.
The County Exec up there, Scott Vanderhoef, announced at his State of the County that 400 new jobs would be coming to his county from NJ. (http://www.lohud.com/article/20103170362)
Guess where they're coming from?
Bergen and Middlesex Counties. Both counties are run by tax hiking Democrats just like NJ has been for the past 8 years. Unemployment rates in both counties? 9.1% and 8.5% respectively as of January. (http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/content/maps/laus_month.pdf)
BTW - Vanderhoef is a Republican. And the unemployment rate in Rockland? 7.5%.
People, business and jobs are all leaving NJ under the failed status quo. I hope that Gov. Christie's speech yesterday and the actions he outlined will allow future NJ County execs and Freeholder directors to talk about creating jobs for white collar, blue collar and no collar workers here or and attracting them from other states rather than the other way around.
BTW: Wonder if Tom Moran will ask leaders in those counties about how they will create new jobs to replace these private sector losses? (more public jobs don't count though!) I won't hold my breath.
Reply to this
The other way for democrats to think about this is as follows:
We know that $70 billion in net worth has already left the state right? And, that was before the surtax was imposed last year. If you assume that those folks earned a reasonable 7% a year on their net worth over time, or even 5%, since some of the earnings on net worth will be tax deferred stock investments, that's $3.5 billion to $4.9 billion of taxable earnings every year that has left New Jersey permanently. At a 10% tax rate that's $350 to 490 million of lost tax revenue per year in perpetuity.
And of course, this is the minimum loss since we aren't including the businesses they take with them, the sales taxes on their spending or income taxes on wages earned or any of the other multiplier effects.
Every government has to understand that there is always a cheaper tax jurisdiction and if your taxes are punitive people will vote with there feet.
Reply to this
taxes are not fear, and poor pays more than rich, guess why? professional writers are right, "richy" just put the tax system up to their benefits.
Reply to this
This is the money quote from confused Moran: "With this tax cut, he would hand out $1 billion to families who earn more than $400,000, the richest two percent." Houston, we have a problem. Tom, the government took that $1 billion from these same people as taxes. It was theirs to begin with. I'd like to have seen your coverage of the American Revolution: "It's not fair for those colonists not to give King George his due..." wah wah wah. Big crybaby Tom. Grow up - you're almost out of a job at the SL and deservedly so.
Reply to this