Or would if the elder Gates, who is the spokesman for an income tax initiative here in Washington state, were listening.
The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out--it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. "The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all. I don't want to screw anybody out of anything, least of all the governments that I work with. We put 30% in holding until we sort it out." No wonder Keith chooses to live not in London, or even New York City, but in Weston, Conn.
As economics professor Greg Mankiw would say, people react to incentives, including taxes.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Then again, according to the conservative taxfoundation.org, Connecticut's state/local tax burden is 3rd highest in the US. Maybe Keith should consider moving to Washington, which ranks 35th.
Posted by: Bruce on October 29, 2010 08:23 AMRich people did not become rich by being careless with their money. The stereotype of the carefree rich dude throwing money away and buying the most expensive things possible only exists in the imagination of jealous people. The people who act like that do not stay rich for long.
Posted by: Brian on October 29, 2010 08:32 AMLesson to the left: When you want to engage in class warfare, you have to remember the other side will defend and even counter attack, and private accounts are smarter than government bureaucrats.
If wealthy people get the feeling they are being punished for being productive, it is remarkably easy for them to "move" themselves elsewhere at least on paper to sidestep high taxes.
Posted by: johnny on October 29, 2010 08:42 AMThat is indeed true of many rich people, but really, Keith Richards? I'm sure he was very frugal in purchasing his home in high-tax Connecticut. And his home in England. And his home in Turks & Caicos. And his heroin....
Posted by: Bruce on October 29, 2010 08:48 AM98% v.s. 30% (+/-)?
Truly a Liberal Progressive Math Genius there Bruce, and you call KR dumb?
Do you pay 98%? You should you know! You obviously make your money off the backs of the "little people". oops, I mean the taxpayers.
Posted by: James on October 29, 2010 09:17 AMA flatter tax is a far better solution because it is more fair and more to the point, it draws from a much larger pool.
The leftist plan just causes "the rich" to move and/or shelter their money to avoid leftist governments. Surely no one here is dumb enough to think Keith Richards keeps his money in Conn. where it can be taxed? Nor does Gates Sr. keep his money in taxable form here in WA. If Gates ever wants to donate the majority of his wealth, not just his sheltered income, to the WA general fund then we can start taking him and his sycophants like Bruce seriously.
The left would rather kill the golden gooses for a one time sale of their feathers than take an egg or two a week for the long haul.
OK, I'll pick one stat from them that perhaps Bruce can explain, our #5 rank in Tax Freedom Day. Better than Connecticut's, but nothing to be proud of.
Posted by: yaddacubed on October 29, 2010 09:31 AMTax burdens are based on a large number of variables. A State that has low property taxes and high income tax would be good for someone who is retired and has a lot of savings, no income to tax.
Total tax burden is just that, a total. That is why good tax advisers are worth their salt.
Posted by: Vince on October 29, 2010 10:58 AMWhy not? We elected a druggie like Obama.
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though." Barack Hussein Obama - Dreams From My Father
Posted by: NotSmackThough on October 29, 2010 11:45 AMTax what you want to encourage, lower taxes on what you want to discourage.
They see a target when they see deep pockets. What they don't see is what those deep pockets mean to the people affected by them. The wealth means jobs. Investments in new products. The purchase of goods, giving all manner of benefits. And all of these mean taxes paid by the not-so-rich.
It's funny but sad that when you look through blue-colored lenses, you can be green...green with envy, but green about renewable resources. What they DON'T get is that wealth is a renewable resource running an economy. Take the wealth, kill the economy. Tax the wealth appropriately, and the wealthy do...not just can...things that help everyone. Not just a one-time shot, but on an ongoing basis.
As I've often said, there is a direct link between being a lefty and not knowing anything about economics. Or if you're a school district, not teaching economic principles.
Mention an economics-based opinion around a lefty, and what response do you get? "Well, I don't want life and death decisions regarding the unfortunate to be determined by the bottom line." No clue whatsoever.
Posted by: scott158 on October 29, 2010 12:59 PMIf I recall, U2/Bono did something similar to avoid confiscatory taxes in their home country.
Same thing would happen here if I-1098 passed here. The million/billionaires in this area aren't going to pay these taxes. They'll just move assets elsewhere.
Posted by: Palouse on October 29, 2010 01:51 PMFor example:
http://www.redfin.com/WA/Kent/26719-115th-Ave-SE-98030/home/403702
$249,000 home in Kent, pays
* Annual Taxes: $3,015
http://www.redfin.com/WA/Bellevue/2822-98th-Ave-NE-98004/home/506537
$2,488,000 home in Bellevue pays
Annual Taxes: $12,380
The $2.4 million dollar home costs 10x as much, but pays only 4x the taxes.
A tangential test for my theory is to look and see how many times the Stones have played a concert in Delaware. Why? Because Delaware corporations pay no business taxes if they don't actually conduct business in Delaware. No concerts in Delaware means that the Stones as a business only pay federal corporate taxes (which unfortunately are some of the highest in the world).
Posted by: blindman on October 30, 2010 12:20 AM
Tax the Rich, Feed the Poor,
Til there are no Rich no More
Except it's more like:
"The Rich Tax the Poor and Middle Class
Until there is no more food to eat"
Now that all the stock market bubbles have burst, the Rich are using Government to extract money from the working middle classes.
Posted by: John Bailo on October 30, 2010 07:10 AMThose guys are not conservatives, but funny how they vote with their feet when it comes to taxes. Bill Gates Sr. should pay attention, a lot of capital will leave this state if there is a income tax. It is a lot sunnier in Austin and Palm Beach than in Seattle.
Posted by: Joe on October 30, 2010 08:44 AMThey had their greatest hits ( Sticky Fingers, Joshua Tree, Windows 95 ) decades ago, and now coast on the their laurels.
So, of course, they want to tax the income of the currently productive proferssional and working classes and hide their properties from the tax man, since they have no hope of every repeating their successes...