Slashdot Mirror

The argument is that the rich will leave the country if you raise taxes, and you lose even the taxes you are currently collecting. The middle class and the poor are less likely to do.

I, personally, dont subscribe to this idea. The rich have very few places in the developed world to move to. I would say it is a bluff. Even if they move, the void will pretty soon be filled up someone else who starts a company (or whatever the rich were doing here).

France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy

In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: Study

Caterpillar threatens to leave Illinois over taxes

Through the magic of commerce they can move and continue their business from a new location.

http://hothardware.com/News/Walmart-Scaling-Back-Electronics-Department-to-Make-Room-for-Fishing-Poles/

http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/04/wal-mart-shrinks-electronics-space-adds-items.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute

http://www.irstaxattorney.com/bankruptcy/Golden_Parachute.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/times-mirror-exec-payoffs-revealed-tribune-bankruptcy-filing

http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/07/tribune-co-proposes-severance-packages-for-top-execs-if-they-are-dismissed.html

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/economics/8338-former-wamu-execs-sue-golden-parachutes.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1458937/how_to_cure_the_golden_parachutes.html

But perhaps the best explanation, and the most damning to your case, can be found here:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/golden-parachute-payment/

I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions.

According to 12 CFR 359.1 [Title 12 -- Banks and Banking; Chapter III -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Subchapter B -- Regulations and Statements of General Policy; Part 359 -- Golden Parachute and Indemnification Payments], golden parachute payment means “any payment (or any agreement to make any payment) in the nature of compensation by any insured depository institution or an affiliated depository institution holding company for the benefit of any current or former IAP pursuant to an obligation of such institution or holding company that:

(i) Is contingent on, or by its terms is payable on or after, the termination of such party's primary employment or affiliation with the institution or holding company; and

(ii) Is received on or after, or is made in contemplation of, any of the following events:

(A) The insolvency (or similar event) of the insured depository institution which is making the payment or bankruptcy or insolvency (or similar event) of the depository institution holding company which is making the payment; or

WOW! So, "Golden Parachutes" are actually (among other things) meant to protect executives in the case of bankruptcy.

I just have to ask, why do you bother? I mean, every. single. time. you try to argue with me, you lose. Doesn't it get tiring?

Now to respond to your other points.

Regulation should be a last resort.

Completely agreed, and in this case unnecessary as current regulations are what is driving up the cost of health care. Sure e-records might be easier for a doctor to access, but it's also easier for anyone else to access too. Now you're dumping thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions into added IT infrastructure and having to take that money away from patient care. That's just one of many cost-increasing regulations that have shown no benefit at all.

Don't even get me started on the FDA and their long, extremely expensive, regulatory process for medications (and I do think there should be some regulatory process for medications, I just think the FDA model is extremely flawed).

I won't diverge into other bodies that you mentioned (nuclear, utility). I'll just say that I agree that some degree of regulation needs to exist, but not at the current levels (with the possible exception of nuclear regulatory controls due to it's never-ceasing physical danger to the public).

Regulatory controls should exist but their shouldn't be so many as to continuously drive up the cost of the service being provided. When that starts happening, you have too much regulation (such as in health care).

For just one example of how ObamaCare is going to hurt the public, according to a March 19, 2010 article at Chicago Breaking News, Caterpillar has already come out and said that in the first year of ObamaCare alone, it will cost the company over $100,000,000 to be in compliance. That's in the first year along. I imagine (without having more information from Caterpillar that's all I can do) that proceeding years only will be more expensive to keep in compliance. This is going to kill the economy.

ObamaCare is going to cost the government at least $950,000,000,000 to implement. How is this good? How is it good to force people to buy a minimum plan that they might not be able to afford or face IRS imposed fines (and I don't even know why they are involved and I don't want to know why)? No, this isn't universal health care. This is socialized medicine. This is a government mandate to keep the poor poor and the rich rich (and don't give me any gaff about those making over $250k being taxed more to pay for all this, that's plain old forced wealth redistribution, something that cannot be maintained as eventually the rich will either move over seas and renounce their citizenship to avoid paying the tax or we all become equally poor).

No, this is a bad plan all around. I don't see anything good coming out of this.