Is leaving any home ever easy? Many people have done it out of necessity you just need to be able to discern when to cut and run. Worst thing you can do is wait until you lose everything or even worse, get into a situation where you are not allowed to get out. Look at the 2008 exit tax. The government has taken loans out against your future income. It will get harder and harder to exit the further we head down this path to ruin. -burn8
An example... For me to leave, I'd have to get a divorce. Wife would get 50% of my wealth. Upon leaving, government would likely take another 50% of what I have left. Is it worth and "automatic loss of 75%" to leave US... to preserve the remaining 25%? Or, if I stay here could it possibly be that it will take the Federal Government 30 years or so to confiscate 75% of my wealth? I don't know the answer for sure.... which bet do I back with action?? And maybe... Odumbo will drop dead soon... and the outlook for America might improve... who knows??
At this point, I'm more of a "stand your ground" in the red counties sort of guy, rather than a "leave the country" guy. Look, the Left are creatures of the city. They may be able to outvote you on Election Day, but they don't have the manpower to "occupy" anything but the urban core where they live. So, the best strategic response is to make it impossible for them to project authority and govern outside of that urban core. Civil disobedience, including lawfare, with regard to any illegitimate Federal authority outside the city centers is a viable strategy to raise the Feds' "cost of doing business". Every dollar diverted to policing the non-urban areas is a dollar that can't be dedicated to buying off their parasite constituents, which means that chaos will come to the cities faster, which will then force the Feds to concentrate their resources there. Also, leverage the fact that the GOP has more governorships and control of state legislatures than any time in nearly a century. Use those legal means to gut the Feds control over the states. The recent refusal of numerous governors to set up Obamacare exchanges is one of those things that doesn't get a ton of attention, but could definitely be significant over time. The country is too big for a bunch of city-dwelling totalitarians to micromanage. Exploit that fact.
Depends on what rate you have the ability to recover. Will it take you 5 years or 25 to earn back the 75% lost? The other question is what will it cost you to stay? Can you do better anywhere else? -burn8
300% gain after taxes, in 5 years? What are the odds? Lots of guys doing that? Can one do better elsewhere? Who knows until you try? By the time you know (like most choices in life), likely too late. And then there is the "quality of life" issue. Most of the rest of the planet is too poor, too hot/cold, too much government already... the choice is not a "no brainer". Seems like lots of folks leaving US are opting for Singapore. Have you ever lived in that part of the world? Not nearly as nice as the small town I live in now. For what little I know, New Zealand sounds like a prospect.
That's Rush Limbaugh and Ann Cunter's bastardization of Liberalism. Here's a tripartite definition of Liberalism progressive views: a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property free-market economics: an economic theory in favor of free competition and minimal government regulation. I gather you reject the first and embrace the latter two?
Affirmative on the latter two. Item number one is quite vague. Gray areas are where statists, politicians and lawyers love to do their work. -burn8
I'm sorry to have to tell you that your hope is in vain. I was not referring to you at all. You are in a class by yourself. You are free to interpret Krugman's opinion piece as you wish. As far as I'm concerned it was a rather well reasoned repudiation of claims by the Romney camp "...that President Obamaâs threat to modestly raise taxes on top incomes, plus his temerity in suggesting that some bankers had behaved badly, were crippling the economy." Nothing in the article implies that Krugman thinks going back to a top marginal rate of 91% is a good idea, certainly not in the midst of a long slow recovery. Why would he think that? He's is an advocate of Keynes' prescription for economies in recession.
France just instituted a 75% tax on all income above a million euros. It will backfire on them. Rich people are leaving the country in droves.