Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world to United States | News & Politics@lemmy.ml · 6 months ago‘Millionaires tax’ has already generated $1.8 billion this year for Massachusetts, blowing past projectionswww.bostonglobe.comexternal-linkmessage-square50fedilinkarrow-up1547arrow-down13
arrow-up1544arrow-down1external-link‘Millionaires tax’ has already generated $1.8 billion this year for Massachusetts, blowing past projectionswww.bostonglobe.comPotatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world to United States | News & Politics@lemmy.ml · 6 months agomessage-square50fedilink
minus-squareRestrictedAccount@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up16·6 months agoYou are describing tax fraud not out migration. They are kind of opposites. If they were actually leaving, they wouldn’t have to hide the fact that they are still in NY. If I got your point wrong because of sarcasm, sorry but please use the /s next time.
minus-squarebrbposting@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down2·6 months agoMy memory of it: New York takes in outsize revenue from very wealthy people. Flight of wealth becomes critical funding issue. To partially mitigate the problem, it becomes worthwhile to investigate those who claimed to be leaving. Flight of wealth remains critical funding issue. So, yes, I was describing fraud - and the investigations thereof driven by out migration. Does my comment seem less of a non sequitur now? :)
You are describing tax fraud not out migration.
They are kind of opposites.
If they were actually leaving, they wouldn’t have to hide the fact that they are still in NY.
If I got your point wrong because of sarcasm, sorry but please use the /s next time.
My memory of it:
New York takes in outsize revenue from very wealthy people.
Flight of wealth becomes critical funding issue.
To partially mitigate the problem, it becomes worthwhile to investigate those who claimed to be leaving.
Flight of wealth remains critical funding issue.
So, yes, I was describing fraud - and the investigations thereof driven by out migration. Does my comment seem less of a non sequitur now? :)