so make the tax such that no matter where they move to, they will incur the same dollar of "donation" to the rest of the world. :D

Of course they won't move. They have so much rich person shit that they bought with their rich person money that moving is just such a hassle.

Republican teabagger's entire platform consists of nothing but lies and hyperbole carefully crafted to scare people into voting for them.

"...and modestly reduce income inequality."

Well, at least this liberal is honest about what proponents of higher taxes on the (undeservedly) "rich" really want...

I'm not sure what qualifies as "higher taxes on the rich". I believe if you look at history as recently as the '50s and '60s tax rates were higher. How about instead of talking "higher taxes on the rich", maybe talk about "restoring taxes on the rich to 1950s levels". That doesn't sound nearly as radical or catastrophic, does it?

@6 - I'll join you in that effort, if we can agree to take all of government spending (including entitlement spending) back to those utopian 50's levels... Of course we’ll have to roll back the Kennedy tax cuts for the rich to accomplish that.

Being the small government, anti tax, radical he was, he cut income taxes from the then current range of 20-90% to a range of 14-65% under his wacky belief that "...the paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and revenues too low; and the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now."

But then, I think we all agree, he was a dangerous nut case… Right?

Everyone knows that the $richie riches$ would sooner have our society collapse into a Mad Max-style hellscape rather than have their taxes go up 2.6%, the coventional wisdom of the last thirty years says so. Of course it's also turned what was long ago the most educated, intelligent and technologically advanced society in the world into a hopelessly corrupt, plutocratic, dysfunctional neo-fascist kleptocracy, but that's what Jesus wants.

That's a terrific report - I love that it takes pains to address the anecdotal/"common sense" view that of course the rich would flee, by showing that some in fact do, but with a tax impact that is vanishingly small compared to the revenue benefit overall.

Thanks so much for posting it up (and to Jake Blumgart, whose five minutes covering labor for the Stranger made up at least a bit for so much neglect of that beat).

Moving entails higher costs - this is one of the cheapest states in America for a rich person to live in where they're not in danger for their lives, so long as they don't try to whittle in Seattle.

They're bluffing.

@8 – Agreeing that our government is a “hopelessly corrupt, plutocratic, dysfunctional neo-fascist kleptocracy”, it never fails to amaze me that the Liberal reaction to that “hopelessly corrupt, plutocratic, dysfunctional neo-fascist kleptocracy” is to yearn to funnel more money into, and increase the power of, that “hopelessly corrupt, plutocratic, dysfunctional neo-fascist kleptocracy” and make that “hopelessly corrupt, plutocratic, dysfunctional neo-fascist kleptocracy” an even bigger “hopelessly corrupt, plutocratic, dysfunctional neo-fascist kleptocracy”.

Please explain…

In related news, studies reveal that children who threaten to hold their breath "until they die" rarely follow through on it.

@7- Being wrong about economic policy (and Vietnam) doesn't mean Kennedy was wrong about everything. Stop the hyperbole.

The liberal response to seeing the government as misguided is to guide the government. It's kind of basic to democracy. Seeing the government funding all the wrong things doesn't mean the government should fund nothing. It means the government should be funding the correct things.

@13 why do you hate America so much? Maybe you and Mubarak should share a room.