With taxes, less is more
The country can now relax and turn its attention to such trivial concerns as Day 81 of the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico and continuing high unemployment and high debt now that LeBron James has finally decided to go with the Miami Heat rather than remain in Cleveland or head for New York or Chicago.
Whatever the stated reasons for his decision, James comes out on top financially even though Miami's lower offer compared with Cleveland's higher desperate attempt to retain their star player is actually worth more to him as CNBC's Darren Rovell explains
in LeBron and the Taxman.
Ohio's and Cleveland's higher income tax rates (6% and 2% respectively) compared to Florida's and Miami's taxes would gobble up the differential between the Cav's richer offer and the Heat's (relatively) lesser one. Had James chosen to play with the Knicks in New York, which has the dubious distinction of having both the highest city and state income taxes in the nation,
according to a New York Post editorial, blaming their lawmakers for perhaps keeping James out of the city and state because of the high taxes. While taxes may not have been a factor In James' decision high income and other taxes in New York, Ohio and other tax happy states have definitely pushed companies and high income individuals to pack up and move to friendlier tax regions taking their jobs, their productivity and yes, their taxes with them, proving once again that higher taxes do not automatically produce higher revenue.
Oh, by the way all you concerned liberals, human rights activists, progressives, financial equalizers and others of that ilk:
1) There is a several million dollar and percentage difference between James' salary package and that of the lowest paid person in the Heat's stadium; does that matter?
2) The racial, ethnic, gender and physical characteristics of the Miami Heat, especially with the recent additions of James, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade, do not look like the population of the greater Miami area; does that matter?