Over and over again, those who favor higher taxes for more revenue don't seem to comprehend this: change the laws and people will alter their behavior.
Manny Pacquiao's chief adviser insisted Monday that the Filipino superstar's preference is for his next bout – a fifth fight against Juan Manuel Marquez – to take place away from Las Vegas, with the off-shore Chinese gambling resort of Macau emerging as the "favorite."
Michael Koncz told Yahoo! Sports that the 39.6 percent tax rate Pacquiao would face if he were to fight again in the U.S. makes a fall bout in Las Vegas "a no go."
Insurance chain State Farm is reportedly buying up substantial workspace in Texas, which may signal a coming exodus from the company's home state of Illinois. ...
At the end of 2010, in a special session, the Illinois Legislature passed a 67% hike in its corporate and personal income tax. The state is struggling with a structural deficit and its credit rating was recently lowered. The state now has the worst credit rating in the country. A number of businesses have floated the idea of leaving the state. A move by State Farm, however, would devastate the downstate economy.
Wouldn't it be superior to have lower percentage tax rates and have some revenue for this fight in Las Vegas, and some revenue for Illinois by having State Farm in their state rather than moving to Texas?
Why is the notion that a small percentage of something is far better than a whole bunch of nothing so difficult for so many to appreciate?