Posted on 04/18/2018 9:36:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Soaking the rich is good politics but bad economics.
Millions of Americans are beginning to see the fruits of the federal tax overhaul passed in December, with higher take-home pay, bonuses, and a stronger job market. However, these good times could soon end in some left-leaning states that are considering raising their income taxes. New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maine may soon place surtaxes on “millionaires,” via legislation in the Garden State and ballot measures in the others. To proponents of larger government and greater state-level redistribution, raising rates on “fat cats” is a perfect way to fund more Medicaid and anti-poverty spending, which is perceived to be under threat at the federal level.
A silver lining for state tax battles in 2018 is that supporters of tax increases have a new problem to deal with, due to the passage of federal tax reform: The limitation of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. The provision, which President Ronald Reagan called the “most sacred” of cows in the tax code when he attempted to repeal it in 1986, was previously unlimited and gave state and local governments a harmful incentive to increase their taxes and spending. States could then take advantage of the federal subsidy by socializing their excess costs to taxpayers from other states. Now, instead of having the unlimited ability to “write off” state and local tax burdens on federal returns, individual taxpayers who itemize are limited to a $10,000 annual deduction. That just might bring about the political opposition necessary to stop many tax increases.
It explains why liberal governors, such as New York’s Andrew Cuomo and California’s Jerry Brown, have been up in arms about federal tax reform, despite all the demonstrated benefits Americans are enjoying. After explaining that one of his first priorities for 2018 would be a “millionaire’s” tax increase, New Jersey state-senate president Steve Sweeney recently admitted that the removal of the SALT deduction could force him to “reevaluate everything.” These policy debates give us all a clear demonstration of why limiting the SALT deduction was an essential element of the 2017 federal tax reform. We can only hope the SALT deduction is fully eliminated in the next round of federal tax changes.
An additional problem for proponents of “millionaire’s taxes” is economics. Progressives take it for granted that tax hikes will actually raise the amount of new revenue they desire. Unfortunately for the tax-and-spend crowd, the tax increases they seek run headlong into a basic economic principle: The Laffer curve. Named after the legendary economist and Reagan economic adviser Arthur Laffer, it illustrates the damaging impact that excessive tax rates have on incentives for individuals to engage in economic activity and shows how tax increases can lead to much lower tax receipts than official static government estimates project. This isn’t just an economic theory for an economics classroom, either. Ample data on interstate migration caused by tax changes testify to the truth of the Laffer curve.
The no-income-tax states have outperformed their high-tax counterparts in terms of personal-income growth, migration, and even tax-receipt growth for decades.
Data from the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual Rich States, Poor States report highlight the longstanding interstate migration patterns toward low-tax states — and particularly the nine states that are without a personal income tax altogether. The no-income-tax states have outperformed their high-tax counterparts in terms of personal-income growth, migration, and even tax-receipt growth for decades. Current estimates suggest the 2020 census will bring five new U.S. House seats to the no-income-tax states due to the enormous population gains they have seen in the past decade. High-tax states such as Illinois and New York are set to forfeit seats.
Too often, well-intentioned policymakers turn to large tax increases to finance generous program-funding promises when coffers run low. Prominent millionaires respond to these proposals by threatening to leave, and research shows that the well-to-do regularly follow through on these promises. It is also often overlooked that the vast majority of small businesses are structured as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or S corporations and thus file on the individual side of the tax code. While the so-called “progressives” think they are targeting trust-fund babies and “fat cats” with millionaire’s taxes, the sad truth is that these taxes hit small businesses, along with their employees, and kill the jobs they would otherwise be able to create.
But what happens to the revenue that actually does get captured by state lawmakers? New York State’s experience offers a cautionary tale of what results when transparency and accountability take a back seat to special-interest politics. In 2009, Governor David Paterson and state lawmakers urged a “temporary” 8.97 percent tax on individuals earning more than $1 million (or couples earning more than $2 million) to shore up funding through the end of the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009. This millionaire’s tax, now slightly lowered to 8.82 percent, proved to be anything but temporary and is still on the books following a two-year extension signed into law last year. The $3.5 billion a year raised by the tax simply pads wasteful spending in Albany, such as $45 million in one year for a national advertising campaign to highlight the state’s crony “economic development” scheme that created a grand total of 76 jobs that year. Meanwhile, New York lawmakers have proven utterly unwilling to adopt meaningful spending reforms to address the state’s record budget shortfalls.
If New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maine approve new millionaire’s taxes, the economic prognosis is not optimistic, based on years of experience from New York and other states. When it comes to higher taxation, interstate emigration is just the tip of the iceberg. As the Taxpayers Protection Alliance has previously pointed out, lower-tax states enjoy greater innovative activity and scientific research. Any benefits that might come from millionaire’s taxes simply don’t make up for the economic and social toll caused by the loss of innovative activities and correspondingly lower job creation. In the midst of game-changing federal reforms and widespread liberal resentment, scapegoating the wealthy is a proven political strategy, but it fails Economics 101.
______________________________________________________
Jonathan Williams (@taxeconomist) is the chief economist at the American Legislative Exchange Council and the vice president of its Center for State Fiscal Reform. Ross Marchand (@RossAMarchand) is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
We often hear talk of how the wealthy need to pay their fair share. What exactly is the fair share?
I’ve heard that in California, the top 1% of income tax filers pay close to 40% of all income tax revenue collected by the state. And they pay at marginal rates up to 13%, over and above what they pay in federal income tax.
I have a pet peeve about this fair share talk. Because assuming everyone is following the tax laws and filing returns lawfully, they are by definition paying their fair share.
Excellent idea by the Left. I hope they put a surtax on wealthy productive people that is so high they continue the exodus to states like Texas that welcome them.
Leftists seem mired in a time warp where the location of your home or business is determined by geographical considerations like harbors and old growth cities.
Another case of not being able to. Fix stuck on stupid.
Trump’s tax cut not for everyone: 1 million Californians will owe $12 billion more next year
Sacramento Bee
Posted on 04/17/2018 8:17:02 PM PDT by BenLurkin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3648340/posts
The "fair share" rhetoric of Progressive cult leaders (and that's what Progressivism is) needs to be confronted head-on by demanding to know just which citizens are to be trusted to decide what that "fair share" is, and why are they to be trusted with such power over their fellow Americans?
Witness the formerly ordinary citizens like Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Obamas who formerly were relatively "poor" by some standards and now have demonstrated their love and greed for money. The same can be said of leaders in both Parties. Can they be trusted to make such a decision on behalf of the rest of American citizens?
Only a totalitarian philosophy can tolerate allowing some citizens in the society to legalize the "taking" of hard-earned income by some citizens from the pockets of other citizens! That totalitarian philosophy is exemplified by the Progressive ideology as is exhibited daily by the cult's spokespersons.
Then, let them rebel against that phenomenon by blaiming the Progressive Left which brought it about!
White liberal 'elites' in California have to PAY MORE IN TAXES!!! OMG That's a WIN!!! One of the happiest ones so far... That includes Zuckerberg, right?
While their migration to the zero tax states are welcomed in terms of the economic activity they bring (I’m in FL), what I don’t like is the voting patterns they bring with them! They preside over the demise of their own economies by voting liberal tax-and-spend, and when the all too predictable result of economic stagnation happens, they move on to another state and attempt the same stupidity. They’re like locusts!
We had a FReeper who snarked and sniped about the tax reform because he was losing those deductions. Maybe he was from Calinferno.
and the fake financial news bloggers who are just partisan shills.
Tax the Super Rich now or face a revolution
Market Watch | March 29, 2011 | Paul B. Farrell
Posted on 03/29/2011 8:57:23 PM PDT by Christus_Rex
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2696783/posts
I disagree. The ones that migrate are the ones who have learned that the liberal cool aid isn’t for them. Sure, some will still have that liberal outlook on social issues, but that doesn’t move the dial because of their small numbers relative to the rest of the population.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.