Posted on 01/25/2023 5:40:41 AM PST by Red Badger
These laws are also premised on the idea that they have the long arm ability to go into other states and tax the wealth of those expatriated Californians. But jurisdiction doesn’t work that way. If the person isn’t within the state or the property isn’t within the state, you don’t have jurisdiction over them.
But this will also have a very important effect to get people to avoid personal jurisdiction. No one with any wealth of any sort will enter these states who have these laws. No vacations, no business meetings, nothing.
Sensible and rational only if you want to create a bloated monstrosity with effectively unlimited scope, power, and cost.
Great example—the yacht building industry just moved a few miles offshore.
Billionaires own more than one home in different states—so it is trivial for them to close down the home in the high tax state—and replace it elsewhere at their convenience.
The computer/cell phone age has made location less and less import so it has become much easier to avoid high tax areas—and that trend will continue.
Of course the billionaires hire the best tax advisors on the planet to identify any loopholes that may exist—and those will be maximized by any billionaires who do stick around...
Sinple rule—you don’t get to become and stay a billionaire by paying high taxes!
Naturally, because they don’t want anyone else to become Uber wealthy.
The tax would discourage savings and investment, as it would reduce the incentive for individuals to accumulate wealth.
It would be seen as a disincentive for entrepreneurs and business owners, as it would reduce the potential rewards for their efforts and make it more difficult for them to accumulate wealth.
It would be seen as a form of double taxation, as the wealth being taxed would have already been subject to income and other taxes.
It would be seen as a form of redistribution of wealth, which would be seen as unjust as individuals should be free to keep the fruits of their labor.
It would be seen as a measure that could hinder the economy, since it would reduce the amount of capital available for investment and slow down economic growth.
It would be seen as a measure that could be difficult to implement, as it would be difficult to accurately assess the wealth of individuals and would likely require a large and costly bureaucracy to administer.
It would be seen as a way to make tons of money for dems to spend....................
Yet another dumb idea that has been floating around for decades.
At the very basic level, you cannot tax wealth that isn’t there. The RICH hire folks that pour through the tax code and figure out every single way possible to hide and protect their money from the feds.
Buffett is the perfect example. The Feds cannot touch his money.
So, all those liberal hipsters that want to tax the 1% don’t have a fiber in their brains that shows them how the tax code works. And what’s even better, the folks that they consider allies, the liberal billionaires, are some of the folks that have pressured their puppets in Congress to modify the tax code so they can hide their money.
Has anyone asked how imposing a wealth tax would actually works? Seems to me the sudden asset sales required to raise the funds to pay that tax will be a problem, as you need wealthy people to buy what you need to sell, but they also need to sell for the same reason. So asset values immediately drop.
Yes a wealth tax is a very dumb idea. Suppose you had very little income & were basically living on S.S. Also suppose that over the years you had acquired some property;small items, but worth whatever the government had it valued at. Would they try to tax it at maximum value, even if it took more than you had coming in to pay the tax? I would exclude real estate, because you would usually not be able to pay the taxes on that anyway in most states because of the property tax. Here’s another case in point & I saw this with my own eyes. There was a lady in my area trying to get a property tax exemption as she lived on that property. Apparently she had inherited it when her husband passed away & it may have been a rather valuable property. Now she could continue to live there, but only if she paid the taxes, which in her circumstances, may have been virtually impossible. No option there except to sell the property & then pay the inheritance taxes on that amount.
I recall the Recreational Vessel Fee 1991, which was required of all boats on waters accessable to the ocean or had a coast guard presence.
Very few paid it, and I steadfastly refused on principle. It was repealed after a single year due to non-compliance and public outrage.
There would be no “sudden” asset sales since billionaires have lots of ways to generate cash over time if they have a known tax liability.
Some of their assets such as art or other “hobbies” have international markets as well.
But—as a practical matter there will be very few wealthy folks who would ever pay such a tax.
They didn’t get wealthy by being sitting ducks for local tax officials.
On the nosey!
It hasn’t become a bill, has it.
Deep State will pick every pocket but its own.
i give her the benefit as just her first term, until she was schooled by the old boys.
once you are introduced to the bacon-wrapped shrimp club, it is hard to forget.
Gun control is unconstitutional, but the deep state totalitarians are constantly pushing it down our throats.
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.