Cumulative Percentage of Individual Income Tax Paid
Posted on 06/11/2006 10:51:13 AM PDT by FairOpinion
To live in California is to pay the highest state income tax rate in the nation, if you're wealthy enough.
Last week, voters had a chance to raise that tax rate to new heights by approving Proposition 82. They declined. Did they figure that the Golden State's rich were already thoroughly soaked — or did 82, which would have funded universal preschool for 4-year-olds, just not present a convincing enough case?
Nevada is right next door, after all, and it has no income tax, period. Proposition 82 would have raised California's top tax to 12% from 10.3%.
Rodriguez sees a tax imposed on a minority by the majority as grossly discriminatory.
Is there a tax threshold at which a significant number of the wealthy really would flee the state or change the makeup of their income, ultimately leaving California with less tax revenue instead of more?
He fears that the electorate may yet be willing to embrace more tax-the-rich propositions. He sees these ideas as fiscally calamitous in the long run because they may induce high-income people to move out of state to avoid the tax hit. Drive out enough of the rich, Rodriguez says, and the state will have no choice but to demand more tax revenue from people much further down the income scale.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That nutty place even has a snack tax. I'm shocked that anybody would live there.
Well, you can't beat the climate. People put up with a lot for that, but there is a threshold.
"The No-on-82 group, however, commissioned a study that reached a different conclusion. The report by Bill Hamm, a former legislative analyst for the state, estimated that California's general-fund coffers would have lost at least $4 billion in revenue in the first five years if 82 had passed."
One of the major reasons I left NY for FL was because of NY property taxes, do even get me started on State taxes.
California's general-fund coffers would have lost at least $4 billion in revenue in the first five years if 82 had passed."
--
So?
The GUb would have just borrowed more money to cover it, he seems to have a penchant for borrowing, as much so as Phil's to tax..
The only way to permanently avoid [or seriously limit] the appeal of "tax the rich" schemes would be to shift the voting rules to "shareholders' voting": for the legislative chamber with taxing powers people ought to be voting not their shares, but their tax dollars [say, from the year prior]: the more one has paid, the more his/her vote would be worth. And anyone who thinks that his/her vote does not carry enough weight would be in a position to buy more influence by making an extra payment to the treasury. Obviously, such a scheme is a radical departure from the existing practice.
[[He sees these ideas as fiscally calamitous in the long run because they may induce high-income people to move out of state to avoid the tax hit.]]
Many of the so called "rich" (white middle class and above) are already leaving or have already left. Pretty soon the only people left in CA will be the people that the "tax the rich strategy" (wealth redistribution) was supposed to benefit.
The real problem is the ratio of taxpayers to tax users. I suggest that without regard to total population, this ratio has grown greatly in the last few decades.
Want a real picture? CA has a little over 6 million K-12 school children. Their overall performance is pretty poor, yet these kids are the future snapshot of CA.
Rush has said on more than one occasion, that he would prefer CA over FL if it weren't for the tax situation.
Arnold wanted to start PAYING BACK the money the state had to borrow, to stay afloat, it's the Dems who don't want to use the extra money to pay off the debt.
Democrats push state budget to historic vote; Republicans wary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647082/posts
For example, instead of spending $1 billion of a tax windfall to pay off early a bond used to balance past budgets (a feature in Schwarzenegger's budget), Democrats propose putting the money in a fund that could be used to pay other costs next year.
Whatever happened to leadership, FO, he is the top dog,, yet he seems to get rolled regularly by the dems. what is up with that?
I got a race to watch. (I'll be bock)
You all have fun twisting away, you do it so well. ;-)
He is governor, NOT emperor, or had you forgotten how a state is run?
"The real problem is the ratio of taxpayers to tax users. I suggest that without regard to total population, this ratio has grown greatly in the last few decades. "
You hit the nail on the head. These people found that they can vote themselves benefits, paid for by the minority, who can't override their votes. But this minority CAN MOVE out of state, which is what they are doing.
Watching how he has operated so far, the same question ought to be asked of him.
Real estate is one of my hobbies,and Fairfield County,CT and Westchester,NY are my two favorite foci.
I'm constantly amazed by how properties that seem roughly equivalent,value-wise,located in Greenwich,CT and Rye Brook,NY (which border one another)can have property tax bills of $3,500/yr vs $10,500/yr.
I've been a big believer in just that, with a few modifications...
Every citizen gets 1 vote. If you're a property owner, you get 1 additional vote. You get 1 vote for every $5000 in federal taxes paid. And if you served in the military, you get 1 vote for every year served in active duty. And additional vote for ever year served in combat. Reservists and National Guard troops would get a single extra vote, unless they were activated, at which point they would gain additional votes, just like the active military.
So, for instance, if you were a homeowner who never served in the military and paid $12,000 in taxes, you would get to cast a total 4 votes. If you were a highschool graduate, joined the Marines, and have served in the Marines for the last 3 years, paid $1,500 in taxes, and have seen a combat tour in each of the last 3 years, you would get 7 votes.
Mark
In Los Angeles County the uses outnumber the payers.
Cumulative Percentage of Individual Income Tax Paid
If three quarters of the population would leave, California would be paradise.
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.