Posted on 12/19/2020 5:01:17 AM PST by karpov
California’s Legislature is considering a wealth tax on residents, part-year residents, and any person who spends more than 60 days inside the state’s borders in a single year. Even those who move out of state would continue to be subject to the tax for a decade—a provision that calls to mind the Eagles’ famous “Hotel California” lyric: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The California Constitution probably allows a statewide wealth tax on residents, but any effort to create a tax capable of reaching across state borders is likely to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Taxing someone who spends only 60 days in the state in any single year—and extending that tax over an ensuing decade—would be something new under the sun.
Each year this tax net would gather up a new crop of taxpayers for the next decade. The range of people it proposes to ensnare is staggering: every student attending college in California, anyone having a major medical procedure at a California hospital and needing an extended in-state recovery period, and those who spend two months in California away from New York or London winters. Under California tax law, there is no distinction between a nonresident from Minnesota and a nonresident from Dubai.
Assembly Bill 2088 proposes calculating the wealth tax based on current world-wide net worth each Dec. 31. For part-year and temporary residents, the tax would be proportionate based on their number of days in California. The annual tax would be on current net worth and therefore would include wealth earned, inherited or obtained through gifts or estates long before and long after leaving the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
What is also truly staggering, is how silent the liberal deal makers are, about the infamous “interstate commerce clause.”
When the liberals demand socialism, and the “interstate commerce clause” can be used in their favor, it’s in the news, mowing down private property rights and free association.
Otherwise, when the liberals demand that conservatives, Republicans, and patriots be excluded “from the conversation” and excluded “from free association” . . . actually affecting interstate commerce . . . then crickets.
In the four years of the Trump administration, the liberals’ crickets have seemed to virtually replace the “interstate commerce clause.”
any effort to create a tax capable of reaching across state borders is likely to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn’t that cute, the author thinks we still have a Constitution.....
It would be retroactive. I assure you.
Taxed without Representation?
I would say the courts won’t allow that but these days who knows
And californium would be the ‘fly over state’ not for the panorama but just to stay the hell out.
Please elaborate on that long history so that I might be better informed.
Departure after 60 days in California, is defined by California, as being a divorce.
The departed must pay alimony, a tax, “allowed” by some judge named John Roberts.
It’s not your money, people of wealth. It belongs to the State, at least that’s what you voted for Nov. 3rd.
We tried to warn you.
Who didn’t see this coming?
California is hemorrhaging its millionaires and billionaires. Joe Rogan recently fled, as did Elon Musk and Oracle - and the draconian lockdown imposed by the California government has driven thousands of businesses out.
The market for new identities is going to grow exponentially.
Retroactive or not, it turns that every day that the rich fled CA is a _better_ day than the day they stayed!
(In any event, they will rue the day they _ever_ chose to live there.)
they won’t have a mechanism if one moves to a republican state. Democrat states would likely cooperate in the robbery.
Were this to become law, the first person that comes to mind as having a huge problem is the disgraced former prince of England, Harry, who has been residing in Malibu well beyond 180 days. A necessity to declare ‘all’ his assets for the next ten years would be something the Royal Family would have a heart attack over.
Hawaii wanted to tax my earned income in Florida after I moved there simply because I maintained a checking account while establishing residency in Florida. I ignored their their demands. That was 10 years ago.
Hiding wealth for wealthy clients is going to be a _major_ new business requiring all kinds of creative solutions (including fake identities, fake enterprises, unique money laundering and asset laundering schemes, etc.).
Whole national economies may explode in wealth if they become “safe havens” for such activities.
Wealth will find a way—it always does...
It remains to be seen whether this will actually pass or not. The fact that the legislature is even thinking about it is an omen to what is about to happen in that state in the future. Socialist governments do not readily allow people to leave, that is history, not my opinion.
Then they will come up with a panorama tax; everybody with a window seat has to "pay per view".
Although a lot of liberals have moved out of California to the detriment of other states, the overall political climate there is trending more liberal.
The state legislature (both houses) is a good indicator of this with more Democrat percentage over time
The point is that even if it passes five years from now, the wealthy need to flee _now_ because of potential claw-back provisions.
The mere _discussion_ of such a tax should spook the herd.
CA is just first, soon every blue state will copy CA Is always one of the first Democrat test states.
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.