California: Daniel Weintraub: When the rich aren't getting richer, state's in poorhouse

Sacramento Bee ^ | January 18, 2004 | Dan Weintraub

[John Jorsett]

The rich are no longer getting richer in California. And the rest of us, oddly enough, are suffering from their misfortune. That's the story from the latest report on tax returns filed for the 2002 tax year. The preliminary figures, which I obtained from the Franchise Tax Board last week, show that the number of returns reporting incomes exceeding $1 million dropped again, to about 25,000. The combined income earned by those fat cats also shrunk, by more than 20 percent.

[FreeperinRATcage]

Normally, an unequal distribution of income is considered bad for society. Flattening the income distribution curve, on the other hand, is supposed to be a good thing.

Nope...no liberal/commie slant here...just move along, nothing to see.

Little slips like this really show where the press is coming from.

[I_saw_the_light]

Words fail me there is so much crap in this article.

"But the tax return data suggest that a more fruitful and more stable approach to balancing the budget over the long term would be to somehow figure out how to make more Californians wealthy, and keep them that way."

So they can continue to bleed them a little at a time. This is a keeper. I guess what really blows my mind is that the socialist policy failure is spelled out in black and white and they cant see it.

[ladyinred]

WHAT????

California is having financial problems?

Who knew?

I'll be darn, you'd think it would have been in all of the papers!!!

[sailor4321]

Somehow this commie fails to mention that the top 10% pay 75% of the income tax....

[elbucko]

Flattening the income distribution curve, on the other hand, is supposed to be a good thing.

The press has a bias, to be sure. However, I think this statement is offered as more of a question, than a conviction. The Democrats that are actually in office are beginning to run into similar laws in economic science that also dictate the physical sciences. Or that dictates the art of magic. In other words, a very few on the Left may be learning that: "You must first put a rabbit in the hat, before you can pull a rabbit out of the hat"! (attributed to "Dutch" Kindleberger, Pres. North American Aviation Company, when asked why the P-51 Mustang was such a good fighter plane.)

The connection? If government overtaxes or pre- taxes the rabbit, before the private sector can put the rabbit in a hat and pull the rabbit back out, the gov't kills off the rabbit.
(Eat your heart out, "Milo Minderbender"!)

[SauronOfMordor]

Notice that they define the wealthy as those making over 100K (which won't buy you much of a house in CA), while the middle class is those between 50K and 100K

[Elliott Jackalope]

It depends on where you live. If you make 100k in Crescent City, or Eureka, you can live pretty darn well. If you make 100k in Silicon Valley, you are doing OK, but you are not going to be considered wealthy by any means.

[Plutarch]

… 44,000…reported incomes totaling $172 billion and paid more than $15 billion in taxes. ..The next year, their tax liability dropped ...to under $8 billion.

That is the tough thing about parasite-host relations, if the parasite gets too greedy it sickens or kills the host, and the parasite goes hungry.

[ambrose]

There's no liberal slant here... but some posters here may be in need of some reading comprehension skills.

[daviddennis]

I make just over $100k, and that means I barely qualify for a house in a civilized part of the Valley. I love my neighborhood, but it's not Malibu or Beverly Hills. I'd define "rich" as "someone able to afford a Bel Air mansion and a Malibu hideaway." There are quite a few people at that income bracket in LA.

What is stranger than that is that he thinks our income tax is progressive. It is not. The top rate hits at $37,500. So if you're in the "middle class", the odds are pretty good that you're paying at least some tax at the top rate.

Actually, the "problem" is just that there are a lot of successful business owners who make their homes here. That's where the money comes from, and it's overwhelmingly more than wage earners make.

D

[FreeperinRATcage]

A question? I don't think so. When you look at that sentence combined with the one immediately before it, its an obvious statement of the beliefs of the writer and his editors.

[FreeperinRATcage]

I've quoted what I believe the liberal sloant is...and its basically more of the same income redistribution crap. Now, you want to show me how that is NOT liberal, rather than just making a one-off insult and running?

[ambrose]

Weintraub was clearly stating the prevailing view in the media/ruling class, not his own.

[Sir Valentino]

If you don't think there's a liberal *SLANT* to this article, maybe you should go *BACK* to DU!

[FreeperinRATcage]

Weintraub showed no quotes for that statement, nor any facts to back that up. He threw that out there as a "known fact", at least in his little universe.

There is no indication that thought is anyone's but his own.

[rightwriter]

John - Read the rest of Weintraub's paragraph: "Normally, an unequal distribution of income is considered bad for society. Flattening the income distribution curve, on the other hand, is supposed to be a good thing. But California's experience since 1999 shows that what might be desirable as social policy is not so good for the state's fiscal health, at least given the current structure of the tax system."

I'm a Republican, and I respect Weintraub as a journalist.

[FreeperinRATcage]

The rest of the statement is made as comment on how Kalifonia's "progressive" tax policies are a failure. It seems they can't understand why.

I stand by my contention that you can't throw an unsupported assertation like that out there without being branded by it.