> Income tax seems like an overall success to me. How would you quantify this? > people living there have gotten net-worth-wealthy from real estate 1. NIMBY'

> Income tax seems like an overall success to me. How would you quantify this? > people living there have gotten net-worth-wealthy from real estate 1. NIMBY's, excessive regulation, limits on building all drive costs up. 2. Scared money from over seas looking for safe haven in gateway cities. You're starting to see people flee CA in droves. Housing prices here will crash worse than the rest of the country. If the politicians don't reform laws and cut spending the state will turn into Detroit. > This has shifted paying for state services to use-based taxes Kicking fixed income grandma out of her house is immoral. People constantly moving due to property tax spikes is destabilizing. CA's is not lacking in taxes. CA is spending way too much. Other states are doing fine collecting a fraction of what we do adjusted for any kind of metric you can think of. > What would the social security tax rate be if you didn't cap the maximum income it applies to? You incur more liabilities. The contract is I pay more in, I get more out later. It's a safety net. We cap it so people have a minimum and don't die in destitution. > What should probably happen: Figure out a revenue neutral approach that blends a net worth tax with a reduction in sales taxes. That puts money back in the pockets of people who most need it. A wealth tax is opening a pandora box. Enjoy paying more accountants. You don't know how much something is worth until you sell it. Who get's to decide how much my paintings or my stock is worth? A politician? Why is it ok to tax someone on income they've already paid taxes every year for the rest of their lives. People will flee and no one will move here. Detroit. > social security is a poll tax No. A poll tax is something much much different.