10 ms·

And this is why is California is trying to get a 10 year exit tax on your income. They know they’ve fucked their golden goose so they need to extract as much as

And this is why is California is trying to get a 10 year exit tax on your income. They know they’ve fucked their golden goose so they need to extract as much as they can before the system collapses on itself from lack of top earners to pay the majority of the income tax.

zeruch 4y ago
Yeah yeah yeah, the latest variation on the theme of California on the brink....it's always the same nonsense, packaged differently. Take a number...
- __pache__ 4y ago
  err... the trends are good...? is it possible to hollow out a tax base, or not?
  - zeruch 4y ago
    Also the same verbiage used repeatedly. Every time. For decades. And I've been here for decades, so I have literally observed this from detractors since the 80s.
    - __pache__ 4y ago
      What about the thread we're in right now?
      - zeruch 4y ago
        Same dung, different cycle. If you think taxes are worse now than they were in the 70s and 80s, I'd say the deja vu is ardent. There was a time in this country (back in the 50s and 60s) where the highest tax rate on income was near 90%, and corporate tax rates were several times higher than now. We've fooled ourselves into thinking that CA is "the worst for taxes" when we aren't. We certainly don't carry the lowest tax burden, but this isn't a race for the top or bottom, but what you get for it. I'd argue one of the daftest things about US discourse on taxes is the absolutism of whether "taxation is theft" (it isn't, it's part of the cost of doing business as a country) but what is the return on the service quality of those taxes, are their uses auditable, is the transparency around them good...it usually isn't, but then we also do nothing to improve that, which makes most of our perpetually binary and dumb tax talk that much more annoying.
        __pache__ 4y ago
        Here's a practical example: I hire people from California. I had to fill out multiple forms and now pay extra tax just for those guys. I don't have to do this anywhere else. California is famous for squandering wealth on huge projects, aren't they? Wasn't like 60k per homeless person spent? We live on different planets. It's awful to do business in/with California, sorry. And yes their taxes are awful. The worst in the USA dude, I'm so confused..? Who is worse? Good luck.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    What if it is poorer people leaving?
    - selfmodruntime 4y ago
      The middle class is leaving. Rich people in retirement can enjoy the better parts of Cali for all its worth. The poorest (homeless) can't really leave.
      - ethyw45wy45 4y ago
        Most of the homeless come from out of state. The reason they can stay is that they didn't arrive with the ambition to rise at all because that's not a requirement for receiving free benefits or good weather.
kanbara 4y ago
the more you make the more you should pay, it's simple.
- sgregnt 4y ago
  And channel it into inefficient corrupt governments, no thank you.
- refurb 4y ago
  Even if you no longer live in California? I don't think anyone thinks that's fair.
- necovek 4y ago
  Does that not hold true for a static percentage tax? Eg. 15% of 10k is 1.5k, whereas 15% of 100k is 15k ;)
  - Ntrails 4y ago
    This is obviously both true and not the point. It is a mazlows hierarchy style argument. You shouldn't be taxed on the income you need to eat. You should be taxed gently on the income you need for basic comfort. You should be taxed more heavily on the income used for luxuries etc etc
    - necovek 4y ago
      If the point is that those earning more should pay more taxes, that is already achieved by using a relative measure like percentages. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what the original goals behind progressive taxes are? Is the goal to discourage employers from giving out exorbitantly large salaries? Is it to equalize salaries? Or simply to collect more taxes from those who can afford it? Or something else? I agree having better criteria around the goals we want to achieve like you suggest should drive our taxation systems. But if we say no taxes for food, is it organic food? What if someone is allergic to common food (gluten, lactose...) and price is significantly higher? How about basic comforts? By virtue of being significantly taller than average, I have to pay the premium for larger cars simply to be able to fit inside (I still drive a sedan and not a SUV: they don't get more space inside). And need custom beds, taller kitchen counters... All of this is more expensive than mass-produced furniture or smaller cars. And even for "luxury" items like flying long haul, you can't tell me it's fair that for the same price, some people get 4" in front of their knees to the backrest in front, and I get my knees stuck into that same backrest. I understand that from the sellers' perspective, but to get the same comfort, I need to pay more for premium economy. Basically, progressive tax is an attempt at some form of equalization, but I wonder which one is it, so I can have a better opinion of how we can achieve fairness. But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly.
quantified 4y ago
Wish it were my income. $30 million ain't what it used to be but I'd take it anyway.
trieste92 4y ago
> And this is why is California is trying to get a 10 year exit tax on your income. Context: For net worth over 30 million Leaving this out is disingenuous
- refurb 4y ago
  It's the camel's nose in the tent. Once it starts, it's not hard to change later and soon you find out you're rich! https://moskowitzllp.com/californias-exit-tax-explained/ https://moskowitzllp.com/californias-exit-tax-explained/ It's basically a wealth tax of 0.4% on assets above $30M, worldwide. If you leave the state - pay all the taxes due, you are still responsible to pay that wealth tax for 10 years. No distinction is made for assets acquired prior to moving to California. You could acquire wealth prior to moving to California, then as soon as you're a resident you have to pay it, and for 10 years after you leave. What's going to happen is that people with that kind of wealth just won't move to California and people who might have that kind of wealth will make sure they leave before they trigger it. It's a terrible law. Reminds me of places like New Jersey which did an amazing job chasing all their high-net worth people out of the state.
  - trieste92 4y ago
    I'm fine with an 100% wealth tax for anything over 30 million applied at a federal level > What's going to happen is that people with that kind of wealth just won't move to California Even more of a reason to introduce it on a federal level
    - refurb 4y ago
      But it won't be $30M for long. It's be $20M, then $10M, then $5M including your house. And wealth taxes have failed miserably everywhere they've been tried. France instituted one a few years back and it failed to capture even a small percentage of expected revenue - people just do whatever they can to avoid it, including leaving the country.
      - red-iron-pine 4y ago

zeruch 4y ago

Yeah yeah yeah, the latest variation on the theme of California on the brink....it's always the same nonsense, packaged differently. Take a number...

__pache__ 4y ago
err... the trends are good...? is it possible to hollow out a tax base, or not?
- zeruch 4y ago
  Also the same verbiage used repeatedly. Every time. For decades. And I've been here for decades, so I have literally observed this from detractors since the 80s.
  - __pache__ 4y ago
    What about the thread we're in right now?
    - zeruch 4y ago
      Same dung, different cycle. If you think taxes are worse now than they were in the 70s and 80s, I'd say the deja vu is ardent. There was a time in this country (back in the 50s and 60s) where the highest tax rate on income was near 90%, and corporate tax rates were several times higher than now. We've fooled ourselves into thinking that CA is "the worst for taxes" when we aren't. We certainly don't carry the lowest tax burden, but this isn't a race for the top or bottom, but what you get for it. I'd argue one of the daftest things about US discourse on taxes is the absolutism of whether "taxation is theft" (it isn't, it's part of the cost of doing business as a country) but what is the return on the service quality of those taxes, are their uses auditable, is the transparency around them good...it usually isn't, but then we also do nothing to improve that, which makes most of our perpetually binary and dumb tax talk that much more annoying.
      - __pache__ 4y ago
        Here's a practical example: I hire people from California. I had to fill out multiple forms and now pay extra tax just for those guys. I don't have to do this anywhere else. California is famous for squandering wealth on huge projects, aren't they? Wasn't like 60k per homeless person spent? We live on different planets. It's awful to do business in/with California, sorry. And yes their taxes are awful. The worst in the USA dude, I'm so confused..? Who is worse? Good luck.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  What if it is poorer people leaving?
  - selfmodruntime 4y ago
    The middle class is leaving. Rich people in retirement can enjoy the better parts of Cali for all its worth. The poorest (homeless) can't really leave.
    - ethyw45wy45 4y ago
      Most of the homeless come from out of state. The reason they can stay is that they didn't arrive with the ambition to rise at all because that's not a requirement for receiving free benefits or good weather.

kanbara 4y ago

the more you make the more you should pay, it's simple.

sgregnt 4y ago
And channel it into inefficient corrupt governments, no thank you.
refurb 4y ago
Even if you no longer live in California? I don't think anyone thinks that's fair.
necovek 4y ago
Does that not hold true for a static percentage tax? Eg. 15% of 10k is 1.5k, whereas 15% of 100k is 15k ;)
- Ntrails 4y ago
  This is obviously both true and not the point. It is a mazlows hierarchy style argument. You shouldn't be taxed on the income you need to eat. You should be taxed gently on the income you need for basic comfort. You should be taxed more heavily on the income used for luxuries etc etc
  - necovek 4y ago
    If the point is that those earning more should pay more taxes, that is already achieved by using a relative measure like percentages. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what the original goals behind progressive taxes are? Is the goal to discourage employers from giving out exorbitantly large salaries? Is it to equalize salaries? Or simply to collect more taxes from those who can afford it? Or something else? I agree having better criteria around the goals we want to achieve like you suggest should drive our taxation systems. But if we say no taxes for food, is it organic food? What if someone is allergic to common food (gluten, lactose...) and price is significantly higher? How about basic comforts? By virtue of being significantly taller than average, I have to pay the premium for larger cars simply to be able to fit inside (I still drive a sedan and not a SUV: they don't get more space inside). And need custom beds, taller kitchen counters... All of this is more expensive than mass-produced furniture or smaller cars. And even for "luxury" items like flying long haul, you can't tell me it's fair that for the same price, some people get 4" in front of their knees to the backrest in front, and I get my knees stuck into that same backrest. I understand that from the sellers' perspective, but to get the same comfort, I need to pay more for premium economy. Basically, progressive tax is an attempt at some form of equalization, but I wonder which one is it, so I can have a better opinion of how we can achieve fairness. But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly.

quantified 4y ago

Wish it were my income. $30 million ain't what it used to be but I'd take it anyway.

trieste92 4y ago

> And this is why is California is trying to get a 10 year exit tax on your income. Context: For net worth over 30 million Leaving this out is disingenuous

refurb 4y ago
It's the camel's nose in the tent. Once it starts, it's not hard to change later and soon you find out you're rich! https://moskowitzllp.com/californias-exit-tax-explained/ https://moskowitzllp.com/californias-exit-tax-explained/ It's basically a wealth tax of 0.4% on assets above $30M, worldwide. If you leave the state - pay all the taxes due, you are still responsible to pay that wealth tax for 10 years. No distinction is made for assets acquired prior to moving to California. You could acquire wealth prior to moving to California, then as soon as you're a resident you have to pay it, and for 10 years after you leave. What's going to happen is that people with that kind of wealth just won't move to California and people who might have that kind of wealth will make sure they leave before they trigger it. It's a terrible law. Reminds me of places like New Jersey which did an amazing job chasing all their high-net worth people out of the state.
- trieste92 4y ago
  I'm fine with an 100% wealth tax for anything over 30 million applied at a federal level > What's going to happen is that people with that kind of wealth just won't move to California Even more of a reason to introduce it on a federal level
  - refurb 4y ago
    But it won't be $30M for long. It's be $20M, then $10M, then $5M including your house. And wealth taxes have failed miserably everywhere they've been tried. France instituted one a few years back and it failed to capture even a small percentage of expected revenue - people just do whatever they can to avoid it, including leaving the country.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago