> it was that people with more money tend to spend more money And somewhere between $100k/year and $100M/year this no longer holds. Instead of spending the mon

> it was that people with more money tend to spend more money And somewhere between $100k/year and $100M/year this no longer holds. Instead of spending the money, it gets invested. Generally speaking, Someone with $1B spends about as much as someone with $5B and about as much as someone with $500M. > the net gain is going to be higher from those that spend more money. > [the rich] were already being asked to pay more from the start That's true of literally every tax except for a flat tax. The general reasoning behind non-flat taxes is that the richer you are, the more you have benefited from society (so the more you should pay back to society) and you are more able to pay a tax (eg: 30% of $30k per year will have a huge impact on lifestyle, but 30% on $300M or even $300k, will have much less of an impact, because the absoulte after-tax income is so high, even though the tax rates are the same) > Sure, Prop 38 was not perfect either, true. But, IMO, it was more balanced and fair. It was less likely to drive people away like 30. Prop 38's issues weren't that it was unfair or unbalanced, but that it was not nearly as effective as 30 and/or that it would have more negative consequences than 30, because of how it required money to be spent.