That’s why if the tax gets implemented they’re gonna move away before the tax is implemented. Imagine being a slave to a state you don’t even live in for ten years. What a load of garbage, I’ll bet any other state will refuse to enforce it.
While I'm dubious about both the legality and wisdom of this proposed tax, I confess I'm having trouble seeing "paying a 0.4% tax on wealth over $30M" as being "slave to a state." Yes, metaphor, but it's a metaphor of "reducing my $50M estate to $49.92M might as well be forced servitude," and, uh, no. C'mon. Put that $50M somewhere that averages even a modest 4% annual return and you could pay the tax, draw out $600K a year (I mean, you can live on that, right? Not a hardship?), and still have another $600K left over.
The people who would actually be subject to kind of tax would not, in an actual monetary sense, be adversely affected by this kind of tax, and we're really falling back on to crying BUT IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING. And, fine, but also ironic -- after all, that's also the rationale for imposing the tax.
This is the camel's nose in the tent. If this is adopted, the threshold will move down and the percentage will move up and eventually will touch everyone.
Liberal politics turn everyplace into a disaster. CA was at a high bar so it is taking a little longer.
If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it? How could it benefit the state to have so little money? If the state professes a genuine need for such a small marginal increase in its revenue, then shouldn’t the individuals being taxed be able to make a similar case?
This is like the conversation over signing NDAs, where one party pressures the other by saying it doesn’t matter...
> If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it
You're mixing up to whom it's meaningful. Rich individuals will be unaffected, but it will benefit the state as the tax is collected from more than one person.
I understand that. In aggregate, it’s not a large additional amount for the state of California. How is it meaningful outside of CA insisting they would like to have it?
Taxes are not punishment. It's not meant to impoverish individual rich people. It's meant to get some money into the state coffers which pays for the infrastructure they use.
> If it’s so small as to not be meaningful, why collect it?
The way I see it, it is small for the taxpayer. It is not insignificant for the state.
Personally, I don't own any land and I'd be pretty happy if we stripped property tax from local government and made one uniform federal property tax set somewhere between five percent and ten percent of the market value of the property annually with the goal that you will pay about the sticker price of the property in taxes every ten or so years. In return, the state will grant a housing allowance to every eligible resident over the age of eighteen which covers two times the cost of a modest two bedroom somewhere in the US. It won't be enough for a two bedroom in mid-town Manhattan but we will have guidelines that enable you to live somewhere habitable (access to decent road/transit options, running drinking water and sewage, electricity, reliable wired Internet access).
No allowance is available to or for anyone under the age of eighteen. No provision shall be made for regional differences in cost of living. No exemption shall be made with respect to tax-exempt status or any other reason. All agreements made with local governments (like the ones corporations like Walmart make to not pay any property tax for a hundred years or something) will not affect the property tax they pay under this new tax regime.
If we implement this and close income tax loopholes, we won't need to have a wealth tax. We will also not need to vilify corrupt officials in the CCP government in mainland China and other investors for "parking" their money in empty properties in the west and driving up the cost of real estate. We will instead thank them for their contribution to our communities through property taxes.
The most important thing is there should be no loopholes in tax policy. I really think most people in the US will agree that we shouldn't be driving policy issues through tax credits/deductions. It makes no sense to me to give tax credits or deductions for buying a house, selling a car, having a child, saving money in a health saving account, investing money for retirement, or donating to charity. All credits and deductions (going forward) in personal income tax should go away forever. All of this is basically a human shield for the wealthy to hide their tax loopholes.
I understand that. In aggregate, it’s not a large additional amount for the state of California. (Most of CA’s income is aggregated from many sources.) How is it meaningful outside of CA insisting they would like to have it, in a way that precludes the taxed entity from claiming they have a meaningful use for it?
Took me a few minutes to figure it out. chipotle_coyote comment make sens if the tax is 800k.
50m*0.04 = 2m = 800k+600k+600k
The tax is not 800k but 80k though. So it should be 80k+960k+960k.
So you could pay the tax, draw out $960K a year (I mean, you can live on that, right? Not a hardship?), and still have another $960K left over.
It is a tax on money after the first $30M, so that is
$20M * 0.004 = $80,000
Which does actually mean my numbers are off, in that I accidentally calculated the guy with $50M in wealth having to pay $800K in wealth tax, and he actually only has to pay $80K. So, thank you for pointing out that this proposed tax was even more trivial for anyone that it would have affected than I'd originally thought.
> Imagine being a slave to a state you don’t even live in for ten years. What a load of garbage
You do know that the US taxes its citizens living abroad, right? I know someone who was born in the US, moved back to their home country at the ripe old age of 1, and chose to keep his citizenship when he turned 18, thinking that an additional passport won't hurt. Whoops! When he started making money, suddenly the taxman came calling! Even though he had not set foot in the US for 20 years!
>> You do know that the US taxes its citizens living abroad, right?
Federal tax. US citizens living abroad can still vote in federal elections. People who haven't lived in California for ten years can not vote in California elections.
This would be taxation without representation. If you're an American, you probably were educated on the proper procedure for dealing with that.
Well, the US federal government thinks this is fine.
Citizens still have to file, and often pay taxes if they move out of the country.
If one renounces their citizenship they are liable for up to 10 years of exit taxes.
> Do I still need to file a U.S. tax return? Yes, if you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien living outside the United States, your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you live.
