Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/07/06/millionaires-flee-california-after-tax-hike/#596e61944189

by spking • 8 years ago

29 27 8 years ago

pat2man• 8 years ago

Would love to see the numbers on millionaires created by California who choose to stay. If the California economy is good enough those numbers could offset the lack of millionaires moving to California.

secabeen• 8 years ago

It's nothing. From a neutral article without an axe to grind or a political message to send:

The state lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals, or about 0.04 percent of the roughly 312,000 people subject to the tax increase, said co-author Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Dozens...

Ideally, the mods would replace the top link with the SFChronicle one that puts the number in context and gives way more details, but it may not be worth it.

zaroth• 8 years ago

Political axe aside, the tax rate is foremost in entrepreneurs minds when they decide to build a company in CA. Maybe even more so than labor costs.

You don’t obsess and negotiate over 0.1% increases in option pools and ignore the silent 15%/25%/35% partner in the room.

CA eliminating the QSBS Section 1202 exemption is an equally glaring wart on establishing CA residency for entrepreneurs.

commandlinefan• 8 years ago

Surprised it took so long. Come here to Texas and start up some companies here.

jacobmoe3• 8 years ago

I'm enjoying the contrast between the title of this article and the first sentence of the article that it links to:

California lost a very small but statistically significant percentage of high-income residents after voters approved Proposition 30

I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high on high income earners. You might be right. But you should be curious about the possibility that you're wrong.

tuesdayrain• 8 years ago

Awareness of the Laffer Curve is helpful for these discussions.

ebikelaw• 8 years ago

Did you mean awareness of how it’s the most thoroughly debunked idea of the Reagan era, or something else?

jacobmoe3• 8 years ago

I'm aware of the Laffer Curve. It's generally used as a argument for decreasing taxation, even after experience finds that decreasing taxation leads to lower revenue. Just because it's true that there are two levels of taxation that result in $0 revenue (0% and 100%) does not say anything about the shape of the curve connecting those points, nor to where we currently are on the curve.

kryogen1c4• 8 years ago

I wish it was possible to talk about important and interesting issues like optimal tax levels without everything being an ideological battle. I don't care if you think taxes are too high

Irony meter off the charts.

most people don't understand they are likely tax consumers, not providers. As a thought experiment, it must be true that at some income level a person uses more taxes than they provide. Quantifying the exact number is difficult and locality dependent, but it clearly exists. Who do you think the major tax revenue providers are? Corporations and rich people. I don't understand why anyone thinks they're not paying their fair share when they are almost the only ones paying.

The top 10% of us wage earners account for over 70% of personal income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% (under 40k/year) contribute <3%

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe...

cannonedhamster3• 8 years ago

The reason people see it as unfair is because the wealth in the United States goes disproportionately to the top. Of course they are going to be the ones paying they are the only ones left with anything of value and any real disposable income. The money they pay mostly goes to services that benefit themselves anyways. There's a reason that wealthier areas have nicer schools, better roads, always get plowed first. I mean come on if the top 10 percent are only paying 70% then they are underpaying based on the fact that they hold 77% of American wealth. Let's not get into the world. https://billmoyers.com/story/top-10-percent-wealth/

jacobmoe3• 8 years ago

I think your irony meter needs to be calibrated.

Whether we can agree that a given tax policy is good or bad is dependent on whether we can agree to what the goal of taxation is. I think the goal is to maximize human flourishing. I honestly don't know what the optimal levels are, but I don't think it's 0 and I think it will involve a progressive tax structure of some sort. It's true that if millionaires were "fleeing" California than we could agree that California's tax policy was running counter to that goal. But that's not what is happening. It's a clickbaity headline that only serves to score a point in an ideological battle.

unstatusthequo• 8 years ago

Left SF. Not willing to be a tax donkey any more. Not only because of this, but also housing cost vs value and Trump tax plan limit on limiting state tax.

Washington has been great! At least a 13% raise!

coldseattle• 8 years ago

I just stopped working. Between state and local taxes, I only got to keep 46 cents of every additional dollar I earned. I shut down my business, let 6 people go, and stopped.

rabboRubble• 8 years ago

What do you do now?

dghughes• 8 years ago

You have to wonder about people against any taxes where do they think roads, schools, military, police, fire etc. all come from. They just pop into existence?

dmarlow• 8 years ago

From others, obviously.

jacknews• 8 years ago

"Going back to California’s high tax burden, Varner’s new research backs up the old adage that when you tax something you get less of it. That applies whether the thing being taxed is cigarettes, booze, or, in California’s case, millionaires. "

I would say this is fake logic. No-one is going to stop trying to be a millionaire because of taxes.

Though they may try to move to a another state to avoid them.

That just highlights that the tax system needs to be less fragmented and "service oriented". Individual states may charge taxes based on the services they provide, but taxation at large should be about balancing the wealth distribution.

RickJWagner• 8 years ago

I'd like to see increased taxes targeted at the entertainment industry.

Entertainment seems to given an oversized voice in influencing politics. It would be right for the industry to contribute a corresponding amount of money to help fund the issues espoused.

Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike

Related Stories