When socialism comes to America..

[BDKJMU]

If it’s a ‘small’ wealth tax, how can they then claim it will raise ‘substantial’ revenue.

lol at anyone who believes this will be ‘one time’. Watch 5 years from now (this ‘one time’ tax is spread out over 5 years) the money grubbing pols in CA decide to make this permanent…

And at ‘Needed’ revenue. CA doesn’t NEED more revenue. Local and state per capita spending CA is 3rd behind Alaska (they cut citizens checks from oil revenues) and NY. CA has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/ ... res-capita
Also the authors in this opinion piece only accounted for outmigration. They didn’t account for millionaires/ billionaires who would have move to high tax places from lower tax places if not for the higher taxes. To capture that have to do a comparison to other states of share of millionaires over time, as the articles I previously linked contained.

As far 4 studies cited:
-One is a 15 year old for the state of NJ after NJ’s top rate was 6.37% to 8.97%. Behind an paywall so can’t access. Regardless, it outdated because it doesn’t include the NOW top rate of 10.75%. Also the study only accounted for outmigration. It doesn’t account for millionaires who would have moved to NJ if not for the higher taxes.

A second link is an international one “Taxation and the International Mobility of Inventors” that states

Just including scientists & inventors and including other countries, most smaller & that don’t have state systems like we so it isn’t even germane to the subject.

A 3rd & 4th studies linked include is a Danish study (Paywall/membership blocked) and a Swedish one. Small countries with small populations that aren’t comparable to the US. and its states. Irrelevant.

The 5th study linked is a recent one which the authors admit support the arguement of an CA exodus.

And the authors address only the out migration-billionaires who might flee CA. They ignore the already billionaires who would consider moving to CA if it wasn’t for their high taxation.

It was one quick example. You had to nitpick and manipulate to try and win something. Fail.

Keep defending the billionaire class tho. I’m sure they appreciate you.

Translation: You asked me to look at the opinion piece and linked studies. I’m sure to your surprise I did, and pointed out flaws (I initially left off a big one- the idiocy of taxxing unrealized gains). Your response: I’m nitpicking. Surrender accepted.

I’m not a billionaire, never will be, but yet hope the number of billionaires in the US will continue to greatly increase. Because I’m not triggered with a billionaire class envy like you are.

[UNI88]

Taxing unrealized gains is foolish and at anyone who believes a "wealth" tax will be a one-time thing.

Hey we agree on something.

Yes, we do. I'm more fiscally conservative then trump or maQa.

[BDKJMU]

Hey we agree on something.

Yes, we do. I'm more fiscally conservative then trump or maQa.

Maybe in real life. You don’t appear so on this board lol.

[UNI88]

Yes, we do. I'm more fiscally conservative then trump or maQa.

Maybe in real life. You don’t appear so on this board lol.

Tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions is not fiscally conservative.

If maQa was fiscally conservative they would have told trump to pound sand and supported Thomas Massie's campaign. Instead they prioritized loyalty to trump (maQa DEI) and cultural conservatism over fiscal conservatism and individual freedom.

[BDKJMU]

Maybe in real life. You don’t appear so on this board lol.

Tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions is not fiscally conservative.

If maQa was fiscally conservative they would have told trump to pound sand and supported Thomas Massie's campaign. Instead they prioritized loyalty to trump and cultural conservatism over fiscal conservatism and individual freedom.

With the BBB the only tax cuts are the:
-no tax on OT.
-no tax on tips.
The income tax brackets weren’t cut. They were kept the same as they have been since 2017. Yeah the Trump admin touted their tax cuts, and the left criticized them over it. But both sides were full of BS in that regard- Only with DC math is keeping income tax rates the same considered a tax cut.

There was no way Congress was going to pass anything with ‘real’ spending cuts- not just slowdowns in the rate of growth. (Only in DC math is a slowdown in the rate of growth a cut) but real cuts.

So at the time as far as CBO scoring (which has a history of being way off, and there are a # of reasons they were overly pessimistic on the BBB) there was only 2 paths:
-Option One: Keeping tax rates the same, slowdowns in the rates of spending growth and have the debt increase substantially.

-Option 2: Do nothing to income tax rates = increase to pre 2017 levels = having a massive tax increase, slowdowns in the rates of spending growth, debt still increases.

No fiscal conservative would ever be supportive of a tax increase for the Fed because govt doesn’t have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem. In the long run we’re fucked either way, so may as well not have a massive tax increase on the way.

[UNI88]

Tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions is not fiscally conservative.

If maQa was fiscally conservative they would have told trump to pound sand and supported Thomas Massie's campaign. Instead they prioritized loyalty to trump and cultural conservatism over fiscal conservatism and individual freedom.

With the BBB the only tax cuts are the:
-no tax on OT.
-no tax on tips.
The income tax brackets weren’t cut. They were kept the same as they have been since 2017. Yeah the Trump admin touted their tax cuts, and the left criticized them over it. But both sides were full of BS in that regard- Only with DC math is keeping income tax rates the same considered a tax cut.

There was no way Congress was going to pass anything with ‘real’ spending cuts- not just slowdowns in the rate of growth. (Only in DC math is a slowdown in the rate of growth a cut) but real cuts.

So at the time as far as CBO scoring (which has a history of being way off, and there are a # of reasons they were overly pessimistic on the BBB) there was only 2 paths:
-Option One: Keeping tax rates the same, slowdowns in the rates of spending growth and have the debt increase substantially.

-Option 2: Do nothing to income tax rates = increase to pre 2017 levels = having a massive tax increase, slowdowns in the rates of spending growth, debt still increases.

No fiscal conservative would ever be supportive of a tax increase for the Fed because govt doesn’t have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem. In the long run we’re fucked either way, so may as well not have a massive tax increase on the way.

The tax cuts were set to expire. They passed in 2017 based on the assumption that they would expire and thus have limited impact on the deficit. They weren't just "kept the same", Congress had to actually vote to keep them in place.

Yes the government has a spending problem - WhiskeyLeak's DOD budget request is a prime example of that.

A fiscal conservative could vote for a tax increase if they thought it would reduce the deficit and help keep the government fiscally responsible. They wouldn't do it so the government could keep throwing money at problems or to cover up for gross incompetence like Whiskeyleaks.

[kalm]

It was one quick example. You had to nitpick and manipulate to try and win something. Fail.

Keep defending the billionaire class tho. I’m sure they appreciate you.

Translation: You asked me to look at the opinion piece and linked studies. I’m sure to your surprise I did, and pointed out flaws (I initially left off a big one- the idiocy of taxxing unrealized gains). Your response: I’m nitpicking. Surrender accepted.

I’m not a billionaire, never will be, but yet hope the number of billionaires in the US will continue to greatly increase. Because I’m not triggered with a billionaire class envy like you are.

Declaring victory early again? You’re like D1B except without even one tiny drop of humor.

You nitpicked the first article I found. You’re obviously smarter than Forbes. Here’s another for you to ignore after another very quick search. We could do this all day with same results from you. So this is going exactly as I predicted. Yawn. You have zero interest in the truth, just in defending your idols.

I respect kindness above all else. If a billionaire is kind…fantastic. But I’m not going to join you in fondling their balls. The current brand shits on the middle class and is affecting policy to the point of being unsustainable. These guys are insecure, emotionally immature, dicks with practically zero self awareness. I choose to honor different heroes than you.

1. Migration is a very small component of changes in the number of millionaires in California.
While the millionaire population sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of more than 10,000
people, net migration sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of 50 to 120 people. At the most,
migration accounts for 1.2 percent of the annual changes in the millionaire population. The
remaining 98.8 percent of changes in the millionaire population is due to income dynamics at the
top – California residents growing into the millionaire bracket, or falling out of it again.
2. Using difference-in-differences models, which compare migration trends of the group
experiencing the tax increase to a group of high-income earners not facing a tax change, neither
in-migration or out-migration show a tax flight effect from the introduction of the 2005 Mental
Health Services Tax. In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration
declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the
control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state
after the millionaire tax was passed.
3. Using an expanded definition of migration – the shift from resident to non-resident tax filer
(i.e., not living in California but still earning some income in California), we continue to see no
evidence of responsiveness to the MHS tax. This group is unexpectedly important: many high-
income out-migrants do, in fact, continue to earn some income and pay some taxes in California.
This group also shows the “wrong-signed” estimate for out-migration: this “partial” out-
migration of millionaires fell – rather than rose – after the tax was passed.
4. The 1996 tax cuts on high incomes likewise had no consistent effect on migration. There
was a small effect for those experiencing the small (0.7%) tax cut, but no effect at all for those
experiencing the large (1.7%) rate cut. While we are planning to analyze the 1996 tax cut in
greater detail, the overall picture is one of no clear effect.

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/d ... _in_CA.pdf

[Caribbean Hen]

Klamdami

You need Billionaires

Why are you so hateful and selfish

[kalm]

Maybe in real life. You don’t appear so on this board lol.

Tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions is not fiscally conservative.

If maQa was fiscally conservative they would have told trump to pound sand and supported Thomas Massie's campaign. Instead they prioritized loyalty to trump (maQa DEI) and cultural conservatism over fiscal conservatism and individual freedom.

Debt reduction is also a factor. Top marginal rates in the 60’s and 70’s of 70-90% paid off a massive chunk of that debt but it doesn’t seem like we lost too many millionaires. What many did was invest the extra into their companies to avoid those higher rates.

Nobody likes paying taxes, including me. And while we’re financially just fine, I do recognize the need to support the middle class in order to drive the economy. Tech alone doesn’t increase demand unless you have a broad swath of end users who can afford the tech.

[kalm]

Klamdami

You need Billionaires

Why are you so hateful and selfish

See my posts above ^ .

As I stated I base like and dislike mostly on whether you’re a kind person. A kind billionaire? We’re cool.

And no…we most certainly do not need billionaires. Is there a wealth barrier to creativity, innovation, etc.? Do you know the name of the founder of IBM off hand? Why not? How were they able to innovate and grow?

[BDKJMU]

With the BBB the only tax cuts are the:
-no tax on OT.
-no tax on tips.
The income tax brackets weren’t cut. They were kept the same as they have been since 2017. Yeah the Trump admin touted their tax cuts, and the left criticized them over it. But both sides were full of BS in that regard- Only with DC math is keeping income tax rates the same considered a tax cut.

There was no way Congress was going to pass anything with ‘real’ spending cuts- not just slowdowns in the rate of growth. (Only in DC math is a slowdown in the rate of growth a cut) but real cuts.

So at the time as far as CBO scoring (which has a history of being way off, and there are a # of reasons they were overly pessimistic on the BBB) there was only 2 paths:
-Option One: Keeping tax rates the same, slowdowns in the rates of spending growth and have the debt increase substantially.

-Option 2: Do nothing to income tax rates = increase to pre 2017 levels = having a massive tax increase, slowdowns in the rates of spending growth, debt still increases.

No fiscal conservative would ever be supportive of a tax increase for the Fed because govt doesn’t have a taxing problem. It has a spending problem. In the long run we’re fucked either way, so may as well not have a massive tax increase on the way.

The tax cuts were set to expire. They passed in 2017 based on the assumption that they would expire and thus have limited impact on the deficit. They weren't just "kept the same", Congress had to actually vote to keep them in place.

Yes the government has a spending problem - WhiskeyLeak's DOD budget request is a prime example of that.

A fiscal conservative could vote for a tax increase if they thought it would reduce the deficit and help keep the government fiscally responsible. They wouldn't do it so the government could keep throwing money at problems or to cover up for gross incompetence like Whiskeyleaks.

Doesn‘t change the fact that the rates were kept the same. Our taxes (rates) weren‘t cut.

No a fiscal conservative would never vote for a massive tax increase. And lol at ‘govt fiscally responsible‘.

[BDKJMU]

Hey we agree on something.

Yes, we do. I'm more fiscally conservative then trump or maQa.

Anyone who supported Obamacare and a massive tax increase last year isn‘t as fiscally conservative as Trump or MAGA.

[UNI88]

The tax cuts were set to expire. They passed in 2017 based on the assumption that they would expire and thus have limited impact on the deficit. They weren't just "kept the same", Congress had to actually vote to keep them in place.

Yes the government has a spending problem - WhiskeyLeak's DOD budget request is a prime example of that.

A fiscal conservative could vote for a tax increase if they thought it would reduce the deficit and help keep the government fiscally responsible. They wouldn't do it so the government could keep throwing money at problems or to cover up for gross incompetence like Whiskeyleaks.

Doesn‘t change the fact that the rates were kept the same. Our taxes (rates) weren‘t cut.

No a fiscal conservative would never vote for a massive tax increase. And lol at ‘govt fiscally responsible‘.

A fiscal conservative would never vote for a massive tax decrease without a corresponding reduction in spending.

[BDKJMU]

Translation: You asked me to look at the opinion piece and linked studies. I’m sure to your surprise I did, and pointed out flaws (I initially left off a big one- the idiocy of taxxing unrealized gains). Your response: I’m nitpicking. Surrender accepted.

I’m not a billionaire, never will be, but yet hope the number of billionaires in the US will continue to greatly increase. Because I’m not triggered with a billionaire class envy like you are.

Declaring victory early again? You’re like D1B except without even one tiny drop of humor.

You nitpicked the first article I found. You’re obviously smarter than Forbes. Here’s another for you to ignore after another very quick search. We could do this all day with same results from you. So this is going exactly as I predicted. Yawn. You have zero interest in the truth, just in defending your idols.

I respect kindness above all else. If a billionaire is kind…fantastic. But I’m not going to join you in fondling their balls. The current brand shits on the middle class and is affecting policy to the point of being unsustainable. These guys are insecure, emotionally immature, dicks with practically zero self awareness. I choose to honor different heroes than you.

1. Migration is a very small component of changes in the number of millionaires in California.
While the millionaire population sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of more than 10,000
people, net migration sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of 50 to 120 people. At the most,
migration accounts for 1.2 percent of the annual changes in the millionaire population. The
remaining 98.8 percent of changes in the millionaire population is due to income dynamics at the
top – California residents growing into the millionaire bracket, or falling out of it again.
2. Using difference-in-differences models, which compare migration trends of the group
experiencing the tax increase to a group of high-income earners not facing a tax change, neither
in-migration or out-migration show a tax flight effect from the introduction of the 2005 Mental
Health Services Tax>. In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration
declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the
control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state
after the millionaire tax was passed.
3. Using an expanded definition of migration – the shift from resident to non-resident tax filer
(i.e., not living in California but still earning some income in California), we continue to see no
evidence of responsiveness to the MHS tax. This group is unexpectedly important: many high-
income out-migrants do, in fact, continue to earn some income and pay some taxes in California.
This group also shows the “wrong-signed” estimate for out-migration: this “partial” out-
migration of millionaires fell – rather than rose – after the tax was passed.
4. The 1996 tax cuts on high incomes likewise had no consistent effect on migration. There
was a small effect for those experiencing the small (0.7%) tax cut, but no effect at all for those
experiencing the large (1.7%) rate cut. While we are planning to analyze the 1996 tax cut in
greater detail, the overall picture is one of no clear effect.

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/d ... _in_CA.pdf

lol at you balls fondling comment. I don‘t know a billionaire. Never have met one as far as I know. Probably never will. But I don‘t have billionaire class envy like you do.

As far as your 2012 study using 15-30 year old data.
In 1996:
-CA had a conk gov- Pete Wilson.
-Conks controlled the CA state legislature in 1995-1996 (granted donks controlled it before then going back to the 1970s).
-CA had a top marginal income tax rate of 9.3%.

As late as 2011 CA had a conk gov- Swarzenegger.
But since 2012 CA has had a donk gov with donk SUPERMAJORITIES in the CA legislature.

neither in-migration or out-migration show a tax flight effect from the introduction of the 2005 MentalHealth Services Tax>. In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed.

Now CA has a top marginal income tax rate of 14.6%.
https://taxfoundation.org/location/california/
The 2005 mental health services tax is only 1.3% of that increase. The bulk of the increase came in 2015, several years after the study you linked was published. So going from 9.3% to 10.6% might not have had an effect. But going from 10.6% to 14.6% likely did.

Also 30 years ago, or even in 2012 when the study was published, you didn‘t have near the people working remotely. Much easier to live and work remotely in a different state. So any study that isn‘t very recent is about as useless as preseason polls.

Also the authors the study only again accounts for outmigration. They didn‘t account for millionaires (income not net worth) who would have moved to CA from lower tax places if not for the higher taxes.

[UNI88]

Declaring victory early again? You’re like D1B except without even one tiny drop of humor.

You nitpicked the first article I found. You’re obviously smarter than Forbes. Here’s another for you to ignore after another very quick search. We could do this all day with same results from you. So this is going exactly as I predicted. Yawn. You have zero interest in the truth, just in defending your idols.

I respect kindness above all else. If a billionaire is kind…fantastic. But I’m not going to join you in fondling their balls. The current brand shits on the middle class and is affecting policy to the point of being unsustainable. These guys are insecure, emotionally immature, dicks with practically zero self awareness. I choose to honor different heroes than you.

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/d ... _in_CA.pdf

lol at you balls fondling comment. I don‘t know a billionaire. Never have met one as far as I know. Probably never will. But I don‘t have billionaire class envy like you do.

As far as your 2012 study using 30 year old data.

In 1996:
-CA had a conk gov- Pete Wilson.
-Conks controlled the CA state legislature in 1995-1996 (granted donks controlled it before then going back to the 1970s.
-CA had a top marginal income tax rate of 1996.

As late as 2011 CA had a conk gov- Swarzenegger.
But since 2012 CA has had a donk gov with donk SUPERMAJORITIES in the CA legislature.

Now CA has a top marginal income tax rate of 14.6%, an increase of over 50% from the study you linked. And increase that is relatively recent within the last decade.
https://taxfoundation.org/location/california/
So any study that isn‘t within the last decade is about as useless as preseason polls.

Also the authors the study only again accounts for outmigration. They didn‘t account for millionaires/ billionaires who would have moved to CA from lower tax places if not for the higher taxes.

kalm has "billionaire class envy" like you have trans envy.

[BDKJMU]

Doesn‘t change the fact that the rates were kept the same. Our taxes (rates) weren‘t cut.

No a fiscal conservative would never vote for a massive tax increase. And lol at ‘govt fiscally responsible‘.

A fiscal conservative would never vote for a massive tax decrease without a corresponding reduction in spending.

Well the last time we had a massive tax decrease was 2017.

[BDKJMU]

Wearing hard hats to an empty parking lot where no construction is going on. That is socialism in a nutshell. Retards.