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 Regardless, it outdated because it doesn’t include the NOW top rate of 10.75%.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.