<p>Yes, it will have unintended consequences. Most actions do. I think that it is a normal reaction for those who can do it to move out of state. Only for those who it is worth paying the extra taxes whether it’s because finding the same pay levels, or it’s worth the extra to live, or who just can’t manage a move will stick around, but that is probably the vast majority. But if I made the kind of money that these over top folks made, unless there was pressing quality of life issues to live there, or if making the money was part of living there I’d change my residence to elsewhere as a personal financial choice. I’d love to leave where I am living as the Cost of living here is really too high for my comfort, but DH’s job and pay is strongly tied to the NYC locale. It’s not that I would just enjoy extra savings if I moved.</p>
<p>Speaking of those brave bureaucrats, check out the case of tiny LA suburb Bell City.
[Former</a> City Manager Robert Rizzo among 8 Bell officials arrested - latimes.com](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Archive blogs)</p>
<p>After efficiently rigging an election with fraudulent absentee votes they bravely voted themselves millions in pay raises. Wisely, the city administrator was paid over $800K a year to manage a city of less than 40,000 where the average income was $29K.</p>
<p>If you leave money just lying around, sage bureaucrats will find a way to bravely spend it.</p>
<p>What does it mean that taxes will “tap in” to 60% of his income. Hmmm…</p>
<p>I miss Cali, sigh . . .</p>
<p>they have to tax the income makers. The tech companies offshore most of their profits and headquarter in nevada to avoid the taxes in CA. Hollywood was recently granted an exemption from the federal tax hikes, so they won’t be paying the top tax rates. Why, you ask? Same reason that trading income for hedge funds is taxed at the lower capital gains rate… follow the donations.</p>
<p>Taxing income at a high level is insidious and counterproductive. And those who are wealthy who advocate for income tax rate hikes are almost always receiving their income in capitol gains. They get to sound virtuous and still avoid the irs. </p>
<p>Still, Mickelson should just put together a golf lobby the way that hollywood has the hollywood lobby and they could probably get an exemption like the stars and starlets do.</p>
<p>Hunt, where we live, we pay over 50% of our income in taxes. Our property taxes are through the roof—middle class incomes are less than that, and the same house in the midwest where we used to live would have about 1/8 of that amount in property taxes. We don’t have much in deductions, our state taxes are high, and sales tax is close to 9%. Throw in SS tax and, yeah, we pay a lot in taxes. We chose and choose to live here, too because that is why we get the pay we do, the business we get which could not be duplciated or come close where we used to live. </p>
<p>But it’s what you can keep that counts, and when the time comes that we are no longer working, we won’t stay here. Without the income, the tax rates make it clearly not worth our while. A lot of folks here looking at Texas and Florida for retirement, and it’s not just for the weather.</p>
<p>Definitely a “1% in the first world” problem . . . </p>
<p>Three thoughts :</p>
<p>1- there is something terribly askew when tax policy analyses are based on anecdotal experiences of atypical folks; his concerns are real but are just part of the story . . .although if he pulls a Depardieu there will be outsize attention paid to his situation</p>
<p>2- the tax loads in CA compared to the rest of the First World are pretty low; context matters</p>
<p>3- data is always helpful . . .such as, why do people move to/away from states and how much of a role does relative taxation play vs. other factors, such as opportunity in one’s industry, proximity to family, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Of course we need to pay taxes. But when you are required to hand over more than half of what you make, that’s wrong; I don’t care how much you make.</p>
<p>There does seem to be resentment these days towards those who succeed, no matter if they have worked very hard to get where they are.</p>
<p>What a lot of people don’t get, is that taxing the upper income folks more does not necessarily mean that the economy is going to do better. Those who have high income can make cuts in areas that don’t affect their direct standard of living much, but really hurt those people and businesses in the community. I do have a woman who cleans and helps me with the upkeep of my home. A few years ago, she was in desperate states because a lot of clientale cut her hours or got rid of her altogether. Her sister was also so affected as were many in her community whose income depends on house cleaning. And I’ll tell you, I wanted to cut too, to an occasional come by and help instead of the once a week, or cut to every other week. Not a huge deal to me, but would have been devastation for her. I did get rid of the lawn service and the guy came hat in hand to beg me to keep him and he was willing to cut his already reasonable prices. I have a lot of kids and an old lawn mower, so that was an area I could easily cut and do ourselves, and so others were doing. I pretty much stopped spending money-- I don’t go out and shop much at all anymore, all on line, and my brothers do the same. So we tend to buy only things we have thought about and need/want instead of impulse shopping. Hurts a lot of the businesses when folks do that. When you cut down or hair treatments and other such luxuries to make up for your cut in paycheck, the people most hurt are those who are providing those services. This year my dentist and endodontists who already are in the upper 1% for income will be benefitting from my visits at the expense of those who are not making so much money, as I will be cutting back in order to pay these hefty dental bills along with my increased medical premiums and the hike back up in social security. That our paycheck took a cut this month will be offset by cuts in spending that translate into other people’s salary.</p>
<p>But is anybody really paying more than 50% of income in taxes, even in California–if you leave out property tax? You have to leave out property tax, because a person with little or no income can still be paying that.</p>
<p>Property tax is a tax on an asset.</p>
<p>The people voted for prop 30. I voted against it because I think California taxes are too high.</p>
<p>In addition to the income tax hikes, sales taxes are going to go up .25 percent. So, the population voted for tax increases for themselves.</p>
<p>These tax rates are supposed to last several years. </p>
<p>The money is supposed to go for schools, but there could be a shell game going on.</p>
<p>Federal income tax were very low on a historical basis. The federal govt
was taxing us at a very low rate, a rate that was too low too pay for services. I know people like to
complain, but that is just a fact.</p>
<p>Now that fed taxes have been raised, the argument for more fed taxes
weakens. We might need a little more fed revenue because the population is aging and the elderly need more govt services.</p>
<p>Cal is different. In cal, the taxes are very high so my thinking is different
when it comes to cal. Having said this, Cal pays billions and billions more in taxes to the fed govt than it receives back from the fed govt. Cal is billions and billions of dollars short. Cal has some problems, but the state is not going bankrupt. The state is doing pretty good right now.</p>
<p>I know a lot of people have a hard time with this, it doesn’t fit their reality, but if the state wasn’t paying billions and billions extra to the feds, Cal would be runnng HUGE SURPLUSES.</p>
<p>Years ago, Prop 13 was seen as a people’s revolt. (Granted, only that segment that owned homes.) In fact, property taxes had been a large portion of what funded one’s local community schools. So, guess what happened to those K-12 districts? Digging just a little shows they are still reeling. The superficial answer would be, well if the communities can’t fund, then the state should- but the state can’t make up the difference and also has that responsibility to the public colleges. The age old questions is: * So where’s it gonna come from?"* Trapped in a cycle.</p>
<p>And remember that CA is unique for its geographic diversity, wealth disparities, and the particulars of its economy, from small farms to international businesses. The range of issues CA juggles is huge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but if high earners like Mickelson do in fact, leave, it is also a problem for the State of California, which relies on less than 1% of its tax filers to bring in 33% of its personal income tax revenue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Governor</a> Brown’s Tax Proposal and the Folly of California’s Income Tax | Tax Foundation](<a href=“http://taxfoundation.org/article/governor-browns-tax-proposal-and-folly-californias-income-tax]Governor”>http://taxfoundation.org/article/governor-browns-tax-proposal-and-folly-californias-income-tax)</p>
<p>Of course this prop will have the consequences. I am (not really) shocked that people are not capable to learn from some one else mistakes. Remember what luxury tax on yachts did to that industry? The same is going to happen to the state of CA, just wait.</p>
<p>And of course people voted for this prop. It does not affect them. And people like Phil can afford it. It does not matter that he has more rights to his income, than the collective.</p>
<p>I think CA is counting on enough people just grinning and bearing it, that are affected by this tax. It’s certainly not going to put them in the poorhouse or put a huge crimp in their lifestyles. But if too many do indeed, say “enought” and leave, the extra tax can cost rather than bring in more money.</p>
<p>It is going to be interesting to see what happens. </p>
<p>There is talk of a shortfall in revenue already, but that might just be politics.</p>
<p>We all get to see what happens.</p>
<p>I do think a 13 percent tax rate for both income and cap gains is ridiculously high.</p>
<p>How much of a bite is Phil actually going to take? After all is said and done and he and his wealthy peers have filled out their forms? Sometimes, the effect of talking in sweeping terms (60%) is greater than the detail shows. Sometimes, the facts are lost in the noise.</p>
<p>Well, aren’t we getting more tax hikes from the feds? I thought that was made clear recently.</p>
<p>The really high income earners can establish residency anywhere they wish. They can still keep the mansion in Malibu but ‘home’ will be Florida or some other state with no income taxes.</p>
<p>It seems to me that when we talk about the taxes we pay, we usually think of all our taxes - federal, state income, property taxes. This is how we get to numbers like 50 or 63 percent tax rates.</p>
<p>Yet when we talk about what other people pay, we only seem to want to talk about federal income taxes. Hence we have people who “don’t pay taxes”, even when they pay a boat load of taxes. Just a thought.</p>