California Democrats consider wealth tax — including for people who moved out of state

[craftsman 1,045]

 A big ass thank you to the ones who created jobs in California for years. 

 

California lawmakers are pushing legislation that would impose a new tax on the state's wealthiest residents — even if they've already moved to another part of the country.

Assemblyman Alex Lee, a progressive Democrat, last week introduced a bill in the California State Legislature that would impose an extra annual 1.5% tax on those with a "worldwide net worth" above $1 billion, starting as early as January 2024.

As early as 2026, the threshold for being taxed would drop: those with a worldwide net worth exceeding $50 million would be hit with a 1% annual tax on wealth, while billionaires would still be taxed 1.5%.

The legislation is a modified version of a wealth tax approved in the California Assembly in 2020, which the Democrat-led state Senate declined to pass.

The current version just introduced includes measures to allow California to impose wealth taxes on residents even years after they left the state and moved elsewhere.

Exit taxes aren't new in California. But this bill also includes provisions to create contractual claims tied to the assets of a wealthy taxpayer who doesn't have the cash to pay their annual wealth tax bill because most of their assets aren't easily turned into cash. This claim would require the taxpayer to make annual filings with California's Franchise Tax Board and eventually pay the wealth taxes owed, even if they've moved to another state.

California was one of several blue states last week to unveil bills to impose new wealth taxes. The other states were Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and Washington. Each state's proposal contained a difference tax approach, but they all centered around the same basic idea: the rich must pay more.

Lee's office didn't respond to a request for comment for this story. However, he's made public statements echoing the message that wealthier residents should pay higher taxes.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-democrats-consider-wealth-tax-people-moved-out-state

[Louie Kelcher 97]

It's 2am.  Do you know why craftsman is creating another thread linked to a foxnews article?

[craftsman 1,045]

45 minutes ago, Louie Kelcher said:

It's 2am.  Do you know why craftsman is creating another thread linked to a foxnews article?

It's 6am. Do you know why gutterpedo is following craftsman around so early after waking up?

[Engorgeous George 1,137]

Unconstitutional.

[Thornton Melon 542]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Unconstitutional.

Exactly. How the hell do they think they can tax people not in their jurisdiction?

[Ultra Max Power 214]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Unconstitutional.

I think that word has lost all meaning to the D's.  Its more a see what you can get away with now.  When called on it, add a "threat to democracy" label. 

[Alias Detective 1,177]

10 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

Exactly. How the hell do they think they can tax people not in their jurisdiction?

More wealth distribution.  
 

I’ll tell you what, at age 25 everyone gets a million.  In 10 years the same fools who are broke now would be broke in the hypothetical scenario i stated.  It’s just da facts.

 

what worries me; there are more takers than makers in this country.

[supermike80 1,280]

17 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

More wealth distribution.  
 

I’ll tell you what, at age 25 everyone gets a million.  In 10 years the same fools who are broke now would be broke in the hypothetical scenario i stated.  It’s just da facts.

 

what worries me; there are more takers than makers in this country.

I'm 1000% confident reparations will become real in this country.  I'm positively sure of it.  Years ago I was arguing with my liberal inlaws about taxing the rich.  I told them wealth taxes were next.  They pooh pooh'd it.  But the question is at what level of income does a wealth tax start?  Sure it's billionaires now, multi millionaires..But in the near future, there will be clamoring from single moms with 5 kids asking to take away from the guy making 100K a year. Obviously he has enough to give some away.

Tickle trickle.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,552]

2 hours ago, Louie Kelcher said:

It's 2am.  Do you know why craftsman is creating another thread linked to a foxnews article?

Its 9 am. Does Gutterboy ever create a thread of his own? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

I'm ok with this.  If you elected Communists, then you should have to deal with their policies.  It's better for red states if this happens too, because if anyone does leave a communist state, then they're less likely to vote communist in a red state.

[Tree of Knowledge 817]

Three straight days of mass shootings.  Be better Kalifornia.  

[jonmx 1,548]

2 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Unconstitutional.

In principle it is the same as property taxes.  Why can I get taxed on the value of my largest possession every year at basically this 1.5 per cent rate, but Jeff Bezos not get taxed one cent on the value of his largest possession?  Even if his wealth rises $50 Billion, he is not taxed unless he sells.  Meanwhile, I get a tax bill of $12,000 on my home whether it increases in value or not.  The mega wealthy are not taxed that much.  Only the people who show large incomes, who are taxed at a very high rate.  

[The Real timschochet 2,855]

I have no problem with a wealth tax on individuals worth over a billion dollars. That’s a very small number of people. I think it would do less harm to the economy than a sales tax, for example. 

But the problem is that these taxes inevitably are on corporations as well, which means many more people, and the economy in general, is affected. In that case we have to be much more careful and it’s not always necessarily a good thing. 
 

But I don’t see taxes as a punishment. 

[Bert 1,087]

14 minutes ago, jonmx said:

In principle it is the same as property taxes.  Why can I get taxed on the value of my largest possession every year at basically this 1.5 per cent rate, but Jeff Bezos not get taxed one cent on the value of his largest possession?  Even if his wealth rises $50 Billion, he is not taxed unless he sells.  Meanwhile, I get a tax bill of $12,000 on my home whether it increases in value or not.  The mega wealthy are not taxed that much.  Only the people who show large incomes, who are taxed at a very high rate.  

And you know what the mega wealthy do when you impose this kind of tax??? They leave.  That is why this nimrod is trying to tax people that are leaving. 

The government created this income tax disparity when they targeted CEO wages.  Being that corporate lawyers are exceedingly smarter than government lawyers and hypocritical politicians they developed a work around, equity compensation that receives capital gains treatment.  The elected hypocrites are not going to mess with the capital gains rate because would negatively impact them personally and they want to encourage investment in the various financial markets.  

[TheNewGirl 1,018]

I read somewhere that Elizabeth Warren is endorsing this as well; and the commentary was that since they (the govt) are having issues passing tax increases for the wealth at the fed level; they think it should be done at the state level. 

States like CA know they are losing people because it's become so difficult to live here; be successful and buy a home. The gentrification of counties like LA County are literally pushing people to be poor and/or homeless. 

Those people just drain the social systems that we have in place. Taxing the "wealthy" is the way to go. The issue is that the wealthy also know how to get around paying taxes and all of the loop holes. A billion will be lowered to a million eventually. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

2 hours ago, supermike80 said:

I'm 1000% confident reparations will become real in this country.

the goal isnt reparations.  the goal is to guilt trip the American people into a communist dictatorship.  once they establish a dictatorship, they dont really need taxes at all.  they dont need to care about racism at all.  they just take what they want. 

its like i say, lenin and stalin and that group were huge on LBGT+ rights.  at least until they turned Russia into a communist dictatorship.  then the goal was achieved, and the LBGT+ crowd were just part of the pawns used to get there.  after that, the commies rounded up and killed the LBGT+ because they actually viewed them as freaks.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,480]

4 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Unconstitutional.

This.  If they can get away with this I would expect all Red States to completely overwhelm their current and former citizens with laws that harshly penalize anyone moving to CA for any reason in any tax bracket.

Fight fire with fire, I guess.  CA wants to make the first shots in a Civil War?  Fine, let's see what happens.

Comrade Stalin would be proud of what CA has become today.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,480]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm ok with this.  If you elected Communists, then you should have to deal with their policies.  It's better for red states if this happens too, because if anyone does leave a communist state, then they're less likely to vote communist in a red state.

Actually, this goes with my previous thoughts in other threads that NO residents currently living in CA, NY, IL and other liberal sh#tholes should EVER be able to move out of the sh#thole they created unless they can prove they voted for anyone other than Democrats consistently.  You should be forced to live in the pig swill you helped create.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

8 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Actually, this goes with my previous thoughts in other threads that NO residents currently living in CA, NY, IL and other liberal sh#tholes should EVER be able to move out of the sh#thole they created unless they can prove they voted for anyone other than Democrats consistently.  You should be forced to live in the pig swill you helped create.

Yeah, it astounds me how incompetent the left is.  "I vote Democrat because we have to help the disenfranchised!!!"  After taxes skyrocket because of the policies they voted for... "OMG, taxes are way to high.  We need to move.  Let's move to Texas, it's a lot cheaper there."  Then they're the same people who after moving to a Red state say, "I vote Democrat because we have to help the disenfranchised!!!"

[Engorgeous George 1,137]

When I moved to Colorado it was a solidly red state with two bastions of blue, Boulder and Denver.  In the 90's there was an influx of Californians relocating here to escape the consequences of their policies in that stat.  They turned Colorado purple, then blue because they did not change their politics and adapt to the areas into which they moved.  They insisted on reimposing the same laws and constitutional amendments, the effects of which they fled.  They brought their disease with them.  I am not looking forward to the next exodus from California arriving here.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

When I moved to Colorado it was a solidly red state with two bastions of blue, Boulder and Denver.  In the 90's there was an influx of Californians relocating here to escape the consequences of their policies in that stat.  They turned Colorado purple, then blue because they did not change their politics and adapt to the areas into which they moved.  They insisted on reimposing the same laws and constitutional amendments, the effects of which they fled.  They brought their disease with them.  I am not looking forward to the next exodus from California arriving here.

It's why I agree, and ok with, Stalin 2.0's regime and policies regarding taxes in California.  They may feel that they're better off staying put in CA than paying taxes in CA and in the state they move to.  I think it should apply to every person in the state, regardless of their income.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

48 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I read somewhere that Elizabeth Warren is endorsing this as well; and the commentary was that since they (the govt) are having issues passing tax increases for the wealth at the fed level; they think it should be done at the state level. 

States like CA know they are losing people because it's become so difficult to live here; be successful and buy a home. The gentrification of counties like LA County are literally pushing people to be poor and/or homeless. 

Those people just drain the social systems that we have in place. Taxing the "wealthy" is the way to go. The issue is that the wealthy also know how to get around paying taxes and all of the loop holes. A billion will be lowered to a million eventually. 

When Warren was running, I looked into her wealth tax and came away with the conclusion that it wasn't thought out at all.  I haven't seen the current proposal, but I'm skeptical it even addresses the same holes in her old plan. 

Biggest problem they can't address is how is wealth defined.  There are countless games the rich can keep playing to keep assets out of their name and money "tied up" in ventures that wouldn't be considered wealth. 

This tax will most definitely trickle downhill to hit everyday Americans.  

Hypothetical... Person A is still making payments on a 5 million dollar house.  Is that a 5 million taxable asset to his wealth?  Or that only kicks in once its fully paid for?  It is cheaper to refinance the last 100k on that house every year vs paying the wealth tax? 

Or they dump millions into the stock market and it falls under an "ill defined" asset, which is impossible to accurately tax, so its going to be excluded. 

I'm all for getting the rich to pay their fair share, but I think the only way it really works is with a high end sales tax. 

[Bert 1,087]

3 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

I'm all for getting the rich to pay their fair share, but I think the only way it really works is with a high end sales tax. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

9 minutes ago, Bert said:

Instead of a flat sales tax, I'd support one that increases % as items become more luxurious or unheathly.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,480]

1 minute ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Instead of a flat sales tax, I'd support one that increases % as items become more luxurious or unheathly.  

What if I'm paying for a hooker?  Is that considered healthy or unhealthy?

[iam90sbaby 2,118]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

the goal isnt reparations.  the goal is to guilt trip the American people into a communist dictatorship.  once they establish a dictatorship, they dont really need taxes at all.  they dont need to care about racism at all.  they just take what they want. 

its like i say, lenin and stalin and that group were huge on LBGT+ rights.  at least until they turned Russia into a communist dictatorship.  then the goal was achieved, and the LBGT+ crowd were just part of the pawns used to get there.  after that, the commies rounded up and killed the LBGT+ because they actually viewed them as freaks.

When you say stuff like this it makes me question if I'm voting for the right party 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,552]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

the goal isnt reparations.  the goal is to guilt trip the American people into a communist dictatorship.  once they establish a dictatorship, they dont really need taxes at all.  they dont need to care about racism at all.  they just take what they want. 

its like i say, lenin and stalin and that group were huge on LBGT+ rights.  at least until they turned Russia into a communist dictatorship.  then the goal was achieved, and the LBGT+ crowd were just part of the pawns used to get there.  after that, the commies rounded up and killed the LBGT+ because they actually viewed them as freaks.

Real Tim wrote a paper in college and says you’re way off about the lgbtq issue.  

[Ultra Max Power 214]

4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

What if I'm paying for a hooker?  Is that considered healthy or unhealthy?

% based off where you found her.  Dirty, you're paying more.  Classy you're paying more.  Need to find that sweet spot like Craigslist mom hard up for rent money for real savings. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,480]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Real Tim wrote a paper in college and says you’re way off about the lgbtq issue.  

And @squistion lives in CA so he can back Real Tim up too.

[Bert 1,087]

24 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

Instead of a flat sales tax, I'd support one that increases % as items become more luxurious or unheathly.  

Ahh  legislating morality.  Who gets to decide what is health and what is luxurious?  Tortillas and refried beans are very unhealthy are you going to tax the hell out of those items?  Vegetable oil is used to fry things very unhealthy.  Anything with refined sugar, any processed foods, ground beef, shell fish, bread, AP flour, cornmeal unhealthy. Now you are taxing 90% of the foods consumed by low income families. 

TVs, video games, home computers, tablets, cellphones and automobiles are all luxurious.  

This is where the government always focks up......the end game.  They start picking and choosing and you end up with a 77,000 page tax code.

Exempt rent/mortgage, food, clothing, daycare, public transportation and medical services.  Everything else you pay sales tax.  This eliminates the majority of purchases made by low income individuals.

[squistion 872]

5 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Unconstitutional.

I agree. It probably violates both the federal Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

[Ultra Max Power 214]

Just now, Bert said:

Ahh  legislating morality.  Who gets to decide what is health and what is luxurious?  Tortilla's and refried beans are very unhealthy are you going to tax the hell out of those items?  Vegetable oil is used to fry things very unhealthy.  Anything with refined sugar, any processed foods, ground beef, shell fish, bread, unhealthy. Now you are taxing 90% of the foods consumed by low income families. 

TVs, video games, home computers, tablets, cellphones and automobiles are all luxurious.  

This is where the government always focks up......the end game.  They start picking and choosing and you end up with a 77,000 page tax code.

Exempt rent/mortgage, food, clothing, daycare, public transportation and medical services.  Everything else you pay sales tax.  This eliminates the majority of purchases made by low income individuals.

I was more thinking about it from a grocery store vs a fast food or 7-11 type place. I'd be fine if tomorrow if Congress votes to tax the Burger King menu 30% more.  Yeah it would suck for the time or two I eat there, but that in unhealthy and only leads to more people relying on our health services by eating that junk all the time. 

I could go for all of those exclusions, but the way I'd like to see it for clothing as an example... Designer name brands should be taxed at a higher rate than my Hanes 4 for 12 dollar shirt packs.

Its in no way a perfect system, and I don't have all the answers, but looking at the tax code from a fairness standpoint, I think I support a sliding scale vs 30% for everything.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,552]

“It’s free, swipe your EBT”. 

[Cdub100 3,366]

As they should. Eat the rich! Make them pay their fair share. BLM!!! Pay the blacks 5 million in reparations.

[supermike80 1,280]

1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

the goal isnt reparations.  the goal is to guilt trip the American people into a communist dictatorship.  once they establish a dictatorship, they dont really need taxes at all.  they dont need to care about racism at all.  they just take what they want. 

its like i say, lenin and stalin and that group were huge on LBGT+ rights.  at least until they turned Russia into a communist dictatorship.  then the goal was achieved, and the LBGT+ crowd were just part of the pawns used to get there.  after that, the commies rounded up and killed the LBGT+ because they actually viewed them as freaks.

LOL whatever you say pal.  Why are you still in the USA?  You seriously should move.  

[Bert 1,087]

23 minutes ago, Ultra Max Power said:

I was more thinking about it from a grocery store vs a fast food or 7-11 type place. I'd be fine if tomorrow if Congress votes to tax the Burger King menu 30% more.  Yeah it would suck for the time or two I eat there, but that in unhealthy and only leads to more people relying on our health services by eating that junk all the time. 

I could go for all of those exclusions, but the way I'd like to see it for clothing as an example... Designer name brands should be taxed at a higher rate than my Hanes 4 for 12 dollar shirt packs.

Its in no way a perfect system, and I don't have all the answers, but looking at the tax code from a fairness standpoint, I think I support a sliding scale vs 30% for everything.  

I understand what you are saying and it is good in theory.  I have worked in sales tax for 31years, all of the exemptions/exclusions you list will ultimately take us right back to where we are now. 

The biggest problem with a sales tax is the politicians loss their "corporations are not paying their fair share" fairy tale  

[Voltaire 4,550]

3 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

the goal isnt reparations.  the goal is to guilt trip the American people into a communist dictatorship.  once they establish a dictatorship, they dont really need taxes at all.  they dont need to care about racism at all.  they just take what they want. 

its like i say, lenin and stalin and that group were huge on LBGT+ rights.  at least until they turned Russia into a communist dictatorship.  then the goal was achieved, and the LBGT+ crowd were just part of the pawns used to get there.  after that, the commies rounded up and killed the LBGT+ because they actually viewed them as freaks.

That won't happen again. Back then, exploited and repressed industrial workers and peasant farmers didn't have much use for soft degenerate sexual perverts. Nowadays the core of the Amerikan Communist movement consists of rich guilt-ridden white leftoid non-binary soy drinkers with pink hair, nose rings, and Gender Studies degrees who wouldn't know a hammer from a sickle.

[RLLD 3,452]

6 hours ago, Thornton Melon said:

Exactly. How the hell do they think they can tax people not in their jurisdiction?

The behavior is congruent with how they approach the world. I do not believe they care about the constitution unless they can use it as some means to harm others.

 

[dogcows 1,029]

5 hours ago, jonmx said:

In principle it is the same as property taxes.  Why can I get taxed on the value of my largest possession every year at basically this 1.5 per cent rate, but Jeff Bezos not get taxed one cent on the value of his largest possession?  Even if his wealth rises $50 Billion, he is not taxed unless he sells.  Meanwhile, I get a tax bill of $12,000 on my home whether it increases in value or not.  The mega wealthy are not taxed that much.  Only the people who show large incomes, who are taxed at a very high rate.  

And Trump’s tax plan made this even worse.

We need a wealth tax. Bezos should not be paying less tax than a barista.

[Engorgeous George 1,137]

56 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

That won't happen again. Back then, exploited and repressed industrial workers and peasant farmers didn't have much use for soft degenerate sexual perverts. Nowadays the core of the Amerikan Communist movement consists of rich guilt-ridden white leftoid non-binary soy drinkers with pink hair, nose rings, and Gender Studies degrees who wouldn't know a hammer from a sickle.

Making the song El Condor Pasa so much less impactful.