How About a Tax You Can't Escape?
Even after you move to get away from it.
If you did not know, little New Hampshire has the best economy in New England (and much of America) and one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the country. We are the freest state in North America, with low poverty, high health outcomes, low crime, and an above-average standard of living, even in this trainwreck of an economy. I only bring it up because these things are neither accidental nor mutually exclusive.
Did I mention one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the country?
How can taking less from people result in so many more positive outcomes? Someone should suggest this to the trainwreck that is Vermont, or better yet, Vermont's role Model, California. America's left coast is where you look if you'd like to end all the good things New Hampshire has managed. It overregulates and overtaxes, has unusually high poverty, a homeless problem, high crime, and a 73 billion dollar state deficit.
No matter how much they spend, things keep getting worse.
The Addiction
The new deficit number from California’s bean counters is 73 billion up from 68 billion, and the odds are very good that it is higher still.
A pattern of taxpayer abuse that is beginning to look a bit like a hockey stick, which is not unexpected. To borrow some Obama Era lingo, this is a man-caused disaster. Democrats, as a political animal, follow the same “feeding pattern.” Get control of government (any level, it doesn’t matter). Overestimate revenues so they can spend money that does not yet exist. Cry crocodile tears about having to raise taxes to save “essential government services” you never needed before but can no longer do without.
If you leave Democrats in control, you can add the words rinse, lather, repeat,
That is California (and Vermont, New York, and so on), which - unlike the Federal Spenders - are supposed to balance their budgets. Revenue has to follow spending, and cutting spending is a last resort and temporary at best for Progressive ghettoes doing business as Democrat-run cities or States. These Dems are addicts high on other people’s supply, and the only thing you really need to understand in this abusive relationship is that there is no such thing as enough.
There is no limit to how much government you need, how much it should cost, or how high your taxes need to be to pay for it. Revenue will follow spending as night follows day. They will overspend and then tax more.
Republicans, some of them at the state level—at least—attempt to estimate actual revenues based on existing revenue streams so they know how much money to spend. And sometimes—it has happened in New Hampshire—they cut taxes when there’s new revenue (from online gambling, for example). The Democrats who want to replace them are of the California variety, and we (and you) would do well to keep that at bay wherever you happen to be lest you find yourselves following California’s example.
None of this is their fault; it’s rich people, and California Democrats are going to fix it. They’ve got a wealth tax on the table that is not just an added burden on the job creation and investment class; it fines them for trying to escape that tax.
Dem’s Dream Tax
What do you mean we can tax the incomes of people who moved away as if they still lived here?
I’m not sure you can, but don’t let that stop you from trying.
For taxable years from 2024 onward, the tax rate would be 1.5% on a net worth exceeding $1 billion, and starting from 2026, the proposed tax rate would be 1% on a net worth exceeding $50 million. For this purpose, an individual’s net worth does not include any real property, mortgages, and other liabilities secured by real property. The wealth tax would apply to full-time, part-year, and temporary residents, subject to apportionment. The exit tax structure would allow the wealth tax to be applied for several years after a taxpayer leaves California (as a “Wealth Tax Resident”).
What’s the first thing that comes to mind?
If I make between fifty Mil and one Bil, it’s moving day, and not because I’m (theoretically) some cheap bastard who doesn't care about people who have less than I do. It is to keep the State from squandering it on government waste, fraud, and abuse.
The average wealthy person can do more and do better for everyone, investing that money in start-ups, ventures, or even as donations to reliable non-profits rather than letting the government take it, and that’s key. The government thinks it not only can but must do things, which turns out to be incredibly bad, at least with Democrats manning the helm: Public Safety, Public Schools, job creation, and transportation infrastructure.
Drunken sailor spends their own money and gets something close to what they pay for (drunk). Democrats spend yours, and you get diminishing returns and more taxation.
The second thing that comes to mind? Leave now because this tax isn’t going to solve the debt problem because it doesn’t solve the Democrat problem. Scroll back up to that graph. At the end of this, there is no end to it. There can only be more spending because, to the political left, when it comes to government, there is not enough.
Third, who in the monied class is going to move to California or invest there? Any wealth tax is enough of a disincentive. An exit tax is more of a disincentive, and not just the tax but the people who tried to make it legal.
And let’s be honest, the 50 million ceiling is temporary. Soon enough it will be 20 Million, and at some point, those who can’t escape end up paying. The people whom they claimed they were taxing you to help, but they were only ever helping themselves.
Yes, the media is running cover stories, blaming California’s deficit on disasters and factors over which the tax and spenders allegedly have no control. But here’s the thing: Electing Democrat tax and spenders are the disaster.
One last point and it is the most important one: This spending addiction is not limited to Democrats elected in California and the only hope for a cure is to stop electing them.