dajo9 said:
You should reconsider your sources of information
dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
You should reconsider your sources of information
In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.
We have a SPENDING problem.
Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.
DiabloWags said:
Yawn.
California has an insanely progressive income tax rate.
9.3% starting at $72,000.
And yet we still have a budget DEFICIT OF $21 BILLION.
Taxing more isnt going to fix that.
dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.
The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus
* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended
dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
You should reconsider your sources of information
In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.
We have a SPENDING problem.
Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.
I dont disagree that California has a spending problem. Primarily the spending for municipal workers is too much. But that is a different discussion.
wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
You should reconsider your sources of information
In California, it should be obvious that we dont have a tax revenue problem given how insanely progressive it is.
We have a SPENDING problem.
Go ahead and blame the WSJ Opinion Section.
That's not the problem.
I dont disagree that California has a spending problem. Primarily the spending for municipal workers is too much. But that is a different discussion.
I assume with the State deficit you mean State workers. In any event I asked my Apple AI:
Key Components of Increased Spending (20232025)This spending surge was fueled by a consistent overestimation of revenues, creating what has been described as a "structural deficit" in the $18-$35 billion range. While 2024-25 saw some spending cuts and deferrals, the long-term trend has been significant, ongoing program expansion.
- Medi-Cal Expansion and Health Services (42% of budget): The largest driver of spending increases, including the expansion of full-scope Medi-Cal coverage to all eligible undocumented adults, regardless of immigration status. Additional costs arise from higher enrollment, increased pharmacy costs, and provider rate increases.
- K-14 Education (Proposition 98): Funding for K-12 schools and community colleges has continued to rise, with 2024-25 spending growing by billions due to higher General Fund revenue estimates and constitutional formulas. Key drivers include the full implementation of Universal Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and rising cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).
- Homelessness and Housing: Despite recent deficits forcing some delays, the state has invested billions in the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program (HHAP), encampment resolution grants, and the Homekey program.
- Climate Change and Environmental Protection: Significant spending on wildfire prevention (CAL FIRE), drought response, and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The 2025-26 budget includes $2.7 billion in new climate spending via Proposition 4.
- State Workforce Expansion: The state workforce grew by nearly 28% (from 376,990 to 481,850) over recent years, adding ongoing labor costs.
Here is a Cal Matters article with links to numbers:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/02/newsom-spending-california-chronic-deficit/&ved=2ahUKEwid8q3dlciTAxXHPkQIHZCBGvIQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Ow5YR21yxjU-y9Hc60Ru7
Wtih respect to municipal workers and city/county budgets in free fall:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/03/california-budget-gaps/&ved=2ahUKEwik14OcmMiTAxVeJkQIHcIDAmkQFnoECD8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0I87s-qBuNc7y5dCV4zREA
wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.
The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus
* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended
Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.
Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020). 20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023). The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.
The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:
1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.
2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.
3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.
wifeisafurd said:socaltownie said:
I do want to poibt out that brin has drip 45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feela like a lot of money when he could just call uhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant
Can you rephrase? Brin the Drip? Can't follow.
dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.
The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus
* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended
Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.
Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020). 20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023). The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.
The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:
1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.
2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.
3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.
I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).
The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.
Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.
Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.
Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.
wifeisafurd said:
Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.
Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.
Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.
No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.
wifeisafurd said:
BTW, CA is not the only State where municipal governments are facing budget deficits and cuts. The national economy is not exactly doing well, and that has a trickle down impact on local governments.
socaltownie said:
I suck at typing on my phone. Totally unacceptable.
Here is what I was trying to say
I do want to point out that Brin dropped $45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feels like a lot of money when he could just call Uhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant call up Uhaul and move.
So while I was being a bit sarcastic and snide only a bit - because that is serious coin to drop even for them if it was costless to move out of the Golden State. Maybe they DO like living here ;-)
socaltownie said:wifeisafurd said:socaltownie said:
I do want to poibt out that brin has drip 45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feela like a lot of money when he could just call uhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant
Can you rephrase? Brin the Drip? Can't follow.
I suck at typing on my phone. Totally unacceptable.
Here is what I was trying to say
I do want to point out that Brin dropped $45 million and counting to defeat this measure. Feels like a lot of money when he could just call Hhaul. He clearly cares about all the other billionaires who cant call up Uhaul and move.
In other words, a core argument on the "no" side is that moving out of state to avoid the tax is relatively easy. Call your movers, buy a house in Incline Village (or your other state of choice) and start living there. Hell, you don't even need to sell your Silicon Valley pad, just rent it out as an AirBNB and stay in the valley at a lux suite at the Four Seasons when you need a face to face.
But apparently Brin et. al. care so much about the state not doing dumb things they have dropped now over $100 million (and counting) in the no side - including paying a record amount of $$$ for signatures for their _THREE_ poison pill initiatives.
So while I was being a bit sarcastic and snide only a bit - because that is serious coin to drop even for them if it was costless to move out of the Golden State. Maybe they DO like living here ;-)
(BTW - my guess is that the political consultant class decided it was a payday opportunity and sold the billionaires on this - and now they are invested in their egos and the spice is flowing. But honestly I would have advised that spending money to defeat sorta makes SEIU's point and they would have been FAR better served (politically and financially) by spending the money buying up really cool property in Incline and investing Politico to the housewarming party to make the point. They could always sell if the thing fails.)
wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.
The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus
* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended
Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.
Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020). 20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023). The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.
The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:
1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.
2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.
3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.
I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).
The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.
Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.
Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.
Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.
First, your wrong that the population is declining in the state, and you missed the point now made in several points that dividing-up the taxable income number by number of people leaving proves nothing about the loss of revenue and that original analysis is wrong (and thanks for the 4 stars for the people who actually understand this). You seem to forget that I say that while your math was using the wrong numbers (for which I was incorrect) your analysis didn't pass statistics 101. And it still doesn't.
Second The nonsequiter is in response to your wrong comment about declining population.
Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.
Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.
Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.
No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.
dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.
The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus
* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended
Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.
Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020). 20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023). The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.
The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:
1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.
2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.
3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.
I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).
The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.
Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.
Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.
Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.
First, your wrong that the population is declining in the state, and you missed the point now made in several points that dividing-up the taxable income number by number of people leaving proves nothing about the loss of revenue and that original analysis is wrong (and thanks for the 4 stars for the people who actually understand this). You seem to forget that I say that while your math was using the wrong numbers (for which I was incorrect) your analysis didn't pass statistics 101. And it still doesn't.
Second The nonsequiter is in response to your wrong comment about declining population.
Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.
Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.
Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.
No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.
Sadly, you are so tangled up in your failed argument that you don't even know what I am arguing and what you are arguing.
1. I never said the population is declining. That is another one of your straw men.
2. You brought up the wealth tax - not me. The article you linked literally says "wealth tax" in the headline. You have twice now claimed the projected future wealth tax losses discussed in that article are evidence of income tax losses already accrued by the state. You have twice conflated wealth taxes with income taxes and then accused me of doing so. You arent making any sense. You sound like Trump.
3. The average I used is a perfectly valid debunk of Diablo. You can't come up with a coherent distribution of the numbers (net in-state migration and income lost) that says anything other than the lost income is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA incomes.
wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
For those that dont subscribe to the WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/states-taxes-migration-democrats-irs-f13d9d04?st=CRDYE2
The chart says CA lost ~$12 billion of AGI in 2022 and 2023. Since 500,000 people left in those years that is an average AGI of $24k per person.
Based on the data you provided, it seems that poor people are leaving CA. The Wall Street Journal opinion section framing it as an exodus of the wealthy is par for the course from that group of liars. You are less informed after reading the WSJ opinion section.
This post is utter nonsense. The 2022-3 refers to a fiscal year. The number refers to net migration, The CA State Census Bureau of the State Dept. of Finance says the State lost 37,000 to 75,000 residents between July 2022 and July 2023. The 500,00 number is garbage pulled out of your imagination. Now that really is a selective framing par for the course .....
Using what is your faulty analysis to its natural conclusion, and using the medium of the State's own numbers, we talking $220,000 per person. I will let you figure out why your analysis fails Statistics 101. Diablo can share his other experiences where you shaded business related numbers to meet your agenda.
You should try your statistics again, lawyer*. We are talking net migration between states. The Wikipedia link below has that data. The average between the two years of 2022 and 2023 is about 300k making the AGI per person about $40k. The article was unclear about the timeframe but even for 1 year we are talking about lower levels of income at $40k.
The issue is housing affordability not taxes. Southern California, in particular, has more people than it should given water resources. People moving out is a good thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_exodus
* I hope this personal insults doesn't get me suspended
Okay stock picker, I see the net domestic migration is the number used, which is another problem, but I get where you got your numbers. My apologies. But the analysis is just wrong.
Per the State of California: Net Population Change in California by Year (July to July):20222023: Growth of nearly 200,000 people (first gain since 2020). 20232024: Growth of about 108,00019,200 (various reports indicate slower growth in 2024 vs 2023). The increase in population is from international population which is a mixed bag with lower income migrants from Mexico and South America and higher income level than average from all other immigrants. (happy to cite the stats). Also net domestic migration doesn't include the fact that people are actually born the state. This goes to show that narrative about the State losing population in the popular media, which even you perpetuate, just isn't true. The State's population is increasing.
The real question is who is leaving the State. Dividing numbers into lost revenue doesn't tell the correct story when in comes to balancing a budget. The only thing that makes sense is looking at the amount of money leaving:
1) Sure, the majority of people leaving report incomes under $100,000, struggling with housing costs, lack of affordable housing, and high cost of living. There are leaving for jobs in other states where the can have a better standard of livling. This is almost always the case with out migration from any state. Most moves are driven by family economics, especially at the lower income levels.
2) As noted in the article and numbers stated therein. there is a growing number of households with incomes over $200,000 are moving out, especially to states with no income tax. This group has accelerated their departures, with high-earning millennials (ages 2645) moving out at high rates for, among other reasons, better tax environments. 48,875 high-earner households left the state in 2022, a 7.2% increase, taking $31.5 billion in adjusted gross income with them.While the exodus of high-income households is growing, it is partially offset by new international wealthy residents arriving.
3) Then there are billionaires. Doing some idiotic division of the number of net outflow of immigration in no way shows the impact of their departures. While only a small number of billionaires (roughly 6) officially relocated recently, their departure represented a potential loss of $27 billion in tax revenue. according to the PPIC (that is who Fortune is citing). I guess some billionaires do pay taxes. California personal income tax revenue for the 2026-27 fiscal year is projected to reach approximately $125.2 billion, based on the Legislative Analyst's Office, so that means over 20% of the personal income tax base just left.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fonly-6-billionaires-left-california-073000585.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DR-%2COnly%25206%2520billionaires%2520left%2520California%2520over%2520its%2520proposed%2520wealth%2520tax%2Ctech%2520industry%2520and%2520overall%2520economy.&ved=0CA0Q1fkOahgKEwj4o_SNjMiTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQgQE&opi=89978449
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
From this former CFO of a NYSE company with a JD/MBA and two Econ degrees (one which is applied econometrics), when your tax base is so reliant on high earner income tax base you are incredibly vulnerable to a small number of wealthy individuals leaving. Trying to show the impact by dividing number of people left by dollars left is a meaningless calculation. When you have a net $11 billion in income taken out of system during a specified period, you have $11 billion taken out of CA, It doesn't matter that it came primarily from just a few wealthy people leaving, and the fact that you can come-up with a smaller average number by dividing the loss in revenue by people doesn't have any impact on the State trying to pay its bills or the economy. It is just bad analysis designed to bolster your views. The $11 Billon left.
I appreciate you apologizing for your error but it makes no sense for you to still claim I am wrong after admitting my analysis was sound (and your post still got 4 stars for being wrong).
The problem seems to be that you don't seem to understand the difference between income and wealth. If we recap the discussion, it began with Diablo bemoaning the amount of income that left the state in 2022-2023 and saying high income tax rates are why high income people are leaving. I asked for his evidence and he provided an article that did not prove his point based on a simple average calculation. Now you can try to twist and turn that average calculation all you want but the bottom line is that the numbers are the numbers. There is simply no way to be distribute those numbers in a way that supports Diablo's argument. You have to reach levels of incredulity to try to say my analysis is not valid.
Your discussion about the overall state population levels is an irrelevant non-sequiter.
Then you have point #1, in which you basically use a whole paragraph to say I am correct.
Then you have point #2, in which you convert to wealth and 2026 era political arguments and wealth based tax numbers that have nothing to do with income or the data from 2022-2023. As I have said in this thread, I don't support a wealth tax for the state of California, which should be done at the Federal and International levels. 6 billionaries leaving over a wealth tax vs. California's income tax is a different discussion. Is 6 billionaires a lot, relative to hundreds of thousands of others leaving the state? I think California should avoid a wealth tax and should focus on the financial struggles of everyday Californians who are leaving the state under financial duress.
First, your wrong that the population is declining in the state, and you missed the point now made in several points that dividing-up the taxable income number by number of people leaving proves nothing about the loss of revenue and that original analysis is wrong (and thanks for the 4 stars for the people who actually understand this). You seem to forget that I say that while your math was using the wrong numbers (for which I was incorrect) your analysis didn't pass statistics 101. And it still doesn't.
Second The nonsequiter is in response to your wrong comment about declining population.
Third and most importantly, you then somehow declare victory lap after I tell you dividing the revenue by numbers of people doesn't negate the loss of $11 million in taxable revenue. Then after I point out the complete idiocy of your per capita division approach by telling you that by only six people leaving caused at 20% reduction in the personal income tax base (which means your per capita approach on tax revenue loss is utter BS), you start off discussing some wealth tax crap. The bottom line is the State during the period lost $11 billion in taxable income it can no longer tax every year. You conflating things by mentioning taxing wealth doesn't negate that.
Dude, the State lost $11 million in taxable income, not wealth.
Dude, when the 6 billionaires left, the State lost $27 billion in tax revenue it can no longer tax each year.
Dude, you trying to divide any of those numbers by number of people that are leaving CA doesn't change the fact that the State is losing its personal income tax base. What that does to the wealth tax is irrelevant to the point being made by the WSJ, which you clearly don't get.
No matter how much mud you throw on the wall by trying to inject wealth (which was never mentioned), additional out migration of lower income people or whatever other deflection you want to raise, The STATE IS LOSING ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX BASE. Hopefully you now understand the discussion and can add something of value.
Sadly, you are so tangled up in your failed argument that you don't even know what I am arguing and what you are arguing.
1. I never said the population is declining. That is another one of your straw men.
2. You brought up the wealth tax - not me. The article you linked literally says "wealth tax" in the headline. You have twice now claimed the projected future wealth tax losses discussed in that article are evidence of income tax losses already accrued by the state. You have twice conflated wealth taxes with income taxes and then accused me of doing so. You arent making any sense. You sound like Trump.
3. The average I used is a perfectly valid debunk of Diablo. You can't come up with a coherent distribution of the numbers (net in-state migration and income lost) that says anything other than the lost income is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA incomes.
You can bring a donkey's behind to water, but you can't make it drink. I think by now everone had figured out the discussion is about lost income tax revenue and your attempt to minimize the impact by dividing the amount by some sort of population measure is an attempt to manipulate the number in a manner that no one does. I have now seen over twenty articles quoting the WSJ's numbers, and not one has tried to manipulate a weak argument by applying some sort of per capita number. The State is losing the tax revenue regardless of the number of people leaving the State. The guys rating bonds only care about the amount of money, the Legislature that is required to balance the budget only cares about the overall amount of tax revenue, and every decision that has to be made to increase taxes or make cuts only revolves about the amount of overall amount of tax revenue. Only you can make an argument against Diablo and I based some stupid per capita method - the rest of the world, including the WSJ, doesn't care. At no point do you explain why the WSJ is wrong. Your criticism about bias seems wildly out of place when sources like Yahoo News, NYT, Politico, Fox Business and on and on are in fact using the WSJ's numbers as evidence that tax revenues are declining due to migration of the wealthy.
As for the remaining nonsense, the readers here can decide:
1) if your argument that people moving out because there is not enough water ad affordability is good didn't mean less people are moving out doesn't mean the population is declining,, but actually what , the actual positive population growth rate is good because ?????
2) I may have only been discussing the reduction in income tax revenues, in the text of my posts, but by referencing an article that had wealth tax in its title, I therefore (a) brought up the wealth tax and (b) somehow was conflating the wealth tax with the loss of income tax revenue ( by the way the article was referenced for its discussion about the amount of lost income tax revenue because six billionaires left the State, and not the wealth tax to show that in fact it wasn't the bottom half as you call it that was where the income tax revenue loss occurred).
3) Somewhere Diablo and I said the lost income "is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA income". For starers, no where did we say that or anything remotely resembling that. Moreover, if you actually read Diablo's posts, he constantly said these people in the lower income groups don't pay state income taxes. I appreciate you pay taxes in another State, but your ignorance of the CA tax system works is on display. What utter nonsense.
wifeisafurd said:
3) Somewhere Diablo and I said the lost income "is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA income". For starers, no where did we say that or anything remotely resembling that. Moreover, if you actually read Diablo's posts, he constantly said these people in the lower income groups don't pay state income taxes. I appreciate you pay taxes in another State, but your ignorance of the CA tax system works is on display. What utter nonsense.
DiabloWags said:wifeisafurd said:
3) Somewhere Diablo and I said the lost income "is predominantly from lots of people leaving that are in the bottom half of CA income". For starers, no where did we say that or anything remotely resembling that. Moreover, if you actually read Diablo's posts, he constantly said these people in the lower income groups don't pay state income taxes. I appreciate you pay taxes in another State, but your ignorance of the CA tax system works is on display. What utter nonsense.
Bingo.
