dajo9 said:

---

I dont think a billionaire tax works at the state level. It should really be negotiated internationally.

I like the idea of higher property taxes above, say $10 million.

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

A billionaire can borrow against his assets have no income and no tax. Income taxes are for workers not billionaires. The Supreme Court will probably peer into the minds of Hamilton and Jefferson and declare a wealth tax unconstitutional. I don't see anything happening here as both political parties depend on status quo for their wealth

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

I also think that there will be a bunch of lawyers that make bank because assigning value to assets is hard. Really hard. Much as I hate carried interest philosophically I get that it is hard to value assets during an estate event in any other way. As I said, the thing I would tax is real estate - because while you can hide the value of your arts or options it is pretty easy to figure out what the value of a trophy property is in La Jolla or Mailbu and tax that at, for example, 3% rather than prop 13 1%. I have always thought THAT was the split roll you could pass.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The straw man is alive and well. Star this post if you think wealth concentration is inherently evil. I certainly don't.

---

This will boomerang on me, but you have a MBA and you are not who I'm talking about. And I predict you will get a lot of stars. The billionaire class would be better served acting like adults (see Buffet and Gates) and not like some other guys who come off differently. The latter gruop really engenders hate in people and allows class warfare to dictate policy views.

---