California Attempting "Exit Tax" In 2024 To Prevent Fleeing Wealthy

There must be something about the state that fosters extreme wealth. Fifth largest economy in the world.

 

Yes, these are all great contributions. I guess the devil's in the details and OP cites a very short article. One thing of note straight away is I wouldn't put too much emphasis on payroll tax or income tax, given that the demographic targeted is very wealthy.

 

income tax=the very wealthy pay about half of it

 

holly weird and the silicon valley does that.

 

Hm yes, but for those with say over 10 million, my understanding is around 40 to 50% of their wealth accrual is untaxed gains.

 

I think this comes down to a very philosophical question: How should wealth be taxed?

We accept that business sales can be taxed, and income can be taxed, but what about in the more complicated case of someone working to achieve something and then moving somewhere else before selling what they have worked to achieve?

That gets much more complicated, obviously.

On the one hand, it's not really fair for them not to be taxed on that, because it seems like a way to escape the tax. But on the other hand, there are many situations where it would not be fair to tax a business owner for exiting the state, and it could lead to economic distortions. It's very controlling and totalitarian to be taxed on something when they are no longer in the state, and those intangible business assets are not in the state. And is a state going to attempt to assess the less tangible "assets" of the business?

 

This should be a violation of the Commerce Act. Commerce(in this case, people and their net worth) has been entitled free and undisturbed travel. Biden won't enforce it, but Trump would take CA to SCOTUS.

 

Supporters of this tax would try to argue that the business is taxed when you try to take it out of state.

The issue with that, of course, is what is actually being taxed? It could be more intangible things that do not really consist of physical assets, or it could consist of assets the person owns which were never even physically in that state.

Currently, some states in the U.S. are able to claim jurisdiction to tax their residents on any income, even income that came from other states, and even when that money did not actually physically enter into their state. So let's say you live in California but several times a year you stay in Nevada for a few days to do some work there. California state law says the income you earned in Nevada is subject to taxation.

 

EVERY SINGLE BIT OF WEALTH

 

I think we found our new explosive SCOTUS case. Now, honestly anyone with a standing business in Cali(or any of these 'exit tax' states) can pursue the case. Now, because none of them are Trump they likely won't be able to get expedited hearings, so instead it would be tested at federal courts first and that'd be interesting to see how they'd rule.

 

California - land of fruits and nuts.

 

do you think that if you buy a house for 100000, and it has an assessed value ten years late for 200000, you should have to pay income tax on that 100000 gain even if you haven't sold the house?

 

the anti wealth mantra

for example, you inherit a Monet painting and pay estate taxes on it. 20 years later it has increased in value by one million-now if you sell it, you pay a tax on what your realized, but the anti wealth mentality is that you should be taxed every year on that million dollar increase even if you haven't received a single penny. They want to force people to sell valuable assets because their is a hatred that others can own stuff they cannot

 

A perfect example of that is the jock tax.

 

which is ridiculous and unconstitutional. but I hope people such as you keep pushing that until all the very wealthy libertines, gays, anti Christians and others who vote Democrat for social issues, get tired of the parasitic attack on their wealth and they combine with the conservative and libertarian wealthy. once that happens, the socialist plague will be no more