Cali intiative-Wealth Tax and Ocean Preservation Act

[SAWYER]

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachmen...ive_08-0012_amdt_1.pdf

Wow this is ridiculous, good thing for Californians this is only one loony activist

A California activist is trying to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place a tax initiative on the ballot that would:

* Impose a new 35% income surtax (in addition to federal taxes and the existing 10.3% top state rate) -- 17.5% (on all of the taxpayer's income) when income exceeds $150,000 (single)/$250,000 (joint), and an additional 17.5% (again, on all of the taxpayer's income) when income exceeds $350,000 (single)/$500,000 (joint).
* Impose a one-time 55% wealth tax on assets exceeding $20 million held by a California resident or held in California by nonresident.
* Impose an exit tax of between 36.5% to 54.3% on both income and unrealized appreciation in asset values over $5 million when a resident dies or leaves California.

 

[ElFenix]

well that would reduce housing values.

 

[Brigandier]

The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
well that would reduce housing values.

:laugh:

 

[lupi]

I truly hope this passes. The outrush of money once it did would signal the total collapse of the state and the start of true reform.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: lupi
I truly hope this passes. The outrush of money once it did would signal the total collapse of the state and the start of true reform.

Outrush of money, and people.

 

[frostedflakes]

No kidding, Hollywood would have to move to another state.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
No kidding, Hollywood would have to move to another state.

The real issue is that that kind of tax policy pushes the professional (doctors, managers and higher in large corporations, etc). They routinely make 6 figures, but they are not 'rich.' I don't know where people get this idea that if you're actually earning an income and happen to be well off, you should get smacked around by taxes. The real people hitting it big are those making it off with capital gains. The top .1%.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I can't view the PDF here, but did the guy proposing this have the initials BHO?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: lupi
I truly hope this passes. The outrush of money once it did would signal the total collapse of the state and the start of true reform.

Outrush of money, and people.

That sort of flight from CA has already happened, and continues to widen every year.

 

[JohnnyGage]

I have seen some dumb Ca proposals in my day, but this is by far the dumbest. I'm with Lupi...

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: lupi
I truly hope this passes. The outrush of money once it did would signal the total collapse of the state and the start of true reform.

Outrush of money, and people.

That sort of flight from CA has already happened, and continues to widen every year.

I heard a couple industries put up notice that they were moving out of state after the last round of tax increases (the property tax bump for new fire engines and the general one for the wonderful budget deficit). If it were to go to the levels described above, the exit would be massive.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

Gimme a break. We dont punish anyone. After all is said and done they STILL have alot of money...they can live on it. Just ask the "overtax the rich" crowd here

/sarcasm

This thing really sucks. Maybe Cali wants to reduce it's own wealth? History shows the more you take away from the rich the more the rich takes away from you (or the country).

 

[JS80]

Where do I sign? This is a surefire way to overthrow the communists in Sacramento with some guillotines.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachmen...ive_08-0012_amdt_1.pdf

Wow this is ridiculous, good thing for Californians this is only one loony activist

A California activist is trying to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place a tax initiative on the ballot that would:

* Impose a new 35% income surtax (in addition to federal taxes and the existing 10.3% top state rate) -- 17.5% (on all of the taxpayer's income) when income exceeds $150,000 (single)/$250,000 (joint), and an additional 17.5% (again, on all of the taxpayer's income) when income exceeds $350,000 (single)/$500,000 (joint).
* Impose a one-time 55% wealth tax on assets exceeding $20 million held by a California resident or held in California by nonresident.
* Impose an exit tax of between 36.5% to 54.3% on both income and unrealized appreciation in asset values over $5 million when a resident dies or leaves California.

Good luck trying to get those signatures.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item seems to need a lot of adjusting on rates, and I'm not inclined to start a policy of trying to prevent people moving with exit fees.

I'll have to give some thought to it, though; the lack of any cost to moving homes, businesses, etc. can create big problems with tax avoidance.

Why should the Cayman Islands get to scam the US government out of so many billions of taxes from companies who operate here, taking advantage of our market but not paying?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item does not appear too well thought out.

Society DOES NOT create opportunity. INDIVIDUALS create opportunities.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item does not appear too well thought out.

Society DOES NOT create opportunity. INDIVIDUALS create opportunities.

No, societies largely create opportunity, individuals take advantage of it.

Why don't you go 'create opporutnity' in the old USSR and then tell me that?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item does not appear too well thought out.

Society DOES NOT create opportunity. INDIVIDUALS create opportunities.

No, societies largely create opportunity, individuals take advantage of it.

Why don't you go 'create opporutnity' in the old USSR and then tell me that?

Opportunity is a combination of society and individual creation. Society can both empower and oppress opportunity. Individuals, in the right society, can create or not create opportunity.

In the US, opportunity is largely an individual creation abetted by our society. In the former USSR, opportunity was largely a boon granted by society and individual attempts to create opportunity were squelched by society.

In both cases, it takes a combination of individual effort AND societal acceptance.

Beyond that, 'punish[ing] people for creating wealth' is not a "right-wing propaganda [phrase]". Taxation of wealth, in it's very essence, is disincentive to create wealth. Each person must decide for themselves how much disincentive it creates, but it does create disincentive for EVERYONE. That, in and of itself, is pure economics.

Beyond that, absolutely nothing you stated was anything except policy decisions. It is common to mistake economics for economic policy. They are quite different animals. One is not inherently political, the other is.

Saying things like

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society. Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

is not proven fact. It is your interpretation of what SHOULD occur based on proven fact. Many reasonable people will and do disagree.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: lupi
I truly hope this passes. The outrush of money once it did would signal the total collapse of the state and the start of true reform.

Outrush of money, and people.

That sort of flight from CA has already happened, and continues to widen every year.

Its not really a problem because they can always just raise the taxes on the remaining population to make up for the lost revenue.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item does not appear too well thought out.

Society DOES NOT create opportunity. INDIVIDUALS create opportunities.

No, societies largely create opportunity, individuals take advantage of it.

Why don't you go 'create opporutnity' in the old USSR and then tell me that?

No, a caveman individually created opportunities to hunt and forage, and individuals came together to create society. Society was created to serve individuals, not the other way around.

Communism is the other way around - a collective society that creates it's own form of "opportunities" (i.e. allocation of resources) to it's individuals.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The more you punish people for creating wealth in America, the less wealth will be created in America. The consequnce of this will be more people creatng wealth outside of America and the middle class will suffer.

The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item does not appear too well thought out.

Society DOES NOT create opportunity. INDIVIDUALS create opportunities.

No, societies largely create opportunity, individuals take advantage of it.

Why don't you go 'create opporutnity' in the old USSR and then tell me that?

Opportunity is a combination of society and individual creation. Society can both empower and oppress opportunity. Individuals, in the right society, can create or not create opportunity.

In the US, opportunity is largely an individual creation abetted by our society. In the former USSR, opportunity was largely a boon granted by society and individual attempts to create opportunity were squelched by society.

In both cases, it takes a combination of individual effort AND societal acceptance.

Beyond that, 'punish[ing] people for creating wealth' is not a "right-wing propaganda [phrase]". Taxation of wealth, in it's very essence, is disincentive to create wealth. Each person must decide for themselves how much disincentive it creates, but it does create disincentive for EVERYONE. That, in and of itself, is pure economics.

Beyond that, absolutely nothing you stated was anything except policy decisions. It is common to mistake economics for economic policy. They are quite different animals. One is not inherently political, the other is.

Saying things like

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society. Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

is not proven fact. It is your interpretation of what SHOULD occur based on proven fact. Many reasonable people will and do disagree.

Sometimes, you can't win on these boards, insofar as if you try to get the details laid out in a long post, many complain about that, but if you simplify, the details are nit picked.

I was making a couple of broad points, and your response IMO was quite misguided.

You are not going to get away with laying out broad statements as prported fact on things like the way taxes are disencentives, yet then try to have a different standard for what is 'opinion' about how 'things should work' versus fact in my comments. I'll try to layo our a couple points simply for you.

To preface them, any system as complex as our economy is going to require discussing in simplified terms, for which there will be exceptions to those simplifications.

When you say all taation is disenctive, you are the one being dogmatically ideological, as if the math correlates to the human situation on incentive. How can you prove that someone actually changes their behavior based on whether they're taxed at 40%, 35%, or 30%, as much as you want to? My point isn't that there isn't some macro difference from the different rates, but rather that your own comments are not as literally, exactly, 'factually' acurate as the standard you set up.

Many people will build the same new factory or work on the same cure for cancer regardless of those rates.

But the larger issue is that the phrase *us* right-wing propaganda - it only looks at one side of the taxes, the cost, without *any* reference to the benefits.

If you build such one-sidedness into the discussion, of course it will affect your views.

And as for my comment, it's hardly 'only' how I think 'things should work'. It's quite obvious how a lot in society - and note my disclaimer about the simplification - does indeed work how I said. Our most wealthy people do indeed pay taxes that do go to the benefit of society.

If you're going to post a platitude about the difference between economics and the politics of economic policy, don't just post a platitude, make it relevant and specific to the thread.

I recognize that I'm talking to some ideologically indoctrinated people here abot their being indoctrinated, and that's not easy (I'm not saying you are for sure yet, there are hints).

Having said all that, I do acknowledge simplification on the topic of society creating opportunity; I'd writtent additional comments about the role of indivudials, but did not post them to keep the post on the topic, which is challenging the right-wing delusion about the lack of the role society plays.

BTW, do remember, society is nothing but a group of individuals, before the semantics get too far off point, so saying society does something doesn't mean individuals don't do it.

The discussion of the differences between 'socity' and 'indivuduals' are not quite that literally different.

FYI, if it helps clear up the discussion, one of my views is that one of the huge blind spots for right-wing people is how they attribute all accumulation of wealth as assumed to be productive activity. Their blind spot is how concentrated wealth and power tend to accumulate wealth in ways that are not only not 'productive' to society but ultikately destruvtive to society, however benefical to the lucky few.

Such a blind spot corrupts a lot of the discussion if not pointed out.

So, it's somewhat helful to talk instead of our goals - areyou for increasing opportunity broadly, or are you for policies resulting in increased concentration of wealth, for example?

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: Craig234


The more you use right-wing propaganda phrses like 'punish people for creating wealth' the wronger your economic policies are going to be.

Society creates opportunity, and requires that those who benefit from that opportunity give beck to society.

Taxation isn't a punishment, it's the price of a prosperous society. Taxation should not be for excessive spending; it should be balanced to maintain incentive.

Your position would be great if the wealth created benefitted all of society. What we see happening is not that, but for the last 30 years, all growth after inflation going to the top.

That is simply increasing the concentration of wealth, and therefore the concentration of power, making America less democratic and inviting increasing tyranny.

The predictable result will be the most wealthy using their power to slash the policies benefitting others, and that's what will harm the middle class, and already is.

Having said all that, this particular ballot item seems to need a lot of adjusting on rates, and I'm not inclined to start a policy of trying to prevent people moving with exit fees.

I'll have to give some thought to it, though; the lack of any cost to moving homes, businesses, etc. can create big problems with tax avoidance.

Why should the Cayman Islands get to scam the US government out of so many billions of taxes from companies who operate here, taking advantage of our market but not paying?

I am sorry, but I am not a right wing puppet. What incentive do individuals have to create their weath in California? They will more than likely see a larger benefit of going elsewhere to create their wealth, and California will suffer as a result. Wealth creation is up to the individual, just ask Bill Gates. The boom of the nineties was the result of a lot of people creating wealth. Look at Mark Suckerberg and facebook, did society create that wealth? No, he marketed a product that resonates with his target customers and so it took off. The only thing that makes a capitalist society strong is the abundance of capitalists trying to make money. Society benecits as a whole when it is as easy as possible for those capitalists to build wealth. The government doesn't really give out jobs, capitalists do. It's almost as if you're under the assumption that the wealthyhelp no one on their way to the top. Companies and corpoartions EMPLOY people, they pay them, there is no slavery. So while all your social programs seek to elevate society, it will not work. It is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you go 'create opporutnity' in the old USSR and then tell me that?

No, a caveman individually created opportunities to hunt and forage, and individuals came together to create society. Society was created to serve individuals, not the other way around.

Communism is the other way around - a collective society that creates it's own form of "opportunities" (i.e. allocation of resources) to it's individuals.

With caveman, no one 'created the opportunity', society or indicidual; Nature had an opportunity individuals took advantage of.

We have rare agreement on one thing, that society should serve individuals - but only overall. You seem not to remember JFK's most famous quote (not my favorite by far), about 'ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country' - the opposite, nearly, of what you said (and that I agreed with you on, to a point).

But as much as I am (and JFK was) opposed to communism, yo 'get it wrong' on the reasons, IMO. The USSR had better goals than the indivudual simply serving society; it had a similar recognition, in theory, of how indivuduals shoudl benefit from communism. We have something analogous in many wys, from our artifically granting political power to the poor and weak in the form of a vote equal to that of the wealthy, to our very laws that change 'survival of the fittest' to an artifically 'safe' societal structure against theft, etc.

Every time you are prevented from robbing, from runing a red light, from dumping your pollution on the beach, you are being forced to pur society's needs first. It works ok.

We could probably agree that we far prefer the US's priority for the individual over, say, China's disregard for the individual (both under Mao and capitalism).

Society does a lot to create opportunity. To stick to your example of hunting, it protects and creates fishery resources today; and did not protect the buffalo, causing a problem.

More broadly, society creates opportunity by many things from creating public educational institutions, to building a physical infrastructure that wouldn't be built by the private sector alone, to creating the rules for the economic actiivity from the courts to resolve lawsuits (including the laws for arbitration) to the laws of the market to the policies that help the market. It provides protection against violence from your neighbor and a foreign nation, as well as protection from monopoly in the economy. It increases the opportunity for making and selling a new drug by building the public confidence in such drugs with its safety laws and testing. It creates your right to the opportunity of a safe workplace (from asbestos and sexual harrassment alike) in ways you could not as an individual.

The right-wing has become unbalanced, only discussing the problems and using extremist rhetoric, and extremist policies reflecting that rhetoric disregarding much of the facts.

I've recommended "The Shock Doctrin" many times here; read that for an example how such an imbalanced ideology has caused ideologues to destroy societies in the name of right-wing economic theory, which requires the use of massive violence to implement, and to conclude the problem was not enough repression.

 

[SAWYER]

Craig you should really look into the mirror, you are all about right-wing this, republican that. Sure there are tons of crooks and misdeads on that sides, but you are so blindly by partisan politics it is unreal.