In a reversal from past decades, more college graduates and professionals are moving out of California than coming into it to escape the higher taxes and cost of living.
It’s really strange how the stats own budget analysis blames a week stock market and tax income on said market for the drop as compared to their previous buget surplus but the narrative is that we need to bend over backwards for the poor billionaires.
I believe the top comment over there noted how at most wealthy Californian’s leaving could have contributed 1.4 billion of the 68 billion shortfall, so I’m as skeptical as every other time this argument comes up that tax is a major deciding factor on where you live and not things like jobs, geography, climate, weather, public services, safety, friends/family, house prices, cost of living, etc…
As a neat aside, an economic studiy found that at a national level the US could get up to a ninety percent tax rate on the super rich before enough of them would actually renounce their citizenship to get out of taxes to offset the increased income. Admittedly US citizenship is very desirable compared to most others, especially for the supper rich, but it gives some perspective on how high you actually have to go to make a difference.
It’s also worth noting that the current US tax rates are very low compared to both many other nations, and indeed things like corbate income is a third of its historical level during the 50s and 60s, and less than half of that of Canada. For instance 2017 corporate tax cuts alone are responsible for an estimated four hundred billion a year in additional national dept, have been found to have no statistical effect on market growth distinguishable from random noise, but arn’t likely to be fully removed anytime soon for some reason.
It is perhaps unsurprising that the rise of absurdly low taxes on high income earners nationally has been an increase in both public dept and taxes on low and medium income earners, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
It’s really strange how the stats own budget analysis blames a week stock market and tax income on said market for the drop as compared to their previous buget surplus but the narrative is that we need to bend over backwards for the poor billionaires.
I believe the top comment over there noted how at most wealthy Californian’s leaving could have contributed 1.4 billion of the 68 billion shortfall, so I’m as skeptical as every other time this argument comes up that tax is a major deciding factor on where you live and not things like jobs, geography, climate, weather, public services, safety, friends/family, house prices, cost of living, etc…
As a neat aside, an economic studiy found that at a national level the US could get up to a ninety percent tax rate on the super rich before enough of them would actually renounce their citizenship to get out of taxes to offset the increased income. Admittedly US citizenship is very desirable compared to most others, especially for the supper rich, but it gives some perspective on how high you actually have to go to make a difference.
It’s also worth noting that the current US tax rates are very low compared to both many other nations, and indeed things like corbate income is a third of its historical level during the 50s and 60s, and less than half of that of Canada. For instance 2017 corporate tax cuts alone are responsible for an estimated four hundred billion a year in additional national dept, have been found to have no statistical effect on market growth distinguishable from random noise, but arn’t likely to be fully removed anytime soon for some reason.
It is perhaps unsurprising that the rise of absurdly low taxes on high income earners nationally has been an increase in both public dept and taxes on low and medium income earners, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.