"Except you've never left a job to avoid a raise nor have you ever turned down a raise due to taxes."

I've never approached that 40% effective tax rate point.

"And how is that a nice thing? Who benefits from being able to game the Byzantine United States tax regime? Not poor people... so..."

Poor people have already gamed it as much as they can. How could they game it more? No taxes at all?

We all start out poor. Most of us just don't stay there. But I don't think my 20-year-old daughter in college-as poor as she is-deserves any special treatment or recognition. Nor did I when I was in that position.

"Yeah you just proved his point."

If it weren't exempted, I wouldn't have taken the job. The pay would have been too low to justify the effort I put into it.

And I'm retired military. I can live on the $100k a year I get in pay and benefits. I don't need to work. And if I were subject to even a 20% tax on my labor income, I don't know that I would be working.

"They get you on property taxes, sales taxes, business taxes, and excise taxes. Much like the other eight states without income taxes."

Yep. That's the nice thing about the US. It's something of a Chinese menu of tax options, depending on what is important to you as a taxpayer.

I think the highest income bracket in CA is 13.3%. And that to the 26% being paid in federal income taxes and you're at 39%.

"So we could tax our rich people a whole lot more."

Maybe some, but this 40% also includes state taxes on income. Maybe a little bit more, probably not a whole lot more.

"It's easy, and it's regressive, since a fixed tax rate means it costs you and me a greater slice of our respective pie compared to Elon Musk."

And, like Europe, I'm perfectly fine with that. We seemed to have figured out something you are unable to.

"But should be, which is the point."

Why should they be? They already will be when and if they are sold and converted into M1 assets. Then they become realized capital gains. Is your suggestion, BTW, that capital gains shouldn't be taxed when realized, only when unrealized? Or should they always be taxed at every point in the lifecycle of the investment?

Property is already taxed by some states. As are cars.

"Well, there goes your theory."

Not really. I'll search around, but globally, the tipping point in effective tax rates is somewhere around 40%. Marginal rates can be higher if there are deductions that can bring the effective rate down. I'll try and find the article this came from.

"And they're not going to work less, simply because of the tax rate."

I disagree. The first $130kish of my income is exempted as foreign-earned income. This allowed me to settle for a lower paying job than I would have wanted to do if I had moved back to the US. At least for me, low taxes had a significant role in my decision to stay in Germany.

"And yet they keep getting richer."

It's easy to stop that from happening. CA is trying right now. I'm just not sure what it gains anyone. Other than maybe some people feel less jealously, and a little less like failures.

"But suddenly, all this doesn't this apply when the taxes asset switches to labor?"

Not usually. Labor income is accrued in cash, an M1 asset. Property and unrealized capital gains are not.

"Well yeah, if you ignore the type of federal tax most workers (nearly 70%) pay more of than income taxes over their lifetimes."

Yup.

FICA taxes are the one tax you can't avoid, regardless of how rich or poor you are. It is the closest thing toa VAT the US has.

I'm sure there are more than a few people who over their lifetime paid only FICA on income taxes, with little to nothing going to Federal Income tax.

"So... how do they tax houses?"

With assessments. They do the same for cars in some areas. But to assess everything? The TVs? The X-Boxes, the ski boats?

It might get a bit cumbersome.

"How about we start taxing the uber-wealthy who have, for the past 40 years..."

It's already happening.

"I'll let you know if that ever happens."

It's happening now. That's literally what this article is about. You will be proven right if the tax goes into effect and no one leaves. But I think as an accountant, you've probably known quite a few people who have left CA.

"Great. Replace it with a wealth tax then. That would be even more fair."

Like, how?

The value of one's assets, whether investments, or property, or cars, or TV sets, or whatever-it's always changing.

And over time, the tax would eat through the wealth until there was nothing left.

#76

You've put this up before, but it's not a valid calculation of wealth. Investments are not M1 assets. You can't spend them. You would need to convert them into cash, and the cash value of those assets is always changing.

And I haven't seen it mentioned, but is CA going to provide refunds to billionaires if the value of their portfolios drops?

A few years ago, wasn't it California that wanted to tax unrealized capital gains on wealthy people leaving that state? Or was it a windfall tax if they left the state and made a lot of money in the new state. It was something like that...I just don't remember exactly.