" for more than two centuries, the power to build them, "to define their form, limits, and privileges", has belonged to the states and only to the states."

Which is why every bank corporation is formed in Delaware.

" many millionaires and billionaires pay less percentage of taxes on their income than you"

In 2026, the worker with the highest federal tax rate is not the millionaire, nor even the billionaire. It's the guy making $185K per year.

And speaking of billionaires, the average billionaire saves over $1 million per week with the renewed Tax Giveaways to the world's richest.

Meanwhile, the waitress who doesn't have to pay taxes on her tips, might save 20 bucks a week.

And GRATS? Grantor Annuity Trusts allow parents to give their children unlimited amounts of money, without gift or inheritance taxes.

Meanwhile, a $25 gift certificate to the employee of the month is taxable income to the recipient.

" retirement accounts would be excluded from the tax."

Then what is Peter Thiel worrying about?!?

FFS, the guy had $15 billion IN HIS ROTH IRA about five years ago.

"does not authorize a foreign corporation to engage in any business or exercise any power that a corporation may not engage in or exercise in this state."

I'm quite familiar with that, from my days as a Health Plan Trustee. A large issue at one point was health plans being allowed to sell in multiple states, and the lynchpin turned out to be ... they already could, they were just trying to get legislation which allowed an Alabama company to sell in Florida ... WITHOUT adhering to Florida's laws.

It got defeated. Otherwise, we would've been treated to a race to the bottom. And, by this point, we'd all have Bamacare.

" Do you understand why someone might take actions to avoid a wealth tax?"

Sure. Why wouldn't I?

But I also know Theil has most of his assets in non-qualified investments, like retirement accounts and real estate.

So basically he's just being a miser.

Now, let me ask you: were Roths ever designed to reach a $15-$20 billion balance?

" So, no. You really don't."

Don't be a dummschittt.

I regularly make moves to legally avoid taxes.

If Thiel wants to leave California, don't let the redwoods hit him in the ass.

" And middle finger to the state that chased him away over greed of confiscating some of his wealth."

The real problem has been the lack of truly progressive taxes.

Income tax is about the only progressive one we have. The rest are regressive, or, on the case of SS taxes, super-regressive.

California and its policies have helped these folks to uncountable amounts. And your advice is to tell the state to GFI.

" California has a terrible wealth/poverty gap."

If you understood math, you'd understand the state with the most wealth opportunities is always going to be the state with the largest wealth gap.

A big IF, I know.

"California consistently ranks among states with the highest poverty rates when high living costs are considered."

Of course it does.

Whatever state has the most wealth opportunities, will always have the largest wealth gap. Always.

I guess you still don't understand that basic Econ 101 principle.

"California is a gentrified state. It has huge natural resource, climate and geographic advantages that other states can't compete with. for the time being they are carried by it. I don't see it as sustainable."

I'm sure Newsome is losing sleep over your "vision".

" They're already paying your fair share of the taxes"

No they're not. They're paying lower federal tax rates than the W-2 worker making $185K.

" Yes they are"

No, they're not. Nobody is paying my fair share of taxes except me. And the numbers you've talked about are income tax numbers, not tax numbers. You always seem to ignore the taxes most paid by the most amount of workers.

#65 posted by Snoofy

(Unrecognized) Newsworthy Flag.

" This is why VATs perform so well. They are evenly applied to all consumers, rich or poor."

So ... regressive taxes, which hit the poorest the hardest.

"All income taxes do is disincentive go through the steps necessary to earn income."

I've been preparing income tax taxes now for nearly 40 years. The next client I run into who decides not to make money, because they will be taxed too much if they make more money, will be my first. Based on my life experience of roughly 10,000 examples, your belief is nothing but a fantasy.

" In a high, progressive tax environment, high income workers may choose instead to do something else with their time once they hit those higher tax brackets."

I'll let you know if that ever happens.

Also, do you know the one group of people who never complain about their taxes? The ones who max out their retirement accounts, HSAs, etc. every year.

Usually high income folks.

" The bottom 50% had an average tax rate of 3.74%."

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

Payroll taxes.

SS, for example, is the real world equivalent of a 2% bond with a 25yr average maturity. Sucky.

Meanwhile, income tax cuts give the money upfront, with an ongoing upside potential of 6-9% annually. Much better!!

In the giant equation, folks who pay payroll taxes are subsidizing income tax cuts.

" It's happening now."

Not what you're describing. They might go somewhere else, but it's not gonna be a tax free place. And they're not going to work less, simply because of the tax rate.

Besides, when someone goes up into a higher tax bracket, that doesn't mean all their income is taxed at that higher bracket. Only the amounts over the threshold are taxed at that bracket. As the saying goes, even Warren Buffett has some income taxed at 10%.

By the way, I'm foursquare against this wealth tax. I think you start wading into dangerous waters when you start discussing unrealized capital gains.

Unless of course, the IRS is willing to give refunds to people who lost money in their investments.

" 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."

Isn't that your plan? Or did you keep working, knowing you would have to pay income taxes?

The latter?

Well, how about when you were just about to get an 80% jump in tax rates, going from 12% to 22% marginal bracket? You stopped there, right?

No? You kept working???

Well, there goes your theory.

" If your income was with held based upon the currently earned income you'd see a bigger difference in people's willing to work for less."

What are you talking about?!? Most people get refunds, meaning, for the most part, they're OVER withheld.

Where are you getting this?!?

#96 posted by Snoofy

Another (Unrecognized) Newsworthy Flag.

" I'll search around, but globally, the tipping point in effective tax rates is somewhere around 40%."

Well, since the top US rate isn't there yet, there goes your theory.

But isn't it interesting, how you kept working despite getting in higher and higher tax brackets.

"this 40% also includes state taxes on income."

So move to Texas.

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

" if I were subject to even a 20% tax on my labor income, I don't know that I would be working."

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

" Poor people have already gamed it as much as they can."

Yet you refuse to join their happy, carefree lives.

What?!? They're neither???

Have you noticed the person who undercuts your theories the most is the guy in your mirror?

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

Are you moving the goalposts? You said 20% was your cutoff upthread.

" The fair one is where everyone is taxed the same percentage."

That's only half the answer.
Should the Rich folks be paying more, or should the poor folks be paying less?

" It's almost like rich people can hire an army of Danforth's that are experts in minimizing tax burden"

Sorry, I'm chuckling.

Most of my clients are starving artists.

" Danforth is merely implementing the tax rules rich people made, in their multi-pronged approach to ---- the poor."

Ain't that the truth.

I started under the Reagan tax code. Then Scrub 1, followed by Scrub 2, which was the most lopsided tax code I'd ever seen, to that point. It gave 27% of the money to the wealthiest 1%.

By comparison, Trump's codes give roughly 80% to the world's wealthiest. If the second version turns out like the first, more will go to FOREIGN INVESTORS than American workers.

Eff the poor is right.

Meanwhile, my wealthy clients get a menu of options.

"One tax rate for income. Period. For everyone."

The Mitt Romney's of the world will NEVER let that happen.

He gets paid in "carried interest" and dividends, which are taxed at much lower rates than your income. He also pays no SS taxes on his income; you pay it on ALL your income, starting with the first dollar.

Folks like him are laughing at your suggestion.

The person paying the highest federal tax rate in America is not the millionaire, or even the billionaire. It's the W-2 worker making $185,000 a year.

" If you are poor, no one cares. Go to a charity."

Your concept of the scale is frightening.

Charities would be overwhelmed overnight.
~Sincerely, Math

" Maybe a separate small tax for universal healthcare."

There is no such thing. As Americans, we spend over $10,000 per person every year.

Luckily, we have TrumpCare, where we will be spending a lot more, to get a lot less.

" Like ObamaCare"

No, not at all. Obamacare had a mandate. As soon as Trump ended the mandate, it became TrumpCare.

Every honest broker tasked with making the equation work, democrat and republican alike, always comes out of meetings admitting a mandate is required.

Once the mandate was removed, it's no longer Obamacare. Just like if you buy a product, then modify it, voiding the warranty. YOU'RE the one now responsible for the fallout.

I give it about a week or two before the TrumpCare feces hit the fan.

"However, the law's effects on overall health are mixed"

That's odd, when they mentioned multiple positive results, and no negatives were proffered.

When I first joined a health committee at AFTRA, our goal was to get the preventative medicine (annual physical, prostate exam, mammogram, child immunizations) into the health plan at no increased cost.

I thought that would be a huge uphill slog. I was dead wrong. Insurance companies WELCOMED the wellness package.

Why? They knew, better than we did ... it lowers their overall costs.

Now, I understand: Prevention is MUCH cheaper than cure.

" Starving", lol. Starving people can't afford tax specialists."

Nonsense. My rates are very reasonable; I'm very aware I charge much less than the going rate. I even offer an early bird special: most clients can get a federal, state, and city tax return done and filed for less than $200. The chains start around twice that price.

I bump up my rates every three weeks, and by April I'm charging $185/hr. The folks who delay never seem to come earlier, so I can't be doing it wrong. But the fact is, I make half my annual income in three weeks, between March 24th and April 15th.

Also, most of these "starving" folks are self-employed, so they need my help to save money now, and even more in the future. Usually, I save folks more than my fee in the first year, the second year THEY save more than my fee by following my advice, and by the third year, we're a humming MACHINE!

" Did that ever get off the ground?"

The mandate? Absolutely. I remember doing taxes for folks who had to pay the penalties.

" IOW, did it matter in the first place?"

You tell us, insurance guy: does a guarantee of an extra 10 million in the pool, most of them who will be using it sparingly (the younger, healthier set) allow for lower rates? Or lower annual increases? Bonus points if you use the words "adverse selection".

Also, could you please remind people that even if the cost of their insurance policy doesn't go up the following year, their cost still goes up the following year? And how the same policy will have dozens of different price points, all based on age?

TIA

" That is precisely what everyone who pays taxes says."

Except I also see 1000 returns a year.

I'm definitely paying my fair share. I'm also ensuring others do as well.

" At that point, how many people were paying the penalty"

By my experience, less and less every year.

" better yet, how many was it estimated to be purchasing health insurance to avoid being penalized?"

That was the thing: for a lot of folks, the penalty they had to pay, would've been their premiums, especially when subsidies are counted.

When that became clear, I started to see fewer and fewer folks paying the penalty, and more and more being covered.

TrumpCare, however, has no mandate.

" How does California enforce such a tax?"

Probably the same way the Nordic countries do.

"You're talking about a $50 million tax"

Not even close. Read the exceptions, which include real estate, and retirement accounts. Then remind yourself: Peter Thiel had $5 billion in a Roth IRA three and a half years ago. He's probably got $10 billion in it now.

If anything, expect a rush of expensive real estate to be bought.

"but how close were we to a 0% uninsured rate?"

From ACA stats ...

In 2013, 85.5% of Americans were covered by public or private health insurance, leaving 14.5% uninsured. The ACA went into effect in 2014. By 2016, 91.4% were insured, dropping the uninsured percentage to 8.6%, a 5.9-point shift.

"Instead of trying to change the ACA to make it even better, the GOP wanted to eliminate it."

Only about 70 times.

Worse, anything as large as the ACA will have flaws needing to be fixed. Pelosi was actually correct; you have to test drive it before you know where the flaws are.

Problem was, the GOP refused to fix ANY of the flaws, for fear of being primaried for "supporting Obamacare".

Then, they cut off the mandate, which every honest broker has admitted is vital to giving UHC any chance of working.

Now, it's TrumpCare. Less health coverage, for a lot more money.