If you’re one of those drinkers of the Republican Party Kool-Aid (no offense to any intelligent registered Republicans out there) – if you believe our state and nation “doesn’t have a revenue problem, but a spending problem” – if you refer reverently to folks like Mitt Romney as “Job Creators” – if you feel the long-suffering middle class finally sticking up for their own interests constitutes “CLASS WARFARE” – if you fall for the scare story that any taxes levied on corporations or the very wealthy will just be passed on to the rest of us, or that billionaires who might have to pay a little more taxes will up and leave beautiful California in droves on account of it – then this article ain’t for you. You’re gonna think what you think, you’re gonna do what you’ll do, and you’re in the minority anyway.
As for the rest of you – yes, of course California has a big revenue problem, and nowhere left to cut. And NOW we have a problem with TOO MANY revenue-enhancing initiatives qualifying for November’s ballot. As conventional wisdom holds – and, remember, conventional wisdom is USUALLY right – when faced with too many similar-sounding initiatives voters tend to throw up their hands and vote for none of them – which would be the WORST outcome for California. At this point we are looking at three competing revenue measures on the ballot:
The one I support – the “Millionaires Tax,” brainchild of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the Courage Campaign (calling themselves “Restore California“) is by far the most progressive, and polls the best, at 70%. It would restore SIX to NINE BILLION in funding for K-12, higher education, social services, public safety and roads, simply by increasing taxes on only the most fortunate amongst us – namely, raising by 3% the taxes on INCOME over ONE MILLION DOLLARS, and by 5% on income over TWO MILLION DOLLARS.
Now the very feisty California Nurses Association (CNA) has also signed on to this measure. Most of the grassroots of the CTA and SEIU prefer it as well, and are in conflict with their conservative leadership which have decided to back the Governor’s plan. And you may remember my so-far successful efforts to get the Occupy Movement involved in supporting the measure. (It passed the Occupy Irvine GA, and will hopefully spread across California’s Occupies like wildfire.) Here’s an actual millionaire talking it up:
Governor Brown‘s competing initiative, on the other hand, is typical of his “canoe” philosophy of governance, where he “rows a little to the left, and a little to the right.” Governor Brown believes that we should ALL “share the pain,” even though most of us can’t take much more. Governor Brown’s plan would raise taxes on those making $250,000 and over, and raise a sales tax on all of us for the next five years – sales taxes overwhelmingly affecting the poor and middle class. He’s got, like I said, the more conservative SEIU and CTA behind his measure, although their rank and file disagree, and he also has some big business interests backing him, along with much of the Democratic Party leadership.
What if BOTH these measures passed? The framers of the Millionaires Tax considered that possibility, and allowed for it when they wrote their measure, having no problem with a walloping windfall of $13 billion a year for the next five years. But then the Governor, aiming to please his big business backers who hate the Millionaires Tax, did not reciprocate. So the two measures ARE now in conflict – only the one which gets the most votes will go into effect.
Thirdly, to confuse things even more, we have the “Our Children, Our Future” initiative being pushed by civil rights attorney Molly Munger (daughter of billionaire would-be Republican reformer Charles Munger.) This would raise just about EVERYBODY’s income taxes, for a total of 5 billion which would all go to K-12 education and early childhood programs. Here’s a chart that compares the three different plans: (click it for bigger PDF, easier to read)
It’s hard to read here, but as the chart shows, the Millionaires Tax 1) brings in more revenue than the other two; 2) helps in more areas than the other two; and 3) costs the “typical taxpayer” (defined as someone earning 65K a year) NOTHING, while the Governor’s plan costs them $123 and Molly Munger’s $222.
What is Jerry Brown up to?
Democrat activists who showed up at the convention in San Diego a couple weeks ago were fully expecting the Governor to make the case that his plan has the best chance of passing, and that all the enthusiastic Millionaires Tax supporters in attendance should put aside their childish dreams and get behind the grownup plan. But that didn’t happen. Instead, he was very cryptic, deigning only to say:
“Look, we’ve got some issues. We’ve got a tax measure, we have a little, few issues there, and we’ll be talking about that from time to time. You’ll get your marching orders soon enough.”
…and snapping at reporters who tried to get more out of him. This has us thinking that he realizes OUR plan is not only the best but has the best chance of passing, and we’re hoping that he’s looking for a graceful way to back out of his plan. Because the worst thing that could happen for California is for NONE of these plans to pass, and that’s the likely outcome of there being more than one on the ballot.
Look, over the coming months, for Occupiers (and union folks and Democrats) gathering signatures for the Millionaires Tax. We need to get 504,760 by early May to qualify for the November ballot. We’ll be starting at the Occupalooza in Fullerton this coming Sunday. (Much more details on that coming soon!)
That’s great Vern. Just scare the rest of the millionaires away who pay most of the taxes to other states so the burden gets even heavier for middle class folks. Great idea.
I’m sorry you think that, Allan. “Scare away” the poor little millionaires and billionaires? That’s one of the most easily dispensed-with fallacies the anti-government folks have. Millionaires and billionaires do not leave a beautiful place like California because they’re paying a LITTLE more taxes. Logic tells us that, and so do several recent studies. So glad you asked….
From the Millionaires Tax site, linked above:
Conservative opinion makers have repeatedly cited right-wing tax myths, including here and here, claiming that an increase in state income taxes on millionaires will cause the wealthy to move to other states. This widely-held and factually inaccurate belief might be appropriate for another reality television show: Myth Busters. These pundits will only get more agitated when they read the multiple studies that show no correllation between millionaires taxes and migration, such as:
Tax Flight Is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3556
Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment a study by researchers from Stanford and Princeton,
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2011/02/documents/millionaire-migration.pdf
and The Number of High-Income Tax Earners Increased Significantly During a Period of 10% and 11% Tax Rates on High Income Earners by the California Budget Project.
http://cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0808_DP_High-IncomeTaxpayers.pdf
Next?
Point of clarification regarding the following quote “raising by 3% the taxes on INCOME over ONE MILLION DOLLARS, and by 5% on income over TWO MILLION DOLLARS”
The tax RATE will increase by 3% and 5% respectively but not the taxes…the actual taxes paid will increase far more than 3% and 5%.
For a single person with no itemized deductions who makes $2M, their CA taxes will go from approximately $193K to $223K for a difference of $30K (3% on $1M) or approximately a 15% increase to their CA state taxes.
For a single person with no itemized deductions who makes $10M, their CA taxes will go from approximately $1.017M to approximately $1.447M for a difference of $430K (3% on 1M and 5% on $8M) or approximately a 42% increase to their CA state taxes.
Sorry, still learning how to “reply” to an original post versus a reply…ugh. Above was supposed to be a standalone reply and not a reply to a post- if admin cares to move, go for it…
I’m glad to see that you understand that the increased rate applies only to marginal income, not all of it. Many critics of progressive taxation don’t get that.
I’m just not that sad for a single-person with no itemized deductions who makes $10M a year and sees their taxes go up by $430K, i.e., by 4.3% of their total income. You are? This still leaves them not exactly hurting. Maybe they should itemize!
I am pretty sure I understand the marginal component of the proposal as well as in general the marginal tax rate concept. I hope that you and Vern understand how it can be misleading to indicate that someone’s tax is going up by 3% or 5% when in fact it is going up far more than that…only their tax rate is going up by 3% or 5%. The original post is misleading was my point- likely not intentional, yet incorrect still the same.
Do I feel sad for someone whose tax goes up by 4.3% of their income when they make $10M? No- I doubt many people would feel sad for them. That person has been very blessed and I hope that they give a lot of money away, spend as they need, and invest and save wisely. Obviously, if they gave a lot away, they would be itemizing! Although, itemizing generally does not lower one’s marginal tax rate, just the total tax that one pays.
Do consider though that same person may very easily have their marginal tax rate increase by almost 30% with this tax as well as other 2013 policies. This person’s marginal tax rate (Fed/CA) could easily be 58%+ (Fed & CA) on their interest income income 2013 versus 45% today…that seems a little harsh to me, but I am just one vote.
i don’t think Silicon Valley is moving to Texas anytime soon.
renember most dem loons dont like people with $$$$ especially this crowd so keep taxing away , as the rich leave calif , too many gov workers not enough private sector jobs . AND OF COURSE WHERE DOES THE$$$$ GO . GOV WORKERS , TEACHERS UNIONS
Click on the links above, Dopey. The rich do not leave a great place just because they have to pay a little more taxes. That’s propaganda.
Since it is widely known that when you tax corporations they pass those taxes on to us, their customers, let’s let the corporations pay all of the taxes and we’ll pick up our share when we buy their products and services.
I know you’re being sarcastic John. I should actually do a whole post based on my first paragraph, all those Republican Koolaid tropes.
I am definitely not a blind follower of flavored water drinkers although admittedly I am hesitant to have taxes increased especially when it is not across the board.
Question which may be obvious to you but not me: why is it not logical that as a cost component increases, then the price of a product or service would also increase? If I produce product that sells for $1000 priced so that I make 9% ($90), net after tax, but then I have a cost component that goes up permanently from 10% to 13%, would it not be appropriate for me to increase my price up to $1030 per pound so that I continue to make $90 (in this instance if the tax went up from 10% to 13%, I would actually make $89.60, but close enough)?
This seems to be basic cost accounting 101 to me. Obviously, the assumption is that everyone else also has this permanent increase to cost and therefore everyone will increase their selling price and that this is a product that is in demand and will continue to sell at the market price. It seems that the increased tax would in deed be passed through to the consumer presuming that my laid out assumptions are right…are my presumptions just unrealistic?
There’s a degree of truth to that. That’s why, with most proposed versions of an oil-extraction tax, passing on the price at the pump is outlawed. But that argument doesn’t apply to this Millionaires Tax which is on individuals, not businesses.
I’ve enjoyed and appreciated all your comments on this blog so far, but there’s something about them, like you just came into this lopsided world not realizing how lopsided it is, and really wanting everything to just be fair. Or to “share the pain” like the Governor says. The folks who have been making the most money these last decades mostly make it thru investment and pay a lower rate than the rest of us, and have brilliant help to find them lots of loopholes. They can afford to help out more in these tough times; most of us can’t; and a lot of them know that and agree.
Yes, I know that the MT is on individuals, but John’s post as well as presumably your reply was on corporations and as such, so was my reply although many businesses that make more than $1M are structured so that the profits flow through to individual taxpayers.
I appreciate your thoughts on my posts to the blog. I do want everything to be “fair”, unfortunately, it is not and I know this- one certainly can hope and dream. As for me just coming into this world, that may be true as I am relatively young compared to many other taxpayers although growing older by the day and seemingly to grow much quicker than the calendar indicates. I have been blessed by getting paid a fair compensation for my skills- probably more blessed than others for sure.
I for one am probably OK in more aligning tax rates for investors to be more like earners…unfortunately, it is hard to un-ring a bell but the longer we wait, the tougher it will be. The state of CA taxes investment income the same as earned income with the exception of SDI, so that is more of a federal issue, which I actually could probably get on board if done correctly.
Those with more (insert item here) will generally make more IF they use it for that purpose…whether it be more money, more skill, more heart, etc…Some choose not to use their money, skill, heart to make more money which is their right and money is not everyone’s desire. Go ahead and dispute, I am ready…
Those with money, will in deed pay others to help them avoid tax and in turn help maximize their return. Avoiding tax is not wrong- evading is. I choose to avoid paying the 91 toll by not using it which is fine- if I were to use the toll road and not pay, that is evading and is wrong.
Those who want to pay more and agree certainly can. If enough multimillionaires agree and start writing big checks it certainly can make a significant difference. Unfortunately, there are a few out there who speak up and say so without writing the check waiting for everyone else to join them.
I also just find it ironic that generally most people refer to a loophole as a deduction/credit/exemption which they themselves cannot use even though it is perfectly legal and designed to create or reward certain behavior.
I disagree that most can’t afford to help out more…whether it is $10 per year or $1M per year, once you get to a certain level of sustainability, then there is room to help. There is a lot of “waste” in this world and especially in this county of Orange. Sustainability in my book does not include over priced coffee, cigs/smokes, cable TV, the latest Iphone/Ipad/Iwhatever, new cars, paying others to wash a car, paying someone else to cut your grass, etc…We all benefit from the public services that we enjoy- others may be able to afford them more than others and as such pay more in pure dollars, but we all utilize them.
Billionaries are mobile. AlI billionaires need to do to legally avoid California taxes is to register to vote in another state and spend less than 182 days in California. (And from a practical standpoint it would be difficult to prove if they spent more days here.)
Many already do and increasing the tax rates would likely push more out of California taking the jobs of their employees with them.
Just ask yourself, why wouldn’t they take the simple step of “moving” to Nevada?
I don’t consider myself wealthy but for what I would save in California taxes in one year I could buy a nice place in Nevada.
“for what I would save in California taxes in one year I could buy a nice place in Nevada.”
That’s a great idea, except that you would have to go live in Nevada.
There is much more to establishing residency than days spent in state and voting. I have seen cases where the FTB will fight tooth and nail if the money is big enough. For example, you better keep that Air Conditioner running in your place in Nevada so you have a high utility bill during the warm months otherwise they may know you are not living there. You also better watch where you pull money out of the ATM, use your credit card, bank, go to church, insure your vehicles, use your homestead exemption, make phone calls, hold professional licenses, own property, etc…
I don’t believe that there is a bright line test for tax residency. The FTB actually likes it like that otherwise, it would be as easy as proving you were out of the state for a certain number of days.
The problem I fear in having the higher taxes would be essentially a higher rate of residents who wrongly claim to reside in another state when they are still actually residents here in CA. Essentially, as taxes rise I would imagine that so does non-compliance especially in our self-reporting system. This is especially true for those with mostly investment type income which is sourced to residency as opposed to business or earned income which is first generally sourced to state earned versus state of residency.
You may be correct in the effect of increasing high income tax cheating — which I hope would be combined with high-profile punishment. But consider: if the system seems to be more fair to individual taxpayers, they will likely be less resentful about the taxes that they pay. That could lead to overall higher revenues simply because people think that cheating is bad and is punished.
High profile tax punishment is sort of an oxymoron unless you either go to court or refuse to pay and are on public record…most who are in the Millionaire Tax group will hire good CPA’s and tax attorneys, fight it, probably do a pretty good job, and likely settle. Our tax society is confidentiality based…I truly believe that if tax records were public, then you would see a pretty fair and accurate tax reporting system.
I fully agree that if the system seems to be fair, then there is less resentment and people are more likely to be willing participants. I am a firm believer though that one of our biggest problems is that most people feel that they pay more than their fair share. High income earners complain about those who don’t pay any tax. Low income earners complain about how the high earners get all the tax decreases. Middle income earners feel squeezed by both and don’t understand why they can’t pay 15% like investors. Everyone feels that they are being treated unfairly. What is “fair”, that is the problem.
Most people deep down know that cheating is bad but if they do cheat, then they know the risk they are taking and are willing to pay the tax man if they get caught. If everyone had to put their tax returns on line like Romney and Santorum, then you may see some not so aggressive positions being taken…
“For example, you better keep that Air Conditioner running in your place in Nevada so you have a high utility bill during the warm months otherwise they may know you are not living there. You also better watch where you pull money out of the ATM, use your credit card, bank, go to church, insure your vehicles, use your homestead exemption, make phone calls, hold professional licenses, own property, etc…”
This is all correct. But to save a new hundred thousand dollars many folks will do just that. And from a practical standpoint, the Franchise Tax Board doesn’t have the resources to do more than a handful of complex investigations each year.
It’s fairly easy to comply with the law and pay no California income tax and if one cheats the chances of getting caught are remote.
It sounds good to tax the other guy but it won’t begin to solve California’s problems.
“It’s fairly easy to comply with the law and pay no California income tax…”
The only sure fire way of paying no CA income tax is to not have any taxable income, which I agree can be easy but usually not desirable. Another way is to be located in a tax friendly “zone” such as the Santa Ana Ent Zone which allows for very large income tax credits. Not sure if that is what you mean or not…if not, please let us know about this way to pay no CA tax.
I agree that some will move out of state due to this (someone who has CA taxable income of $4.5M per year will pay approx $100K more), but I don’t know if it will be many. I know that many will probably talk about it. Fewer will actually make plans to do it and even fewer will actually pull the trigger on it.
I also agree with you that the FTB does not have the resources to devote to enforcement. They will focus on those with lots of money such as actors, directors, athletes, and those like facebook shareholders (i.e. shareholders of recently gone public companies). As rates go up, more and more people will cheat the system and thereby leaving those who comply with the laws to actually pay more in the future or face other budgetary consequences.
dopey vern cant understand that randall . look at calif how messed up it is and you cant blame republicans on this beacuase this state is run by the unions and far left leaders in the calif house that they keep putting in power year and year .
I am the state of Nevada, and I support all of Vern’s tax raising schemes….in California.
I guess to really protect ourselves from you we need to eliminate our state income tax altogether, right?
When I was working for the Census, I had send my enumerators to some of the wealthier areas of the coast and south orange county. Many of those expensive coast houses are owned by “out of stator’s” . They may live in California most of the time, but their tax homes are in low or no tax state.
California is a good example of what happens when you tax and punish value and hard work, and then reward lack of effort and poor choices.
I’d like to know who they are. They may only think that their tax homes are elsewhere.
Wow, the NJ study certainly is a heavy read. After reading it and thinking of my own experiences, I seem to agree with the study in that there are many variables, including income tax, that keep people in certain locations. High income earners do in deed consider tax variables in determining where to reside and earn their income. The study also agrees as an initial basic conclusion: “there is an observable increase in migration associated with the introduction of the new millionaire tax bracket.” (read the study or otherwise this can be taken out of context though). The NJ study also points that the increase in tax revenue from millionaires was far outweighed by those who fled the state due to the increased tax rate.
I for one know from personal experience, that state income taxation does have an impact on residency discussions both today and towards the future. Many of those who are about to come into money will purposely contemplate relocating to a tax friendly state such as NV, WA or TX. Those who have high investment income will do the same. Those who are tied to a wage earning job are far less likely to be able to do so even if they wanted to move- although for certain people it does come into play and they try to work with the owners of companies to see if they can make it work. I know this again from personal experience. Another thing that I have seen is that most will consider it, talk about it, maybe even plan for it, and then still decide that CA is where they want to be- essentially, they go through the steps and then don’t pull the trigger. I wonder what it will actually take for them to pull the trigger?
Will an approximate 50% increase in their marginal tax rate be the driving factor? I am not sure, but I can tell you that numbers sure start to add up much quicker. Adding a 5% tax rate increase versus the 1% mental health tax magnifies the comparison. With the 1% increase it seems like most people seemed to complain about it but also just sucked it up. They also explored other options such as filing a separate return, which I presume may also be available under the proposed Millionaires’ Tax.
Another item to consider and remember is the impact that this will have on Federal taxation. The 5% increase for most will actually only be about a 3% to 4% actual tax increase due to the federal benefit for state taxes…however, the IRS will be looking to make up that revenue also at some point. This will magnify the discussion at the federal level. Ironic how a state getting their house in order can mess the federal level up.
So it looks like Gov Brown and the CFT compromised to not have competing ballot measures. This presumably would increase the possibility of passage by having fewer competing ballot measures. Includes a 0.25% tax rate increase to sales tax and adjust the top CA tax bracket upward three percentage points to 12.3% plus the 1% millionaire mental health surcharge which I believe is still in play so that makes it 13.3%. The increased temporary income tax rates would be around for 7 years instead of 5 as originally planned. Another important point is that it seems that the revenue raised would go to the general state budget instead of direct education funding.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/15/4338960/jerry-brown-changes-his-tax-plan.html
yeah buddy, I’m workin on the story about it right now
Exactly as I have predicted in my past comments.
We need 4 more years of Obama and Brown ilk,…… actually 20 years. (a generation)
Only then, as it happened in Soviet block and now in EU, will people raise up and change the system if any.
Judging from EU taking over all Soviet’s ideas the socialism is here until some major war or catastrophe happens because the socialism is embedded in human DNA, being social creatures, which has been always exploited by religion and politics to take an advantage of it.
We are living in the exiting historical moment when the 1918 revolution can be declared as victory by USA taking over the role of a socialist leader of the world.
But socialism is not sustainable because you can’t tax and regulate yourself for ever. Only National Socialism is sustainable where one Nation lives socialism on expense of other nation.
Someone must work!
Now wen we are at peek of the worlds’ socialism something must give up.
It will start with Japan’s collapse if based on economy; or
If we are lucky it will be Israel attacking Iran…. soon.
First off, most “rich” people I’ve met are total and complete jerkoffs. I used to work for a moving company, and had the honor of meeting the daughter of Robert Day(billionaire investor), and while disassembling her son’s half pipe that would make Tony Hawk envious, he walked out wearing a Che Guarvia (the communist war criminal) tshirt.
I met a whole lot of people who actually earned their millions, and they were all swell guys(and gals) who had no problem making it rain for those who worked for them(namely me), and the one absolute constant with all of them was their children were spoiled brats incapable of wiping their own asses. I’ll be glad to help them move, and I can assure you that the old money, like my family, isn’t going anywhere.
In 2005 my family was offered almost twice the actual value of 4 of our apartment buildings by a developer eager to throw down 100 town homes on our 20 units, and I made it clear to my father that I was stab him to death in his sleep if he gave up the only thing I had left of my grandfather besides a flag. The repeal of Prop 13 wouldn’t be what changes that.
As shocking as this sounds, as a Republican I believe we should tax the “rich” into oblivion(I’m also a much better environmentalist and gay ally than you), but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to fall for Sacramento’s typical BS of “it’s for the children”. Do you really believe the future of our state should be entirely dependent upon the volatility of the stock market?
Thanks for the comments (although I’m not pushing for taxing the rich into “oblivion.”) Your last question is a good one; I think that if we can train ourselves to believe that it’s OK for the state to hold surpluses in good times — antagonism towards which is part of what led to Prop 13 in the first place — we can reduce the effects of stock market volatility on revenue.
I know good rich people and bad ones. Growing up wealthy is a test of character. Some people do pass that test.
I’m a millionaire, living much of my year in Caleefornia and I support the new, higher “millionaire’s tax”. See, when the last 1% “millionaire’s surcharge” passed, I got sick of paying far mor than my fair share (FACT: THE TOP 1% ALREADY PAYS OVER 50% OF cALIFORNIA’S INCOME TAX), so I bought another home in a no-income-tax state. Since I am a certified investor and only a tiny part of my “income” comes from Caleefornia (rental property), I simply declared my residence in the no-income-tax state. I even register my cars, trucks and boat there, too. SO, CALEEFORNIA NOW GETS VIRTUALLY NO INCOME TAX FROM ME AT ALL.
& BETTER YET!!! In only 10 years, I completely paid for the other home with my saving from NOT paying CA income taxes.
OH, I still live much of the year in Caleeforna, I just don’t pay any more for that “priviledge”. I also know there are MANY folks like me. Part of the reason why we got rich was avoiding thieves like the socialists running Caleefornia….and we will continue to do so.
1ST RULE OF ECONOMICS = WHATEVER YOU WANT LESS OF, JUST TAX IT
Do you live 183 days out of the year in California? If so, you are a resident.
I agree with you that we should adjust Prop 13 to remove property tax stabilization protections from non-resident homeowners. I’m not sure if that’s what you intended to say, but that’s what came through.
Yeah, I don’t think that is what he was saying GD. This person is an example, whether real or contrived, of what can go wrong so easily when you raise taxes beyond the pain threshold. If he is a resident of CA, he definitely should be paying tax as a resident though…
Beyond the pain threshold? Please. It’s just raising it beyond the “I am being so undertaxed that I am in heaven” threshold.
Do you honestly believe that even the high earners are undertaxed for CA purposes (i.e. not including Fed/Soc Sec/Medi/etc…just state income tax)? Have you seen the rates in other states? I can see the argument that the lower end earners are overtaxed since our rates go high so quickly, but look at other states and you will find that CA does not seem to be undertaxing the higher end in relation to them.
I guess you may want to raise all those other states’ income taxes even more than CA, but that is a different argument.
High income property owners who fall under Prop 13 — like I suspect is true of this guy — are undertaxed. You have to consider the whole package.
You can look at the whole picture but unless you know the whole picture, you can’t make a judgment based on it. Bottom line is that he could have purchased his real estate in the past few years and is only hoping the assessor will lower it down to the true assessed value. He was referencing the increase in income taxes as a reason why he and others moved…you conveniently changed the topic to Prop 13. Regardless of whether his statements are true or not, there are people who do exactly what he stated he did. When state taxes are high, people will find an easy way around them…Nevada it is, especially if their income is portable.
I wanted to get both your take on this comment. Should I send the IP and other identifying info to the IRS? Tax evasion is not a victimless crime that we can just turn our backs on here at the OJ.
Well the IRS does not care much for the state residency of its taxpayers…it is a state issue. Perhaps the FTB, although he/she did not indicate whether he met the qualifications of a CA resident (i.e. does “live in CA much of the time” meet that threshold? good luck).
State residency issues are quite complex which is why especially when you live next to a no-income tax state (NV) and close to another (WA) that those who have portable income, can often make a tax choice on where it is best to live.
I for one would call on that person to do their civil duty and pay their appropriate tax though…if they are still listening. By appropriate, they have to determine whether they meet the CA residency requirements.
OH yeah, duh. Shows how long since I thought about the millionaies tax. It got compromised down with Jerry Brown to today’s Prop 30, which I’m sure this dillwad also thinks is unfair.
I don’t believe he’s a millionaire though, I think he’s a fat overgrown Republican kid typing in his MOm’s basement.
In addition, the Federal gov’t, from an income tax perspective, would rather see income taxes lower as it is an itemized deduction which lowers the federal income tax (although AMT, takes care of it a bit). They would much rather see everyone in NV and paying less state tax as then the federal income tax would be higher.
Leona Helmsley (Anonymous)
Can’t you stop telling the little people the secrets of not paying taxes?