PDA

View Full Version : Despite Tax Increase, California State Revenues in Freefall




FrankRep
12-08-2012, 10:00 AM
Despite Tax Increase, California State Revenues in Freefall (http://gopthedailydose.com/2012/12/08/despite-tax-increase-california-state-revenues-in-freefall/)


The Daily Dose
8 December, 2012



California State Controller John Chiang has announced (http://www.oc-breeze.com/2012/12/07/25235_california-state-revenues-10-8-below-budget-projections-in-november/) that total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget.

Democrats thought they could hammer “the rich” by convincing voters to pass Proposition 30 to create the highest state income tax in the nation. But it now appears that high income earners have already “voted with their feet” by moving themselves and their businesses out of state, resulting in over $1 billion shortfall in corporate and income taxes last month and the beginning of a new financial crisis.



Flashback:

Gov. Jerry Brown Asks California Voters to Support Tax Hike (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/11394-gov-jerry-brown-asks-california-voters-to-support-tax-hike)



California Governor Jerry Brown is calling for higher taxes as lethargic economic growth has left his state in fiscal turmoil.


California Voters Pass $6-Billion-a-Year Tax Hike (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/13564-california-voters-pass-$6-billion-a-year-tax-hike)



On Tuesday, California voters passed a $6-billion-a-year package of tax increases sponsored by California Governor Jerry Brown.


Latest U-Haul Index Shows Californians Leaving for Texas (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/13723-latest-u-haul-index-shows-californians-leaving-for-texas)



The U-Haul Index, popularized by economist Mark Perry, shows how much extra people in California are willing to pay to get out of town and head for Texas.

Czolgosz
12-08-2012, 10:06 AM
Excellent.

matt0611
12-08-2012, 10:17 AM
But wait! I thought raising tax rates brought in "more revenue"? :D

FrankRep
12-08-2012, 10:26 AM
But wait! I thought raising tax rates brought in "more revenue"? :D

http://itiminteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Myth-busted.jpg

CaptUSA
12-08-2012, 10:34 AM
Democrats thought they could hammer “the rich” by convincing voters to pass Proposition 30 to create the highest state income tax in the nation. But it now appears that high income earners have already “voted with their feet” by moving themselves and their businesses out of state, resulting in over $1 billion shortfall in corporate and income taxes last month and the beginning of a new financial crisis
Obviously the only answer here is a world tax so these greedy SOB's won't be able to "vote with their feet". We have to make it so there is no place else to go. Then, they will have no choice in paying their fair share.

/sarcasm, irony, and schadenfreude

aGameOfThrones
12-08-2012, 11:05 AM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw81eiRldq1r6hffko1_500.gif

BAllen
12-08-2012, 05:59 PM
These libtards will scratch their heads and wonder why people quit trying to expand and make more money. All initiative will be gone, and they will be baffled as to why it happened.
I just had this discussion with my commie father. I tried to explain to him that if you tax heavily, there will be no more wealth. People will not have any incentive to work hard. He can't understand why I think people will only work hard for more money. He thinks people inherently will work as hard and efficient as possible, just because it's the right thing to do.

Zippyjuan
12-09-2012, 08:05 PM
Umm. The tax increases have not come into effect yet so the revenue from them is currently zero dollars. So yeah- zero dollars in new taxes are not helping the budget situation improve. Just like that raise you didn't get last month isn't helping your own finances.

HOLLYWOOD
12-09-2012, 08:37 PM
Think 52% is too low on taxing your income between the FEDS & STATE? if you add in Obamacare taxes, CA sales taxes(7.75-10%), Unemployment Ins. fees, real estate taxes, misc welfare related state, county, and muni fees. ADD that to the Marxists manage to lift the salary cap on SS and Medicare payroll taxes.

Add all that up and we’re in the 60-70% range. Watch the HOLLYWOOD crowd start relocating their primary residence to most likely, NEVADA. They better do it soon, because Sacramento capital rumors have it, the California Communists are drafting a tax on your assets when you move out of the state.

ALSO

The AMT primarily hits dual income returns from states with high state and local taxes

Don’t forget that ObamaCare will tax you on the sale of your home/property/insurance policies @ 3.8% over $250K(single) $500K(married), which $250K in California, is a "FIX-IT Upper" Outhouse or Pigeon-Hole condo.

AND

These clowns in California wonder why income is dropping and our jobs are leaving the country over the past 4 years of Obama & the Taxers?

Zippyjuan
12-09-2012, 09:08 PM
Think 52% is too low on taxing your income between the FEDS & STATE? if you add in Obamacare taxes, CA sales taxes(7.75-10%), Unemployment Ins. fees, real estate taxes, misc welfare related state, county, and muni fees. ADD that to the Marxists manage to lift the salary cap on SS and Medicare payroll taxes.

Add all that up and we’re in the 60-70% range. Watch the HOLLYWOOD crowd start relocating their primary residence to most likely, NEVADA. They better do it soon, because Sacramento capital rumors have it, the California Communists are drafting a tax on your assets when you move out of the state.

ALSO

The AMT primarily hits dual income returns from states with high state and local taxes

Don’t forget that ObamaCare will tax you on the sale of your home/property/insurance policies @ 3.8% over $250K(single) $500K(married), which $250K in California, is a "FIX-IT Upper" Outhouse or Pigeon-Hole condo.

AND

These clowns in California wonder why income is dropping and our jobs are leaving the country over the past 4 years of Obama & the Taxers?

That tax on the sale of a home is on the PROFIT from selling it- not the price it sells for. You can keep the first $250,000 as an individual or $500,000 married filing jointly. If the house you bought was $300,000 you could sell it for $549,999 and owe zero. Married? It could run up to $799,999 tax-free (provided it was your primary residence for two of the previous five years). http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/at-what-rate-will-your-sale-be-taxed-9867/ That would be a step up from an "outhouse or pigeon hole" - even in CA.

HOLLYWOOD
12-09-2012, 09:25 PM
That tax on the sale of a home is on the PROFIT from selling it- not the price it sells for. You can keep the first $250,000 as an individual or $500,000 married filing jointly. If the house you bought was $300,000 you could sell it for $549,999 and owe zero. Married? It could run up to $799,999 tax-free (provided it was your primary residence for two of the previous five years). http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/at-what-rate-will-your-sale-be-taxed-9867/ That would be a step up from an "outhouse or You pigeon hole" - even in CA.DUH ZIP:obviously haven't lived in San Francisco 3.8% over $250K(single) $500K(married),

Zippyjuan
12-09-2012, 09:30 PM
Having troubles reading the giant type with my ancient eyes.

The way you wrote it made it sound like you meant homes with SELLING prices of $250,000 to $500,000-not on that much PROFIT from selling them- especially when you called them

Don’t forget that ObamaCare will tax you on the sale of your home/property/insurance policies @ 3.8% over $250K(single) $500K(married), which $250K in California, is a "FIX-IT Upper" Outhouse or Pigeon-Hole condo.

Real estate tends to be higher where I live (yes, in CA) and $250k will get you a pretty decent condo- not some outhouse or pigeon hole.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/15/business/la-fi-home-sales-20120816


California median home price highest in nearly 4 years


Median price hits $281,000 in July as more expensive homes were sold and fewer foreclosures were purchased in the key Southern California and San Francisco Bay Area markets.

Median price would have to nearly double to hit $250k in profits for an individual.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

awake
12-09-2012, 09:37 PM
This is just what I suspected...the old faithful tactic of the looting class - 'just raise taxes'- has a clear limit. In the free market, 'just raise prices' is fatal in the same way. economics is kicking their rumps.

HOLLYWOOD
12-09-2012, 09:37 PM
Having troubles reading the giant type with my ancient eyes.

The way you wrote it made it sound like you ment homes with SELLING prices of $250,000 to $500,000-not on that much PROFIT from selling them- especially when you called them


Real estate tends to be higher where I live (yes, in CA) and $250k will get you a pretty decent condo- not some outhouse or pigeon hole. To have that much PROFIT on it it would be pretty nice indeed!

Sorry if I misunderstood. My friend sold his 1750sf house in San Jose for $775K, when it was built in 1987, they sold for $105K. He also had to pay State Tax on the sale on profit above $250K. So not only Federal but the state of California has additional taxes on real estate profits. Like he said, if he was married, it would of been exempt on the 1st $500K profit, but then he would be paying $2500 a month alimony until it's a loss, lol!

Koz
12-09-2012, 09:43 PM
Mmm, when I left California I sold my 3br 1.5ba condo for $600k. So, I would have gotten screwed.

seraphson
12-09-2012, 09:43 PM
Despite Tax Increase, California State Revenues in Freefall

Gee, who woulda thunk it?!

Cue sad trombone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpXAknykeg

Pauls' Revere
12-09-2012, 09:46 PM
Intel Computer Giant is going to invest BILLIONS to build a top of the line research factory in Hillsboro Oreogn.

Though Intel's headquarters are in California's Silicon Valley, the company's largest and most sophisticated operations are in Washington County. Intel employs 15,000 in the state, more than any other business, and those workers' payroll and benefits totaled $1.8 billion last year.

seems for some reason Intel would rather upgrade Oregon and Arizona.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/intel_confirms_itll_invest_bil.html

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-09-2012, 10:30 PM
Umm. The tax increases have not come into effect yet so the revenue from them is currently zero dollars. So yeah- zero dollars in new taxes are not helping the budget situation improve. Just like that raise you didn't get last month isn't helping your own finances.

You should know that the precipitous fall of income is a result of people seeing such an increase passed, regardless whether it has come into effect yet or not. That isn't even to say that even if revenues went up productivity would decline. If the Government takes in 500 billion this year for example, and 700 billion next year however, due to taxation productivity and output declined by 50%, that would be any 'solution'. In other words, even if the Government increased its revenue per se, it has no objective bearing on standard of living or economic performance. The only thing that is certain is higher taxes means the closer to complete totalitarianism and slavery. At least serfs got to keep 75% of their productivity/earnings!

squarepusher
12-09-2012, 10:38 PM
Umm. The tax increases have not come into effect yet so the revenue from them is currently zero dollars. So yeah- zero dollars in new taxes are not helping the budget situation improve. Just like that raise you didn't get last month isn't helping your own finances.

thank you for pointing this out


Think 52% is too low on taxing your income between the FEDS & STATE? if you add in Obamacare taxes, CA sales taxes(7.75-10%), Unemployment Ins. fees, real estate taxes, misc welfare related state, county, and muni fees. ADD that to the Marxists manage to lift the salary cap on SS and Medicare payroll taxes.

Add all that up and we’re in the 60-70% range. Watch the HOLLYWOOD crowd start relocating their primary residence to most likely, NEVADA. They better do it soon, because Sacramento capital rumors have it, the California Communists are drafting a tax on your assets when you move out of the state.

ALSO

The AMT primarily hits dual income returns from states with high state and local taxes

Don’t forget that ObamaCare will tax you on the sale of your home/property/insurance policies @ 3.8% over $250K(single) $500K(married), which $250K in California, is a "FIX-IT Upper" Outhouse or Pigeon-Hole condo.

AND

These clowns in California wonder why income is dropping and our jobs are leaving the country over the past 4 years of Obama & the Taxers?

How could you pay 52% taxes between state/fed? the highest Fed bracket is 35%, and the highest Cali bracket is 12%. So 47% is highest I see.

squarepusher
12-09-2012, 10:39 PM
Double oops!

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-09-2012, 10:42 PM
thank you for pointing this out



How could you pay 52% taxes between state/fed? the highest Fed bracket is 35%, and the highest Cali bracket is 12%. So 47% is highest I see.

He's probably adding in payroll taxes (which are unseen for employees, but boy do they sure exist).

HOLLYWOOD
12-09-2012, 10:48 PM
He's probably adding in payroll taxes (which are unseen for employees, but boy do they sure exist).FYI,




California Proposition 30 creates 3 new upper income tax brackets for the next 7 years.

1) Incomes of $250,000 to $300,000 a year in income, will pay 10.3%, up from 9.3%.
2) Incomes of 300,001 to $500,000 a year in income, will pay 11.3% up from 10.3%
3) Incomes of 500,001 to $1 million a year in income, will pay 12.3% up from 10.3%
4) The new top income tax rate–for folks with income of $1+ million: 13.3%, up from a current top rate of 10.3%.

That eclipses New Yorkers’ combined state and local top rate of 12.7% and Hawaii’s top rate of 11%.

The income tax hikes are retroactive to Jan. 1, 2012, but the extra bill isn’t due until April 15, 2013.

Zippyjuan
12-11-2012, 10:39 AM
thank you for pointing this out



How could you pay 52% taxes between state/fed? the highest Fed bracket is 35%, and the highest Cali bracket is 12%. So 47% is highest I see.

Plus bear in mind that those are MARGINAL rates- the tax rate applied to the last dollar earned. That rate is not applied to every dollar earned so when you include exemptions and deductions the actual AVERAGE rate (the rate on your whole income) is considerably less. Just under half of all federal income tax filers owed zero percent on their income after all deductions are included. 13.3% would apply to each taxable dollar earned after the first $1 million- not the entire $1 million plus.

Lucille
12-11-2012, 10:54 AM
It plays out over and over, yet it's always "unexpected" to the economic illiterates.


What a tremendous surprise (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-we-have-here-is-failure-to-connect.html)! I figured out the fundamental flaws in the static revenue model used by the Minnesota state government when I was a junior in high school, by the exotic means of reading the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and remembering what was supposed to happen when tax rates were raised. At least twice, there was an "unexpected" revenue shortfall as tax hikes failed to bring in the anticipated revenue. Being of the "This is Spring Break so it must be Naples" class, I was more aware than most that the better-off Minnesotans tended to simply move to Florida when their taxes became onerous. So, it was pretty obvious that the flaw in the static model was that it failed to take human reaction to the increased rates into account.

If a high school junior who isn't even paying direct attention to the subject can figure it out in passing, you would think someone in the California government could do so as well.

The remarkable thing is that this just happened two years ago in Maryland, where one-third of the state's millionaires disappeared from the tax rolls after a special surtax on them was devised. What were the Californians thinking, rich people in California behave differently than rich people in Maryland? Actually, considering the Californians I've known over the years, I suppose that's entirely plausible.

Regardless, you have to love that "Despite" in the title. It's almost sad how little it takes to make me happy.

Related:

Go West Young Man, To The "New Normal" Dream Job: California State Workers Earning $822,000
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-11/go-west-young-man-new-normal-dream-job-california-state-workers


The following chart from Bloomberg shows just how generous the otherwise insolvent state of California is when it comes to paying its public servants, and the 100%+ increase in California employee state pay since 2005.

Zippyjuan
12-11-2012, 10:55 AM
FYI,



Just for FYI, how many people would qualify for those rates? According to the US Census, California had 12.2 million households. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0706.pdf Of that, 722,000 made over $200,000 a year or six percent. The highest rate would apply to dollars earned above $1 million in a year of net income. Nationally, only two percent topped $250,000. In the whole country, there were about 250,000 tax filers with a net income of over $1 million out of 143 million returns (one tenth of one percent). http://taxfoundation.org/slideshow/putting-face-americas-tax-returns

Zippyjuan
12-11-2012, 11:06 AM
It plays out over and over, yet it's always "unexpected" to the economic illiterates.



Related:

Go West Young Man, To The "New Normal" Dream Job: California State Workers Earning $822,000
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-11/go-west-young-man-new-normal-dream-job-california-state-workers

The $822,000 is a highly misleading figure. It implies that most or even the average state worker gets that much money. That is the highest pay they could find. The Zerohedge article also does not say what the average pay is for a state worker. 55% of state workers are teachers who earn an average of just under $60,000 a year.
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_government_salary

juleswin
12-11-2012, 11:07 AM
But wait! I thought raising tax rates brought in "more revenue"? :D

I knew someone is going to say that. See reducing taxes means the community or population will be just a bit more productive which leads to economic growth. Now the people being more productive and economy growing doesn't equate to increases govt revenue. In fact if that was true, then why not lower taxes to say 10%? and the govt revenue will increase by that much.

I see lots of people making this mistake and they usually point to Reagan years where we saw increased revenue with decrease in taxes. But what all those people fail to mention is the increased borrowing that accompanied this tax cut. In conclusion, tax cuts does lead to increased productivity but increase productivity with low tax rate still leaves the govt empty.

Henry Rogue
12-11-2012, 11:47 AM
I knew someone is going to say that. See reducing taxes means the community or population will be just a bit more productive which leads to economic growth. Now the people being more productive and economy growing doesn't equate to increases govt revenue. In fact if that was true, then why not lower taxes to say 10%? and the govt revenue will increase by that much.

I see lots of people making this mistake and they usually point to Reagan years where we saw increased revenue with decrease in taxes. But what all those people fail to mention is the increased borrowing that accompanied this tax cut. In conclusion, tax cuts does lead to increased productivity but increase productivity with low tax rate still leaves the govt empty.
True and it is a problem when a government doesn't live within it's means. They could spend less, what a novel idea.

Acala
12-11-2012, 11:49 AM
In conclusion, tax cuts does lead to increased productivity but increase productivity with low tax rate still leaves the govt empty.

Perfect.