CA:New legislation would tax people for ten years AFTER leaving the state

[Anti Federalist]

Cavuto presses California assemblyman over wealth tax plan amid millionaire 'jailbreak' from Golden State

https://www.foxbusiness.com/fbntv/ne...rce=whatfinger

Under plan, residents who leave state would still pay taxes for up to ten years

By Charles Creitz FOXBusiness 15 August 2020

Proposed California wealth tax would impact millionaires even if they move out-of-state

California Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D) details a new proposed wealth tax that would continue to tax Californians for 10 years after they move out of the state.

Fox Business Network anchor Neil Cavuto questioned California State Assemblyman Rob Bonta on "Cavuto: Coast to Coast" Friday over his proposal to institute a 0.4% wealth tax on Golden State residents worth more than $30 million.

The Alameda Democrat told Cavuto the proposed tax "affects about 0.15% of the California population -- not the top 10%, not the top 1%, the top .15%, about 30,000 people" and would generate $7.5 billion in revenue for the state.

The host asked Bonta what will prevent the ultra-wealthy from continuing to "bolt" from California as taxes continue to rise.

Bonta disagreed with the premise of the question.

"In California we’ve had taxes on millionaires in the past. We raised taxes in 2012 by 3% -- and the number of millionaires and billionaires in California has grown. We have 25% of the nation’s billionaires, 17% of the millionaires, those numbers are up and we've grown to be the fifth-largest economy in the world. So, while worthy of consideration it has not panned out."

Bonta added that his proposal would apply a "phased-in approach" to make sure Sacramento recoups its share of the income of a California resident who leaves the state.

"If you move in Year One, 90% of the tax bill applies..." he said, adding that the following year it drops to 80% and so on until it is phased out to zero.

Cavuto questioned whether such a move was legally feasible.

"For ten years, the wealth was accumulated during their time in California ... and that is what we're proposing in our bill. We believe we can do that, certainly we're open to dialogue and discussion as we move the bill forward, but we think it’s a sound approach and has a strong legal foundation," said Bonta.

Cavuto responded that policy makes taxpayers sound like "prisoners of California" -- "[Y]ou’re not letting them leave, if you say you leave I’m still going to zoom you".

Bonta said the stipulation recognizes that the wealth of someone leaving the state was in part gained while residing in California. Meanwhile, if someone moves to California and is worth more than $30 million, the tax "phases in" in reverse, beginning at 10 percent in the first year.

"It recognizes that wealth may have been accumulated outside of California," the lawmaker said.

"Our [population of] millionaires and billionaires has grown, our economy has grown. I don’t think the image of folks fleeing has panned out, I don’t think it’s historically true."

[tod evans]

Let 'em eat each other.

[dannno]

Wow, I wonder if Joe Rogan would get screwed if this bill passes, it could cost him millions..


https://www.sacurrent.com/ArtSlut/ar...-move-to-texas

[tod evans]

Wow, I wonder if Joe Rogan would get screwed if this bill passes, it could cost him millions..


https://www.sacurrent.com/ArtSlut/ar...-move-to-texas

Ca. will have fun trying to collect.

[Dr.3D]

So taxation without representation.

[Pauls' Revere]

Geez, if I was worth that much I wouldn't even be working or living in CA.

[Anti Globalist]

Just as soon as we get some good news in California, we're back to hearing bad news.

[Pauls' Revere]

NY/NYC? tried this too, a lot of people left and then the mayor/governor begged them to return. after the tax dollars left town.

[Ender]

So taxation without representation.

Yep. The Fed Gov does pretty much the same thing to anyone who leaves the US.

[Mach]

Wow, I wonder if Joe Rogan would get screwed if this bill passes, it could cost him millions..


https://www.sacurrent.com/ArtSlut/ar...-move-to-texas

He gets on my nerves, he goes on and on sometimes about the borders and giving money to people, then leaves Cali. to save huge on his new big deal with Spotify.

Joe Rogan is taking his podcast exclusively to Spotify Technology SA SPOT -0.92% in a licensing deal worth more than $100 million, according to a person familiar with the matter.

It's the old, preach brother preach, until it is you personally, then it's an entirely different perspective.

[oyarde]

Well , if I lived there and left I would never pay them a cent

[Brian4Liberty]

[Swordsmyth]

I don't think they can get that past SCOTUS.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yep. The Fed Gov does pretty much the same thing to anyone who leaves the US.

Yep, only two countries on the planet tax you for living and working (with a foreign company) in a host country. USA & South Sudan. Plus, you get the extra bonus of an exit tax should you decide to renounce.

[Pauls' Revere]

If I had the bling, I'd buy up land in Nevada.

[Pauls' Revere]

I gotta get out. Seriously looking now. This is crazy.

[Anti Federalist]

I gotta get out. Seriously looking now. This is crazy.

Where do you want to go?

What skills do you have?

PM me if NH interests you at all.

[Sonny Tufts]

Yep. The Fed Gov does pretty much the same thing to anyone who leaves the US.

Not just anyone -- only people with very high taxable incomes or very high wealth who (a) renounce their U.S. citizenship or (b) are long-term lawful resident aliens who leave the country permanently. Such persons are subject to the federal income tax for 10 years in certain respects.

But the federal government's taxing power is much broader than that of a State. California's taxation of the wealth of former citizens is probably limited to taxing wealth with a California nexus of some kind -- e.g., stock in a California corporation or personal property located in California.

[Pauls' Revere]

Where do you want to go?

What skills do you have?

PM me if NH interests you at all.

Thanks, I have to get things in order. Might take a while.

[Brian4Liberty]

Wealth tax.
Wealth tax.
Wealth tax!

Is anyone paying attention?

California is the testing ground. Next they go national.

[Anti Federalist]

Wealth tax.
Wealth tax.
Wealth tax!

Is anyone paying attention?

California is the testing ground. Next they go national.

Bing-$#@!ing-go.

Some sort of heavily punitive wealth tax will most certainly be at the top of the agenda of a Biden/Harris administration.

[eleganz]

https://www.sacurrent.com/ArtSlut/ar...-move-to-texas[/QUOTE]

Ca. will have fun trying to collect.

This is true, they'd only be able to send you penalties in the mail which won't affect you as long as you don't try to do anything in CA like registering a car, buying a house, etc...

I wonder if they'd go as far as arresting non-payers. Probably not but who knows with these insane commies.

[Sonny Tufts]

Some sort of heavily punitive wealth tax will most certainly be at the top of the agenda of a Biden/Harris administration.

Big deal. An unapportioned walth tax is unconstitutional, so it'd take a constitutional amendment to get one enacted.

[Pauls' Revere]

How would they know you left? and track you? through IRS records?

[Anti Federalist]

Big deal. An unapportioned walth tax is unconstitutional, so it'd take a constitutional amendment to get one enacted.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[Anti Federalist]

This is true, they'd only be able to send you penalties in the mail which won't affect you as long as you don't try to do anything in CA like registering a car, buying a house, etc...

I wonder if they'd go as far as arresting non-payers. Probably not but who knows with these insane commies.

They declare you owe such and such and send you multiple bills.

You fail to reply or pay.

The state then petitions the court for a lien against your assets, accounts and garnishment of income.

[KEEF]

Let 'em eat each other.

Don’t they do that already with the cannabalistic #pedowood cults they all belong to?

[Sonny Tufts]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

As recently as 2012 the Supreme Court recognized that a tax on the mere ownership of property is a direct tax that must be apportioned. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, who would be the swing vote in the event SCOTUS were to split along conservative-liberal lines in ruling on a federal wealth tax.

[Slave Mentality]

As recently as 2012 the Supreme Court recognized that a tax on the mere ownership of property is a direct tax that must be apportioned. The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, who would be the swing vote in the event SCOTUS were to split along conservative-liberal lines in ruling on a federal wealth tax.

Then they will call it a fee, surcharge, or other government theft. All taxation is theft, BTW. It doesn't matter if a bunch of old men in robes tell us its great.

[Sonny Tufts]

Then they will call it a fee, surcharge, or other government theft. All taxation is theft, BTW. It doesn't matter if a bunch of old men in robes tell us its great.

The Court doesn't rule on the "greatness" of legislation or whether it comports with a particular political philosophy. It does, however, rule on the constitutionality of statutes, and taxes are explicitly authorized by the Constitution.

The main legal issue with a wealth tax is whether it's a direct tax that needs to be apportioned (i.e., the revenue received from each State is in proportion to its population) or an excise that needs to be geographically uniform (e.g., the same rates in each State). Legal scholars can be found on both sides of this issue; my view is with those who think it's a direct tax and that the Court would strike down an unapportioned wealth tax like the ones proposed by Senators Warren and Sanders.

An apportioned wealth tax would be politically impossible; because wealth isn't distributed among the States according to population such a tax would involve differing rates, with poorer States paying higher rates than wealthier ones.