The new "tax the rich" proposal. Will you support it?

[Wormwood]

The teachers and the Govenor have joined forces. They have merged and modified their proposal's for "taxing the rich" along with a %1/4 sales tax increase. What say ye?


Proposal's details

The new proposal would increase the sales tax by a quarter of a cent instead of Brown's proposed half-cent. Personal income tax would go up by one percentage point for individuals making $250,000 a year or couples making $500,000 a year. Individuals making $300,000 a year or couples making $600,000 a year would see an increase of two percentage points. And, individuals making $500,000 and couples making $1 million or more would see a tax hike of three percentage points.

The personal-income-tax increase would last seven years, and the sales-tax increase would expire after four years.

Officials at the Department of Finance project the compromise tax would generate $9 billion in the first year - about $2 billion more than Brown's original proposal - and $7.1 billion in subsequent years.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/14/BAS71NKNSR.DTL#ixzz1pCoFOusA

 

[mikev]

Officials at the Department of Finance project the compromise tax would generate $9 billion in the first year - about $2 billion more than Brown's original proposal - and $7.1 billion in subsequent years.

Which will be wasted, then they'll want more.

Spend less money, motherfuckers.

 

[MrIncredible]

These things will never expire.

 

[Wormwood]

I find the definitions of "rich" to be silly.

Living well yes but by no means rich.

 

[Bay Arean]

If Jerry Brown would drop the high speed rail proposal, I'd feel a lot more reasonable about his proposals. I don't like being one-issue about anything, but to continue the boondoggle shows little commitment to fiscal sanity. I realize that some of the money comes from the feds but is there something more I don't understand about HSR than it appears? Yes. I know it will create some construction jobs for a while and that is considered progress and productivity for a while. But we already know costs will spiral etc and the end product will be something you and I can't afford anyway.

His insistence on pushing it through makes me want to fight any increase, though I have little sympathy for our richies. If they have enough to cause Super-PAC mischief and run for governor and senator on a regular basis, they can probably afford a few percent more. But we don't know if this will just cause more sheltering. off-shoring, moving out of state etc so I'm still reticent about just accepting it as a plus.

 

[MrIncredible]

At some point I could take a serious paycut and have the same amount of cash by moving somewhere less stressful.

 

[JesasaurusRex]

I find the definitions of "rich" to be silly.

Living well yes but by no means rich.

i don't see how you can make more money than 98-99 percent of the population and NOT consider yourself rich. If they aren't then who is?

I understand what you're saying, they still need to go to work. I get that, but when you compare somebody that makes 250k a year to somebody that gets by on 30...well

still haven't read the article btw

 

[Entoptic]

Why on earth would you want to tax the rich in a state where the people are leaving in large numbers. Is this to push them out faster?

 

[Climber]

Personally, I think that the highest tax bracket should be around $3 Million. Back in 1946, the highest tax bracket was higher than it is now, and that is NOT adjusted for today's value.

The Republicans (and probably some dems) have been fucking around with that number for decades to lump in a bunch of people with their benefactor's in order to protect the latter. They did the same with the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax), not caring about the Millions of people that they fucked over in the process.

If I was in the highest tax bracket and made less than a couple Million, I would be really pissed at the Republicans for pulling this shit! But, ironically, that group of clueless people consider them their friends for working to keep the taxes down for their bracket rather than realizing that they should never have been in the top bracket to start with. I guess that marketing IS effective.

 

[Wormwood]

i don't see how you can make more money than 98-99 percent of the population and NOT consider yourself rich. If they aren't then who is?

I understand what you're saying, they still need to go to work. I get that, but when you compare somebody that makes 250k a year to somebody that gets by on 30...well

still haven't read the article btw

Agree with you point but this is being pimped out as a millionaire tax. There are a good deal of folks making above 250K. Far more than 2% I assume. The sales tax increase is the overall deal breaker for me.

 

[budman]

I find the definitions of "rich" to be silly.

Living well yes but by no means rich.

This

These things will never expire.

And this.

Will vote no based on that.

 

[afm199]

$250k a year in the Bay Area is so far from being rich.... I can think of ten ways to stop spending so much money, and they all involve state employees.

 

[Ogier le Danois]

If Jerry Brown would drop the high speed rail proposal, I'd feel a lot more reasonable about his proposals. I don't like being one-issue about anything, but to continue the boondoggle shows little commitment to fiscal sanity. I realize that some of the money comes from the feds but is there something more I don't understand about HSR than it appears? Yes. I know it will create some construction jobs for a while and that is considered progress and productivity for a while. But we already know costs will spiral etc and the end product will be something you and I can't afford anyway.

His insistence on pushing it through makes me want to fight any increase, though I have little sympathy for our richies. If they have enough to cause Super-PAC mischief and run for governor and senator on a regular basis, they can probably afford a few percent more. But we don't know if this will just cause more sheltering. off-shoring, moving out of state etc so I'm still reticent about just accepting it as a plus.

i don't think he can, by the laws of the State of CA. Wasn't it an Initiative that mandated the high speed rail?

 

[Asphaultnaut]

does that include everyone who gets a paycheck from the State? Lawmakers AND welfare?

$250k a year in the Bay Area is so far from being rich.... I can think of ten ways to stop spending so much money, and they all involve state employees.

 

[Wormwood]

My thoughts also include the idea that the "rich tax" will expire as described. The sales tax, a tax on the poor, will not expire.

 

[rsrider]

I won't be satisfied untill the government takes at least 50% of my income. :x

 

[wazzuFreddo]

Until I see some give backs from the prison guards, hell no

 

[n10sive]

taxing $250k is attacking California's "middle class". The "rich" will still pay less.

And if $250k make you a 1%er in California, there is seriously something wrong

Glad to see that teachers are now experts in Finance. Wonder what they did with all that Lottery Money...and cigarette tax money...and other 'penalties' California has enacted on the people to pay for education? Oh yeah...it's being spent on paying for health care and education for the undocumented :|

 

[LongGoneJohn]

No, because the issue isn't taxation. It's spending.

The state (and feds) need to learn how to properly budget and spend money, instead of merely asking for more when they blow it on all the bullshit special interest legislation, over-budget feel good programs and educating illegal immigrants (and a million other things they waste money on that I can't think of right now).

Once the state shows that they simply won't blow the "extra" money they get, just like they did the billions of dollars they already get, then I'll consider giving them more money -- or requiring someone else to. For now, fuck off.

 

[ALANRIDER7]

Give them more and they will waste more.

Duh.

You will never solve California's money problems with money. They will only be solved with intelligence and fiscal prudence, both of which seem to be in very short supply in Sacramento. They continue to spend far more than they get.

The results are predictable.