Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
that is a take
sturg33
I
The mayor stood in front of a citizens home, named him by name, and explained to the rest of us how this person is a target of his new policy.
The "youre too rich policy"
Envy politics. Brutal look. Sad the economics phd brought you here but also not surprised when seeing the output of your students embrace of this failed idealogy
Tapate50
Well-known member
I didn’t know there was anyone left that took Gavy and face value anymore.
Learn something new everyday
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I mean I won't let facts get in the way of jokes usually. UK's nominal GDP is nearly 4 trillion, which means it's higher than every US state though maybe just behind California. Mississippi's nominal GDP is 157 billion, which would put it being if UK was seperated both England and Scotland. Mississippi IIRC is comparable to like Morocco. I'm guessing OP is talking about is GDP per capita. But even then I think they're at like 60K Which still puts it over Mississippi.
jgriff3029
Active member
As someone living in rural California, I disagree with a lot of Sacramento's policies but this is not one of them. I have to give Newsome credit that the quality and nutritional value of lunches has improved a lot over the years. California also has a lot of grants that support farm to table programs in schools. I believe that if I am going to complain about some policies, I also have to give credit when it is due.
Tapate50
Well-known member
“We had NO choice!”
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...re-tax-referendum-november-is-self-defeating/
The consequences of a one-time (supposedly; see below) 5 percent tax on the net worth of billionaires are already arriving. Some of California’s wealthiest, who constitute a large portion of the state’s precarious fiscal base, are leaving. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers supply about 40 percent of the state’s personal income-tax revenue.
U.S. federalism is 50 permanent incentives for entrepreneurial governance. Capital and talent are mobile; they go where they are welcome, and remain where they are well treated. Wise states compete to be hospitable. Unwise ones, with self-defeating insouciance, ignore federalism’s incentives. They denounce such competition as a “race to the bottom.” The top, as those states define it, is a fantasyland where government can extract as much as it wants from immobile wealth.
…
In a March report, Stanford University’s Hoover Institution scrutinized California’s proposed tax on net worth (income, cash, securities, real estate, fine art, vintage wine, yachts, and on, and on). The report concludes that even if the administratively complicated — and legally contestable — calculations are feasible, the tax would collect $40 billion rather than the $100 billion its proponents project. Nearly 30 percent of the targeted tax base (more than $550 billion) has already left the state. So, with more billionaire departures predictable, the net present value of the act is negative: “The present value of permanently lost income tax revenue more than offsets the one-time wealth tax collections.”
And it probably would not be a one-time tax. The measure would lift California’s cap on taxes on intangible personal property, with no sunset or reinstatement provision. Hoover: “Future ballot initiatives can impose additional wealth taxes at any rate, on any threshold. Measures pitched to voters as temporary or emergency measures are regularly repeated or extended.”
…
Although the wealth tax is a cafeteria of unintended economic consequences, even cumulatively they are less ominous than one predictable, and perhaps intended, political consequence. The tax would effect a radical, and probably irreversible, change in the relationship of the individual to any government that enacts such a tax.
Laura Williams of the American Institute for Economic Research, writing for Reason, says the tax would give government a roving license “to inventory every item in our possession.” This would likely be a prelude to repeated confiscations of percentages of the possessions’ value. Even worse, the infrastructure for administering the tax would mean a permanent enlargement of the government’s intrusiveness. This would contract the sphere of individual autonomy, and subtract from the security of liberty.
The consequences of a one-time (supposedly; see below) 5 percent tax on the net worth of billionaires are already arriving. Some of California’s wealthiest, who constitute a large portion of the state’s precarious fiscal base, are leaving. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers supply about 40 percent of the state’s personal income-tax revenue.
U.S. federalism is 50 permanent incentives for entrepreneurial governance. Capital and talent are mobile; they go where they are welcome, and remain where they are well treated. Wise states compete to be hospitable. Unwise ones, with self-defeating insouciance, ignore federalism’s incentives. They denounce such competition as a “race to the bottom.” The top, as those states define it, is a fantasyland where government can extract as much as it wants from immobile wealth.
…
In a March report, Stanford University’s Hoover Institution scrutinized California’s proposed tax on net worth (income, cash, securities, real estate, fine art, vintage wine, yachts, and on, and on). The report concludes that even if the administratively complicated — and legally contestable — calculations are feasible, the tax would collect $40 billion rather than the $100 billion its proponents project. Nearly 30 percent of the targeted tax base (more than $550 billion) has already left the state. So, with more billionaire departures predictable, the net present value of the act is negative: “The present value of permanently lost income tax revenue more than offsets the one-time wealth tax collections.”
And it probably would not be a one-time tax. The measure would lift California’s cap on taxes on intangible personal property, with no sunset or reinstatement provision. Hoover: “Future ballot initiatives can impose additional wealth taxes at any rate, on any threshold. Measures pitched to voters as temporary or emergency measures are regularly repeated or extended.”
…
Although the wealth tax is a cafeteria of unintended economic consequences, even cumulatively they are less ominous than one predictable, and perhaps intended, political consequence. The tax would effect a radical, and probably irreversible, change in the relationship of the individual to any government that enacts such a tax.
Laura Williams of the American Institute for Economic Research, writing for Reason, says the tax would give government a roving license “to inventory every item in our possession.” This would likely be a prelude to repeated confiscations of percentages of the possessions’ value. Even worse, the infrastructure for administering the tax would mean a permanent enlargement of the government’s intrusiveness. This would contract the sphere of individual autonomy, and subtract from the security of liberty.
