Tax Hike Drives Millionaires Away From California

leaving-californiaAccording to new research released by Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, California lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals following passage of the Proposition 30 income tax increase championed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and approved by Golden State voters in 2012.

This new research by Varner updates a previous paper released six years ago that looked at domestic migration to and from California following a 2004 income tax hike.

“One reason we wanted to update our previous paper is that this tax change in 2012 is the largest state tax change that we have seen in the U.S. for the last three decades,” Varner said.

Prop. 30 raised the state’s top income tax rate by more than 29%, increasing it three percentage points from 10.3% to 13.3%, which is now the highest state income tax rate in the nation. Prop. 30 also hiked the tax rate on income between $300,000 and $500,000 by two percentage points (a 21.5% rate increase), and raised the rate on income between $500,000 and $1,000,000 by three percentage points (a more than 32% rate hike).

In 2016, California voters extended the Prop. 30 income tax increases, which were originally scheduled to expire in 2019, until 2030. There will be an effort to extend those income tax hikes yet again prior to their expiration in 2030; book it now.

Varner’s new research examined taxpayers who were and were not hit by the Prop. 30 rate hikes. He found that in the two years before the Prop. 30 tax hike was imposed (2011 and 2012), net in-migration for both groups “was positive and roughly constant.” Yet following 2012 and the passage of Prop. 30, net in-migration dropped for households that were facing an effective tax increase of 0.5 percent or more. The reduction was greatest for households facing the highest effective tax hike, according to Varner and his coauthors.

This isn’t surprising for those who are familiar with other attempts to soak the rich with punitive state income tax hikes on high earners. Take what happened in Maryland after Martin O’Malley, the former Democratic presidential candidate and governor, imposed a millionaires tax hike a decade ago. …

Click here to read the full article from Forbes.com

Patrick Gleason is vice president of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, and a senior fellow at the Beacon Center of Tennessee. Follow Patrick on Twitter: @PatrickMGleason

Senate bill would eliminate income tax for California teachers

As reported by the Santa Clarita Valley Signal:

In light of the increasing teacher shortage in California, Senators Henry Stern and Cathleen Galgiani announced the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act.

If passed, Senate Bill 807 would eliminate all state income tax for teachers who stay in the classroom for more than five years, as well as provide tax credits to cover training costs and teaching credentials for new teachers.

“Teachers are the original job creators,” Stern said in a statement. “The teaching profession is critical to California’s economic success and impacts every vocation and profession in the state.”

The senate bill aims to tell teachers they are valued in California by training them and keeping them in classrooms, Stern said. In addition to encouraging people to go into teaching, the bill aims to encourage veteran teachers, former teachers and out-of-state teachers to get into California classrooms. …

Click here to read the full article

State Revenue Falling Behind Estimates Thanks to Excessive Taxation

Betty YeeState Controller Betty Yee’s just-released July Cash Report shows state personal income tax revenue falling behind estimates by 6.9 percent, or $323 million lower than projections. While some will argue that one month does not make a trend, these figures are significant because they represent revenue in the first month of the new state budget, a budget that is based on much higher income estimates.

Should these below projection income tax revenues really be a surprise to anyone with even a minimal understanding of basic economics? Economists tell us that if you want less of something, tax it more, and California has the highest marginal income tax rates in all 50 states.

When upper income individuals were slammed with tax rates on steroids as a result of Proposition 30, approved by voters in 2012, they had little immediate choice but to pay, and the tax revenue poured in. (It should be noted that the tax, approved in November, was retroactive for the entirety of 2012 so there was an almost instantaneous infusion of cash into state coffers.) Still, many compelled to pay these higher taxes took some comfort in knowing the exorbitant tax rates were scheduled to end in 2018.

However, lawmakers viewed this extra revenue as the new normal and they partied on in Sacramento with ever higher state budgets — they have increased spending by 42 percent in the last five years and there is no end to the spending spree in sight.

While the Sacramento politicians are loath to give up this additional cash next year as scheduled, the report from the Controller’s Office shows that the negative consequences of higher taxes, like proverbial chickens, are coming home to roost.

Most high income individuals are savvy and, given time, those penalized with a confiscatory level of taxation will respond by using legal methods that allow them to keep more of their own money. I personally know a veterinarian who cut his salary while retaining the unpaid wages in the business, a small animal hospital, he owns.

Sadly, over time, other successful individuals have packed up and left the state. This helps to explain the exodus of businesses, and the jobs they create, to other areas of the country with a more attractive tax climate.

A recently released study by Spectrum Locations Solutions estimates that over the last seven years, 9,000 business have either divested in California, or, while maintaining their headquarters here, have chosen to expand elsewhere.

“Gov. Jerry Brown’s office routinely denies that business departures is a serious issue,” says Joseph Vranich, a site selection consultant, who prepared the report. Brown’s denials are consistent with State Senate and Assembly leaders who see no down side to ever higher taxes.

Of course those businesses leaving the state are not just fleeing higher income taxes, high taxes in almost every other category are a factor, as are the costs of suffocating regulations.

But for those paying the ultra-high income tax rates, no relief is in sight. California government employee unions, who represent the highest paid public workers in all 50 states, are fielding a ballot measure – Proposition 55 – that will extend the Proposition 30 tax increases for another 13 years.

There is little doubt that just the threat of extending these hyper income taxes, will spur more high earners, to depart. If Proposition 55 passes this November, there will be consequences for the California taxpayers who remain. When Sacramento runs out of higher income individuals to tax, they are certain to shift their attention to those of more modest means.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

This piece was originally published by HJTA.org

L.A. County Wants to Impose Local Income Tax

Photo courtesy of channone, flickr

Photo courtesy of channone, flickr

Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors have suggested an income tax on millionaires dedicating the money for homelessness relief. Opening the door for local governments to impose income taxes would erode the state’s major fund raising mechanism, burden taxpayers with more paperwork, hit small businesses whose owners pay business taxes through personal income taxes, and subject more government revenue to a highly volatile revenue source. All in all a bad idea.

Last week, when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill that would have permitted local governments to levy cigarette taxes, he complained that there already are too many taxes on the coming ballot. A push for an income tax would increase the volume of tax measures facing voters.

Yesterday, the L.A. Board of Supervisors put off for one week a motion to ask county lobbyists to try and convince legislators to change the law that prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing an income tax.

Still, Pandora’s Box on local income taxes has been cracked open. If the movement persists the consequences can be great.

The proposal to levy local income taxes comes at a time that a statewide effort to extend the Proposition 30 state income tax levies is on-going. California’s top income taxpayers already pay the highest income tax rate in the country.

L.A. County wants to pile on.

The L.A. County supervisors think they have a winning proposal. The press release announcing the effort said a poll showed 76 percent support. Advocates of the idea will point to 14 states that give permission for some local governments to raise income taxes. Of course, it’s always easy for those polled to say they are willing to raise taxes on someone else.

But what happens when there is an economic downturn? I dealt with that concern for the state last week considering the possibility of a Shakespearean Tragedy for the State Budget.  Looks like the locals want to stage a similar play.

When I write locals, I mean more than Los Angeles. If the Legislature decides to change the restrictions on local governments imposing an income tax, does anyone think other jurisdictions will sit ideally by? Los Angeles County supervisors say they want the money to help the homeless. There are a lot of other interests in communities around the state that consider the causes they believe in worthy of more economic help.

But, what about the taxpayers?

How long before local taxpayers who continue to get hit with increased tax rates throw up their hands and give up on Los Angeles and California? The burden continues to grow. Proposition 30 was sold as a temporary tax for seven years. Perhaps many high-end income taxpayers said they would weather the storm. However, those taxpayers are now looking at an additional twelve years of the highest income tax rate in the country BEFORE local governments jump on that gravy train.

In the Los Angeles County Business Federation (BizFed) poll of members issued last week, the number one concern for small business owners was the income tax.

Before anyone thinks the push for new taxes is only about the rich consider what likely might occur if government budgets relying on increased income tax revenue are hard hit during a recession or economic slowdown.

I remember reading about the Midwest congressman who announced on the floor of the House of Representatives in the early years of the 20th Century that he was voting for the amendment to the United States Constitution that would establish an income tax because his constituents wouldn’t pay the new tax. It was aimed at the rich.

The income tax eventually came after his constituents, too.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

In 2015, 45 Percent Of Americans Will Pay No Federal Income Taxes

 

The number of individuals and married couples paying no federal income tax has risen to 45.3 percent — up five percentage points from the Tax Policy Center’s original estimate two years ago.

The TPC forecasted in 2013 that the number of households not paying federal taxes would fall to 40.4 percent, crediting an improving economy and the expiration of temporary tax cuts designed to stimulate the economy.

New data from Joint Commission on Taxation led the TPC to cut the number of people paying federal income taxes by 3.9 million. In total, 77.5 million individuals and married couples — or tax units. as they are defined by the TPC – won’t pay income tax this year out of a total of 171.3 million. The previous estimate was for 66.2 million out of 163.8 million tax units not paying income tax in 2015.

A project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, the TPC believes the number of people paying no federal income taxes will fall over time though not as quickly as was first thought.

The number of non-income taxpayers has fallen consistently from 50 percent reached during the peak of the financial crisis in 2008.

Explaining the figures Tuesday on the TPC blog, Roberton Williams, Sol Price fellow for TPC, said it “doesn’t mean more Americans have moved off the tax rolls … the higher estimate reflects new and better estimates of the number of Americans who don’t file tax returns.”

Looking to the future, TPC estimates the number not paying tax will fall to 40 percent by 2025. The TPC’s estimates count those who don’t file their income taxes as paying no income tax but the blog caveats “that’s almost certainly not right.”

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney took heat after a tape was leaked of him drawing attention to the fact that 47 percent of Americans paid no federal income taxes.

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Romney told the audience. (RELATED: The real problem with Romney’s ‘47 percent’ gaffe)

He said “there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Follow Guy on Twitter

Who actually pays their “fair share” of taxes?

In recent years, claims that “the rich” don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes have been repeated countless times. But that excuse to tax them more to line others’ pockets is blown away whenever the highly disproportionate income tax burdens borne by higher earners are reported. As the Wall Street Journal titled a recent article,“Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax.” In fact, the top 1 percent of American earners earn about one-sixth of total income, but pay nearly as much in income taxes as everyone else combined.

Rather than abandon the electorally valuable false premise that such disproportionate burdens are justified, however, the political Left rallies to its cause. They try to rescue it by asserting that other taxes are regressive, so that taxes aren’t “really” so clearly unjustifiable as income tax burdens reveal. The featured players in that drama are state and local sales and excise taxes and Social Security taxes. Unfortunately, those taxes are also misrepresented to defend “fair share” misrepresentations.

Columnist Michael Hiltzik illustrated the state and local gambit in a tax-day column echoing charges that their sales and excise taxes “disproportionately hammer lower-income taxpayers,” with that alleged regressivity offsetting income tax unfairness.

That claim arises because those with lower current measured incomes spend a larger proportion of them on those taxes. However, as Edgar Browning has noted, “relative to lifetime income, there is very little difference in the percentage of income consumed among income classes.” As a result, apparent regressivity using current incomes is shown instead as “roughly proportional” to income in the more-appropriate lifetime context. Low current-income families also consume a multiple of their income, largely financed with government transfer payments excluded from income measures. That further exaggerates the share of their incomes going to such taxes.

The Social Security angle was illustrated in a Washington Post story a few days earlier. It argued that since Social Security taxes only apply to earned incomes up to $118,500, “the more money you make, the less your effective Social Security tax rate is, making this tax about as regressive as they come.” However, Social Security treats lower income workers far better than higher income workers.

Rather than being regressive, Social Security taxes are proportional to earned income up to the tax cap. So, for the vast majority of Americans who fall in that range, taxes rise apace with income. Beyond the cap, earnings are not subject to the tax. So for those earners, their average tax rates fall with further income. Only for them can one claim that despite paying more in total Social Security taxes, they pay a smaller percentage.

When one incorporates the fact that a great deal of income for low income households is government transfers that are not counted as official income nor subject to Social Security taxes, the picture changes. Years ago, the CBO found that incorporating such unmeasured income actually made Social Security taxes progressive for all but the top 20 percent of earners.

Even more important, Social Security’s supposed regressivity reflects only its taxes. But they generate retirement benefits, and evaluation must incorporate both. Doing so reveals Social Security as progressive.

For example, for a single earner retiring at 65 in 1993, Social Security replaced 59 percent of taxed income for low earners, 44 percent for average wage earners, but only 25 percent for an earner at the Social Security tax cutoff. Higher income earners received far smaller return on their contributions than average earners, and less than half that of lower earners. Taxation of benefits for higher income retirees now increases this difference. In terms of lifetime net benefits, in 1992 dollars, a single low earner retiring in 2000 would net $27,983 from the system, an average earner, $14,833, but a high income earner would lose $23,129.

Both approaches show Social Security does not benefit higher earners at the expense of lower earners. It actually redistributes income the other way.

Allegations that higher income earners don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes are a mainstay misrepresentation of the political left. And when facts such as income tax burdens get in the way, they double down with a defense that misrepresents state and local taxes and Social Security, as well. Unfortunately, that illustrates how important taking other peoples’ money is to their agenda and how unimportant the truth is in advancing it.

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University 

Humor and History on Day Tax

“April is the month when the green returns to the lawn, the trees — and the Internal Revenue Service.” So observed Evan Esar, a collector of humorous sayings who understood that humor is the ultimate therapy. All of us need this therapy now that tax time is here.

Fortunately, a rich vein of humor and wry observations exist about taxes to help us through this time.

When tax day comes, most citizens pay what they owe … or what they think they owe. Discovering what you owe can be a challenge. Even one of the century’s greatest geniuses, Albert Einstein said, “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.”

Humorist Will Rogers put it this way: “The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has. Even when you make a tax form out on the level, you don’t know when it’s through if you are a crook or a martyr.”

Indeed, taxes and golf are comparable. You drive your heart out for the green, and then end up in the hole.

The first income tax in this country was levied during Abraham Lincoln’s administration. Money was needed to fund the Union war effort. That income tax was repealed in 1872, seven years after the war ended.

Later attempts to bring back an income tax were thwarted by the United States Supreme Court, which declared the tax unconstitutional because it represented direct taxation on the citizenry. During the Civil War the Court had ignored this concern.

A constitutional amendment was necessary to establish an income tax. In arguing for such an amendment, proponents asserted that the income tax would only tax the rich. (Sound familiar with some of the tax increase strategies here in California?)

Rep. James Monroe Miller of Kansas said, “I stand here as a representative of the Republican Party of the central west to pledge you my word that the great western states will be found voting with you for an income tax. Why? Because they will not pay it!”

It was generally believed that residents of perhaps six wealthy industrial states in the Northeast would pay nearly all of the new income tax.

Well, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Editors of The Nation magazine warned at the time: “It is possible for a government to increase repeatedly the rates of such a tax.”

Or as Will Rogers put it: “Noah must have taken into the Ark two taxes, one male and one female. And did they multiply bountifully! Next to guinea pigs, taxes must have been the most prolific animals.”

In 1913 the 16th Amendment was passed, which allowed Congress authority to directly tax a citizen’s income.

The first year under the income tax, 357,598 Form 1040s were filed. Yes, the form carried that famous number even then. (Jay Leno explains Form 1040: For every $50 you earn, you get $10 and they get $40!)

The tax rate was one percent on incomes above $3,000 and rose to seven percent on incomes above half a million. This first income tax affected only one percent of the population.

Before the 16th Amendment, tariffs and excise taxes provided 90 percent of the federal revenue.

By 1920, the income tax was the dominant revenue raiser for the federal government. Middle income taxpayers were hit by the income tax to help fund World War I. Top tax rates eventually climbed to 91 percent before President John F. Kennedy proposed cutting them.

Taxes increase and government expands in times of crisis. Great growth in government and taxes occurred when this country began, during the Great Depression and when at war, particularly, the Civil War, World War I and World War II. American Patriot Thomas Paine saw this clearly at the nation’s founding. “War involves … unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances … but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes.”

As a people, we have always been wary of taxes. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall is often quoted from his groundbreaking decision in McCulloch v Maryland (1819): “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

However, 109 years later another Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendall Holmes, wrote: “The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.”

On the façade of the mammoth IRS building in Washington, D. C., other renowned words of Justice Holmes are chipped in stone: Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.

It should be noted, however, that Holmes made his famous remark in 1904 before the income tax was sanctioned. Taxes at that time took about seven percent of average incomes.

But even in Holmes’ day there were complaints about taxes. Two years before Holmes issued his famous saying, Mark Twain wrote in his notebook, “What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin.”

Of course, we need money to run the government. The argument is over how much and how it is spent.

Will Rogers recognized the problem in his inimitable way. “Of course we know our government is costing us more than its worth, but do you know of any cheaper government that’s running around? … You can try Russia! There’s no income tax in Russia, but there’s no income.”

Still, today the IRS has hundreds of different tax forms, plus pages of additional information to explain how to fill out those forms. The original Tax Code had 11,400 words; today it has over 7 million.

Despite the complexity, taxes are not avoidable and woe to him or her who tries evasion. Al Capone got away with vice, and he got away with murder, but he didn’t get away with not paying his taxes.

So we have to pay our taxes.

For most of us, however, tax time has us simply agreeing with Mark Twain’s admonishment, “[I] shall never use profanity except in discussing (house rent) and taxes.”

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Joel Fox is Editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee

Eliminate the State Income Tax

During a discussion at the 2015 Cal Tax Annual Members meeting, I called for a meaningful public discourse on tax reform ideas that makes life easier for taxpayers. I suggested replacing California’s income tax with a sales tax on services.

If you want real tax reform, we ought to look at eliminating the state’s personal and corporate income tax. One less tax agency would make California a far more attractive place for jobs, retirees and investment.

If California eliminated income tax more companies would base themselves in California. Also, more residents would stay in the state upon retirement, leading to more revenue for the State of California.

Seven states do not have an income tax. Those states include Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

True tax reform makes tax systems simpler, rather than more complicated. Senate Bill 8 (Hertzberg), which would extend sales tax to services, is a massive tax increase. In its current form the legislation would make California’s tax system more complicated and add thousands of state auditors and tax collectors to state payrolls.

Any shift to a broader reliance on sales tax must be combined with real tax reform that removes barriers to doing business in our state. Don’t be seduced by false reform that makes California’s tax code more complicated for everyone.

A dynamic economic modeling of the likely benefits of an elimination of income tax and a shift to a consumption-based tax system is needed. Businesses should conduct their own modeling to weigh the pros and cons of such a structure.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

George Runner is Member of the California State Board of Equalization, District 1

CA High Taxes Drive NFL Players to Other States … Teams

Last month, prompted by the efforts to build a Los Angeles football stadium and lure an NFL team, I commented on how Proposition 13’s tax vote provisions were influential in the moves and countermoves on the stadium debate over public funding. But, the state’s sky-high income tax also is a factor when individual players consider accepting free agent contracts with California teams.

When All-Pro tackle Ndamukong Suh decided to leave the Detroit Lions he considered an offer from the Oakland Raiders. However, he ended up accepting an offer from the Miami Dolphins for $60 million.

A commentary on the sports website ESPN made the following point:

Florida doesn’t have any state income tax, so in order for the Lions and the Raiders to match the after tax net earnings on a $60 million guarantee, the Lions would have had to pay Suh approximately $64.9 million and the Raiders would have had to pay $70.1 million, said sports tax specialist Robert Raiola, senior manager at the accounting firm O’Connor Davis in New York.

The California Taxpayers Association published a more detailed examination of California’s tax rate on NFL player contracts:

All teams in the National Football League operate under a league-imposed salary cap, but because the cap ($143,280,000 for 2015) is not adjusted for states’ differing income tax burdens, California teams are at a disadvantage because the Golden State has the highest income tax rate in the nation. “Teams in states with low or no income tax have a huge advantage in that they can offer vastly more money to prospective free agents. The difference between teams in Washington, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida, where no state income tax is levied, versus those in California, which takes a whopping 13.3 percent, is staggering – $19.1 million. To put that difference in perspective, $19.1 million after taxes is more than any player in the NFL has ever earned per year, meaning teams in taxless states can essentially afford a California roster plus the most expensive player in NFL history on top of that each and every year.”

The state’s income tax may even cost sporting events to take place in California. While boxers Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather have finally decided to duke it out this coming May in Las Vegas, there was serious talk of a Pacquiao-Mayweather fight back in 2009. At that time, the Los Angeles Staples Center arena offered a $20 million site fee to host the event. As I wrote in my Fox and Hounds column at the time,Pacquiao’s business advisor threw cold water on the offer.

Noting that Paciquino would have to pay millions in taxes to California under the current 10.55% top tax rate, the advisor said the fighter didn’t want to fight in California when there were alternatives in no income tax states like Texas and Nevada.

And now the California tax rate is up to 13.3 percent.

Originally published at Fox and Hounds Daily

Joel Fox is Editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee