Wealthy Taxpayers Could Take a Hit in These 8 States

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRLLS How exactly is this not a state plan?

At any given time there are always thousands of ideas, some of which progress to proposed bills, but very few are actually given legitimate consideration, and even fewer reach the floor for full votes. Most are little more than partisan rhetoric or symbolic acts. A state plan would be a program or legislative action that has been approved and is underway, or at least on the path toward that status.

There is no evidence that the article in the OP has reached that possibility. Until then it’s another proposal among many, not a plan, and useful here just to engage in anti-tax rants and rhetoric.

[Montecfo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aja8888 I think they like "the successful" so they can tax their successes. They really don't want them to leave.

what could go wrong?

[Ronstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB At any given time there are always thousands of ideas, some of which progress to proposed bills, but very few are actually given legitimate consideration, and even fewer reach the floor for full votes. Most are little more than partisan rhetoric or symbolic acts. A state plan would be a program or legislative action that approved and underway, or at least on the path toward that status. There is no evidence that the article in the OP has reached that possibility. Until then it’s another proposal among many, not a plan, and useful here just to engage in anti-tax rants and rhetoric.

I understand that Illinois hasn't formally approved a wealth tax plan, but 2 high ranking Illinois politicians have their own "plans" for tax increases.

One from Governor Pritzker - a graduated income tax plan, and Rep Guzzardi's "wealth tax" plan.

Granted neither of these plans have been formally introduced in the new Illinois legislative session that is just starting, but these are still plans by Illinois politicians.

In Illinois, a politician's tax plan would have to be formally introduced as a bill, the bill would have to pass by vote, and the Governor would have to sign into law before new taxes are put into place.

That could take a while, but I suspect that something along these lines will happen in Illinois.

I have not seen the term "state plan" in any of my readings. Once a politician introduces his or her plan as a bill, it remains a bill until it becomes law or until the bill gets killed. But a politician's plan is still their plan IMO.

https://news.wttw.com/2023/01/19/wea...-new-proposals

How a bill becomes law in Illinois:
https://illinoispsychology.org/58/

[ncbill]

the very wealthy will just domicile in a no-tax state like TN.

they can still keep their former residence, maybe move it into a trust (e.g. "79 Wistful Vista, Peoria, IL")

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar I understand that Illinois hasn't formally approved a wealth tax plan, but 2 high ranking Illinois politicians have their own "plans" for tax increases. One from Governor Pritzker - a graduated income tax plan, and Rep Guzzardi's "wealth tax" plan. Granted neither of these plans have been formally introduced in the new Illinois legislative session that is just starting, but these are still plans by Illinois politicians. In Illinois, a politician's tax plan would have to be formally introduced as a bill, the bill would have to pass by vote, and the Governor would have to sign into law before new taxes are put into place. That could take a while, but I suspect that something along these lines will happen in Illinois. I have not seen the term "state plan" in any of my readings. Once a politician introduces his or her plan as a bill, it remains a bill until it becomes law or until the bill gets killed. But a politician's plan is still their plan IMO. https://news.wttw.com/2023/01/19/wea...-new-proposals How a bill becomes law in Illinois: https://illinoispsychology.org/58/

A work friend, when asked for specific plans, used to say “I have a plan to make a plan”. That’s what this (OP link) sounds like. Elected officials and aspirants always have a plan - but it is little more than a plan to make a real plan should the opportunity arise.

My only point is this thread is a straw man. There are always lots of people with ideas on how to raise taxes, and just as many with ideas to do the opposite. Most never see the light of day, which is a good thing.

[Ronstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB A work friend, when asked for specific plans, used to say “I have a plan to make a plan”. That’s what this (OP link) sounds like. Elected officials and aspirants always have a plan - but it is little more than a plan to make a real plan should the opportunity arise. My only point is this thread is a straw man. There are always lots of people with ideas on how to raise taxes, and just as many with ideas to do the opposite. Most never see the light of day, which is a good thing.

I agree for the most part. There will be a lot of ideas being bantered about, and maybe that will lead to nothing. It has lead to nothing so far. But now Illinois isn't alone in this. There are 7 other states proposing new taxes. Maybe the politicians think that there will be less backlash if other states are proposing something similar.

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister Sign me up! I would love to be wealthy enough to be hit by such a deal.

I would too. Then I'd move.

[ownyourfuture]

This thread reminded me of the following.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ould-run-us-g/

[KarenF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 So you have to run the slideshow to find the 8 states? Too much clickbait. Anyway I can guess well enough.

It lists them in the article.
Fund Our Future members include Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, California, Maryland, Washington, Connecticut and Illinois.

I had to google how many billionaires in Georgia - google says 18.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardsFan So, another proposition to "stick it to the ultra-rich" that will generate very nominal revenue for the states involved. Of course these people can "move" whenever they feel like it. This is politics, not tax policy.

+1
I've mentioned in several threads that it all sounds nice but fails to address reality. The wealthy have far too many options for any of these schemes to work.

Growing up, we had two different neighbors who were "tax exiles" from the UK. Just this past year, my half-time state of Massachusetts passed a 4% surtax on incomes over one million (AFAIK from the first dollar) on top of our 5% flat rate income tax.

Gee, ya think these millionaires don't have a second home in NH or FL? Instead of staying away for five winter months, why not stay in lovely Palm Beach another six weeks? I can think of 40,000 good reasons to do so! Ya think they don't have their accountants working overtime to make sure they only make $999.99k?

It's all so idiotic. You can't "get" these people.

[financemups]

good grief so many dog whistles and gross takes in the comments

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko +1 I've mentioned in several threads that it all sounds nice but fails to address reality. The wealthy have far too many options for any of these schemes to work. Growing up, we had two different neighbors who were "tax exiles" from the UK. Just this past year, my half-time state of Massachusetts passed a 4% surtax on incomes over one million (AFAIK from the first dollar) on top of our 5% flat rate income tax.

A neighbor’s wealthy though certainly not super-rich brother used to live in New England and winter in Florida. Now he lives in Florida and summers in New England.

[target2019]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cathy63 Here's an article about the plan from WaPo. The slideshow above adds Minnesota to the list in this article. https://wapo.st/3Hkgteg

Thanks for the gift!

Quote:

“The point here is to make sure we do at the state level what is not being done at the federal level,” said Gustavo Rivera (D), a New York state senator who is part of the seven-state group.

I know why NJ is not in the list. Our plan is to attract more Billionaires so we can have bigger parties at their expense.

[Bdarr]

"Greed is good"…I have always been amused by the anti tax people. Just saying. The majority of who I know who bloviate about it are collecting Social security and many VA tax free disability. Then of course there is old and new money. So before you jump on they earned it wagon, let's be clear todays tax payers pay for the services we have and the benefits one gets, not your past taxes. Well there is far more to the story, buy selfish greed and envy are everybody's sin! Cheers. if ya need a safe place I have a airbnb for ya

[M Paquette]

Quite a few places tax capital gains just like any other income.

The wealth tax, taxing our intangible assets, should bother any of us ER folks who have a few hundred million socked away to help cover our retirement expenses. Washington state is threatening to tax intangibles over just $250,000,000, a mere quarter billion dollars!

If we’re trying to scrape by on a 3% withdrawal rate, only $7,500,000/year, we will somehow have to come up with an extra $2,500,000 a year in revenue annually to cover the tax bill on that $250,000,000 in assets! At current CD rates, that’s just barely achievable with some careful shopping around.

Rough times, indeed!

(I’ll get my tongue out of my cheek now…)

[MarieIG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau I would too. Then I'd move.

I remember our former governor commenting to the effect - come back, I'll cook you dinner!

[dmpi]

It's isn't like the 60s. The whole world has been modernized. Even with a few million you can easily immigrate to another country and set up shop over there. A billionaire probably already has a few places overseas. It's a bad idea to unjustly pick on people who has the means to just take their money and resources and go somewhere else.

[EastWest Gal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut If you think this will only tax the ultra rich take a look at what is going on in Washington state where an excise tax on capital gains of the ultra rich has been on the books for only two years. The original bill taxed gains over $250,000 at 7%. Note the proposed changes below. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion...to-was-future/ “The initial excise tax is 7%, and targets higher earners, but there is already a bill in front of the 2023 Legislature to raise the tax to 8.5% and lower the payment threshold to $15,000 of capital gains income — while the case is still in front of the courts! That is just the beginning. If the court allows it, you can expect cities and counties in our state to also create “excises” taxes that they can collect outside their geographic boundaries. “ Will the state SC throw it out. I don’t know.

Washington state does not have an income tax.

In Pennsylvania, all income is taxed equally, whether it is from business, employment, capital gains, interest, dividends. Our state income tax is 3.07%. Retirement income is not taxed-Social Security, IRA and 401K distributions. Many billionaires have their excess wealth invested diversely, so, except for the times the market is down, they are generally making more than they can spend.

FireCALC predicts my wealth will increase on an average 4-fold by the time we are in our 90s, spending at the same level I'm spending now. If the choice is increasing taxes to the wealthiest or cutting services to the neediest (children, poor elderly, disabled), I can't see much that is unfair about that. A cut to Social Security would impact a billionaire not at all but could mean the difference between doing without food, a roof over their head, medication, or heat for a disabled person. I was paying utility bills for a disabled friend until she finally SSDI.

And anyone living in the expensive areas where the climate is temperate can see the rise in homelessness. That affects everyone's quality of life. The last time I was in SF (2018) it was a pretty miserable experience compared to the 1970s when I hung out with friends there as a teenager.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Quite a few places tax capital gains just like any other income. The wealth tax, taxing our intangible assets, should bother any of us ER folks who have a few hundred million socked away to help cover our retirement expenses. Washington state is threatening to tax intangibles over just $250,000,000, a mere quarter billion dollars! If we’re trying to scrape by on a 3% withdrawal rate, only $7,500,000/year, we will somehow have to come up with an extra $2,500,000 a year in revenue annually to cover the tax bill on that $250,000,000 in assets! At current CD rates, that’s just barely achievable with some careful shopping around. Rough times, indeed! (I’ll get my tongue out of my cheek now…)

MPaquette, glad you posted! It's been a while. You have such a great sense of humor. I think if 3% was "only" $7,500,000/year for me, I would be totally confused at tax time. LOL

[marinauser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar +1. Need to have assets over $1 billion in Illinois to pay the tax. According to the internet, Illinois has 24 billionaires. Not sure how much tax they will generate from 24 people.

They will get zero if those 24 people decide to move to another state. More importantly, if that happens, Illinois will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue that they already collect from those 24. When Ken Griffin left, that was over $200 million in income tax lost each year. According to one report, "the top 18 percent of Illinois taxpayers cover more than 60 percent of the state’s income taxes, and the state’s millionaires pay 15 percent of Illinois’ income taxes." When NJ threatened a billionaire tax, David Tepper moved to Florida and NJ lost an estimated $140 million in annual tax revenue. Not sure if he is still in FL or not.