LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubcgyn wrote on October 30, 2022 at 12:45 AM

They tried this millionaires tax in Maryland and they said it would raise $106 million. Take a wild guess what happened:

>Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Oopsie.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703976804575114241782001262

ManWithTheCats t1_iubfbhi wrote on October 30, 2022 at 1:09 AM

You left three different responses to this post, so I’ll just go with this one. They send jobs elsewhere when taxes go up? Not when the state in question has the people capable of doing the technical work that their businesses depend on. You think the modern sectors (computers, biotech) are going to move their operations to backasswards states populated by people who think that Jesus planted dinosaur bones as a test of their faith? Manual labor may leave, but good riddance. The uneducated mopes who voted for capitalist scammers and religious fundamentalists can have those jobs. Oh, and why are all the decent paying jobs in the liberal states? Because we tax rich fucks to pay for education. Without that (and government subsidy), you don’t have a modern economy. Peace out.

LetsPlayCanasta t1_iubg38k wrote on October 30, 2022 at 1:15 AM

OMG, so SO much is wrong in this but I'll leave with one question: why does Massachusetts need a new tax on "rich fucks to pay for education" when we already have the highest education level in the entire country?

Tesla, Oracle, and Hewlett Packard say "hello" from Texas.

GreyTweedHat t1_iucltgp wrote on October 30, 2022 at 8:53 AM

The moved their HQs. To avoid taxes. They didn’t close their facilities in CA, that would be suicide because the majority of their Silicon Valley talent wouldn’t move to Texas even for a decent raise. California has its problems for sure, but if it were it’s own country it’s GDP would be…9th in the world, IIRC? It’ll be just fine because a few rich libertarians moved their HQs. The companies are almost certainly incorporated in Delaware, anyhow. It’s all a stupid game.

If you think education is well funded in MA I invite you to examine the facilities in our towns. In my affluent town, my children went to elementary school in a building older than the one I attended 40 years ago. Their middle school has a room that cannot be used because there is sewage coming up from the floor.

I can’t imagine how bad schools are in these low tax states.

I for one would love to have the millionaires’ problems. And I’m reasonably well off, the majority of these new taxes won’t have a major direct benefit on my family. But it has the potential to help those less fortunate than me, which is good on its own but also helps everyone indirectly.

Also, you know that tax rates have been dropping for decades right? Like in 1955, there was a federal income top marginal tax rate of 90%.

This millionaire tax will come nowhere near balancing the scales for the privileges the rich benefit from. Maybe it’ll lessen the misery of the poorest, though. Worth a shot.

socialist_frzn_milk t1_iubjrls wrote on October 30, 2022 at 1:45 AM

The only thing worse than bitchy millionaires whining about paying pennies more in taxes are the miserable, sniveling simps who lick their boots.

asoneth t1_iud8up1 wrote on October 30, 2022 at 1:29 PM

It is also my concern that the 9% top rate is just too high compared to comparable and neighboring states and could lead to a drop in net revenue.

A Tufts analysis projected that this would likely not be the case:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

However, there is substantial uncertainty here, especially in the long-run, that this end up going the scales for a lot of people, lower net tax revenue, and force cuts to state budgets.

Given that, I'm frankly mystified why the "no on 1" ads went with a "sympathy for multi-millionaires" angle instead of "risk of capital flight" angle.