Not sure I agree. This assumes the group of rich people is static. If it’s dynamic (akin to companies coming into/falling out of S&P 500), it shouldn’t be an issue. As long as wealth grows, it’s solved for.
A side effect of the very politically popular idea of taxing the rich more and more: the fate of your government programs becomes more and more structurally dependent on the volatile fortunes of an ultra-small group of ultra-rich people.https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1043850488750452736 …
-
-
-
Do you think this issue hasn’t been repeatedly analyzed using actual California state tax returns in aggregate multiple times over the last, I dunno, 15 years? https://lao.ca.gov/publications/report/3703 … https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/8 …pic.twitter.com/Qr3rdVIYoy
-
@jerrybrowngov literally brings out several oversized large printed charts on this during every budget presentation he gives. He especially likes this one of California capital gains tax revenue since the 1990s.pic.twitter.com/HgvzxzVykL
-
Fair enough - was responding from the perspective of national tax policy (which if there is research out there that debunks it, feel free to share). From a. California perspective I agree - much smaller base so the group is less dynamic
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is very weird to frame this precarity as the consequence of the tax code, rather than escalating wealth/income concentration.
-
I framed it that way bc the left often frames it that way, that you can just tax the rich, problem solved. California does do that more than anywhere else in the US but it’s problematically implemented, let alone the fact that it’s insufficient.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The question of whether and how much to rely on the rich is different from tax whether and how much to tax the rich. Tax the rich because nobody should have obscene wealth. So even if we find a tax system that doesn’t *rely* on taxing the rich, we should still tax the rich.
-
This is not an argument not to have progressive taxation. It’s just about making people aware of a very important and consequential side effect that few people understand.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If our economy continues (as it has for over 4 decades) to redistribute an obscene amount of wealth to a smaller and smaller proportion of the population, at the expense of working people, it is absolutely appropriate under a progressive taxation system, to expect more from them.
-
I am not arguing for more regressive taxation.
-
Yes, and thanks. Was not suggesting that. But for some that is the answer to volatility. The concentration of wealth and income in so few zip codes is a manifestation of the almost unfathomable and corrosive increase in inequality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@kimmaicutler Do you happen to already know how income volatility of top 1% compares to broader population? Feels like one of those situations where even a few thousand individuals might be diversified enough that structural effects matter more than population size... -
Thanks - really enlightening! Going deeper down the rabbit hole, looks like another popular target for progressive taxation, corp tax, swings even more: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/08/29/tax-revenue-volatility-varies-across-states-revenue-streams …. I guess correlation is sneaky and tax policy is hard...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't this a reason we should have pro middle class/anti wealth inequality policies vs just "don't tax the wealthy too much or they will leave"? The former will solve structurally. Latter only perpetuates issue.
-
Probably. I don’t know how those policies would be structured though.
-
One thing is for sure: at least at the edges, the claim that the rich will just leave will be an argument in use for every single one of them.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Ha, I showed this to a friend and this was their response: > Can California’s next governor fix the state’s problems? It depends on Palo Alto. Then no.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In addition to getting a huge tax deduction they also get to decide the use of that $--and with billionaires it is often for their view/vision of the world--they get a twofer. If they paid taxes instead, we would have a say in how $ is spent through our elected officials.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.