How High Will California's Taxes Go Before There's No One Left To Tax?

The new taxes lawmakers are proposing to fund a universal health care system will likely drive even more Californians out of the state.


As the mad scientist laboratory for bad tax policy in America, California is constantly striving to come up with poorly designed and harmful taxes to pay for ever-increasing spending. But even by its own lofty standards, California has truly outdone itself with its latest proposal to fund a state single-payer health care system.

A proposed constitutional amendment, ACA 11, would accomplish the unlikely goal of making the taxes that California currently demands from its residents look restrained. Not only would the proposed $163 billion in new tax revenue nearly double last year's total revenue for the tax-happy state, but California would structure these new taxes in such a way as to be even more harmful than doubled tax liabilities already imply.

The bill would raise the additional revenue through three taxes: a 2.3 percent gross receipts tax on business revenues (with an exemption for the first $2 million in profits), a 1.25 percent payroll tax on businesses with 50 or more employees (with an increased rate for wages paid to employees making over $49,900), and 0.5 percent to 2.5 percent increases to the personal income tax rate depending on income.

It's hard to say which of these is the "worst," but the 2.3 percent gross receipts tax sticks out. That gross receipts taxes are an awful way to structure a business tax is one of the few things that tax policy experts across the political spectrum almost universally agree on. That's because they make no allowance for the large variance in profit margins that different types of businesses make—whether a business has a profit margin of 0.1 percent or 10 percent, it would still have to pay the same percentage of its total revenues.

That's a problem with any gross receipts tax, but California's proposed tax would exacerbate this inherent problem with a rate that is three times the level of the nation's current highest. The higher the gross receipts tax rate, the more low-margin businesses that could be put in a position where operating in California would lose them money.

Almost as bad is the proposal to institute a payroll tax on businesses with 50 or more employees. Not only are payroll taxes a regressive tax (even if the tax is imposed on the employer, it would be passed on to employees in the form of lower wages), but the 50-employee threshold would create an obvious disincentive for businesses to hire their 50th employee.

On top of that, the additional 1 percent payroll tax on wages paid to employees making $50,000 would punish employers for paying a wage that is tens of thousands of dollars below the median household income in the state. Taken together, the payroll tax would discourage both hiring employees and paying them higher wages, a disastrous outcome for workers.

Even the blandest proposed tax increase of the three, increases to individual income tax rates, is badly structured. Combined with the payroll tax proposal, taxpayers would effectively be subject to an 18-bracket tax structure with a top marginal tax rate of 18.05 percent. Combined with the 37 percent top federal individual income tax rate, wealthy Californians could expect to have to hand over more than half their income.

Not only would all these tax increases hurt the state's residents, but they would also exacerbate a trend that California appears to have its head in the sand about: overtaxed businesses and individuals fleeing for greener pastures. The latest release of IRS tax migration data, covering 2018 through 2019, shows that California lost over 71,000 taxpayers and over $8.8 billion in adjusted gross income. U-Haul's 2021 data had California as the worst in the country for net outward migration.

At the same time, the "tech flight" phenomenon of innovative companies fleeing California for lower-tax climates is very real: One analysis found that 265 companies moved their headquarters out of California in just the period between January 2018 and July 2021. It's hard to imagine that that trend wouldn't go into overdrive should ACA 11 succeed.

But California has long refused to acknowledge that there are consequences to squeezing its citizens for every dollar it can get. In fact, another recent proposal to institute a 0.4 percent wealth tax would have attempted to subject taxpayers to the tax on a sliding scale for 10 years after they had left the state—a requirement that would almost surely be unconstitutional.

If the harm that these tax proposals would inflict upon its residents is not enough of an incentive for California to consider the consequences of its actions, then perhaps the steady erosion of its tax base will be. There are many broken things that need fixing in California, but massive new middle class and small business tax increases would be yet another enormous leap in the wrong direction.

NEXT: Genetically Modified Pig Heart Successfully Transplanted Into a Patient

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I started making $ 155 / hour in my spare time doing tasks with my laptop that I got from this company I stumbled upon online… Check it out and start earning yourself. I can say that my life has completely improved! Take a look at what I’m doing… ..CLICK NOW

    1. Nancy, you should be able to make more money per hour with your laptop at Onlyfans.

      1. A punster AND a porn surfer, I see.

        1. Word play isn’t the only place I have stroke.

          1. Well done.

            1. Hobbies include YouToobin.

              1. I started making $ 155 / hour in my spare time doing tasks with my laptop that I got from this company I stumbled upon online… Check it out and start earning yourself. I can say that my life has completely improved! Take a look at what I'm doing… ..
                For more details, visit the given link …… .. >>> Visit Here

      2. $155 an hour is a joke, other scammers promise thousands per hour, if your going to scam, go BIG!

    2. "The bill would raise the additional revenue through three taxes: a 2.3 percent gross receipts tax on business revenues (with an exemption for the first $2 million in profits), a 1.25 percent payroll tax on businesses with 50 or more employees (with an increased rate for wages paid to employees making over $49,900), and 0.5 percent to 2.5 percent increases to the personal income tax rate depending on income."

      Note that the Woke are not taxing *wealth* a penny more.

  2. Remind me. I can visit California for 29 days at a time without becoming a resident? I used to live there and I'd love to spend time there when retired...

    1. Just don't accidentally stay for that 30th day. They consider you to be a "resident" until you've been gone for 481 days when you leave, not that they have any ability to keep collecting most taxes from you during that time.

    2. It is also noteworthy that they lay claim to every dollar you earn while working here in excess of like 2 weeks. My company started requiring employees who travel a lot to enter which states they worked in, for what period of time, precisely because various states are becoming dicks about this.

  3. Hey, no problemo. They'll just build a wall and plant minefields to keep productive people from leaving, as any good Communist country would do.

    1. Has that ever been done before...wait.

    2. I'm in on that wall and the progductive people who already left need to be sent back.

    3. No, the goal is to transfer the budget to the federal government.

      1. as long as the BIG GUY gets his 10%

  4. They’ll need to pass a new exit tax as well.

    1. You mean a fart fee?

    2. you can check out .... but you can never leave ......

  5. They have already implimented an exit tax for large companies that leave

    1. One company that I know of spent several years building down their California footprint, because they saw the exit penalties coming. They created new companies in several free states, all of which were subsidiaries of a new company incorporated in one of those states, then the original company licensed their products to them.

      All expansion, new equipment, new hiring, etc was done in those new companies, and over a period of several years, the top execs from the original company "accepted offers" to go run those other operations, and -- lo and behold! -- they didn't sign NDAs, so they took their client lists and a few key employees with them! They also took enough stock that they are still majority stakeholders.

      The managers who stayed continued to wind down the California former headquarters location. Then came Covid, they were closed down by Der F.U.-rher, and went bankrupt. The new "main" company bought them for pennies, and now runs the old HQ as a subsidiary, on a shoestring. Little production is done there now, and most of the equipment has been sold off (the good stuff was bought by out-of-state companies, the rest has been cycling through Ebay). The facility is now used mostly as a design hub and for training, and those newcomers who show promise are contacted by "headhunters" representing the three new companies.

      They saved MILLIONS of dollars in corporate and personal taxes by doing it that way, everything was perfectly within the law, and still they are out of the reach of Taxramento.

  6. Good news is that state tax increases need to be approved by a supermajority of the legislature. Bad news is that the Democrats have a supermajority. Good news is that they're not all Newsomites.

    The thing about a one party system, is that the one party still has factions, and they're not all on the radical fringe. So passage of this massive new tax scheme is unlikely.

    1. It's an election year for Newsom, and I'd love to think this was just Newsom trying to head off any primary challengers to his left.

      I don't see any legitimate challengers emerging. I think he's doing this because--left to his own devices--this is what he really wants to do.

      1. The only politician to Newsom's left is Kim Jong Un.

        1. dontcha know that N.Korea is "not real socialism". but "state capitalism", so that would make Kim Jong Un on the right.

    2. This is the same state whose legislature overturned the gay marriage ban after the state voted for it in 2008. Are you really this dumb?

      1. Requirements for tax increases are in the Constitution. The gay marriage ban thing did not need a supermajority.

        1. The new health tax they are trying to pass explicitly only requires a majority for future increases dummy.

          How are you this ignorant about your own state?

      2. The legislature didn't overturn the gay marriage ban. It was voided by judicial fiat of a baby nazgul.

        1. Like Prop 187.

          The weakness in US constitutional representative democracy was that there was insufficient defense against a faithless Deep State betraying the country and using the power they held in trust for their own purposes.

          Thus the Supremes ended the US Constitution when it ruled that Texas and 17 other states that joined them had "no standing" to contest election corruption in other states that they would be bound by.

          It's sort of a relief to no longer worry about the rule of law and the constitution, knowing that they're over. Saves a lot of aggravation.

          Yeah, of course it's all corruption, but there's no point in arguing about it. It's not like they don't know.

    3. That makes sense. They couldn't all be weirdos, which might be an artifact of letting my YT recommends trend "critical of weirdos".

      The Californians I know aren't crazy. They might have a weakness for preferring "wanting to be cool" to actual critical thinking (in the old sense), but they're not crazy.

  7. I really hope they actually do this. Because then it would finally force me to move out of state.

    It's as if they purposely want to force all of their voters out because they know that so many are so fucking dumb they will continue to vote for this after they leave. People who leave CA because of their policies and continue to vote democrat are locusts.

    1. A huge portion of their voters are already on public assistance ($49,900/year is barely a living wage in the places where 2/3 of the state's population lives), or operate in an under-the-table cash economy that avoids a lot of these taxes anyway.

      This'll definitely drive out the 0.1% of the population that they expect to pay the freight on everything, but they'll still be able to collect some taxes from those people since they'll likely keep their vacation homes in places like Tahoe, Malibu, and Balboa Island.

    2. Cancer, metastatic cancer.

    3. I'm in the same boat- We have fought leaving because I don't want to move my kids while they are in High School or Middle School. It is my hope that this can hold out for 8 more years, and then these fuckers can have this goddamn state.

    4. I live in OC, which is a great place. I’m retired so a lot of this BS hasn’t affected me. But I worry that if these ideas are implemented it won’t be long before all the productive people leave and California turns into Detroit.

      1. You will live there long enough to wish that it had STOPPED at the level of Detroit.

        1. Oooh, is that the Chinse curse thing? Like, "May you live in interesting times." or "We pray you a long, long life with a great variety of experiences".

  8. If we went back to federalism then California could keep some of their federal taxes that go to taker states like KY and Alabama and not have to raise taxes.

    Everyone would be better off.

    1. If they have univeral state coverage, they no longer need to pay for medicare/medicaid. They can save there, and once CA gets out of those programs, other states will be able to follow. It would be a big leap forward toward more federalism.

      1. Funny, I've always associated federalism with less government, not more.

        But then of course that is going to depend upon which tyranny you choose to live in. Probably the only way the US is ever going to make it as a country.

        1. More government for CA means less government for everybody else once the damn breaks on medicare. CA can burden itself as much as it wants. The people of CA should get what they want, hard and fast.

        2. Also, federalism is more state government less federal. A state may wish to have as much or as little government as its people choose. Federalism is more about who has the power, not how much. I dont want people in CA deciding what is best for people in WY and vice versa. Then you can vote with your feet.

          1. Yes, I understand that. And as you say I am totally in agreement. If some dumb son of a bitch chooses to live in a place like CA or NJ, then they can reap what they have sown [or voted for]. Meanwhile these providiots do not get to impose their beliefs onto me.

            If all we do is maintain a common currency and defense, and a constitutional understanding of "interstate commerce" [and that would be pre FDR] so much the better; though I am inclined to doubt that the legislatures of such states would vote to send troops to fight any battles on our behalf. Just as likely we would end of fighting against them or that they would ally with countries like China.

            Damn, I'm starting to sound like Townhall [channeling Kurt Schlichter]!

      2. Oh don't worry, they'll keep both "options".

    2. That’s racist. No-go.

    3. California gets more federal tax money back than 10 supposedly taker states get totally. It's the number 1 state in returned money You need to update your talking points.

      1. Why when they can rely on a masters thesis that ignored and didn't control for social security, medicaid, and other retirement taxes.

        1. . . .and didn't even CONSIDER the Federal taxes that they pushed off onto the taxpayers of other states . . .

    4. California barely pays any extra in Federal compared to what it receives. The state getting fucked in that regard is NY.

  9. On average, when a business provides health insurance for employees, does it cost more or less than the proposed taxes?

    1. I see so many dumb people sayin things like "well actually it will cost less if the government does it"... as if that has been true about anything in the last 100 years.

      They are either really that dumb, or just completely lying.

      Even if it was cheaper, which it's not, Government monopolies are immoral and an affront to personal freedom.

      1. Their fantasy imaginations of profit are out of proportion with reality,

      2. There is a reason Progressives love yoga and meditation. Emptying the mind of rational thought creates a safe space for irrational optimism.

        1. +1, volumetric analysis.

      3. I think that when people say that they mean it. They'll argue that because government doesn't waste money on profits for rich people, that government is more efficient. What they don't understand is that profits are the price we pay for efficiency. Take profits out of the picture and there's no incentive to innovate or root out waste.
        That's why literally everything government does costs more than if it was done by the private sector.

        1. Theoretically it doesn’t have to be less efficient for the government to do it.

          We just need a different kind of person.

          1. "We just need a different kind of person."

            This time it is going to different and they'll get socialism right!

            "GIMME an E, GIMME a Q..."

          2. Closer to the TOP?

          3. Those people don’t exist. Incentives matter.

        2. They also assume we are governed by pious saints, with no grift or corruption possible. Rich people profit on the government even more than they do the free market

        3. I dunno. Almost 30 years ago Hillary (as 2nd President and Health System Reform Czar) had a plan that converted those insurance company "paper pushers" into useful doctors and nurses. My wife worked in insurance at the time and I vividly remember how Hillary spat out the "P" in "paper pushers", as sour and expectorant as if she were saying "Profit!".

          She avoided arrest despite my complaints that she insulted my wife, and evades law enforcement to this day. He magic plan disappeared with her.

      4. Honestly, it would cost less if the government did it. That is because there wouldn't be as much service. Hip implant - wait 1 year. Oh, you need x - there is a long waiting long.

        One of the reason it is expensive is the government currently.

        Scarcest words in the English language "I'm from the government and here to help"

    2. It costs the same to provide health care.

      There's always a fallacy that government being the insurance company will make it cheaper, but if they're providing the same care from the same healthcare providers it costs the same amount. Having had to deal with the DMV and several other state agencies here, there's no goddamned way that a state bureaucracy is going to be cheaper or more efficient. All it will do is make it so, when your insurance company is not appropriately responsive, you have no alternative to turn to.

      Of course, for large companies in higher margin industries it's probably a net win. For any small business, a substantial tax on GROSS revenue is a nightmare. For low margin businesses it's a nightmare -- it'll cause a pretty massive increase in costs of staples as grocery stores are very low margin, high volume businesses. And of course there's the huge perverse incentive of providing "free" care for anyone including several million people here illegally, which is bound to draw more illegal immigration and more indigent and homeless, so you just watch that rich/poor divide grow that much greater.

      1. The big contention I have with that article is that they argue against raising the payroll tax to pay for this stupid health care system. I get that they don't want universal health care, but if you are going to have UHC, a payroll tax is EXACTLY how it should be funded.

        Americans have been sold a lie that the poor AND middle class can get a bunch of free shit paid for by the rich. That increasingly ain't going to happen. If you look at any of the Nordic countries or other nations with strong social programs, they include a significant tax on the middle class to pay for those programs.

        The best thing opponents of this system should do is argue for the levying of a payroll tax so that every poor sod stuck in a shithole er waiting line looks at their paycheck and decides it wasn't worth the cost, even if the illegals next to them are getting free healthcare.

        1. You absolutely should have to tax payrolls if you do this.

          The worst thing ever in a progressive tax scheme is to make it so that people don't have to pay, or don't see that they have to pay. If people are net zero or above, they have no skin in the game.

          If you have to pay 1% of your income for something, whether it's $20K or $200K, then when someone says "We need to make that 2%" you have some skin in the game. That $2000 is now $4000 and it hurts enough you have to ask "Do I REALLY want the government to do this?"

          You know all this. I'm just griping. And you're right, it will be the middle class that gets burned. It always is, eventually. One example is the AMT, which was just for a few super rich families that evaded taxes, 30 years later it was burning all kinds of middle class people who might have gotten stock options or other benefits at work, but the government didn't want to repeal it because they worried that revenue would drop.

          It ALWAYS hits the middle class. And when it does, especially when it's taxes on payroll and income, it doesn't hurt the wealthy as much -- they already have their money, and can structure wealth to live well without dipping into their capital -- it stops the guy who is up and coming from ever being wealthy because it takes his income.

          So, people should see it. Take it directly from their checks and make them decide then just how "free" it is.

          1. "It ALWAYS hits the middle class."

            Well the unfortunate thing is that it ISN'T hitting the middle class. The country increasingly sells the fiction that we can provide these massive entitlements by "making the rich pay their fair share".

            I would love for all these 20-somethings complaining that we aren't Sweden to really see what their paycheck would look like if they were in Sweden. In that country, income below $60,000 (US) is taxed at around 32% and above $60,000 (US) is taxed at 52% (!!!). Now naturally, that is subject to deductions, but it is still quite high.

            This doesn't include the Social Security tax of which 32% is paid "by the employer" (i.e. hidden from the employee) and 7% taken from the employee. And it doesn't include the VAT which is another massive kick in the teeth.

            For all that, you get massive wealth redistribution programs and social entitlements. Again, I would not like to have massive social programs, but at least in Sweden the middle class understand roughly how much it costs, as opposed to the US where we hide these costs from the middle class with debt and increased punishment of the successful.

            1. it should be illegal to have 'employers' pay anything on the tax like with SS. Everything should be visible to the employee.

              I mean how fucking dumb are you if you think "well my WORK pays that!" That's the same fucking train of thought that says "I rent, I don't pay these bond measures!"

              So many democrat voters are either completely fucking dumb or they are lying for power.

              1. Yup. It is also dumb that the US lets companies expense the costs of paying their employees via benefits. Pay a dollar to an employee? Taxed. Pay $1 for his health insurance? Tax free! Pay $1 for his daily lunch? Tax free!

                These stupid distortions actually benefit the wage-slave paradigm by making it more tax advantageous to work for big companies.

                1. The entire reason we have the horrible Obamacare enshrined bureaucracy that is employer health insurance is the perverse incentive of taxing benefits differently than salary.

                  One reason for runaway health care costs ( from 1.4x to close to double, based on GDP, what some other nations spend) could very well be that people don't know what they're spending there. They have NO IDEA how much a test costs, an MRI, the aspirin they are given, or what the insurance company actually pays compared to what's on the bill. It's all hidden, and when your costs are capped by a deductible you say "Yes, give me that MRI!" even when the docs know full well what's wrong just from the x-ray or normal exam.

                  Any time you hide a cost so people act like it is "free" it fucks up the market. And that can cause some really unpleasant repercussions.

                  I'd theoretically be a flat tax advocate if the world were a simpler place. I also think withholding is evil and pernicious. You should have to write the check to the IRS yourself, so you KNOW how much you're spending for your government.

            2. I lived in Germany. A similar welfare state wouldn’t work here. In Europe people pay high taxes and almost everyone benefits from it: free education, free health care, good roads, good public transportation, social security, etc. So they accept the high taxes, for the most part. Does anyone feel that massive taxes here will provide the same level of benefits? I sure don’t.

          2. If poor people have to pay then they would stop voting for democrats. You don't politic good

      2. I hope you're aware that IF* the "rich/poor divide" grows much greater the answer will be "It's because racism."

        *-yes, of course it's going to grow greater. Oddly, every single policy the wokies and proglodytes put out there has that very effect.
        I figure...coincidence.

  10. California already has more than enough Democratic voters. Thousands of them should move to swing states like Florida and Ohio — and continue voting Democrat, of course — so it becomes impossible for any Republican to win the Electoral College for at least the next century.

    (We'll also #TurnTexasBlue, but that will happen because of immigration from Mexico.)


    1. I really wish this were truly parody, but alas, it is not.

      1. OBL and Poe's Law come to blows on a daily basis.

        1. Right; he's the new Onion.

    2. Yeah, they'll be getting a lot of Mexicans, but tell me...are they sending their best? Asking for a friend.

  11. Libertarian Senator Rand Paul confronted totalitarian liar Anthony Fauci once again in the Senate, this time about Fauci's e-mail threatening three infectious disease experts who opposed Fauci's unscientific lockdowns because they were counterproductive.

    Great picture of Fauci holding up a headline that says Fire Fauci.

    1. More emails out today showing fauci and Collins were warned early on the virus was most likely engineered and came from the WIV.

      Fauci looks about to get hucked under a bus to try saving bidens image.

      1. Don’t worry, the cult of Fauci is strong and they are Team Blue’s biggest fans and donors. Fauci could kick a puppy or eat a live baby and they’d still have his back.

        1. Or maybe shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue?

        2. And the insanity is strong too! Many on that side would only be concerned with "Was it a free range, fair trade baby?"

    2. I enjoy watching Rand Paul beating Fauci up.

    3. Just watched the exchange. Keep it coming Dr. Paul!

  12. Does it matter? Anyone who is left in California obviously doesn’t mind paying the taxes for the “privilege” of living there. You get pretty nice weather at least, unlike Chicago.

    1. This is the way I see it. Those people who don't leave are either:

      A: Willing to take the hit to their income.
      B: going to benefit from the universal healthcare program.

      And if the system collapses, there will be a federal bailout. This game is chess, not checkers.

      1. Californians who benefit from universal healthcare are not the ones who are paying the taxes. Of course, this should be obvious to everyone.

      2. More like Chicken.

      3. No the game is heads I win tails you lose

      4. Federal bailout? Of California, the richest state in the world? Hahaha. (also while we're being generous, they're going to need many, many billions for unfunded pension obligations, financing the next generation of Dem donors)

        You're discounting the efforts of the RNC to secretly finance...a certain set of technologies. Ever hear of the Wuhan Institute of Geographical Dynamism?

  13. Just did a quick search and it seems about half of Californians don't pay any State income tax any way.

    So just read AOC's ass:

    1. I would respect her more if she had that branded on her naked ass.

  14. Look, guys, the residents of California voted for this. I think the experiment should be seen, to the bitter end.

    1. The residents have NOT voted for this.

      1. And any statewide ballot initiative jacking up taxes will still be voted down, big time.

        California voters don't like tax hikes, unless they are clearly on "the rich", such as people making over one million per year, who got the 1% surtax.

        But the voters seem not to realize that all those bond measures they approve automatically have to be repaid with tax revenues later.

        1. But the voters seem not to realize that all those bond measures they approve automatically have to be repaid with tax revenues later.

          I don't know about your area, but at least in mine people are at last looking at their actual property tax bills and saying "where the fuck did all these bond payment charges come from?"

          Can't get rid of them now, but new bond measures are certainly way less popular now than they were 15 years ago.

  15. CA will be the first state to reintroduce slavery.

    1. Be they will be called "Flexible Compensation Agreements."

  16. Wasn't Joe Bishop-Henchman the chairman of the LP until he was removed for being a massive chode?

    1. That name just sounds made up, like from a medieval novel.

    2. Yes, same guy. For those who aren't aware of what happened, he, along with the chairwoman of the New Hampshire State Libertarian Party, conspired to give that chairwoman complete control of the NH state affiliate, by effectively removing the other elected state party officials, whom they didn't like. Here's a link to the Reason story:

      Also, see my comment below about how he mixes up Receipts and Income. And he's supposed to be running a tax foundation??? He doesn't understand the basics.

  17. "It's hard to say which of these is the "worst," but the 2.3 percent gross receipts tax sticks out. "

    Um....for sure as 2% is sometimes all many kinds of businesses bring to the bottom line....many retail stores, some small restaurants, etc.

    1. how is it constitutional or moral to tax gross receipts and not net?

      1. Isn't that essentially what a sales tax is?

    2. Actually, a gross receipts tax seems the most fair. Why tax the most profitable businesses more? Let all businesses share the tax burden based on revenues, which are much harder to fake or obscure (compared to income).

      For the same reason that property taxes should be the same rate per acre, regardless of the use to which the land is put. Let the "free" economy find the highest economic use.

  18. I worked for a HMO company called Kaiser Permanente when I lived in California.
    It was a health maintenance organization run by physicians.
    They gave what I considered excellent health care for one of the lowest prices for health insurance.
    And they still managed to make a profit, by using a lot of non physician health extenders and owning and running their own hospitals.
    I guess is that having the state as only ones allowed to provide insurance the force Kaiser in the bankruptcy.

  19. I think Tony and Shrike would want this - just take 100% of income. Then the government can decide what you need and give it back to you. All money belongs to the state right?

    Finally, tax the rich! But then democrats say the SALT only up to 10K is unfair. Hummm...

    1. California will put all those buckets of money into one bucket, they said yesterday, then hand it out according to political pull. What could possibly go wrong?

  20. The authors show a lack of understanding between Revenue (or Receipts) and Income (or Profit), when the write that the proposal includes "a 2.3 percent gross receipts tax on business revenues (with an exemption for the first $2 million in profits)".

    Another site puts the proposal correctly:
    "An annual excise tax upon a qualified business, as defined by the Legislature, for the privilege of doing business in this state at a rate of 2.3 percent of the gross receipts of that qualified business minus the first two million dollars in annual gross receipts of that business."

  21. Again, it is time to let California leave the union and pursue the progressive utopia at least some people there desire. I predict it will end up like a kinder, gentler Venezuela, with a class of earnest, caring elites and hordes of struggling peasants. Oh, and no functional industries.

  22. Raising taxes to remove exorbitant Health care and insurance prices is well worth it.

    Too many recipients of health care still paying nothing into the system is a huge problem. Taxes is how a majority of the world’s health care systems are paid for.

    1. The taxes will be more than the premiums.

  23. Co-author here Joe Bishop Henchman resigned in disgrace last year as the chair of the national LP. He lied to his colleagues on the board, we the dues paying members, then deleted all the emails to hide his duplicity, removed a board member who exposed his unethical and probably illegal activity (I am not a lawyer but would think destroying evidence of malfeasance is a crime when one is a fiduciary) and immediately resigned and scrubbed his twitter bio of any reference to his time leading the LP. And he gets to publish here. WTF? He should have lost his law license and his position within the cathedral - instead he continues to thrive while the LP remains mired in irrelevance and we the people suffer from the worst tyranny since the early 20th century (look up Eugene Debs imprisoned). Another slap in the fact to us plebes out here twisting in the wind. Maybe soon we'll see a Mark Elias essay on vote stealing.

  24. My employer pays a big chunk of my healthcare costs, but I’m paying about 10% of my paycheck for insurance.

    So if they’re going to tax me 1.5%, it seems like a win for me. My company is taxed but they won’t be paying for my insurance anymore.

    The company pays my insurance out of its gross receipts. It’s not much of a difference in how they would be paying for the insurance.

    The real question is the effect on the quality of the care under the program.

    1. we'll see how it goes once they figure out that to make this plan work they'll need to pay providers about half of what they are used to making

  25. Thanks for sharing the most important information I am so glad to visit this blog. we provide technical support. get the satisfied answer to solve your all problems related to Change AT&T Email Password. Follow the step by step easy instructions to solve your queries.

  26. Having run a (very) small business, I can attest that taxes like this gross receipts tax are obscene.

    When I was running my business, I was getting about 8% markup on goods sold. Sales taxes were 8.5%, so the local government was making more than I was. Worse.. it took me almost as long to file the multi-jurisdiction sales taxes as it did to take care of the rest of the back office stuff combined.

    Then, out of that 8% markup I was getting, I had to pay my federal and state income tax... About 50% total at the time... Meaning I was only keeping about 4% while various levels of government were keeping 12%. And of course, anything I wanted to buy with that left over 4% was subject to the same 8.5% sales tax....

  27. My employer pays a big chunk of my healthcare costs, but I’m paying about 10% of my paycheck for insurance.

    So if they’re going to tax me 1.5%, it seems like a win for me. My company is taxed but they won’t be paying for my insurance anymore.

    The company pays my insurance out of its gross receipts. It’s not much of a difference in how they would be paying for the insurance.

    The real question is the effect on the quality of the care under the program.
    سعر دودج دورانجو 2022

  28. "Mr. Henchman will be replaced by Benjamin Minion-Lackey, recently head of mentorship, wealth training and financial advisory firm FreeMoney4U.

    'We think Mr. Minion-Lackey's skillset and experience perfectly suit our financial needs.' said LP assistant vice president Bjorn Evraminnit.".

  29. Let’s go Calizuela

  30. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Add to that: Tax agencies like the IRS, your local assessor, and other like bureaucracies are magnets for sadistic sociopaths.

  31. How High Will California's Taxes Go Before There's No One Left To Tax?
    110% of earned income? 90% or "unrealized" capitol gains? 100% of "actual" capitol gains.
    Political salaries paid by taxpayers? Exempt from taxes.

  32. Henchman's previous experiment was to discover: how many terrorist importation planks and communist anarchist candidates does it take to drive away all libertarian voters? The answer? One of each did away with over half our votes and ballot access in 20 States. Of DNC candidates, Henchman won the lowest percentage, just as Jo, burdened by a legalize-murder anarchist gunning-mate, got the lowest vote percentage in Austin, Texas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.