Its still an income tax, impacting 0.5% of taxpayers, and most companies reduce pay if the employee leaves the bay area for remote work or to work at a remote office. 1. The reduced pay might not be worth leaving. 2. There are also other benefits to be in California (e.g. friends, like-minded people, infrastructure, etc).
Even if some of those taxpayer chose to leave, demand for housing and goods/services is reduced, but supply stays constant. i.e. prices decrease for the people who choose to stay.
Reducing economic inequality for the people who choose to stay in California. Seems like a win either way.
In the US, healthcare is likely the least of your concerns if you're making > $2M/year
Universal healthcare would be great if it brought down the ridiculous costs for basic health services and it helped the growing number of homeless and impoverished escape the cycle. The people who already pay will probably never pay less but it's so frustrating to see bills for thousands on simple things like an x-ray?
My partner recently dislocated her shoulder and we were billed $1,500 to get an x-ray. Nothing crazy just tripped and hit the shoulder the wrong way. We went to immediate care center, after waiting over an hour, the doctor tells us they don't have an x-ray tech on the weekend so we need to go to the hospital emergency center. Still got billed for immediate care visit. Then we go to emergency center, wait almost 3 hours, get an x-ray (nothings broken), they pop it back in (no sedative, no equipment, took literally 5 seconds), a month later we get a bill for almost $5,000 for shoulder surgery! We dispute the charge, get it knocked down to $1,500 (for an "emergency room" x-ray that we waited three hours for and only went because the immediate care center owned by the same org didn't have x-ray tech on the weekend) and after insurance our out of pocket charges are basically the same.
I've had good health care experiences in US but often the charges just have no basis in reality.
Yep. Higher taxes + minuscule military spending (compared to U.S.) + citizens who probably believe more in governance and social welfare than your average American.
US tax revenue per capita is nearly double that of the UK, more than enough to offset the difference in military budget. popular opinion is the only meaningful difference that you listed.
It's actually a zero percent increase on someone making $1 million, as it only applies to income over $1 million. If you made $2 million, you'd pay 1% of the second million, or $10 thousand.
$10k is no big deal to someone making $2m per year. But that person is already paying ~$240,000 per year in California state income taxes[according to a random tax calculator I just googled]. So they're already voluntarily paying $2.4 million per decade, $24 million over a working career for the privilege of living in the state of California. And yet that isn't enough.
In the immortal words of CCR, "And when you ask 'em, 'How much should we give?' Ooh, they only answer 'More, more, more!'"
Maybe if you're not in that situation, you don't have the best insight into their mindset, how they would react, and at what point they decide to move to a different tax locale.
It's very easy, but not very helpful, to theorize about what you'd do given taxation policy you don't actually have to deal with.
That's only the 1m - 2m segment, not the 2m+. Also, the last steep hike was 7 years ago. Many people will see the writing on the wall that taxes in CA are going to squeeze most of their marginal income.
I know! If we tax them too much, they'll have to... live like 98% of the country already does[1]. That's totally comparable to being killed. Good analogy.
This shows that wealthier people are moving to California, while middle and lower income people are leaving (People with an income lower than 110k a year).
Well yeah, but I think that's somewhat the goal here. Given the overcrowding in regions of California, I can see why some people would incentivize others to leave the state. Especially the very wealthy.
If a bunch of people with 10-100x your income kept moving into your city, driving property prices into the stratosphere, you'd be pissed too. It doesn't stop with houses either. All of the middle class stores start getting replaced with higher cost ones that cater to the ultra-wealthy, leaving you to drive further out for good deals.
Resident who don't want to be pushed out have their own breaking point to, and instead of voting with their feet, they vote to evict the invaders.
California isn't the only place where this a problem. All across the world we are seeing pushback against ultra-wealthy taking over cities/neighborhoods and driving out middle class residents.
Most of the residents you are talking about were "invaders" one time too. The difference is that when they showed up, more housing was built for them.
Today, more housing does not get built, primarily because of strict zoning laws supported by the existing residents, so newcomers end up competing with existing residents for housing.
On the other hand, if new housing was built for the newcomers, they would contribute to the economy of the city and pay taxes, and their presence would be an overall net positive.
Something is really wrong with the way a city is run if an influx of high earners is considered a bad thing.
Driving up prices such that a minority population can afford it is a solution to overcrowding -- not a cause of it. In fact, its the natural market solution to overcrowding: demand exceeding supply..
And yet, the problem isn't fixed, even after 20+ years of this "natural market solution".
Turns out, these people have to live somewhere, so now they travel from further out by car, causing a bunch of traffic congestion. They had to move, but the jobs are still in the same place.
If you have 20,000 people in the city, and 200,000 people outside
and you kick out the 20,000 people in the city, to another state
so 20,000 suburbans move into the city
now you have 20,000 people in the city, and 180,000 people outside
I'm not sure what you've solved. It feels like you're arguing this is a knee-jerk reaction, and a fair reaction, and that this is a solution, but you keep avoiding saying how it actually solves anything regarding overcrowding. Like it solves every problem except the one under discussion.
There has not been a "natural market solution" for housing for two reasons: strict zoning laws, and rent control. Both of those together have caused the housing shortage.
If overcrowding is the problem, and you're looking at wealth, then you'd want to encourage the poor masses (the 99%) to leave, not the tiny population of the 1%.
Because the wealthy are the most salient aspect of this problem. They are the only ones that can afford the $4,000/mo rent and $2,000,000 "starter" homes in the neighborhood.
People feel like they are being forced out of their homes by these people and they are fighting back.
If the buyers that keep pushing the high end of the market higher, are the ones who leave, then the likely result is prices will fall until properties start moving again.
Is the problem overcrowding or empty housing? Because overcrowding implies that even with lower pricing... there still aren't enough houses to go around.
Empty housing is a different issue, and I'm not sure I've heard much of that being a problem in California (mostly heard this argument for Vancouver and NY)
If you are making literally 10 figures annually this increases your tax bill by an overall amount of about 3%. Every ten years you can buy one fewer yacht. Oh no.
