Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will they be like other wealthy who simply replace part of the tax base on property taxes but since they will be non residents will they avoid any income tax that the residents who leave did pay?
Many wealthy own homes here as vacation homes, but show a different State of residency and pay no State income tax.
If a wealthy resident leaves and someone buys his home, that is a zero gain in today's market on property taxes but a loss for the State if they do not claim residency for Tax purposes. That has already happened and any growth from such new wealthy is no guarantee the tax loss will truly be offset adding to the burden placed on those who are residents but not wealthy.
I didn't miss it ... it is unrelated in my mind to the topic ... you apparently are arguing that wealthy residents will leave Calif. and be replaced only by wealthy non-resident, 2nd home buyers. There is no foundation for your scenario in anything posted by me or in the link -- or in any other reality.
You are merely posing a hypothetical. Anyone can pose anything as a creative thought. Perhaps you can show how your hypothetical trumps the facts I stated above in several ways in several places, that point out the reality of wealthy individuals and businesses remaining in countries with far greater tax burdens than U.S. /California:
#3 Japan (50% tax)
#4 Germany (45% tax),
#5 France (up to 75% proposed),
#6 United Kingdom (50% tax) ... etc
• Given that California is the country's most populous state, what's surprising about that?
• Given that California has been harder hit by the housing collapse than any other ...
• Furthermore that this has nothing to do with the topic -- again?
Well that ain't gonna happen! If the rich don't come to live in California then the illegals and welfare recipients willl relocate to other sunnier climates.
My bright idea is that with all the South of the Border types no longer there, it makes the southern locales pretty attractive.
A friend just retired from the US Postal Service. He has a nice pension. He is moving back to his roots in the Phillipines. I asked why after so many years in America he would make such a leap. His reply was, "I can live a much higher lifestyle. Medical care is pretty good now and where else can I have a mansion, a cook, maid and chauffeur?"
So , it all appears to be relative. The French millionaires may find California to be their own slice of the third world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Direct hit, Dean!
Direct hit on what?
I recently traveled throughout Asia, primarily Bhutan, Thailand., Nepal and Bangladesh. I fell in love with Bhutan like most visitors do, and was amazed with how cheap it is to live there. I could live there had have a driver, huge home, live in help, etc and spend annually nearly what I spend on my monthly output here in the US. The problem is that it is NOT home. Its not all relative. There are reasons the COL is less in other countries (and other states, for that matter, some reasons are worth overlooking, some not). It appears the reason the COL will be skyrocketing in France is outrageous taxation, in support of social programs, per the article.
What you seem to be missing (clouded judgement, perhaps), is the people threatening to leave CA are leaving CA for OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, not other COUNTRIES. The US has not pissed off its citizens enough for them to jump ship, although it has pissed off some wealthy legal aliens, but people discussing leaving CA potentially still staying within their home country. France seems to have become so bad for some that they have decided to renounce their own country.
You have been comparing apples and oranges this entire thread, and expect everyone to get behind you. You posted an interesting article, but hardly grounds to get everyone fired up.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,449,471 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
• Given that California is the country's most populous state, what's surprising about that?
• Given that California has been harder hit by the housing collapse than any other ...
• Furthermore that this has nothing to do with the topic -- again?
Texas only has 12 million less people and it has ZERO cities that have filed for bankruptcy. CA has ~ 11.91% of total US population and TX has ~8.04% That is what is so surprising about that.
Mismanagement of our tax money is a main part of the reason those cities had to file...I would say that is on topic.
I recently traveled throughout Asia, primarily Bhutan, Thailand., Nepal and Bangladesh. I fell in love with Bhutan like most visitors do, and was amazed with how cheap it is to live there. I could live there had have a driver, huge home, live in help, etc and spend annually nearly what I spend on my monthly output here in the US. The problem is that it is NOT home. Its not all relative. There are reasons the COL is less in other countries (and other states, for that matter, some reasons are worth overlooking, some not). It appears the reason the COL will be skyrocketing in France is outrageous taxation, in support of social programs, per the article.
What you seem to be missing (clouded judgement, perhaps), is the people threatening to leave CA are leaving CA for OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, not other COUNTRIES. The US has not pissed off its citizens enough for them to jump ship, although it has pissed off some wealthy legal aliens, but people discussing leaving CA potentially still staying within their home country. France seems to have become so bad for some that they have decided to renounce their own country.
You have been comparing apples and oranges this entire thread, and expect everyone to get behind you. You posted an interesting article, but hardly grounds to get everyone fired up.
Never suggested anyone get fired up. Nor that anyone get behind me. Couldn't care less. I posted in mirth. This forum is pure entertainment.
That said, you appear to miss the essence of the message, in my opinion. Dean Trails made a great observation to the effect that: one man's poison is another man's meat. No, he didn't write that, I did. But that is the nut of his observation.
By the way, the COL won't be "skyrocketing in France" due to outrageous taxation. I don't know where you get that. The proposed change in the French tax structure will not be to tax everyone at 75%. It is a progressive tax rate system. 75% will represent the highest rate on the wealthiest earners. In U.S. recent history, the highest rate has been as much as 94%, under FDR I believe. Hell, it was 87% under Eisenhower? 77% under LBJ? 70% under Nixon? Then dropped later under Reagan to 28% and since then has fluctuated up and down only a bit in the mid-to-upper 30's%.
Point being: overseas / at home ... however you slice and dice it: the wealthy and businesses have never had taxation so low in leading economies (except right now in Russia, if you can hack the climate -- business, culture, and weather!) ... and when it was high, people, and businesses, stayed, and prospered.
That is the fun message of this thread. Laugh or cry as you will.
Texas only has 12 million less people and it has ZERO cities that have filed for bankruptcy. CA has ~ 11.91% of total US population and TX has ~8.04% That is what is so surprising about that.
Mismanagement of our tax money is a main part of the reason those cities had to file...I would say that is on topic.
Sorry. Just laughable. The way you keep cheerleading Texas. And your total lack of understanding of the reasons for the bankruptcies. Mismanagement of tax money isn't any prime source of the problems. Revenue streams have suffered deeply as a result of the real estate crash. Without those revenue streams flowing, the projects and pensions have become unmanageable. The projections for those were based (unwisely) on successful revenue founded on the real estate boom. Had the real estate fraud / debacle been seen for what it was -- and nipped in the bud -- the level of now burdensome commitments would never have risen to unmanageable levels. There are about a bazillion articles on the topic out there for you to read. (ok ok ok ... hyperbole on my part ... there aren't a "bazillion" articles ... just more than you can read in a month of Sundays.) No reason for you to stop misrepresenting facts, of course ... just saying.
As I have cited previously: there have been near 650 municipal bankruptcies across the nation since the Chapter 9 laws went into effect in the late 30's ... now that 3, 4, 5, or 6 have happened / will happen in a state the size of California in this economy shouldn't be much of a surprise. Alabama has two (or three?) at only 1/7th the population, I believe it is? Go sign onto the Alabama forum and chant at them about their stupidities. Pennsylvania had three. Idaho, Rhode Island ....etc. So what? The source of your anti-California passion is ....?
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,684,265 times
Reputation: 2622
Who cares if you will never end up in Texas that is not the topic here? Really no one cares.
I care, and that is sufficient for me, why would anyone choose to live in a state with nearly zero public land, nearly zero wilderness, a couple of hills out west that rise to less than 9,000 feet, the rest of the state is flat to rolling. I would die of boredom.
Where did I say that one should choose a state just because of its medical care? But I will tell you one thing if I ever needed serious medical care no matter where I am on this planet...I am taking myself the Texas Medical Center in Houston!
You stated one of your reasons was Houston's medical care. Medical Care is pretty darned good in most places in the country, if you have insurance. Heck, I use my nice socialized VA medical care, and I am still alive.
You are a person who has never lived in Houston or Dallas or Austin and so you really should stop trying to be the spokesperson for TX. You have zero clue about what it is like to live there. You only imagine and believe me your imagination is way off.
I drove through Texas, what else would one need to do?
If find it odd that you would keep bashing a place that you have never lived in or will never live in. Very strange.
Bashing Texas is an old and honored tradition in the real West of the United States. It has to do with, for instance, the tendency of Texans to tuck their pants into their boots, and the wear those silly Taco hats, Western hats with uptilted brims, how the heck do you protect your head from the sun if you bend your brims up? An example of a Texas joke, If Bull Doodoo were painted white, more Texans would ski.
You really should focus your concerns on the issues of CA as there are plenty to be concerned about. TX is doing just fine and besides you will never help them to fix anything so why even talk about them? Does it make you feel like big man to put down a state that you will never live in?
I have no issues with California, and I am amused by those who do. Ok, a couple issues, too darned many fences, but, that is not a state policy, so, can't really complain. Any state where half the land area of the state is set aside for recreation seems like a winner to me.
My tax thinking is right on.
Sorry, but, it isn't, and I gave you the information you could have used to correct yourself, yet you refused, curious.
I suggest you spend some time on here to educate yourself about State to State taxes. Taxes by State. As I said, I am and have and tried to help you. Those who persist with belief when facts are available, are usually Conservatives..
I didn't miss it ... it is unrelated in my mind to the topic ... you apparently are arguing that wealthy residents will leave Calif. and be replaced only by wealthy non-resident, 2nd home buyers. There is no foundation for your scenario in anything posted by me or in the link -- or in any other reality.
You are merely posing a hypothetical. Anyone can pose anything as a creative thought. Perhaps you can show how your hypothetical trumps the facts I stated above in several ways in several places, that point out the reality of wealthy individuals and businesses remaining in countries with far greater tax burdens than U.S. /California:
#3 Japan (50% tax)
#4 Germany (45% tax),
#5 France (up to 75% proposed),
#6 United Kingdom (50% tax) ... etc
lemme know
They were born there, have family there and like it. Who cares.
However your thread was about who would "replace" those leaving CA because of high taxes.
My point is that many do leave and an unknown number who come do not have to be residents to enjoy the State, thus a net loss in tax revenue is likely. After all why would they make CA their resident State if they are wealthy enough to make a State with no income Tax their "home" and still enjoy CA at their pleasure? You are assuming or at least intimating the replacements will become residents, yet what proof do you have they will be? If they aren't/don't then they are NOT replacements but visitors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and all of those within the same year! TX has Zero as do most states!
