Check this one out. They are trying to get enough signatures to get it on the ballot. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#1311 1311. (07-0082, Amdt. #1NS) Wealth Tax. Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Summary Date: 01/02/08 Circulation Deadline: 06/02/08 Signatures Required: 694,354 Proponent: Paul McCauley Imposes one-time 45% tax on value of property exceeding $40 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. Imposes one-time tax (between 26.5% - 44.3%) on property exceeding $5 million when resident dies or leaves California. Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married, increasing to 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married. Creates tax credits. Requires State to acquire majority shares of specified corporations to influence environmental practices. May exempt new revenues from education funding requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: One-time increase in state revenues potentially in the low hundreds of billions of dollars from imposition of a wealth tax, and ongoing increase in state revenues potentially in the billions of dollars from imposition of the tax on certain people dying or leaving the state. This revenue would be allocated to accomplish various goals related to environmental protection. Potential annual net increase in personal income tax revenues in the tens of billions of dollars annually from tax rate increases and new tax credits. The first $7.5 billion annually would be allocated to the state General Fund with additional revenue allocated for environmental protection. Unknown state and local revenue reductions â potentially in the tens of billions of dollars annually â due to changes in taxpayer behavior. (Initiative 07-0082.) (Full Text)
Land immediately across the California border has increased in value on expectations that the state will sink into the Pacific Ocean if those measures are enacted. It's beachfront property in the making!
At what point does a "tax" become confiscation? I am assuming the courts would not let California simply seize the property of specified classes of individuals, say the mega rich. That is the basic distinction between the US and say, Zimbabwe. This measure would pretty much erase that line.
anybody who has that amount of money and does not keep it in an offshore account is not in his right mind. i don't really understand the act... if for instance i own a $40mil house, what do i have to do... sell it and pay the state half of it ???