Calif. Wealth Tax Proposal Likely Faces Constitutional Challenges

Re:Calif. Wealth Tax Proposal Likely Faces Constitutional Ch... by sokoloff on Wednesday September 02, 2020 @11:12AM (#24354009)

Good math. Note that this scenario is using the 80% lower CA wealth tax proposal, not the "just two cents" wealth tax that was proposed during the DNC primary race earlier this year that I was using (as openly/clearly disclosed).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Calif. Wealth Tax Proposal Likely Faces Constitutional Ch... by jdlshore on Wednesday September 02, 2020 @05:24PM (#24358325)

Sorry, I missed that. I think it's a bit disingenuous to use a year-old proposal from a failed primary candidate, though, rather than the actual wealth tax under discussion.

However, if we were to use Warren's proposal, our lucky millionaire would be unaffected, because it doesn't kick in until $50mm. (A happy coincidence.)

If I run the numbers again, using a very lucky millionaire with $100mm in assets, it comes out as follows:

1. Warren wealth tax: $2,613,000 yearly spending power

2. CA wealth tax: $2,939,000 yearly spending power

3. No wealth tax: $3,104,000 yearly spending power

Warren's proposal is much more aggressive about leveling wealth inequality, especially considering that it jumps to 6% for billionaires. I'm not convinced it was a serious proposal, though, given that it was part of Warren's campaign rhetoric. I think she's serious about a wealth tax, but I suspect the specific proposal was a starting point in the bargaining process—an attempt to shift the Overton window, if you will—not the expected outcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]