Risky business: States tax the rich at their peril

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,080
Likes
10,923
Points
113
Risky business: States tax the rich at their peril

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer Sun Sep 27, 3:24 pm ET

ALBANY, N.Y. – This year, New York's deep-pocketed rich were required to dig even deeper to help shore up state finances.

They now pay higher taxes on their income and on limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and more to dabble in real estate. Meanwhile, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax loopholes and those making over $1 million are losing tax deductions others get.

It even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.

Now, a half-dozen states in this recession-driven movement are nervously eyeing New York to see if it's wise to demand so much from people rich enough to have a second home in less taxing states — and for whom a change of address can be its own tax break.

Early data from New York show the higher tax rates for the wealthy have yielded lower-than-expected state wealth. Gov. David Paterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that's just what happened.

Paterson said last week that revenues from the income tax increases and other taxes enacted in April are running about 20 percent less than anticipated.

The concern about millionaire flight has prompted some states, including New York, New Jersey and California, to increase the highest tax rates only temporarily. For New York, it's the second temporary increase for high earners since 2001.

The first one ended as scheduled after three years. But Paterson and economists warn that came as the economy began to grow fast into another boom, something that isn't expected now because Wall Street — which historically provided 20 percent of state revenues — is perhaps permanently downsized.

"People aren't wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It's a different world," said New York Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch. He said last year's surcharge on income taxes, set to last three years, won't likely meet expectations.

So far this year, half of about $1 billion in expected revenue from New York's 100 richest taxpayers is missing. The state budget office says losses suffered in the recession could be largely to blame, and it may still come in next year when filers exhaust their extensions.

Those seeking extensions nevertheless had to pay in April at least as much as they owed in 2008. The six-month extension for the balance ends in October, but given the hard times many filers likely didn't earn much more than a year ago.

State officials say they don't know how much of the missing revenue is because any wealthy New Yorkers simply left.

But at least two high-profile defectors have sounded off on the tax changes: Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times and who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

Golisano changed his official address to Florida, and Limbaugh, who also has a Florida home, announced earlier this year that he was relinquishing his home in Manhattan.

Donald Trump told Fox News earlier this year that several of his millionaire friends were talking about leaving the state over the latest taxes.

Golisano, who created 5,000 jobs from his Rochester payroll processing company, Paychex, bristled when politicians said he was bailing on New York in the spring.

"If anything, New York state has bailed out on us," he said.

And it's not just the well-known leaving.

Nancy Bell is moving her Science First manufacturer of scientific products from the Buffalo site her father founded in 1960 to Florida, which aggressively courted her and her two business-partner sons. They are building a new facility there and, with the state's help, had 1,000 applications for 20 jobs.

"It was the higher tax brackets, the so-called millionaire's tax" that forced the move, she said. "We feel we have to look to the future ... I'm leaving wonderful, wonderful friends.

It's not our first choice. It's our 100th."

Maryland enacted higher tax rates for wealthier residents in 2008 to boost revenues but income from those taxes is down 6.7 percent so far this year. Officials in Maryland, as in New York, hope much of the revenue is simply delayed because of filers' extensions, however.

"Overall, as in most states, revenues are down at the higher income levels," said Joseph Shapiro, spokesman for the Maryland Comptroller's Office. He said there's no concern yet that the higher tax rates on the wealthy are driving the rich out.

The approach has been tried before.

The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation said that through the early 1990s, several states maintained double-digit income tax rates for the higher earners. Those rates were dropped, however, in the boom of a fast-growing economy.

States also realized that having a higher tax rate than their neighbors would cost them talent, lose jobs and hinder economic growth, the foundation reported in May after Hawaii joined Maryland, New Jersey, California and New York to adopt a "millionaire's tax." New York, for example, has been careful not to raise its highest rates above New Jersey's, according to the foundation.

The trend toward hitting up the rich is re-emerging because states want to avoid spending cuts or assume that revenues will always grow in the long term, the foundation said. The result is a reliance on a volatile tax source that can contribute to more boom-and-bust cycles, even if revenue from the rich rises in the short term before high earners find a way to avoid or limit taxation.

The foundation said the taxes can undermine growth, and notes even states that increased taxes on high-income earners — New Jersey, Maryland, and California — face shortfalls comparatively worse than others.

In May, the most recent calculation available, Maryland reported that taxes collected from top earners fell by about $100 million. The number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April fell by one-third, to about 2,000.
Often pushed as a "fair tax" measure and backed by public worker unions, pinching the rich could backfire.

"You can say, 'The millionaire is evil,' but they don't just put their money in a coffee can," said Christopher Summers, president of the nonpartisan Maryland Public Policy Institute. "They employ people ... That fact is, you need rich people to keep working hard so they will invest."

___
AP writers Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., and Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.
 
I'm still eying buying a house in Nevada for this reason. with housing prices ridiculously low, it kind of makes sense. I can always keep a "work" apartment here (my current place).



:cheers:
 
I'm still eying buying a house in Nevada for this reason. with housing prices ridiculously low, it kind of makes sense. I can always keep a "work" apartment here (my current place).



:cheers:

That's not going to work for you, if I understand your situation (probably I don't). If you are drawing wages in CA, you'll still owe CA income taxes, even if you "live" (or live) somewhere else.

To the article, I'm not sure there is any evidence that the lower tax revenues are due to taxpayer flight. The recession seems a lot more likely explanation. Now, if after the economy recovers, revenues are still down, then that would be evidence of flight.

barfo
 
It even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.

How much does it cost now to prepare taxes for a fox or a pheasant?

barfo
 
Art Laffer figured this phenomenon out years ago.
 
That's not going to work for you, if I understand your situation (probably I don't). If you are drawing wages in CA, you'll still owe CA income taxes, even if you "live" (or live) somewhere else.

To the article, I'm not sure there is any evidence that the lower tax revenues are due to taxpayer flight. The recession seems a lot more likely explanation. Now, if after the economy recovers, revenues are still down, then that would be evidence of flight.

barfo

Yeah. I need to figure it out, my situation is a bit more complex than simple employment though as I have some other plates spinnin'.

:devilwink:
 
I'm still eying buying a house in Nevada for this reason. with housing prices ridiculously low, it kind of makes sense. I can always keep a "work" apartment here (my current place).



:cheers:

That is a dangerous game, especially when dealing with New York and California.

You do realize that California has revenue agents IN Nevada?

Lots of people do it and it makes the cocktail party circuit. You hear, "Yeah, I bought a house in Las Vegas, and now I don't have to pay those fuckers in Sacramento. Saved $50k in the last 3 years."

No, they didn't. What they did was file their returns incorrectly, and just haven't been caught.

If they get audited, they will be in a world of hurt. Choices are to fess up right away and pay a huge bill, far larger than the "saved" taxes, or to lie to a government employee about the true circumstances in a desperate attempt to get away with it.

To do it right you must establish legal residency in Nevada and perform the majority of your work activity in Nevada (or not in CA). And, if you can do those things, great - move and maybe save some money. Simply buying a house out of state and staying there from time to time is not enough.
 
The rich will always have the means and resources to avoid paying higher taxes. Raising the taxes on the rich at the state level is not a good solution to propping up tax revenues.
 
Studies have shown that tax revenue has maintained a very sturdy ratio of about 19% of GDP, regardless of the marginal tax brackets.

The "rich" have not only more venues for tax sheltering, but also more incentive to do so. The higher their taxes, the more they shelter.

And no, you cannot get out of CA state income taxes by living in a different state. Im not sure about other states
 
Studies have shown that tax revenue has maintained a very sturdy ratio of about 19% of GDP, regardless of the marginal tax brackets.

The "rich" have not only more venues for tax sheltering, but also more incentive to do so. The higher their taxes, the more they shelter.

And no, you cannot get out of CA state income taxes by living in a different state. Im not sure about other states

if i run a small business and my clients live out of california, sure i can.
 
if i run a small business and my clients live out of california, sure i can.

Well, true, if you are not living or operating in CA, you dont have to pay CA taxes.

Any income earned in CA, whether you are a resident or not, is taxable to CA.
 
that's the plan. hopefully get my business going to a point where I don't need to do my day-job anymore, operate out of nevada but still keep my cheap apartment in LA...go back and forth (vegas is boring)! Most of what I do is pretty automated to begin with, I just basically bill people while someone else is doing the work for me.
 
I lived in CA for 2 months last year, 10 months in NV. I got a full refund on the taxes withheld in CA. Well, an IOU in place of a refund...

For 2009, I absolutely am paying CA taxes, since I earned it while living here. If I lived in NV for 6 months and 1 day, I could declare myself a NV resident and not pay the CA tax.
 
For 2009, I absolutely am paying CA taxes, since I earned it while living here. If I lived in NV for 6 months and 1 day, I could declare myself a NV resident and not pay the CA tax.

This is not correct. If you are a part-year or nonresident of CA, and earned income in CA, you still owe taxes to CA. Different states may or may not have a credit for taxes paid to another state. NV does not as there are no state income taxes. Furthermore, if you earned only a little income from CA sources, credits, and exemptions might reduce your tax liabilty to zero, but you are still on the hook to file (in most cases)
 
Last edited:
This is not correct. If you are a part-year or nonresident of CA, and earned income in CA, you still owe taxes to CA. Different states may or may not have a credit for taxes paid to another state. NV does not as there are no state income taxes. Furthermore, if you earned only a little income from CA sources, credits, and exemptions might reduce your tax liabilty to zero, but you are still on the hook to file (in most cases)

I got 100% of my tax money back, and I have a CPA do my taxes. He tells me if I live 6 months and 1 day in Vegas that I pay state taxes in Vegas not CA.
 
I got 100% of my tax money back, and I have a CPA do my taxes. He tells me if I live 6 months and 1 day in Vegas that I pay state taxes in Vegas not CA.

If I were you I'd consider getting a new accountant. His advice is not very good, as the form instructions for CA income tax will quickly tell you.

barfo
 
I got 100% of my tax money back, and I have a CPA do my taxes. He tells me if I live 6 months and 1 day in Vegas that I pay state taxes in Vegas not CA.

i like how you say "state taxes in Vegas" and not nevada ;] We all know Las Vegas is the real state.
 
to be on topic, I think raising taxes on the wealthy eventually is a must. I'm not sure if right now is the best time, but it must be done eventually.

edit: I wonder if there could be tax credits for each person you employ. You could probably lessen that effect as companies get bigger in size. Or is this already in place?
 
If I were you I'd consider getting a new accountant. His advice is not very good, as the form instructions for CA income tax will quickly tell you.

barfo

A California resident pays California tax on all of his/her income, even if that income comes from outside California.
It is very difficult to establish residency outside of California if you are doing anything in the State. Generally, California takes the position that someone is not a California resident only if:

  1. His/her presence in California does not exceed 6 months within a taxable year; AND
  2. If he/she maintains a permanent home outside California; AND
  3. If he/she does not engage in any activity or conduct within the State other than as a seasonal visitor, tourist, or guest.
If you are present in California for more than 9 months in any given tax year, the State presumes that you are a resident. For details, see the Franchise Tax Board’s Guideline for Determining Resident Status, which can be found at http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1031.pdf.
 
A California resident pays California tax on all of his/her income, even if that income comes from outside California.
It is very difficult to establish residency outside of California if you are doing anything in the State. Generally, California takes the position that someone is not a California resident only if:

  1. His/her presence in California does not exceed 6 months within a taxable year; AND
  2. If he/she maintains a permanent home outside California; AND
  3. If he/she does not engage in any activity or conduct within the State other than as a seasonal visitor, tourist, or guest.
If you are present in California for more than 9 months in any given tax year, the State presumes that you are a resident. For details, see the Franchise Tax Board’s Guideline for Determining Resident Status, which can be found at http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/1031.pdf.

I agree you aren't a CA resident (or weren't last year, anyway). But don't non-residents pay CA income tax?

barfo
 
I agree you aren't a CA resident (or weren't last year, anyway). But don't non-residents pay CA income tax?

barfo

oregon is that way? why not the even more strained economy state?:dunno:
 
I agree you aren't a CA resident (or weren't last year, anyway). But don't non-residents pay CA income tax?

barfo

I had CA state taxes withheld and fully refunded.

I had federal taxes withheld and only partially refunded. A puny refund, compared to what the govt. kept.

I certainly earned a decent amount of money in California.

My tax guy is a long time friend. He graduated from Ohio State in the 1950s and has an MBA along with his CPA. He's done my taxes for 20 years. He lives in and does his entire business (but me) in California, FWIW.
 
Just because you are a nonresident or a part year resident, does not exclude you from paying income taxes to CA. There are hundreds of reasons why you wouldnt owe taxes to CA, as a nonresident or a part year resident, far too many to get into detail here on this board. But I assure you, nonresident or part year resident status does not exempt you from CA income tax.

For example, I have done returns for an NFL football coach who has to pay taxes in each state that his team plays a game.
 
Last edited:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inKAlZiEBjwwxtBeYF9SrIwXg92QD9B0KIA00

:ghoti:

A commission charged with reforming California's tax structure will recommend repealing the state sales and corporate taxes, flattening the income tax rate and taxing businesses in a way that has never been tried on a wide scale in the U.S.

The Commission on the 21st Century Economy is expected to submit a sweeping report to the governor and Legislature Tuesday after spending a year looking for ways to stabilize California's volatile tax system.

A draft copy of the report obtained by The Associated Press said the commission will recommend California change its personal income tax structure to reduce the burden on the wealthy.

It also recommends replacing the state sales and corporate taxes with a new business levy that taxes net receipts, in an attempt to tax the value of all goods and services produced by businesses in the state.

"California has long been a place where people seek a brighter future. The changes the commission recommends will be a step toward renewing that promise," the report says. "They will create a tax structure that more reliably supports the services that allow society to function."

The draft report was still being finalized Monday and it was unclear how many of the 14 members on the commission appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders would sign off on it.

The commission's process has been marked by skepticism and concerns from all sides. Union leaders worry the policies might drive down wages, and businesses fear being unfairly taxed. Critics argue the plan has not been well studied.

The commission found that California's tax system is out of date, which has put the state at a competitive disadvantage. Since the tax system was established in the 1930s, when farms and factories drove the economy, the state's tax policies have not kept up with the technology and service industries that now dominate, at times making its regulations inconsistent.
 
This is the way government should work. We should have 50 social laboratories--state governments--each trying new things for their population. The Federal Government then picks and chooses which ones work best for the population at large.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top