Comments on: California’s One-Man Laffer Curve

By: Editorial cartoon from Dan Mitchell’s blog on California’s sorry state of affairs | The Daily Hatch

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:40:03 +0000

[...] jobs are relocating to states like Texas with better tax policy. Nor is it a surprise when pro golfers like Phil Mickelson warn they may leave the state. But when even a certified leftist like Bill Maher says he’s thinking about escaping, you know [...]

By: California’s Golden Bureaucrat Snags $400K of Yearly Compensation – for the Rest of Her Life! | International Liberty

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:45:35 +0000

By: Bill Maher: Born-Again Libertarian? | International Liberty

Bill Maher: Born-Again Libertarian? | International Liberty — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:15:45 +0000

[...] now he’s saying he may move out of the state, just like Phil Mickelson. I won’t believe it ’til I see it, but for every well-known celebrity who publicly [...]

By: Ark Times blogger claims California is better than Texas but facts don’t bear that out (3 great political cartoons) « HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth

Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:43:49 +0000

[...] remember my post about Phil Mickelson threatening to leave the state? Well, Chip Bok has a humorous take on that looming [...]

By: Texas vs. California « International Liberty

Texas vs. California « International Liberty — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:25:24 +0000

[...] remember my post about Phil Mickelson threatening to leave the state? Well, Chip Bok has a humorous take on that looming [...]

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:47:15 +0000

They are nickel-and-diming their targets and hoping no one notices. No single rate is over 50%, and they’re hoping few people put the whole picture together, or account for other, sneakier effects on the marginal rate. Here’s one that Mickelson doesn’t see, but most high earners with more modest success may discover: the 3.8% investment surtax can indeed bump the effective marginal rate to 62%. That’s because someone not quite as well-to-do as Mickelson (think doctors, small business owners, etc.) has to worry that an extra dollar earned above the ACA threshold not only is taxed at X% per the above calculation, it also triggers the 3.8% tax on any investment income he/she/they may have. A young worker will scarcely notice (at first). A middle-aged worker with a lot of savings for his/her/their retirement will almost certainly feel this effect. Of course, if he/she is a high-paid state/local official here in CA, he’ll have a pension to fall back on that’s actuarially worth millions, but without the inconvenience of having to actually save up those millions, nor suffer death by a 1000 cuts as taxes and inflation nibble away at them as he approaches retirement.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:19:15 +0000

Doug, 55% is ridiculous. Seriously, how can anybody claim that is fair? Our government and tax system are not only unfair, they hurt economic growth for everybody. I’m sure you agree, it just kills me that liberals can be so economically ignorant and self-destructive at the same time.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:21:50 +0000

The jump in CA tax comes on top of higher federal rates and a new Medicare surtax. So it’s probably not that 10.3% was just dandy, but that with everything else heaped on, it’s the only one of those tax rises he can legally and easily avoid. Bear in mind that his marginal tax rate just jumped a combined 10%, from somewhere in the mid 40s before, to somewhere in the mid/high 50s now. Start with 39.6% federal and 13.3% to the state. Add 1% for the return of the federal itemized deduction surtax. Add 2.9% for medicare (assuming he pays it as a self-employed person), then throw in the 0.9% surtax that kicked in this year, that’s 3.8% total. I’m at around 58%. Now subtract something on the order of 3% because he can deduce some of the state income tax against federal (hard to say how much because of the AMT, but we can assume he’s past the range of the AMT phase-out). So 55% is a fair estimate.

By: New Class Traitor

New Class Traitor — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 05:39:59 +0000

Joe: nobody really knows what point B is. One just knows, by construction, that there has to be some rate between 0% and 100% that maximizes revenue. Social-democrats would place this higher, while free market advocates expect a maximum at a relatively low rate. Yet others, the (anti)”social” (in)”justice” crowd, would even accept lowered revenues in the name of “fairness” and “redistribution”. I am afraid that the current president falls into that category. Then again, his ilk tend to be near-innumerates, so there may be stupidity rather than malice.

By: California’s One-Man Laffer Curve « International Liberty | jamesbbkk

California’s One-Man Laffer Curve « International Liberty | jamesbbkk — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:09:44 +0000

[...] California’s One-Man Laffer Curve « International Liberty. [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:08:04 +0000

Good stuff. Can you tell me what percentage equates to point B? And, how do you evalutate the sum of state and federal taxes via the Laffer Curve?