Trump Win? Judge Rules Seattle WEALTH TAX Illegal
Sometimes you have to save children from themselves. And the same applies to Leftists.
These tax and spend Leftists always hurt themselves. Look at New York City and the tobacco tax.
Cigarette sales in New York have become a burning issue on many fronts recently, with anti-smoking tax policies costing the state and city billions in lost tax revenue.
A recent study found that more than 50 percent of the cigarettes consumed in New York are smuggled in — the nation’s highest rate.
For 2015, the most recent reporting year, the state lost $1.63 billion because of untaxed sales, according to new figures released by analysts for the Tax Foundation and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
The $13-a-pack Marlboros you buy in Manhattan — with the correct tax stamps — come with a $4.35 state tax levy and an additional $1.50 in city tax — the result of a decade-long quadrupling in local tobacco taxes.
These astronomical costs have driven the black market in smokes whereby the city in 2015 lost an estimated $740 million and the state, about $895 million on top of that, the Tax Foundation analysts calculated for The Post.
More taxes, less revenue.
Further, New York loses more people and revenue than any other state.
The Empire State lost 126,000 tax filers in 2014 to other states, the largest number among all 50 states, according to Wendell Cox and Joel Kotkin, who published their findings in newgeography.com, a website devoted to demographic, economic and political trends. The study also appeared in Forbes magazine.
The state of New York implemented a wealth tax, and that’s part of the reason for the exodus. Even the far Left governor of New York is concerned about the next proposed tax hike on the wealthy:
Cuomo has proposed extending a tax surcharge on millionaires set to expire at the end of 2017, but was skeptical during a meeting with the Daily News Editorial Board last week about going much further.
The Assembly Democrats support an extension but wants to add three brackets for those earning at least $5 million, with the top rate hitting 10.32% for those making over $100 million a year.
“People will take a certain amount of abuse and then there is a point,” he said. “The question is, what is that point? Nobody knows for sure, but you don’t want to reach that point.”
The current 8.82% rate on all incomes over $1 million is set to drop to 6.85% if the surcharge expires in December.
And Seattle wants to do the same.
As Fox News reported,
Seattle’s controversial tax on the wealthy failed its first legal test this week after a judge ruled the new ordinance violates state law – but the city isn’t backing down and vows to appeal, setting the stage for a Washington State Supreme Court showdown.
King County Superior Court Judge John Ruhl ruled in a Wednesday that Seattle did not have the authority to impose the tax because state law prohibits tax on net income.
City Attorney Pete Holmes called the decision “disappointing” but, in a joint statement with Seattle Mayor Tim Burgess, said their goal to eliminate the state’s “over-reliance on regressive sales taxes” would continue.
“We are also living in a time of extreme income inequality that corrodes our social compact and causes many to wonder whether wealthy individuals are paying their fair share,” they said.
There’s the term: fair share.
Fair share of what? Crime? Bad schools?
The wealthy finance police, schools, fire department, welfare and so on. Next, bureaucrats squander the money, then demand more.
The article continues,
The tax, passed by the Seattle City Council in July, targets high-income earners as part of what local lawmakers describe as “a new formula for fairness.”
The tax measure requires residents to pay a 2.25-percent tax if they are a single filer and make more than $250,000 annually or file jointly and make more than $500,000.
Its passage prompted a court challenge from the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank that considers the tax a slippery slope that could open the door to more taxes in the future.
Ask yourself if the rich are any safer due to government?
Do they have access to anything better than anybody else that they don’t get for themselves?
If they happen to live in the city, they are subjected to outrageous costs of living, and other surcharges that would blow your mind.
And what happened to the incentive to become rich? What will these cities do when the rich decide they’ve had enough? One thing is for sure, the Left will always look for the magic tax figures between the rich staying and going.