Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

asoneth t1_itze6ap wrote

Reply to comment by modernhomeowner in PSA: Vet your Sources [Question 1] by RonBurgundy35

This is an important and valid concern that I share as well. If it helps you sleep better at night, the most thorough analysis I've seen concludes that:

"Together, cross-border moves and tax avoidance would reduce millionaires tax revenue by roughly 35 percent [to $1.3 billion]. (Absent these responses, the tax would be expected to raise $2.1 billion in 2023.)"

Via: https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/406

So it seems that 9% is still low enough to be a net positive from an income tax revenue perspective. (Though local property taxes may also take a small hit.) It won't raise as much as many people expect due to tax avoidance, but it also probably won't result in lowering the state's overall tax revenue.

Still, I would feel much more confident voting yes if they had chosen something like 7% as the top marginal tax rate to be more in alignment with the average of our neighboring states to test the waters. Going from a flat rate straight to a CA/NY/NJ/VT-level marginal rate overnight seems unnecessarily risky.

−2

modernhomeowner t1_itzevib wrote

Exactly, that's fairly exactly what I told my wife. I think 6% at $1M, 7% at $5M... I would have voted for that... And not sending postcards personally attacking people. It wouldn't have seemed like such a personal attack on those people, which to me, the personal attacks is going to make people move who were on the fence over the tax rates. I think the Yes superpac, the way they are proposing this by attacking people, is going to create more tax avoiders than analysts would otherwise expect, which is why I think we will become net losers.

2