Students in Massachusetts will get free lunch and breakfast at school thanks to a new 4% tax put on people who earn more than $1 million.
We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year. Lots of people will read this millionaire’s tax and think it will apply to them when they are nearing retirement since they finally have a million dollars after saving all their life.
That’s what the campaign to quash the bill did. That, and tried to convince people that they might have a single multi-million-dollar transaction in their life (like selling a large successful business) and have to pay an extra 4% on it.
Always a push to get the “temporarily embarassed millionaire” to support the reach. “Yeah, yanno. My little lawmowing operation that makes me $20,000 coild sell for over a million and then I’m fucked”
Ah, the Philip J. Fry mentality
“someday I might be rich, and then people like me better watch their step”
We need different terms for people who HAVE a million dollars and people who MAKE a million per year.
We have them. The first is referred to as “Wealth” or “Worth” and the other is referred to as “Income”. Therefore what Mass instituted is called an Income Tax.
The descriptor “free” misleads - this is exactly the type of thing taxes were always meant to pay for.
This I have always hated the “FREE STUFF!” talking point and how the mainstream bought it.
I’m not talking about demanding some middle class guy be forced to buy me an Xbox, but rather I’m asking multiple billionaires start paying just a little more in taxes (instead of ya know… constant rebates for “cReAtInG JoBs”) so that little Timmy doesn’t die of untreated pediatric cancer.
It’s mad that children could some how not deserve or accumulate debt to eat. It’s even more mad that its exactly what happens.
It’s also mad that this is also the case for adults. When you turn 18, you shouldn’t suddenly lose basic rights (like access to food and shelter), but that’s exactly what most capitalists want to happen (and so that’s how it works).
Goods with inelastic demand shouldn’t be driven by the profit motive. Food, healthcare, housing, etc. We can let luxury goods stay within the private sector for now since people don’t need them to survive, and come back to that conversation at a later date.
It’s easier to sell a tax hike if you know exactly where it’s going :)
Unless you’re Waukesha, Wisconsin, where they specifically voted to stop giving kids handouts (i.e. free lunch). Because, you know, kids should work for their food or something instead of using their energy to learn.
probably the same people that say abortion is murdering kids…
I mean, cheap labor has to come from somewhere… Where do you find empoverished people to exploit if you don’t force births?
If you add underage labour liberalisation to that, you get a bingo!
I’ll raise you the most voted pre-candidate to president in my country, who said that people should be able to sell their own organs if they want to. (He plans to worsen things for workers in such a way that they would need to.)
Is this guy an ultraliberal moron or a pretend-conservative who says that but thinks abortion and prostitution should be illegal?
Strangely, both.
Of course it is. But you know, kids lives only really matter up until they are born. At that point the kids, their parents and their livelihoods and happiness…all that can fuck right off.
deleted by creator
“It’s about time these kids had some skin in the game!”
-Some Republican Somewhere I’m sure.
Waukesha County is by far the most conservative in the state, and has been playing a massive role in destroying our state’s democratic process for a few decades now.
Another fun fact about it is that they’ve been trying for years to glom onto the Lake Michigan watershed, which, geographically, it is not a part of. They want to straight up take our water, which they do not need, in exchange for nothing whatsoever of any real value.
Yeah it’s a cesspool that way.
I live in the mke area and when looking for housing Waukesha was a tempting area because of how much more house you can get for the money, but I just don’t think I can handle living there. Not to mention I want my kids going to schools in a community that gives a shit about kids and their education.
But but that’s socialism
A European here. Aside from going in the right direction, I have a question: Don’t the rich already pay most of their earnings as taxes? So the problem is not that they are not getting taxed, but rather that they avoid paying them through loopholes? Or is that a billionaire problem?
deleted by creator
What do you propose the government should limit/stop spending on to reach over 0.5% of the real yearly earnings of Gates, Musk, Bezos, the Waltons and all their billionaire friends?
(Note that I’m not even asking about if the actual real yearly earnings of millionaires.)
Don’t let anyone tell you high income earners don’t pay tax. I’m a CPA (tax) and most of my individual clients are high and ultra high net worth.
One of my biggest clients is a group of four hedge fund managers in NYC for example. They earned about $50 million each in the last few years. Idk what their net worths are but I’d imagine it’s at least a few hundred million each. They pay at least 37% federal, plus investment income tax (Obamacare), plus 10% to the state of NY plus NYC. It’s a lot and winds up being over $25 million a year. I don’t shed any tears for them because they are left with $25 million to play with (each, per year), which they should be able to scrape by on.
You can certainly argue it should be higher or lower or whatever but there’s this idea out there that wealthy people don’t pay tax and it’s just absurd. Also frankly it makes my job harder because people think I’m a magic anti tax wizard that just makes it go away, I’m just sitting here like you made a fuckton of money and owe a fuckton of tax, what’s the question? ¯\(ツ)/¯
Thanks for the answer to my question! I did not really look into this for a few years. And those that I did were when I really got into US politics. Thankfully I did 180 on that, but my knowledge from that time is untrustworthy to say the least.
Your answer really clarified and added a lot rather than repeating what others said, along with it being from a professional, which is well appreciated. So again, thank you and the others for taking the time to answer my question.
The issue is more likely that taxes aren’t being used in ways that benefit the public, like they are in other countries. But also many Americans don’t want that because grrr filthy socialism
Do you ever get a sense of whether your clients ‘get’ just how disproportionate there income is compared to the median?
According to this $50 million puts them comfortably in top 1%, receiving median annual US income in just under two hours (if my math is good:
(40*52)*(46,001/50000000) = 1.91?).Yeah it’s really hard to see that in the context of kids literally starving.
Regarding your question, it’s a mix. I would say many if not most understand they are extremely successful and fortunate. The variance is how out of touch they are. Some are incredibly generous, while others are grumpy or miserable. Some actually want higher taxes, some are Scrooge types.
I once had an UHNW individual who consistently donated so much to charity that he exceeded deduction limits. I had to research ways to optimize his giving, which was refreshing.
Then there was a trust fund beneficiary worth at least $100 million, a really nice guy who lived modestly, bought the whole office lunch and dressed casually. Very down to earth. We were in the process of setting up a charity trust for him before I left that firm.
Other end of the spectrum, I had a paranoid and unstable client who repeatedly pushed us to do unethical and illegal things, making everyone uncomfortable. We fired him even though he was a ~100k/yr client for us. Easy decision.
All kinds really.
Part of it is loopholes, but an equally big part is that we tax the way the rich earn their money differently. Most working- and middle-class earners make their money from a wage or salary, which is taxed as income. However, the rich make almost all of their money through dividends on stocks, low- or no-interest loans backed by assets, and selling stocks through the market or companies (that they have a seat on the board) doing stock buybacks. All of the income made from the above are taxed differently as “capital gains tax,” which is usually taxed at a much lower rate than income.
Thanks for your answer to my question! More specific answers like this one really help reinforce what the other told me. I also appreciate you not going into politics, like a few others have.
Capital gains tax isn’t ‘much’ lower, it’s like 5% lower, depending on the bracket.
Loans make it possible to avoid taxes–temporarily. You eventually have to pay off the loan, at which point you’ll pay taxes. Of course, if you’re making more from your investments than you’re paying in interest (and with plenty of collateral, you can get lower-interest loans), it makes sense to just pay the interest and never the principal of the loan. Of course, if loan interest rates shoot up (which they now have), this can suddenly stop working.
And right now, there is a loophole related to carrying loans–but it requires you to die. When you die, your heir is allowed to sell assets to pay off your loans without paying capital gains tax (or not as much? I don’t quite remember).
Even ignoring every singly loophole, we tax the ways the rich collect and store their wealth at a much lower percent than actual income. Meaning even if the rich didn’t dodge taxes, they end up paying much less % wise.
Adding in loopholes they pay nothing or next to nothing.
That’s hilarious. Only the “little people” pay taxes.
Douchebag Trump hasn’t paid taxes in about a decade
If you’re actually curious, look up “progressive tax rates”. You can absolutely still get obscenely rich in the US, even if you pay your taxes as intended. They won’t though, because psychopathy and crippling narcissism are prerequisites to “earning” enough money to even have that conversation in the first place.
Remember that billionaires…
- don’t live next to normal people
- don’t work next to normal people
- don’t commute/travel next to normal people
- don’t eat next to normal people
- don’t shop next to normal people
- don’t sweat next to normal people
They could not be further removed from the reality of their kingdoms below, unless they were on Mars. They don’t want to contribute to the social safety nets that stop the little people from freezing/starving/dying. They’ll spend a million dollars to not spend $200 in taxes that contribute to the public good.
And they are looking into that Mars thing…
Yeah. The problem is that the richest people have many loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Getting a minimal salary and then just taking loans against their assets is one of them.
Is this the Steve Jobs $1 special??
Yes
This.
And to add to it. If you were making 10 million dollar and someone approached and said that they could make it so that you keep 1 million in taxes if you pay them 100 thousand you would most likely be one of the ones doing it.
If you make enough money you can afford hiring people to find new ways to keep your expenses down. Tax is an expense as any other to many rich people.
“After all, you made your fortune without getting any help so why should your earnings go to p1eople who use the system”
While true …. We have different income tax brackets where those with a higher income pay a higher percentage, for federal tax. However Massachusetts had a flat tax rate on income: we all pay the same percentage. Now that state tax will be more progressive, at least to the extent that rich people have “income”
Thanks for your answer to my question! Simple and to the point, without getting into politics, like a few others have. I had a more general knowledge from a few years ago, so a specific for this case helped.
Again, thank you and the others who took their time to answer me.
That’s great news! No kid should ever be hungry at school, especially when they really are legally forced to be there!
But that will teach them that free stuff is good which will make them communists who love big government!!1! I want children to hunt for their own food like in the good old days. Didn’t catch anything? Too bad little Timmy, guess you won’t eat tonight because we don’t got no welfare state!
Also I believe in protecting the children and am pro-life.
/s
deleted by creator
COVID response is wild because for like 2 years we had a robust expansion of both direct government aid and healthcare coverage and accessibility, and the poof most of it disappeared. Like we literally had free healthcare at point of service for one disease which is crazy.
Great to see that at least some states responding to the demand for these heightened services. We should be pointing towards the example of COVID aid to show what the government can do if the public pressure is there. If we did it once we can do it again!
Free school meals should be a given since our taxes should go to what our elected officials have so thoughtfully decided where to apply them. What no one rarely brings up let alone tries to solve is the disgusting and unsafe food that the local, state and fed officials decide to make available. There’s too much politics in cafeteria food. They should focus there budget in getting healthy food not the cheapest, uncles cousins or corporate friend contract.
Reason why #3648393847 why representative democracy simply does not work.
The vast majority (262 out of 351) of Massachusetts municipalities are direct democracy. A further 31 are near enough that it’s not hard to be elected if you run (my precinct has empty rep. slots every year).
Also in contrast to the rest of the US, there are no unincorporated areas (“county land”) in Massachusetts. Counties aren’t a useful demarcation here. Everything is a Town or a city.
The rest of the U.S. needs to switch to something similar.
When making that argument, you’ll want to add a few examples.
Otherwise people think you mean dictatorship.
Switzerland has a direct democracy and they are doing perfectly fine.
deleted by creator
They’re in many ways not the best example.
I would wager you have never been to Switzerland, or if you have, you never left the tourist traps to interact with the ‘real Swiss’.
I only lived there one year, but I can tell you right now, they are not ‘doing perfectly fine.’
Their pretty tourism industry hides some of the ugliest racism, faux-nationalism in the form of cantonal squabbling, sexism, anti-lgbt+, and a general dislike of anyone who does not conform exactly to their specific ways of living. Fuck Switzerland.
I think what is missing is control over the representatives. When you elect someone, you give them your power, you should be able to take it back when they abuse it.
In a representative democracy, transparency and control are key and when this is not enforced, people tend to think the system is broken and does not work. It would work if that is fixed
People shouldn’t be giving their power away at all, but fair.
I think you might be confusing representative democracy with capitalism.
Nah, I mean representative democracy. Trusting someone else to work in your best interests never works. The only one who has your best interests in mind is you, if that.
Yes, we 100% should be using our school kitchens as kitchens, not just reheating premade “GFS Food.”
GFS food would be an upgrade over what most are using.
… what are they using?
Aramark and Chartwells are two of the biggest companies, they are custom designing menus to fit the minimum requirements as cheaply as possible. They are getting food in the same tier as bargain frozen dinners or prison.
That’s roughly where GFS lies…
deleted by creator
4% of WHAT is taxed?
Yeah, most millionaires have no profit and they’re in the red. We need even more taxes on small aircrafts that are used for private charter, more taxes on purchasing and operating helicopters, taxes on the kerosene not used in military scope.
Taxes on luxury cars that only the billionaire’s afford. Every car over 150.000 USD should have a 100% tax to feed the homeless and the kids
Per the article, it’s an income tax on any income over a million dollars, so it’s essentially an additional state income tax bracket. So, if an entity makes exactly 1 million this year then they won’t pay any extra, but if they make 2 million, then they pay 4 percent on that additional 1 mill (40k), over whatever else they would owe before the additional tax.
Like all income tax, there are ways to avoid it or reduce your burden, but not every person/company goes to those lengths.
I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society, but it’s pretty hard to implement and of course has a ton of very wealthy opposition.
I personally think a wealth tax is fairer for society
The most reasonable way I’ve seen so far is to assume that your wealth passively creates x% of extra income for you, and then tax that amount as income. That also simplifies the tax system, since you only need enter your assets, and not what exacts trades and profits you made.
The most reasonable way I’ve seen so far is to assume that your wealth passively creates x% of extra income for you, and then tax that amount as income.
I can make it simpler yet and close the Billionaire Income Loophole, where their “income” is taking out loans against value of their investments by simply taxing those loans. No need to value something, they’ve already done it when they took out the loan. If you borrowed 10 Million against a portfolio of 50 Million then you should be taxed on the 10 Million. That’s the value you assigned and the benefit you received.
This would also catch the “Buy, Borrow, Die” / Step-Up scheme that the ultra-wealthy use.
Will simply drive more rich people out of the state.
Revenue from the new income tax is earmarked for public school meals.
As the kids get free food now, some rich people must be left in the state. Maybe the ones with an actual heart?
Looking at this from a community perspective, rich people that don’t contribute to the community is kind of worthless anyway.
They always say that and they never leave
A lot of bluster and blubbering about what would happen if so and so law passed. Never works. They’re still making plenty and once they’re done whining they stay put
Not to discourage continued bleeding of the rich, but I wonder if this is the right way to go about it. Theoretically, we should already have a lot of laws on the books that slam millionaires for their advantageous position. But, their budget also allows for accountants that shift and hide that money, sometimes on a questionable basis of legality.
Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS’ operating budget, so that they’re able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. This is working, let it work. If they start avoiding it the rules can be changed.
Exactly. When I supported this, there was that wince of “this won’t get the people it really needs to hit”… but it does enough.
And tbh, I know some wealthy fucking people who legitimately don’t cross the line. $1M/yr is a lot of bloody money. That means if I found a way to “only” make $900,000/yr, I’m immune to this tax.
Also, anyone hiring for $900,000/yr?
Right? I hear this all the time about inheritance tax. Im more than willing to pay inheritance tax, meaning I’m getting like $3.5 Million to start.
Could one prong on this assault be to increase the IRS’ operating budget, so that they’re able to track down and stop more of these tax haven shenanigans?
Well you could simply start by plugging up a few questionable tax loopholes.
Whether or not the reason the IRS can’t collect the tax revenue to be able to provide certain services is because of them not having enough money, I don’t know.
But if you’re issue is with certain laws on taxation, it would makes more sense to deal with those first.
EDIT: To mention something else that’s important to all of this, there’s something called the Laffer Curve. The simple explanation is that there’s a happy medium between the percentage of income tax and the amount of tax revenue gained. Too much or too little income taxation and you end up with less tax revenue. You can see this in a few times during US history where the income tax wasn’t as high, but the tax revenue was great. So to further determine where we should go with income tax you could look at the past few years of projected and actual tax revenue, as well as spending to service government debt among other government spending.
I’m not an economist nor an accountant, but this is likely what you’d have to do to figure out the balance between taxation and government spending in order to have money for certain social services. However, no one wants to do that and another big problem is the government doesn’t like being told it needs to manage it’s spending better.
It’s not bleeding anyone. My father was an airline flag carrier captain in Europe. He made what he called “an obscene paycheck”. When taxes came around, he would say: look at what they are taking from me, I must be making a ton!
And most likely he was paying more then than someone earning the same amount does today. We’re not even close to scrapping our way back out of society being profoundly imbalanced towards the wealthy.
And that’s still only employee money. Very very high paid employee money, but ultimately still labor.
You wouldn’t believe what you can pull down if you live off other people’s labor.
Colorado did something similar last year as well.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/1134832752/colorado-free-school-lunch-results-measure-midterms
The SCOTUS will overturn this within 2 years.
deleted by creator
I don’t think they can. States are allowed to tax their citizens and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
Cool, but you know who isn’t getting a free lunch now? Those millionaires who worked so hard for that money. What have those kids done to earn theirs?
/s, to be clear. I wish these cool places to live (e.g, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan) weren’t so fucking cold. Why can’t there be a nice liberal southern state?
There is. It is California and a 500sqft house cost $1000000000
Uhh, the cold isn’t the problem. It’s too expensive to live here and the real fix for housing (forced upzoning by the State) is a political nonstarter.
But I will gladly shovel snow versus face the heat, humidiity, snakes, bears, tornadoes, severe hurricanes, drought, wild fires, car oriented development, and whatever other nightmares the rest of the country has to offer. Just get a good coat, LL Bean boots, and a snowblower. It’s not that bad.
Stupid people are lazy and don’t want to shovel snow, thus selecting out where they tend to end up living.
Please explain Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia then. All of them are filled to the brim with some the dumbest people on Earth.
Woo hoo suck it Alaska texas didnt make some random list on the Internet
Is it typically expected for you to have to shovel snow in Texas?
Whats snow.
That stuff that shut the state down 2 years ago.
deleted by creator
I really hope you’re making a bad joke.
I was.
deleted by creator
