Moment of truth for wealthy Bay Area liberals

[rob in cal]

Over the last two decades its been fascinating to observe how the SF Bay Area is so liberal in its voting, not just the inner urban core (San Francisco and Oakland), but the whole area, from Marin county in the north, to Santa Clara in the south, plus the East Bay of course.  In November we will have Governor Browns tax increase on the ballot, with most of the increase hitting those making over 200k or thereabouts.  It will be fascinating to see how wealthy Bay Area liberals vote on this measure, which will raise California's state income tax up to three percent for some wealthy earners.  
In the SUSA poll of the state, support for the plan is 13% higher in the Bay Area than the state as a whole, but lets see if this keeps up.
 One nice thing about it, is it finally gives a bunch of California wealthy liberals who in the past have been upset about tax cuts on the federal level, a chance to vote for some taxes for themselves to pay.  Hopefully they appreciate Governor Browns efforts on their behalf.

[krazen1211]

Well, only a small portion of the Bay Area is wealthy. It's ground zero for income inequality; they have millions of people mooching off government.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, even in the bay area, most people wouldn't be affected by the income tax increase. It won't affect anyone making less than $250,000 a year, not even single filers.

There is a 0.25% sales tax that will affect everyone of course. There should be more sales tax coming in when the exemption for Amazon and the like expires in mid-September.

The Munger proposal will raise almost everyone's income taxes. Yeah, I don't see that passing.

[rob in cal]

I think Marin county will be the most interesting test.  I suppose looking at the vote by precinct level will be the best test, and perhaps the wealthiest Bay Area spots aren't the most Democratic, but my bet is that those wealthy  areas  are some of the most liberal, wealthy parts of the country.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Marin county will be the most interesting test.  I suppose looking at the vote by precinct level will be the best test, and perhaps the wealthiest Bay Area spots aren't the most Democratic, but my bet is that those wealthy  areas  are some of the most liberal, wealthy parts of the country.

I would expect it to still pass in Mill Valley, but do a fair amount worse than their percentages for Democrats for President.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Well, only a small portion of the Bay Area is wealthy. It's ground zero for income inequality; they have millions of people mooching off government.

I like how 'wealthy/mooching off the government' is your perception of the dichotomy here.

[Torie]

In other news, Obamacare raises the medicare tax from 2.9% to 3.8% on earned income that goes on forever, and slaps the 3.8% on unearned income for everybody earning over 200K if single, and 250K if married. I find it more and more profitable to spend my time more as a playboy than as a lawyer. That even applies to income from selling your home for a profit. Of course, next to nobody knows about this little tax. It was so buried in the 3000 some pages of the Obamacare bill, that it is only surfacing now, which reminds me yet again, just how pathetic the media is in covering anything complex.

[Gravis Marketing]

How many people have over 200k in unearned income?

[Torie]

How many people have over 200k in unearned income?

You combine earned and unearned income to hit the threshold. I will arrange my affairs to never hit that number again. Tax policy affects behavior. Who knew?

[ModerateCoward]

How many people have over 200k in unearned income?

You combine earned and unearned income to hit the threshold. I will arrange my affairs to never hit that number again. Tax policy affects behavior. Who knew?

I'm guessing that's a good thing? Instead of you working some unemployed law school graduate will get to do some work.

[Nichlemn]

How many people have over 200k in unearned income?

You combine earned and unearned income to hit the threshold. I will arrange my affairs to never hit that number again. Tax policy affects behavior. Who knew?

I'm guessing that's a good thing? Instead of you working some unemployed law school graduate will get to do some work.

Lump of labour fallacy

The real positive consequence to focus on is that if Torie works less, he might post more, granting positive externalities to Atlasians.

[memphis]

So a richer's taxes increase slightly? He's still a richer. There's just not that much marginal utility in the 300,000th dollar. What's really confounding is why a working class person would vote for a party that regularly tries to undermine Social Security and Medicare. That's a much more concrete standard of living issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In other news, Obamacare raises the medicare tax from 2.9% to 3.8% on earned income that goes on forever, and slaps the 3.8% on unearned income for everybody earning over 200K if single, and 250K if married. I find it more and more profitable to spend my time more as a playboy than as a lawyer. That even applies to income from selling your home for a profit. Of course, next to nobody knows about this little tax. It was so buried in the 3000 some pages of the Obamacare bill, that it is only surfacing now, which reminds me yet again, just how pathetic the media is in covering anything complex.

I've heard about this a bunch. Anyways, singles making less than $200k and married couples making less than $250k won't be affected by this.

[Smash255]

In other news, Obamacare raises the medicare tax from 2.9% to 3.8% on earned income that goes on forever, and slaps the 3.8% on unearned income for everybody earning over 200K if single, and 250K if married. I find it more and more profitable to spend my time more as a playboy than as a lawyer. That even applies to income from selling your home for a profit. Of course, next to nobody knows about this little tax. It was so buried in the 3000 some pages of the Obamacare bill, that it is only surfacing now, which reminds me yet again, just how pathetic the media is in covering anything complex.

I've heard about this a bunch. Anyways, singles making less than $200k and married couples making less than $250k won't be affected by this.

Its also just for those whose profit from the sale of the home is over $250,000 for singles and over $500,000 for married couples.

[Bacon King]

In other news, Obamacare raises the medicare tax from 2.9% to 3.8% on earned income that goes on forever, and slaps the 3.8% on unearned income for everybody earning over 200K if single, and 250K if married. I find it more and more profitable to spend my time more as a playboy than as a lawyer. That even applies to income from selling your home for a profit. Of course, next to nobody knows about this little tax. It was so buried in the 3000 some pages of the Obamacare bill, that it is only surfacing now, which reminds me yet again, just how pathetic the media is in covering anything complex.

I really doubt this is as obscure as you claim, Torie; Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz have both been regularly mentioning these new taxes (often inaccurately) on their respective radio shows for at least a year now. 

[Senator Sbane]

Well, only a small portion of the Bay Area is wealthy. It's ground zero for income inequality; they have millions of people mooching off government.

You don't know what you are talking about. The Bay Area economy hires lots of people making salaries in the 70-150k range. That's how you get the high median incomes you see across the board in the Bay Area. I mean, Oakland has a median income that is almost the same as the nation as a whole. In places like Socal or even NYC, you see high average income perhaps but median incomes are quite low compared to the Bay Area.

[Torie]

In other news, Obamacare raises the medicare tax from 2.9% to 3.8% on earned income that goes on forever, and slaps the 3.8% on unearned income for everybody earning over 200K if single, and 250K if married. I find it more and more profitable to spend my time more as a playboy than as a lawyer. That even applies to income from selling your home for a profit. Of course, next to nobody knows about this little tax. It was so buried in the 3000 some pages of the Obamacare bill, that it is only surfacing now, which reminds me yet again, just how pathetic the media is in covering anything complex.

I really doubt this is as obscure as you claim, Torie; Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz have both been regularly mentioning these new taxes (often inaccurately) on their respective radio shows for at least a year now. 

You subject yourself to listening to those two gentlemen?  You have more fortitude than I!

[opebo]

Fantastic news about that tax increase from Obamacare, Torie.  If only it were higher.

Tax policy affects behavior. Who knew?

OK, two points - 1) what on earth are you doing 'working' at all?  or is it more in a euphemistic sense you are talking about? and 2) what kind of bizarre reasoning leads you to consider a 3.8% tax sufficient to be not worth getting the money?  (hint - rich people resent giving back any of their government-provided privilege).

I know if I had passive income (whatever it was masquerading as on the tax form) effortlessly entering my pockets, I wouldn't cause it to cease just because I only got to keep 70% or so.

[Torie]

Fantastic news about that tax increase from Obamacare, Torie.  If only it were higher.

Tax policy affects behavior. Who knew?

OK, two points - 1) what on earth are you doing 'working' at all?  or is it more in a euphemistic sense you are talking about? and 2) what kind of bizarre reasoning leads you to consider a 3.8% tax sufficient to be not worth getting the money?  (hint - rich people resent giving back any of their government-provided privilege).

I know if I had passive income (whatever it was masquerading as on the tax form) effortlessly entering my pockets, I wouldn't cause it to cease just because I only got to keep 70% or so.

I was speaking about myself in one of the posts. Yes the marginal utility for me of additional dough is quite low relatively speaking. If the tax on passive income got high enough, I would just buy more municipal bonds.

[opebo]

I was speaking about myself in one of the posts. Yes the marginal utility for me of additional dough is quite low relatively speaking. If the tax on passive income got high enough, I would just buy more municipal bonds.

As a wise old Italian woman once said to me about these issues - 'you should have such problems'.