I thought we just spent like a decade poring over charts showing how the rich are least affected by any downturn.
I thought we just spent like a decade poring over charts showing how the rich are least affected by any downturn.
1) the superrich, couple thousand in the whole of the US, who indeed essentially set their own tax rate. This is what everyone likes talking about. Needless to say, they're not the source of tax revenues, and they're NOT who government is talking about when discussing "raising taxes on the rich"
2) the "rich" as in double US average income or more. Anyone making 100k or more. Most California cops fall under this definition. These are people who will see their taxes raised, who pay for the state. This is who the government is talking about when discussing taxes.
You're talking about group 1. "Tax payments from the rich" is talking about group 2.
One of the strangest things about CA is that people aren't aware that incomes are actually quite high. Everyone thinks they're crushing it and wonders why they aren't. It's because $100k is far from rich - it's close to the median.
$200k for a HH won't even put you in the top 10% in some pretty large areas of the state.
but there is a decent sized subset of California that is insulated from the "problems" of California. they are insulated from the famous tax rates, do not rely on employment income, are not subject to the compliance burdens of being an employer, have inherited low property taxes or only rent, and can leave at a moment's notice.
this part of the population of California is large enough to vastly distort the rental or property market wherever they go to.