Biden's Tax Plan May Not Be Dead Yet

Roberto Heidenreich

Hot

8 mins

Oct 03, 2022 16:19

Although President Biden's plan to raise taxes on very high-income households was not passed by Congress, the idea is still being considered.

It's clear that the majority of Americans support the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy in order to fund new social programs. President Biden's plan may have died in Congress, but it's clear that the fight is far from over. Initiatives on November ballots in California and Massachusetts show that there is still strong support for this idea at the state level. And with both states linked to explicit, broadly popular new spending, it's clear that this issue is far from settled.

I support the California initiative (Proposition 30) to impose a surtax of 1.75 percent on annual incomes in excess of $2 million, on top of the state’s top rate of 12.3 percent. This will raise between $3.5 billion and $5 billion annually, rising over time, according to a state estimate. About 80 percent of the money raised should be used to promote zero emission vehicles and the rest should be used to fund efforts to prevent and control wildfires.

I support the Massachusetts referendum (Question 1 or the “Fair Share Amendment”). I believe that it is important to invest in education, infrastructure, and public transportation. I think that the 4 percent surtax on personal incomes over $1 million is a fair way to raise the necessary funds. The $1 million threshold should rise with inflation so that the tax continues to target high-income earners.

The new surtax in Massachusetts would only affect a small number of households, according to Tufts University. Less than one percent of households would pay the surtax, which would generate additional revenue for the state.

I believe that tax avoidance is a major problem that needs to be addressed. I think that it is unfair to the people who pay their taxes on time and in full. I also think that it is unfair to the government, which relies on tax revenue to fund important programs and services. I believe that tax avoidance reduces the potential revenue that the government can collect, and this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Looking at the current political landscape, it's clear that there are a lot of familiar faces and issues. However, there are also a lot of unfamiliar faces and issues.

I think that the new tax is a good idea. I think that the rich should pay more and like how the money would be spent.

Critics say the state already has a massive budget surplus, about $1.9 billion at the end of fiscal year 2022, and doesn’t need to raise taxes. Business groups have lined up against the initiative, arguing it would make the state less competitive with its neighbors, including New Hampshire that has no personal income tax at all.

The California story is more complicated. Its initiative comes on the heels of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order banning the sale of new gasoline powered vehicles after 2035. Thus, after that date, the new incentives would do little to encourage the purchase of more electric or hydrogen-powered cars since they will be the only new vehicles for sale in the state. The surtax would expire in 2043 or once California meets certain emissions standards, whichever comes first.

The state of California is facing a number of financial challenges, and one of the biggest is the constitutional spending limit. If the state wants to spend more money on programs authorized by the referendum, it will have to reduce spending on other programs, shift resources to protected spending, or return money to taxpayers. This could have a major impact on the state's budget and its ability to provide services to its residents.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the so-called "Trojan Horse" that supposedly was used to bring the coronavirus into the United States

The politics are even stranger. In a world where anything and everything can be turned into a political issue, it's no surprise that people are becoming more and more polarized.

I oppose the Lyft initiative because it is nothing more than corporate welfare. The fiscal welfare of our state should be more important than helping out a ride-sharing company.

The company's help in drafting the initiative and promotion of it through spending $35 million is praiseworthy. The new tax would subsidize ride-sharing drivers who buy electric vehicles and help pay for charging stations, which is an essential step in reducing emissions and fighting climate change.

I support the new tax as it will help improve the environment and the health of Californians. I believe that this tax is necessary to improve our state and to protect the people who live here.

As Californians grapple with how to close the state's budget deficit, a new poll shows that a majority of residents support Prop 30, which would raise taxes on the wealthiest Californians. While there is no similar public opinion data available for Massachusetts, national surveys show that there is widespread belief that the wealthy and corporations don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. This may explain the support for the "Fair Share Amendment," which would impose a surtax on incomes over $1 million. With both states facing significant budget challenges, it will be interesting to see if voters in California and Massachusetts are willing to support tax increases on the wealthy in order to close the gap.

The deep divide between rich and poor is becoming more apparent in today's society. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

The debate over the millionaire tax is a microcosm of the political divide in the United States. While some states are cutting taxes, others, like California and Massachusetts, are looking to raise taxes on a small subset of taxpayers. This divide is likely to continue in the future, as each side tries to advance their own agenda.

It is clear that climate change is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. However, the question remains as to what the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions is. Some argue that taxing only a handful of households is not the best solution. Would taxing all users of fossil fuels, and perhaps rebating some of the revenue back to families, be a more effective way to reduce carbon emissions? This is a complex issue with no easy answer. However, it is important that we continue to explore all options in order to find the most effective solution to address climate change.

I believe that hiking taxes on the very rich is good politics and good policy. I think it's time for the government to start asking the wealthiest people to pay their fair share. I think it would be good for the economy and would help reduce the deficit.