Dan Walters

By Dan Walters
Published: Monday, Sep. 24, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

The centerpiece of Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax increase measure, Proposition 30, is a $5 billion a year boost in income taxes on about 150,000 high-income individuals and families – the 1 percenters who already pay 40 percent of California’s income taxes.

Their marginal income tax rate, now 9.3 percent, would increase by one, two or three percentage points for seven years.

For those with more than $1 million in taxable income, the top rate would hit 13.3 percent, including a 1 percent surcharge for mental health services imposed by voters in 2004. California would have – by a wide gap – the highest marginal income tax rate of any state.

“Tax the rich” obviously has popular appeal, as new polls reconfirm, which is why Brown and his union allies chose that path.

But how would those targeted for the increase react, should voters pass Proposition 30?

Would they simply pay up? Would they shelter more income from taxation – delaying stock sales and other transactions that create taxable capital gains, for example? Or would they change residences to a state with lower or no income taxes, such as Nevada?

Almost certainly, all of those and other options would be exercised should Proposition 30 pass. And that’s why predicting net revenue from such a hefty boost in marginal income tax rates is no more than an educated guess.

The notion that high- income residents would flee to other states has generated much debate as the Nov. 6 election nears.

Critics of the tax measure cite golfer Tiger Woods, who grew up in Southern California but relocated to Florida, which has no state income tax, as an example of how the rich have choices.

To read entire column, click here.