Pretend for a moment that you’ve just been elected to public office and that you now have the power to choose whose income you’re going to tax to pay for all the vital government programs you believe should be supported. If you want to keep those vital government programs on a sound financial footing, without jeopardizing the well-being of the people who rely on those programs, especially in hard economic times, upon whose income should you most rely for your income tax revenue?
Before you answer, consider the following chart, which is based on data from the IRS, as collected by the Tax Foundation:
The answer should be obvious from the graph above, unless perhaps you’re a member of the California State Legislature. Fortunately, the Tax Foundation has a golden opportunity just for you! Jumping straight to the conclusion:
A state that faces economic decline and an exodus of population has two choices. One is to ramp up state spending on education and infrastructure and offer targeted tax incentives for selected industries, and hope that these inducements will lure people back. All state governments do this to some extent, notwithstanding the risk. At best, however, these investments will take decades to pay off. At worst, the fate of Michigan could be more common: people take their degrees from the excellent state schools and use the excellent roads to drive to other states where there are jobs.
The other choice is to reduce reliance on burdensome and volatile revenue sources, prioritize state services and pare back on the non-essential, and set out a welcome mat of a simple, transparent, neutral, and stable state tax system for all. If tax increases have to occur, structure them in a way that spreads the burden and addresses spending growth. Such a choice will not generate billions of dollars immediately to recover from years of borrowing and spending beyond means. But it will lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth and ensure that the Golden State’s tarnished decade will not continue forever.
P.S.: U.S. Congress members – the same rules apply at the federal level!
This is a brilliant way to look at the issue. As one who’s been in the 1% a few times in the last few years (due to ups and downs of 3 businesses I’ve started), I wish I could post my own volatility chart to this thread... it’s been as much as 400% up one year, and then 86% down from 2006 through 2009.
I adjust my own expenses to meet revenues year over year, I wish government could do the same.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
To assume that taking 75% or even 99% of all the money that someone makes building a business is stupid. First of all they would hire less people to work, less people to make the products that they would otherwise buy and use less people to eat the products ... one man to grow the plant, one to water it, one to pick it, one to process it and make it into food and fiber, one to weave it into thread, one to weave it into cloth, one to cut the cloth, one to make the shirt, one to buy the shirt to wear to his place of work where the process starts all over. We have to remember that this process starts with The one who bought the seed in the first place. I think government should cut its expenditures by 75% put welfare people to work get out of our schools and stop trying to tell us how to raise our kids. I think there are far too many people working for government and too few others working period. I think unions need to stand down and get out of the way of the American people.