Early on, when Covidism was getting its feet wet, we predicted the inevitable problem for Blue States with governors like Cuomo and Newsom and Baker. These High-Tax big-budget money-pits were locking down their golden goose, but they’d never let government suffer for it.
Related: NH Lawsuit: I Think Taxxachusetts Has Screwed Itself Again
As the saying goes, government workers and politicians haven’t missed a single paycheck because robbing you of yours is essential. It’s a natural extension of the fearmongering over the occasional government shutdown. The end of the civilized world, it is, if you listen to these liars and hacks. And people do, so the next wave of abuse should roll off our backs like water from a duck.
Right?
The current microcosm of this is New Hampshire’s ongoing suit against Assachusetts (that’s deliberate). Locked down and kicked out, remote workers are taxed as if they were permitted to come to work in-state. NH said, wait one damn minute. Mass. said, it’s all good, look, these other states do it, and they do, which has made it a macrocosm; fourteen states that are being pilfered by “those other states” have joined New Hampshire in protest.
As a sign of how significant this ruling could end up becoming now less than 14 other states have submitted briefings with this petition or have their Attorney Generals submitting support for the petition.
But what does that have to do with the title of this post?
Have you ever seen me write, “to Democrats there is no ‘enough?'” It’s true. They can’t begin to answer the question, how much of our money is enough for the government you have planned for me? There is no enough. So, while the NH suit could result in billions being returned by states to workers they deliberately off-shored, such a ruling throws paint at a much bigger picture. The one being painted by legislators in Sacramento, California.
If there is no such thing as enough Democrat spending, there can be no limit to the taxation required to pay for what they deem essential. To that end, California (Seymore) is exploring absurd levels of wrongness to feed Audrey II’s (Little Shop of Horrors) insatiable appetite.
A new, higher wealth tax on all assets, no matter where they are earned or held. And, “this new surcharge on the wealthy would take effect on anyone who spends only 60 days within the state’s borders.”
Have you seen those commercials touting California as a diverse vacation spot? Well anyone engaged in a lengthy tour will become ensnared by this tax. Any collegians who wanted to spend a surfing tour during summer break could be on the hook. This would even apply to foreign travelers who spend a lengthy stay before kiting back to their countries.
Any prolonged presence in the state results in a massive tax burden, even if you never actually “live” there. And the best part? If you try to run away after meeting the minimum requirement to be taxed, the tax follows you.
The state is claiming the right to tax all your assets for the next ten years, again, regardless of where you or they may be.
While one of the right coast’s little state’s lawsuits need not address these plans by the Left Coast’s biggest budget abusers, it could inform it or set a precedent for pending lawsuits against it. If Massachusetts has no legal right to tax remote workers that they made remote (or under any other circumstance), taxing assets or labor outside the state dies a quick death, which brings us back to the prediction.
Blue states won’t stop spending, so residents need to make a choice. Pay more and higher taxes, leave for greener pastures (at least until they destroy those like they did the last state in which they lived), or grow a set of electoral ba**s and clean their political houses.
My prediction?
They will spread like a virus into lower-tax states and turn them into high-tax states.
I’d love to be wrong about that, but I’m not.
