California says inequality is bad and also participates in Powerball?
From Governor French Laundry, 2022:
“In California, we recognize that our incredible diversity is the foundation for our state’s strength, growth and success – and that confronting inequality is not just a moral imperative, but an economic one,” said Governor Newsom.
It’s a moral imperative to reduce inequality. Therefore, anyone who increases inequality is evil (immoral).
From a government agency run by Governor Newsom:
Middle- and working-class Californians became poorer so that one Californian could become a billionaire. It is tough to think of a better-targeted method of increasing inequality. Why does California do this? Nothing requires the state to participate in Powerball or, indeed, run a lottery at all (Alabama, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, and Nevada do not have government-run gambling (CNN)).
Florida runs a lottery, of course, and it funds college tuition scholarships for the academically inclined. But Governor DeSantis does not say that it is a moral imperative to reduce inequality. Ron D. might be the terrible person that NYT and CNN say he is, but he isn’t a hypocrite on this issue.
Loosely related… a tax question… California exempts winners of its government-run lottery from paying the 13.3% state income tax (calculation for each state). What if the payout chosen is annual, though, and the winner moves? If he/she/ze/they doesn’t move to a tax-free state (e.g., NV, FL, TX) does he/she/ze/they have to pay the new state of residence’s income tax on the payouts? Suppose the winner had lived in Maskachusetts and bought the ticket in Maskachusetts. If he/she/ze/they moved to Florida after winning, would he/she/ze/they have had to continue to pay MA state income tax every year? I’m guessing the answer is “yes” because the money is actually coming from a Massachusetts state government agency so it is obtained in Massachusetts. (It still might make sense to move, however, because investment income on the newfound wealth would then be tax-free. See Effect on children’s wealth when parents move to Florida for an example, noting that it doesn’t include the new 9% income tax rate for successful people in MA.)
(On reflection, the tax policy is interesting. California does not tax people who enjoy taxpayer-funded housing, health care, food, smartphone, and home broadband. California does not tax people who collect child support or alimony. California does not tax people who decide to buy a lottery ticket instead of their daily cigarettes and marijuana. If a person chooses to work and/or invest, however, he/she/ze/they will be taxed.)
Full post, including comments









































