We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

I had the option when I worked in Washington to move there and skip Oregon's 9% or whatever income tax rate, but still get to shop in Portland with a 0% sales tax.  The problem was, Vancouver would suck to live in, and Portland doesn't.  That 9% penalty was worth it.

I wasn't making anywhere near the $1m to hit the levels they're talking about in the article, but 9% of my salary wasn't enough to live in a shiathole.  You get what you pay for.

I heard all the gold in California is in a bank in the middle of Beverly Hills in somebody else's name.

Let's all enjoy the evisceration of Mickelson (for instance) and his supposed high tax rate complaint by Daily Kos.

If you rich people don't want to pay your fair share, then get the hell out.

Well if being rich sucks so bad in whatever state you live in Ill take some of the excess money off your hands for you.

If, after taxes, you still make more than 10X the amount of the median national income, then you can go piss up a rope about your tax complaints.

I hear that the housing in California is so ultra-expensive because it's a terrible place and no one wants to live there.  Conversely, real estate in Nebraska is dirt cheap because Nebraska is super-awesome and in really high demand.

Yes, I'm sure that's what I heard.

We have our priorities all backwards.  We should reward people for being rich and punish people for being poor, because rich people are better. Think of how awesome the world would be if everyone was rich!

That's why I've asked Congress to pass my "poors pays mores" tax plan. The idea is really simple. If you're poor, you pay more in taxes. It's a common-sense plan to punish the worthless slackers who refuse to be rich. Once all the poors see the economic advantages of being rich, they'll work harder and become rich, and then there won't be any more poor people.

davidphogan: I had the option when I worked in Washington to move there and skip Oregon's 9% or whatever income tax rate, but still get to shop in Portland with a 0% sales tax.  The problem was, Vancouver would suck to live in, and Portland doesn't.  That 9% penalty was worth it.

I wasn't making anywhere near the $1m to hit the levels they're talking about in the article, but 9% of my salary wasn't enough to live in a shiathole.  You get what you pay for.

Oh now, Vantucky taint all that bad

Born and raised native Californian.

Love the weather and the natural beauty.

Hate the politicians and 60% of the idiots who vote here.

Fine. Leave. Clearing out bel air and the hills of beverly would do wonders for traffic. Plus I wouldnt get yelled at in Farsi so much. How hard is it to say f you in english ?

Make no mistake: states need income. They'll get it one way or the other. Oregon has no sales tax, but makes up for it elsewhere. Washington state has no state income tax, but...you get the point.

You want to look at money collected as a ratio of your income. The state that collects the least is Alaska. Nevada's in there too. A handful of states that I have no interest in living in.

On the other hand, despite the financial issues in California, I drive a few hours and I'm at a beach. Or, in the other direction, I'm in the Wine Country. A few hours northeast and I'm skiing in the Sierras, or an hour to Oakland and I can be shot to death. This state has more to offer than any other place. I might pay a bit more, but it's got cultures, interesting topography, plenty of fertile land, and an inordinate number of crazy street people that might decide I'm the devil at any moment and try to gouge my eyes out.

And treasure? It's under da big W.

Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

Problem is no Silicon Valley computer scientist wants to live in a state where the education board is dominated by creationists, no matter the low tax rates.

I'm in California, and part of the working poor.  My boss handed me my W-2 this year, and it showed my taxable earnings as an obscenely high number I've never seen before.  I thought it was a mistake, because if I was getting paid that much, I wouldn't be looking for a new job.

Over 25% of my pay went to state and Federal government for various automatic withholdings, and I still owe $5 each on my tax return to California and the Feds.

I don't know about anyone else, but if someone offered me a job that paid over $1 million per year, I wouldn't be particularly worried about being in a higher tax bracket.

I'm waiting for the flood of rich liberals who are going to flock to CA in order to be good citizens and pay the highest tax possible.

My parents used to make a crapload doing real estate in Los Angeles back in the 80s. Now they're retired and poor again and tell me they feel guilty about barely every being forced to pay a dime in taxes. If I were more cynical, I might be inclined to make snide remarks about their change of heart.

/ you know what a failed, self-financed business can do to family finances?

No one wants to be borderline wealthy in Jesus Land (aka Missouri)

jehovahs witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

Lately I've been thinking of ways to skirt tax laws, because ever since the dollar's gone to shiat my tax burden has been pretty hefty, even though I live and work overseas.

What if you weren't taxed on your income, but on the percentage of your income left over after deducting all your expenses. Food, housing, repairs, fuel, toys, video games, TVs, every expense. Since you're spending that money, it's going back into the economy, so it's not being hoarded and removed from the economy. Then, at the end of the year, if you spent everything you have, you aren't going to get hit by a tax bill that sends you into debt. Rather, you'd owe nothing since you've already passed along the money.

The remainder of the unspent income could be taxed, which would put a greater burden on high-income earners who would either pay taxes on a larger amount or would spend in greater amounts. Either way is a net benefit to society. Low-income earners who are eking out their existence wouldn't pay any tax at all.

A state that votes itself reasonable public goods,
then always vehemently votes against any public servant who would dare tally the bill for such goods,

Failing?

uselessgit: I'm waiting for the flood of rich liberals who are going to flock to CA in order to be good citizens and pay the highest tax possible.

Not just a clever name, eh?  Damn all those Hollyweird liebural elitists living in Hollywood, I bet none of them even set foot in Caleeforney.

Meatybrain: You deduct state taxes. It doesn't add to your tax burden, it just moves it around a bit.

A deduction is not the same as a credit.

Oh damn. Let me play this tiny violin for you.

jehovahs witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

What's it like to be our resident threadshiatter jackass?

Ignore the paid trolls. Drew can afford ir

1745 and couting

Hagenhatesyouall: jehovahs witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

[us.123rf.com image 850x567]

[www.butterfieldinn.com image 850x479]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 196x258]


/hot, like california

Ed Willy: Problem is no Silicon Valley computer scientist wants to live in a state where the education board is dominated by creationists, no matter the low tax rates.

umm yeah, why would income matter to a computer scientist. We are all about the local education board's view points. ....dumb ass sparty

// For the record, just took a Job in Austin this summer. Turned down offers from LA and Silicon and CT. Money does farking matter

fusillade762: I'm sure everyone in Hollywood will now flee California to make movies in Texas.

They will move if the studios get sick of it and move away.

/ yeah, like that will happen. oh, wait.
// 20  years tops.  Hollywood is dead.

Hagenhatesyouall: jehovahs witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

[us.123rf.com image 850x567]

[www.butterfieldinn.com image 850x479]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 196x258]

Yes, California is terrible.  It's a horrible place to visit, especially.  Please do not ever come here.

Meatybrain: You deduct state taxes. It doesn't add to your tax burden, it just moves it around a bit.

If you're too stupid to realize this, you don't deserve to be a farking millionaire, you gilded asswipe.

Something being tax deductable doesn't mean it comes as no cost to you.  The deduction is from taxable *income*, not from the actual tax owed.  If you're in the top Federal tax bracket of 39.6%, every dollar of state income tax increase costs you 60.4 cents.

/complaining about it still makes them gilded asswipes

"confronting a 51.9 percent federal-state income tax hit on earnings over $1 million"

Yeah, somehow I bet once you figure in deductions, credits, and other legal tax reduction methods, anyone earning over a million annually won't face anywhere near that much in effective income tax rates - but it sure makes for a wonderful talking point for people who don't know what they're talking about.

"Oh Marge, the government takes more than half of my money in taxes!!! We're being taxed to death!!!!"

/I'm in the 28% income tax bracket . . . yet I'm only paying 4% effective income taxes this year

SirCodeAlot: Ed Willy: Problem is no Silicon Valley computer scientist wants to live in a state where the education board is dominated by creationists, no matter the low tax rates.

umm yeah, why would income matter to a computer scientist. We are all about the local education board's view points. ....dumb ass sparty

// For the record, just took a Job in Austin this summer. Turned down offers from LA and Silicon and CT. Money does farking matter

Boo farking hoo. It's the tax rate on income over a million dollars per year. Pardon me while I cry a river for those poor, destitute multi-millionaires...

I can't believe no one mentioned this so far....

That income tax rate only applies to W2 income of course. Rich people like Phil Mickelson are a rarity - professional sports players do get a W2 (or at least some sort of pass-through income) that shows up on their 1040 as taxable income.

Most rich people do not.  They get dividends from investments which are taxed at capital gains at much lower rates.

For every Phil Mickelson out there there's a hundred investment banker types.  This is only really an issue to the "rare" rich people type who have to declare their money as income, not capital gains.

And yes, I am in the 2%, and that works out well for me.  Fortunately not in California.  Funny though - for me to move from the 2% to the 1% my income would need to go up 100% and my savings would need to go up about 1900%.

HotWingAgenda: I'm in California, and part of the working poor.  My boss handed me my W-2 this year, and it showed my taxable earnings as an obscenely high number I've never seen before.  I thought it was a mistake, because if I was getting paid that much, I wouldn't be looking for a new job.

Over 25% of my pay went to state and Federal government for various automatic withholdings, and I still owe $5 each on my tax return to California and the Feds.

We had the same general response you did when we did our 2012 tax returned.  Our MAGI was just over $120,000 but we feel very poor in comparison to most folks around us.  Paying $24,000/year in rent probably contributes to that.

\we're moving in a couple months
\\we'll finally be able to buy a house!!!