Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California   (finance.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Mr. Young, high taxes, University of Nevada, Gerard Depardieu, cnnmoney, income taxes, Phil Mickelson, David Geffen  
•       •       •

16120 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2013 at 1:18 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-08 12:30:49 AM  
If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY
 
2013-02-08 12:35:07 AM  
We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.
 
2013-02-08 12:41:54 AM  
You'd still be rich, submitter.
 
2013-02-08 01:01:23 AM  

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

FTFY


I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.
 
2013-02-08 01:03:52 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:07:56 AM  
Boo-farking-Hoo.  Mickelson gets paid more for finishing 2nd in a major than most of us will earn in a lifetime.  And all he's doing is chasing a white ball around a grassy knoll.

Go cry elsewhere, moron.
 
2013-02-08 01:20:08 AM  
I heard all the gold in California is in a bank in the middle of Beverly Hills in somebody else's name.
 
2013-02-08 01:21:58 AM  
I'm sure everyone in Hollywood will now flee California to make movies in Texas.
 
2013-02-08 01:22:31 AM  
Let's all enjoy the evisceration of Mickelson (for instance) and his supposed high tax rate complaint by Daily Kos.
 
2013-02-08 01:22:35 AM  
If you rich people don't want to pay your fair share, then get the hell out.
 
2013-02-08 01:22:58 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:25:29 AM  

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


They got theirs, so fark us.
 
2013-02-08 01:25:32 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:26:07 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:26:53 AM  

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

FTFY



favim.com
"So then, he liked totally moved, 'cause he said the taxes were too high."
"Really?"
"No."
 
2013-02-08 01:28:07 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:28:37 AM  

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
 
2013-02-08 01:28:51 AM  
Born and raised native Californian.

Love the weather and the natural beauty.

Hate the politicians and 60% of the idiots who vote here.
 
2013-02-08 01:30:06 AM  
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 ?
 
2013-02-08 01:31:27 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:32:08 AM  

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.
 
2013-02-08 01:33:12 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:33:26 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-08 01:34:22 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:35:07 AM  
For some reason, I think I would be ok with being rich in California.
 
2013-02-08 01:36:05 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:36:07 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:36:43 AM  
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?
 
2013-02-08 01:38:28 AM  
No one wants to be borderline wealthy in Jesus Land (aka Missouri)
 
2013-02-08 01:38:38 AM  

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

FTFY


us.123rf.com

www.butterfieldinn.com

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-08 01:39:03 AM  
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.
 
2013-02-08 01:40:12 AM  
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?

www.ssqq.com
 
2013-02-08 01:40:43 AM  

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.
 
2013-02-08 01:40:57 AM  

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.
 
2013-02-08 01:41:12 AM  

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


The problem with living in Austin is that eventually you will have to venture out into real Texas, and real Texas is a horrible place. From what I've been told.
 
2013-02-08 01:41:17 AM  
Oh damn. Let me play this tiny violin for you.
 
2013-02-08 01:41:17 AM  

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?
 
2013-02-08 01:42:50 AM  
Ignore the paid trolls. Drew can afford ir
 
2013-02-08 01:44:08 AM  
1745 and couting
 
2013-02-08 01:46:17 AM  

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]


www.greatrealtyusa.com
/hot, like california
 
2013-02-08 01:46:18 AM  
There are quite a few reasons why it costs more to live in California. Move to Kansas and discover some.
 
2013-02-08 01:46:18 AM  

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
 
2013-02-08 01:49:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-02-08 01:49:31 AM  

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.
 
2013-02-08 01:49:38 AM  

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
 
2013-02-08 01:50:23 AM  
"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
 
2013-02-08 01:50:28 AM  

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


www.leptondale.org
 
2013-02-08 01:50:54 AM  
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...
 
2013-02-08 01:52:38 AM  
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%.
 
2013-02-08 01:53:15 AM  

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!!!
 
2013-02-08 01:55:49 AM  

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

The problem with living in Austin is that eventually you will have to venture out into real Texas, and real Texas is a horrible place. From what I've been told.


You should check it out. Other than deep west / panhandle Texas (which is pretty if you're into desolate desert lands), deep east Texas (racist rednecks), and the Mexico border drug wars it's really a nice place. If you like Austin, then it's pretty much all the same in the San Antonio - Dallas - Houston triangle. Honestly when you drive down I-35 you really won't notice driving out of a city at all when driving from Georgetown until you get south of San Antonio.

The thing about Texas and taxes is that our property taxes are ridiculous. Uncle Sam is going to get his, it's just that he doesn't use a state income tax to do it here. That's also argued as being something that unfairly targets lower income families since you can't tie that tax to your income level. Well, outside of not buying / renting what you can't afford.

I've only been to California three times and all 3 times it seemed OK. Twice to stay at VERY nice mansion on the water in Malibu and a VERY nice ranch in Simi Valley, and once to stay in a crappy hotel in Compton (all company trips). But I can't judge CA off of that because that's all I've ever seen of it. That would be like me judging all of Texas with only having seen Austin.
 
2013-02-08 01:55:56 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Loganville, Ga.


I'd rather be an average working joe in California than the richest person in Loganville, Georgia... wherever the hell that is.
 
2013-02-08 01:56:22 AM  
"Some of those earners seem at least resigned to the tax burden as a cost of being able to live in California rather than, say, Texas "

No brainer &
U get what U pay for
 
2013-02-08 01:57:32 AM  

BuckTurgidson: 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?

[www.ssqq.com image 400x397]


We Californians actually voted to increase some taxes last November as well as vote in a Democratic super majority in the state legislature (which will certainly lead to increased fees).  From my point of view, it looks like Californians are willing to pay more for all our "reasonable public goods."
 
2013-02-08 02:00:08 AM  

Solid State Vittles: jehovahs witness protection: Loganville, Ga.

I'd rather be an average working joe in California than the richest person in Loganville, Georgia... wherever the hell that is.


It's a suburb of Atlanta.

Meh. There are worst places...the suburbs of Dallas and Houston being one of them.
 
2013-02-08 02:03:12 AM  

MadMattressMack: f you like Austin, then it's pretty much all the same in the San Antonio - Dallas - Houston triangle. Honestly when you drive down I-35 you really won't notice driving out of a city at all when driving from Georgetown until you get south of San Antonio.


The thing that I find strange in Texas is that you guys don't seem to abide by any form of city planning, or have anything but the most basic forms of public transit, especially in the suburbs. Sidewalks? Who needs them! Roads to nowhere? You betcha! Bike paths? Get an F-350, hippy.

Other than the downtown cores, all cities are surrounded by sprawling parking lots, one to two story houses, and don't you dare try to walk anywhere further than 1,000 feet without being forced to take a car.
 
2013-02-08 02:04:24 AM  
It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?
 
2013-02-08 02:05:27 AM  

The Larch: 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.


Why stop there? How about a game show where the rich hunt down those dirty dastardly lazy poor people and kill them for sport?

We can call it Slacker Hackers.
 
2013-02-08 02:06:06 AM  

FizixJunkee: 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!!!


Congratulations!
 
2013-02-08 02:08:21 AM  

OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?


Probably North Carolina.

All the godless heathen Yankees in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle and Charlotte are slowly turning what was a solidly red state purple.

Meaning that it's politics will moderate over time.

Texas will probably go down that same road in a decade or two.
 
2013-02-08 02:09:11 AM  

RealFarknMcCoy2: 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...


It's not just one tax here in California.  Across the board, we have some of the highest taxes in the entire country.  They only thing that isn't high is property taxes.  And even though Federal taxes are the same rates across the country, California paychecks are higher but we have a higher cost of living.  So we pay more Federal income tax but aren't really making more money once you adjust (New York City probably has this same problem).
 
2013-02-08 02:12:08 AM  

OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?


Seattle. We have plenty of tech companies here. Not all that atrocious of property taxes (paid $1,200 last year), housing is pretty affordable right now and no state income taxes. You do have to put up with ~8-10% sales taxes though.
 
2013-02-08 02:17:10 AM  

OgreMagi: So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?


Northern Virginia, if they ever succeed in seceding from the rednecks in the southern half of the state.  Ultra tech savvy, ultra socially liberal, with a deep-seated hatred towards government handouts.

/can you tell I grew up there?
 
2013-02-08 02:17:19 AM  
I thought Google wanted a Red Nexus
 
2013-02-08 02:18:32 AM  

MrSteve007: OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?

Seattle. We have plenty of tech companies here. Not all that atrocious of property taxes (paid $1,200 last year), housing is pretty affordable right now and no state income taxes. You do have to put up with ~8-10% sales taxes though.


Don't you guys hate transplant Californians with the heat of a super nova?
 
2013-02-08 02:20:42 AM  

RealFarknMcCoy2: 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...


To be totally fair, in Silicon Valley, you make a million bucks once (when you exit, if you're lucky) and then never get that close again (unless you get a 9 or 10-digit exit more than once, which is a bit like winning the lotto).  Unless you're one of the VC's who are already worth 9 or 10 figures to begin with of course.

And since the average starter house is over a million bucks, it's not like the single-multi-millionaires (vs. the multi-multi-millionaires) are rolling in it.

/Getting dinged for 37% (+ 9.X% sales) and I'm underpaying so I can pay off student loans faster.
//Making 2.5x as much as my father in Michigan and living a lower lifestyle.  
///I've got no idea how the min-wage workers do it.  The studio of sadness was $1250/month, which is an entire month's pay after-tax at min-wage.
////I wouldn'tnecessarily mind it if it could tell where the ~13% of my income that I pay in state taxes (+ the $1000 that I had to pay to register my car) went, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere.  At least Michigan had decent traffic (with a couple of exceptions.  Stay off I-696 heading west in the afternoons), and could keep the roads more or less patched on their ~8%.  California can't even do that.
 
2013-02-08 02:21:01 AM  

HotWingAgenda: OgreMagi: So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?

Northern Virginia, if they ever succeed in seceding from the rednecks in the southern half of the state.  Ultra tech savvy, ultra socially liberal, with a deep-seated hatred towards government handouts.

/can you tell I grew up there?


LOL.  My roommate tried to convince me I should move to Roanoke Virginia.  Which I believe is in the southern half of the state.
 
2013-02-08 02:21:24 AM  

OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?


Austin.
 
2013-02-08 02:23:11 AM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?

Austin.


When I was a teenager my family drove through Austin.  I remember the damn city stank.  This was back in the dark ages, so perhaps things have changed since then.
 
2013-02-08 02:25:27 AM  

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.


Wrong. You deduct state income tax from your federal taxable income as part of your itemized deductions. It's a deduction. It's not a tax credit that offsets your federal taxes dollar-for-dollar. State income tax does add to your tax burden.
 
2013-02-08 02:26:01 AM  

OgreMagi: RealFarknMcCoy2: 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...

It's not just one tax here in California.  Across the board, we have some of the highest taxes in the entire country.  They only thing that isn't high is property taxes.  And even though Federal taxes are the same rates across the country, California paychecks are higher but we have a higher cost of living.  So we pay more Federal income tax but aren't really making more money once you adjust (New York City probably has this same problem).


I am a California native. I know what California's taxes are like. I still say, if you're pulling in more than a million dollars a year, you don't deserve any farking sympathy.
 
2013-02-08 02:28:04 AM  

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


Well, as a programmer (per your name) you really should be in Mumbai.

\Snark mode
 
2013-02-08 02:29:44 AM  
You could tax close to 90% and nothing would change... but if these millionaires want to live in Corpus Christi... hell, i can't even finish that sentence, it's so absurd.

Sure, biatch all you want. all us "poors'd" be happy to trade places with you.
 
2013-02-08 02:30:28 AM  

MrSteve007: Seattle. We have plenty of tech companies here. Not all that atrocious of property taxes (paid $1,200 last year), housing is pretty affordable right now and no state income taxes. You do have to put up with ~8-10% sales taxes though.


But then you have to deal with Seattle weather.  There's a reason you have the highest suicide rates in the nation.
 
2013-02-08 02:32:04 AM  

RealFarknMcCoy2: OgreMagi: RealFarknMcCoy2: 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...

It's not just one tax here in California.  Across the board, we have some of the highest taxes in the entire country.  They only thing that isn't high is property taxes.  And even though Federal taxes are the same rates across the country, California paychecks are higher but we have a higher cost of living.  So we pay more Federal income tax but aren't really making more money once you adjust (New York City probably has this same problem).

I am a California native. I know what California's taxes are like. I still say, if you're pulling in more than a million dollars a year, you don't deserve any farking sympathy.


I don't make a million dollars, but I still say my taxes are too high.  And people who think it's ok to screw people over just because they have more are greedy bastards who just want a piece of someone else's pie without having to work for it.
 
2013-02-08 02:33:08 AM  

DarkLancelot: 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

Well, as a programmer (per your name) you really should be in Mumbai.

\Snark mode


Well, I do like curry.
 
2013-02-08 02:33:40 AM  

DarkLancelot: 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

Well, as a programmer (per your name) you really should be in Mumbai.

\Snark mode


Is english spoken there?
/perfer spanglish with a bit of italian and a side of california
 
2013-02-08 02:34:57 AM  

fat boy: 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


It's not the worst place I could live by any means.  But, I don't want to live there.

I could have saved a lot of money, saved some time, and sucked it up and dealt with living in Riverside instead of choosing between LA/OC/SD.  I chose San Diego because quality of life is more important than money sometimes.

If people are willing to relocate to somewhere shiattier to save the kind of money in a month that would be a retirement fund to someone like me, great.  Go for it.  It just means that places that are actually decent to live become a little cheaper because you don't have some millionaire asset taking up as much space.

I'd rather live somewhere with a few less millionaires but people who care about having a good place to live.
 
2013-02-08 02:35:42 AM  

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.


Ah, yes.  Tax advice from someone who has obviously never actually paid income taxes because if they did, they'd know this isn't actually true.  You'll get a slight savings on your Federal taxes, but only a fraction of what you lost in the state tax.
 
2013-02-08 02:37:42 AM  

OgreMagi: RealFarknMcCoy2: OgreMagi: RealFarknMcCoy2: 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...

It's not just one tax here in California.  Across the board, we have some of the highest taxes in the entire country.  They only thing that isn't high is property taxes.  And even though Federal taxes are the same rates across the country, California paychecks are higher but we have a higher cost of living.  So we pay more Federal income tax but aren't really making more money once you adjust (New York City probably has this same problem).

I am a California native. I know what California's taxes are like. I still say, if you're pulling in more than a million dollars a year, you don't deserve any farking sympathy.

I don't make a million dollars, but I still say my taxes are too high.  And people who think it's ok to screw people over just because they have more are greedy bastards who just want a piece of someone else's pie without having to work for it.


That and the fact they fail to grasp the whole supply and demand concept, and how it relates to marketable skills.

Amazingly enough, people aren't willing to pay a lot of money for doing shiat any other jackass can, or is willing, to do.

Funny how that works.
 
2013-02-08 02:39:06 AM  

OgreMagi: Don't you guys hate transplant Californians with the heat of a super nova?


It's all in how you come off.

Example A: Talk about how crappy the weather is compared to So. Cal, wondering when the sun returns - How much you miss being able to have a tan year-round, that it's impossible to keep your BMW clean, and asking what people do for fun around here. You'd be surprised at how many transplants are like that.

Example B: Say that you came up here for the booming tech industry, and once you saw how clean the air is, close the mountains are and how cool the vibe is overall, you had to stay (while wearing a North Face fleece vest and jeans). You'll be accepted in seconds.

This is a pretty good account of a Cali transplant making the adjustment (warning, NSFW photo in article)

/both parents and brothers were So-Cal transplants
//only Washingtonian in the family
 
2013-02-08 02:40:25 AM  
I would pay an enormous sum annually to not live in Texas.
 
2013-02-08 02:42:56 AM  

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


Why not to the capitol instead?
 
2013-02-08 02:43:34 AM  

OgreMagi: RealFarknMcCoy2: OgreMagi: RealFarknMcCoy2: 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...

It's not just one tax here in California.  Across the board, we have some of the highest taxes in the entire country.  They only thing that isn't high is property taxes.  And even though Federal taxes are the same rates across the country, California paychecks are higher but we have a higher cost of living.  So we pay more Federal income tax but aren't really making more money once you adjust (New York City probably has this same problem).

I am a California native. I know what California's taxes are like. I still say, if you're pulling in more than a million dollars a year, you don't deserve any farking sympathy.

I don't make a million dollars, but I still say my taxes are too high.  And people who think it's ok to screw people over just because they have more are greedy bastards who just want a piece of someone else's pie without having to work for it.


And yet, I probably pay higher taxes and have a higher cost of living than you do, and don't begrudge it. Different strokes, I guess. *shrugs*
 
2013-02-08 02:43:54 AM  

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.


That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
 
2013-02-08 02:44:31 AM  

OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?


Spend 5 minutes looking at the midwest.  Most of the major cities are fairly liberal, the burbs are conservative in that not terribly offensive, midwestern, slightly white-bread conservative way and the cost of living is low enough and wages high enough that a life-long now-retired schoolteacher can own 3 homes and ~8 cars (though one of the houses is about to fall into the lake, which is why it was so cheap).

Of course the job market sucks right now, for the fun little startups.  Big corp, you're fine.  Lots of financial in Chicago, and of course the auto companies in Detroit.
 
2013-02-08 02:44:31 AM  
t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-08 02:45:00 AM  
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2000 to 2010, California lost a net of 519,600 jobs while Texas gained 1,093,600 jobs. This fueled a net domestic outward migration of middle class families from California, with almost two million more Americans moving out of California than moving in. Meanwhile, Texas saw a net gain of 781,542 from domestic migration, with about 1,000 people per day moving into the state in 2009.

/It's not just rich people
//It's not just California
///I'm counting the days
 
2013-02-08 02:46:11 AM  

ShawnDoc: But then you have to deal with Seattle weather. There's a reason you have the highest suicide rates in the nation.


I thought so too, but interestingly, this Business Insider article doesn't even put us in the top-15. Bloomberg news says Portland OR is the unhappiest city (Seattle is #20).
 
2013-02-08 02:49:58 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?
 
2013-02-08 02:52:39 AM  

MrSteve007: ShawnDoc: But then you have to deal with Seattle weather. There's a reason you have the highest suicide rates in the nation.

I thought so too, but interestingly, this Business Insider article doesn't even put us in the top-15. Bloomberg news says Portland OR is the unhappiest city (Seattle is #20).


Yet Portland's the 5th best city to live in. Go figure.
 
2013-02-08 02:54:40 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?


It would punish people who are trying to save and help people who are in debt. At the end of the year, if you are +-0 you pay no taxes. On the negative side of that you'll get a refund of some percentage of that amount and on the positive side you get to pay taxes on that amount.

But on the other hand, any money saved could be left untaxable, so saving would still be possible, you'd just have to take the tax off the front end of it.
 
2013-02-08 02:56:15 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-08 02:57:08 AM  
In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.
 
2013-02-08 02:59:27 AM  

illannoyin: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2000 to 2010, California lost a net of 519,600 jobs while Texas gained 1,093,600 jobs. This fueled a net domestic outward migration of middle class families from California, with almost two million more Americans moving out of California than moving in. Meanwhile, Texas saw a net gain of 781,542 from domestic migration, with about 1,000 people per day moving into the state in 2009.

/It's not just rich people
//It's not just California
///I'm counting the days


Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. (...) Some 550,000 workers last year were paid at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, more than double the number making those wages in 2008,

Visit Texas for the humidity. Stay for the poverty.
 
2013-02-08 02:59:29 AM  

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


Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven, eh?
 
2013-02-08 03:02:22 AM  

sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.


If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)
 
2013-02-08 03:02:37 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?


Hey, corporations are people, too.  The Supreme Court says so.  So either they pay taxes the way we do, which means they pay on gross income, not net.  Or we get to pay taxes the same way they do.  Which means my housing and vehicle expenses are part of the cost of doing businesses (in my case, staying alive is the business).
 
2013-02-08 03:05:14 AM  

anfrind: 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.


My financial adviser is fond of saying that his goal for us is to some day pay a million dollars in taxes.  Granted, he is exaggerating just a little, the point being that if you are paying a lot in taxes then you are doing OK.

If any of you rich people don't like all the taxes you have to pay then I will gladly trade you my income for yours and take over that terrible burden for you.
 
2013-02-08 03:06:39 AM  
If you make money in a certain place, shouldn't you pay the taxes where the money was made?
 
2013-02-08 03:21:27 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)


Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.
 
2013-02-08 03:25:06 AM  

HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,


Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.
 
2013-02-08 03:32:23 AM  

WhyteRaven74: HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,

Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.


Yup. Also, I've always thought of SS and a wonderful social pact. Each generation looking out for the one before, we're all in this together, E pluribus unum, and all that.
 
2013-02-08 03:35:28 AM  

WhyteRaven74: HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,

Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.


Easier fix:  make all social taxes opt in.  If you want to ever be allowed to draw from it, you have to pay.  But it's blatantly unethical to force one person to pay for someone else's parents, grandparents, redneck twat that decided to have 6 kids and never work another day in her life, etc.  It goes against everything the country was originally founded on.
 
HBK
2013-02-08 03:43:29 AM  

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


Shut up.  There are already too many California transplants ruining Austin.
 
2013-02-08 03:44:40 AM  

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

FTFY

I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.


Good, we don't want you.  You can live in your high-tax, gun-free liberal utopia.
 
2013-02-08 03:55:39 AM  

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.


Wrong

It comes off your income not your fed taxes. So you don't pay fed taxes on the amount that the state takes. You do not get to take it off your fed taxes directly.

You'd have to be a moron to not know this
 
2013-02-08 03:58:42 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?

It would punish people who are trying to save and help people who are in debt. At the end of the year, if you are +-0 you pay no taxes. On the negative side of that you'll get a refund of some percentage of that amount and on the positive side you get to pay taxes on that amount.

But on the other hand, any money saved could be left untaxable, so saving would still be possible, you'd just have to take the tax off the front end of it.


Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.
 
2013-02-08 04:03:21 AM  

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

FTFY


California is pretty awesome. I get great weather, I'm not a major fault, I am within driving distance of beaches and mountains, and I live next to a major port city so it is easy to get just about anything I could ever want.

California is a great place to live.
 
2013-02-08 04:04:23 AM  

dmax: And treasure? It's under da big W.


You're mad. Mad mad even.

California here.  Two things.

Salaries and Rents are high in California.  That make living here expensive. That makes providing government services expensive.

Property tax rates in California are low, half what they are in a lot of other states.  Other taxes go up to compensate.

And California only gets 79 cents for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.
 
2013-02-08 04:05:22 AM  
Prob is if you tax something that is movable then when it moves your up the creek.

Been to Cali nice weather. Too many people.
 
2013-02-08 04:06:24 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: 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.

Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?

It would punish people who are trying to save and help people who are in debt. At the end of the year, if you are +-0 you pay no taxes. On the negative side of that you'll get a refund of some percentage of that amount and on the positive side you get to pay taxes on that amount.

But on the other hand, any money saved could be left untaxable, so saving would still be possible, you'd just have to take the tax off the front end of it.

Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.


That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 
2013-02-08 04:10:40 AM  

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


Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.
 
2013-02-08 04:16:17 AM  

johncb76006: Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.


Where wil Real 'Mericans (TM) move when Texas turns blue in a couple of years?
 
2013-02-08 04:18:24 AM  

WhyteRaven74: HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,

Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.


Or even keep the cap, just start adjusting it for inflation.
 
2013-02-08 04:22:27 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.

 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling
 
2013-02-08 04:23:01 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Been to Cali nice weather. Too many people.


Well do be glad they are in California and not where you are.
 
2013-02-08 04:23:43 AM  

Notabunny: johncb76006: Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.

Where wil Real 'Mericans (TM) move when Texas turns blue in a couple of years?


They will move away from Austin and all of those other liberal leaning cities, into real Texas. And trust me, they are going there as more and more liberal minded people are moving there, they feel they are being pushed out.
 
2013-02-08 04:28:16 AM  

HotWingAgenda: 100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)

Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.


Social Security, true. Clusterfark, no. Just as there needs to be a safety net for the temporarily unemployed and the permanently disabled, there needs to be a safety net for the elderly. We will find a way to repair Social Security (just in the nick of time, and crippled perhaps), but I'm not willing to say "fark you, live on the street" to anyone who has no money but is too old (or too sick) to work. Not everyone should be able to  collect Social Security, to be sure, and that's a problem. But to dismiss it out of hand is short-sighted.

/not my threadjack, but I'll take partial responsibility
 
2013-02-08 04:34:25 AM  

davidphogan: fat boy: 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

It's not the worst place I could live by any means.  But, I don't want to live there.

I could have saved a lot of money, saved some time, and sucked it up and dealt with living in Riverside instead of choosing between LA/OC/SD.  I chose San Diego because quality of life is more important than money sometimes.

If people are willing to relocate to somewhere shiattier to save the kind of money in a month that would be a retirement fund to someone like me, great.  Go for it.  It just means that places that are actually decent to live become a little cheaper because you don't have some millionaire asset taking up as much space.

I'd rather live somewhere with a few less millionaires but people who care about having a good place to live.


Your Vancouver hate is perplexing. It's an excellent city to live in.

/lived there two years
//now back in Toronto
///thank god I don't live in Ethiopia or Haiti or America or any other 3rd world nation
 
2013-02-08 04:46:55 AM  
u know i've given it much thought.

and i think what makes Cali stupid is that the name sounds like Cauliflower
 
2013-02-08 04:48:59 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling


I have $100 income from selling you my painting, and I'll pay taxes on that income.
You'll have $100 from selling me your painting, and you'll pay taxes on that income.

We do not have what we started with. You have my painting, and I have your painting. We have transacted, and that transaction results in income for you and me plus the goods we've traded.

If you and I had saved that $100 (which we earned at our day jobs) and were taxed at 20%, after tax day we'd both have $80 and no paintings.

There is a strong incentive to spend your money, but also a reasonable incentive to save, given no tax assessed on assets.
 
2013-02-08 04:49:20 AM  

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.


That's not how it works. You get to deduct what you pay the state from your taxable income, not from the amount of taxes you pay.
 
2013-02-08 04:57:12 AM  
As if I really needed another reason to dislike Phil Mickelson.
 
2013-02-08 04:59:48 AM  
Lorelle: witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.


Do all of you douche-bags get this butt-hurt when someone pokes fun of you?
 
2013-02-08 05:08:03 AM  

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


By fair share, I'm sure you're intending to mean: "ALL OF IT!!"
 
2013-02-08 05:21:39 AM  
 soon enough.....switch the cigarettes to dollars....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8eoEygHyho
 
2013-02-08 05:27:23 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling

I have $100 income from selling you my painting, and I'll pay taxes on that income.
You'll have $100 from selling me your painting, and you'll pay taxes on that income.

We do not have what we started with. You have my painting, and I have your painting. We have transacted, and that transaction results in income for you and me plus the goods we've traded.

If you and I had saved that $100 (which we earned at our day jobs) and were taxed at 20%, after tax day we'd both have $80 and no paintings.

There is a strong incentive to spend your money, but also a reasonable incentive to save, given no tax assessed on assets.


I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.
 
2013-02-08 05:32:26 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling

I have $100 income from selling you my painting, and I'll pay taxes on that income.
You'll have $100 from selling me your painting, and you'll pay taxes on that income.

We do not have what we started with. You have my painting, and I have your painting. We have transacted, and that transaction results in income for you and me plus the goods we've traded.

If you and I had saved that $100 (which we earned at our day jobs) and were taxed at 20%, after tax day we'd both have $80 and no paintings.

There is a strong incentive to spend your money, but also a reasonable incentive to save, given no tax assessed on assets.

I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.


The selling of the assets would result in income. In what way do you see it not resulting in income?

The transactions are separate and unrelated.
 
2013-02-08 05:42:49 AM  
I never really understood this, how much money do you need? I live in a very expensive city, in a very expensive country, with a very high tax rate. I make more money still after taxes and paying my mortgage/bills than the average American makes - actually more than double. Oh, and also about 9% of my income goes yearly towards a retirement account.

I'm not even a "millionaire", but I'm quickly starting to wonder how much more do I need? If had about double the amount of disposable income as I have now, I can't even think about what I would spend it on.
 
2013-02-08 05:47:50 AM  

HotWingAgenda: 100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)

Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.


Well, you are certainly the stupidest generation to believe that lie, especially given the format of the social security system in the US means that what you describe is literally impossible, but never mind that, some rich guys lackey told you a lie, and in your gut it feels right, so ignore reality and basic economics, you believe what you want to believe.
 
2013-02-08 05:49:29 AM  

TwistedFark: I never really understood this, how much money do you need? I live in a very expensive city, in a very expensive country, with a very high tax rate. I make more money still after taxes and paying my mortgage/bills than the average American makes - actually more than double. Oh, and also about 9% of my income goes yearly towards a retirement account.

I'm not even a "millionaire", but I'm quickly starting to wonder how much more do I need? If had about double the amount of disposable income as I have now, I can't even think about what I would spend it on.


Could you have an debilitating accident that rendered you unable to work and still live off whatever income, insurance, and/or savings for the rest of your life?

If not, then you probably don't have enough.
 
2013-02-08 05:53:19 AM  

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.


There's more than a few electrical engineers who fancy themselves scientists who are on board with creationism, climate change denial, the moon landing hoax, etc.
 
2013-02-08 06:15:39 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.

The selling of the assets would result in income. In what way do you see it not resulting in income?

The transactions are separate and unrelated.



Because your cost basis in the property is $100. If you sell it for $100 your gain is zero. You generally only pay taxes on a sale when there is a gain involved.

(And your friend who has just paid $100 for it won't realize any gain when he sells it back to you for $100 next year, and so on.)

/more complicated in reality, but the point is you could shuffle assets around so anyone with significant money could "spend" it and owe little or no taxes under an "after-spending" tax scheme
 
2013-02-08 06:24:12 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: 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.


...and in Mickelson's case, it's 10x what an average joe makes in a year...EACH WEEK. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/26/1180809/-Multimillionaire-g ol fer-Phil-Mickelson-sorry-for-lamenting-his-mere-eight-figure-disposabl e-income

But, for a moment, let's give Phil Mickelson his nightmare scenario. Let's say he really did pay the "full 63 percent" on his income. Just factoring in last year's income (most of which, incidentally, came from endorsements, which would undoubtedly continue after his retirement), he would have to make do with the meager $17.7 million that would be left over after the orgy of government confiscation.  I am sure that the cops and public school teachers of America (those that still have jobs after a half-decade of "austerity," of course) will be sure to hold a telethon for poor Phil and his family.
Faced with the pain of having to make do on a mere $340,000 per week
 
GBB
2013-02-08 06:24:14 AM  
Real rich people don't pay taxes, regardless of what the tax rate is.
 
2013-02-08 06:49:47 AM  
Why don't people who favor higher tax rates for the wealthy call it a financial success tax?  At least that would be honest.  Yes I know, that would hurt support for their cause.  Well, that's the point, so what's the problem?
 
2013-02-08 06:57:53 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Why don't people who favor higher tax rates for the wealthy call it a financial success tax?  At least that would be honest.  Yes I know, that would hurt support for their cause.  Well, that's the point, so what's the problem?


Same reason the proponents of taxing wages at a higher rate than capital gains don't call it a penalty for working, I guess.
 
2013-02-08 07:00:48 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)


Not only that but the difference isn't as big as it might look. A UK resident would only "pay 40%" on income over £35k, the rest would be taxed at 25% and income below £8k not taxed at all. They don't pay 40% on the whole £40k.
The marginal tax rate at that level in the US would be 28%, but you then have to add State taxes which in places like California are 9% at that level.
That difference isn't that huge.
However the NHS (and pensions, benefits etc) is in theory funded by a separate tax called National Insurance which is 12% of your income above £150 a week and an extra 2% on income over £800 a week.
 
2013-02-08 07:01:01 AM  

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



I believe some of those Patriotic Mericans are actually fleeing to Europe .
 
2013-02-08 07:09:13 AM  

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.


As many others have pointed out already:

img502.imageshack.us

Deductions do not work that way.

Do you also think that because a corporation can "write it off" that it costs nothing?
 
2013-02-08 07:16:38 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


Would that be a lower tax on the poor? As I understand it, the poor (majority of americans) receive their income taxes back at the beggining of the next year, effectively being an income tax rate of 0.

So the first part of your plan is neutral at best, right?
Now, currently, the "rich" (ideally) pay taxes on 100% of their income, but now should only pay it on the part of the income they cant spend fast enough. Is that correct?

I dont know if that would work, to be honest.
 
2013-02-08 07:19:15 AM  
When anyone here can finally show me the person who, wealthy, became anything less than one of the richest people on earth simply due to the weight of USA taxes, then there will be some legitimate reason to complain about taxes on the rich. So long as the "rich" continue to be the wealthiest tiny subset of humans on earth, despite tax levels, then anyone trying to "defend" them from these "horrible atrocities  is just a god awful idiot. These are the facts, if you're really that freaked out that the "ultra rich" continue to be "ultra rich" with no actual threat to them at all, financially or otherwise, then congrats, you are media sheep who, told to freak out on command, freaked out on command, and you ruin life for everyone else because you're stupid.
 
2013-02-08 07:21:14 AM  
While you're at it, keep believing that since a politician specifically said he was part of your religion, he was definitely being honest, as opposed to just telling you what you wanted to hear, you nightmarish retards..
 
2013-02-08 07:21:52 AM  
I hate when people want to do things with their own money that they earned. I know a bunch of different ways where I could spend it better than they could.
 
2013-02-08 07:37:17 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.

The selling of the assets would result in income. In what way do you see it not resulting in income?

The transactions are separate and unrelated.


Because your cost basis in the property is $100. If you sell it for $100 your gain is zero. You generally only pay taxes on a sale when there is a gain involved.

(And your friend who has just paid $100 for it won't realize any gain when he sells it back to you for $100 next year, and so on.)

/more complicated in reality, but the point is you could shuffle assets around so anyone with significant money could "spend" it and owe little or no taxes under an "after-spending" tax scheme


In the end, someone is holding the bag. I understand where you're going with this scenario, but whether or not there is a gain, the selling of assets would be income for the person receiving the payment, even if it turned out to be a loss as in the case of a loss of value in securities. In fact, if you were to take a loss of 100% on your investment income, you would have no income tax to pay since you 1) spent it to buy the securities and 2) received no money back when you sold them.

Now, is flushing your money down the drain the same as spending it? Probably not, unless you can get your toilet to print you a receipt.

Back to your example of two people conspiring to "sell" their assets to each other, they have done nothing except transformed the income of each person into a transaction, and in doing so generated income for the other person. The assets they receive would be protected from taxation, as would be the after-tax money they didn't spend.

I'm suggesting that if you spend all of your money, you should pay no tax, regardless of whether you were buying fine art, stocks, or Kraft Mac & Cheese. Anything you earned but didn't spend, as proven by your lack of receipts for them, would be taxed once.

A leap in technology to monitor transactions as well as save receipts safely and securely as well as protect against fraudulent receipts would be necessary, but that's not too difficult of a technology problem as much as that there would be societal resistance to such monitoring.

In any case, it was just a thought experiment to find a way to equitably tax people without overburdening them while still encouraging them to participate in the economy.
 
2013-02-08 07:37:43 AM  
Why shouldn't rich people pay more? I'm barely scrapping by making less than $57k a year, and some asshole get to cruise through life because he has foresight and drive? How is that remotely fair? This is America for God's sake. The land of opportunity. So why don't I get the opportunity to get some of that money? The rich should give up a couple million here and there and let us poorer people enjoy life a little bit too. It's not like they'll miss it. What, they have to buy one less yacht this year? Boo hoo. If you have 3 Dodge Vipers, I should at least be given 1 of them.
 
2013-02-08 07:40:47 AM  
Let's see what's going... crap, just another pity the poor rich guy thread.
 
2013-02-08 07:45:03 AM  

MythDragon: Why shouldn't rich people pay more? I'm barely scrapping by making less than $57k a year, and some asshole get to cruise through life because he has foresight and drive? How is that remotely fair? This is America for God's sake. The land of opportunity. So why don't I get the opportunity to get some of that money? The rich should give up a couple million here and there and let us poorer people enjoy life a little bit too. It's not like they'll miss it. What, they have to buy one less yacht this year? Boo hoo. If you have 3 Dodge Vipers, I should at least be given 1 of them.


One of the problems in California is driving those Vipers on roads which aren't falling into the sea, policed by PDs which aren't bankrupt, through neighborhoods where the streetlights are on. Quality parody (I hope) though.

13% more to live in California rather than Nevada? I'd happily pay 30%. Maybe more.
 
2013-02-08 07:45:40 AM  

Dedmon: Would that be a lower tax on the poor? As I understand it, the poor (majority of americans) receive their income taxes back at the beggining of the next year, effectively being an income tax rate of 0.

So the first part of your plan is neutral at best, right?
Now, currently, the "rich" (ideally) pay taxes on 100% of their income, but now should only pay it on the part of the income they cant spend fast enough. Is that correct?

I dont know if that would work, to be honest.


It could be a flat or graduated tax, I'm not sure that's necessarily a sticking point either way.

The poor would pay a small percentage of their after-spending income on taxes. The rich would pay a small percentage (or large percentage) on their after-spending income.

Ideally, people would be encouraged to buy things to reduce their tax burden but the tax rate wouldn't be so onerous as to eliminate saving. If you've saved, you'll pay a reasonable tax for 'hoarding' your money, but only once. If you've spent, you're not going to be hit with a large tax bill because you've already plowed your money back into the economy. Those with fewer means will spend closer to their income while those with greater means will spend a smaller portion of their income. The result is that those who earn more pay more and those who earn less pay less.
 
2013-02-08 07:46:58 AM  

OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?




You my friend, should check out Colorado. Its got the west coast vibe without all the bullshiat.
 
2013-02-08 07:50:28 AM  
*shrug* my parents are actually thinking of moving to San Diego from DC now that they are old ald a lot wealthier... now that they can actually afford it. Taxes be damned.

/Apparently tax rate is not the only consideration when choosing place to live.
 
2013-02-08 07:52:28 AM  

Alonjar: Apparently tax rate is not the only consideration when choosing place to live.


Unpossible.

/lives in London, England
//divides time between there and California
///doing it wrong, apparently
 
2013-02-08 08:04:18 AM  
No way man
keep californians in california!
the idiots continue to vote in idiots
who haven't balanced a budget in decades
then they turn to feed on their own
stick your nose in the air and do your best Thurston Howell
when you sniff derisively at the rednecks and ignorant teabaggers in 'flyover' country

enjoy your little fifedom of mexico's leftovers
your legendary traffic, bankrupt cities, gangs and high taxes
sleep well knowing that if your children are murdered
the killer will get the least possible sentence or complete acquittal
it's how you do things there
and you deserve it all
 
2013-02-08 08:07:13 AM  

Mrtraveler01: OgreMagi: It's not just income taxes that are high.  It's all taxes and fees.  California is one of the most expensive states to do business in.  If a business is not geographically bound, you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to open a new business here.  Tech companies stick around because of the concentration of talent in the valley, but even they are starting to look at alternatives.  Texas is building up enough tech industry that they could reach a tipping point that will seriously hurt the state of California.

I live in California because I was born here, I love the climate, and I'm a tech worker.  Each year I question my state loyalty and wonder if I should consider moving.  So where does a social liberal, fiscal conservative go?

Probably North Carolina.

All the godless heathen Yankees in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle and Charlotte are slowly turning what was a solidly red state purple.

Meaning that it's politics will moderate over time.

Texas will probably go down that same road in a decade or two.


The Republicans have taken control of the entire government here in 2012.
 
2013-02-08 08:13:15 AM  

Sharksfan: 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%.


The other thing people miss is that people like Mickelson and other sports stars, actors, etc. typically earn large sums of their income in other states. That income is not taxed by California; it is taxed by the states in which it's earned. Take, for exameple, a major league baseball player. They have to file over 20 different state income tax returns. For players whose teams are based in California, half their games are played away from home, so half their income is not subject to California's state income tax.
 
2013-02-08 08:18:03 AM  
If only millionaires could afford to live anywhere in the world they choose.
 
2013-02-08 08:26:59 AM  

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.


Aww. How cute. Someone who thinks feds do a 100% deduction of state taxes calling someone stupid. State taxes adjust agi, not get a credit. So feds subsidize state taxes paid times fed tax rate; in other words 20-39% of state tax. It doesn't just move around a bit.
 
2013-02-08 08:28:46 AM  
Non story.

Someone on Fark said there is no evidence any rich person has moved from a high tax state like CA to somewhere else. It is a myth.
 
2013-02-08 09:25:44 AM  

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


Their fare share?  You mean aside from already paying more than people in lower tax brackets?  

Sharksfan: 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%.


So the "rich" people that are actually getting their money through their jobs gets hosed.  How about a flat tax and raise the tax on social security instead of a "we dont tax over X" silly cutoff?

Of course the state and feds could spend less and not have to jack up taxes...
 
2013-02-08 09:36:16 AM  

ManRay: Non story.

Someone on Fark said there is no evidence any rich person has moved from a high tax state like CA to somewhere else. It is a myth.


If you read it on FARK it has to be true. They cant put anything on the internets that isn't true
 
2013-02-08 09:39:52 AM  

JDJoeE: So the "rich" people that are actually getting their money through their jobs gets hosed.


Anyone in CA's top tax bracket is rich, not 'rich', this is not a tax on $100k pa.
 
2013-02-08 09:40:23 AM  

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


That's the problem. What do you consider fair? 50,60,70%?
 
2013-02-08 09:40:30 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: 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.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


Mittens Romney is renovating his La Jolla property. Hint, La Jolla is in CA. He's owned the $12M dollar home since 2008. So there's at least one rich liberal moving to the state. Or maybe it's just a good investment?

My actual joke is that we're deliberately raising taxes on millionaires in CA just until Mitt gives up and moves out. Funny? You decide.
 
2013-02-08 09:42:03 AM  

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.


Funny - A few days ago I was cruising up 205 not paying attention, and found myself suddenly in Suckcouver. I panicked and did an immediate u-turn, and soon found myself on Columbia blvd. Another panic turn...
 
2013-02-08 10:21:09 AM  
I've lived in VA, NJ, IN, TX (austin & dallas) & now CA. I make a very good but not mill$ salary. I don't mind paying the higher taxes to live here, except the state legislature here has the ethics of a weasel on crack and the brain power of bannana slugs. They're far too busy fellating the unions to actually do something productive with the money.
Giving money & power to  the CA gov't is like giving whiskey & carkeys to teenage boys (thanks PJ!)
 
2013-02-08 10:27:00 AM  
AverageAmericanGuy

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

Yes 12% of 25k is an equivalent "fair share" as 57% of 1,000,000

cause math is hard.
 
2013-02-08 10:33:26 AM  

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.


They're already here. It's called Marin county.

Incidentally, Silicon Valley will never move to Texas.  Companies would have a very hard time attracting and retaining top intellectual talent in an arse backwards state like Texas.  What ever money they saved in taxes would likely be lost having to pay significantly higher salaries to convince people to move there.
 
2013-02-08 10:34:41 AM  

OgreMagi: 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.

Ah, yes.  Tax advice from someone who has obviously never actually paid income taxes because if they did, they'd know this isn't actually true.  You'll get a slight savings on your Federal taxes, but only a fraction of what you lost in the state tax.


Doesn't that hook hurt your lip?
 
2013-02-08 11:05:04 AM  

inclemency: davidphogan: fat boy: 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

It's not the worst place I could live by any means.  But, I don't want to live there.

I could have saved a lot of money, saved some time, and sucked it up and dealt with living in Riverside instead of choosing between LA/OC/SD.  I chose San Diego because quality of life is more important than money sometimes.

If people are willing to relocate to somewhere shiattier to save the kind of money in a month that would be a retirement fund to someone like me, great.  Go for it.  It just means that places that are actually decent to live become a little cheaper because you don't have some millionaire asset taking up as much space.

I'd rather live somewhere with a few less millionaires but people who care about having a good place to live.

Your Vancouver hate is perplexing. It's an excellent city to live in.

/lived there two years
//now back in Toronto
///thank god I don't live in Ethiopia or Haiti or America or any other 3rd world nation


I was referring to Vancouver, Washington. I wasn't commuting from Oregon to BC.
 
2013-02-08 11:05:44 AM  
This just in, taxing rich people on income does nothing try capital gains.
 
2013-02-08 11:10:38 AM  
But they are rich.  They made more money, ergo, the government gets richer too.
 
2013-02-08 11:12:34 AM  

cmunic8r99: Sharksfan: I can't believe no one mentioned this so far....

The other thing people miss is that people like Mickelson and other sports stars, actors, etc. typically earn large sums of their income in other states. That income is not taxed by California; it is taxed by the states in which it's earned. Take, for exameple, a major league baseball player. They have to file over 20 different state income tax returns. For players whose teams are based in California, half their games are played away from home, so half their income is not subject to California's state income tax.


I have a relative who plays on a professional sports team.  He plays in about 10-15 states during the year.  His team has a whole team of CPA's that just deal with it for them because of all of the complications, state reciprocity tax agreements (which not all states have) and more.

I submit that when the average person is not capable of doing their taxes accurately AND could be prosecuted for the results of a good faith attempt the system is broken.

JDJoeE:

So the "rich" people that are actually getting their money through their jobs gets hosed.  How about a flat tax and raise the tax on social security instead of a "we dont tax over X" silly cutoff?

Of course the state and feds could spend less and not have to jack up taxes...


I'd prefer to see a flat tax.  I'd love to see the fair tax.  People always say a flat tax is regressive but I never got the argument, even when I was piss poor right after college.  Progressive = taxing rich people more.  If I make $250K this year and pay 28% I'll pay $70,000 in taxes (which is about what I'll end up paying more or less).  Most of my income is taxed at normal (non-capital gain) rates.  Some is not.

A person of more modest income at $25,000 - using the same percentage - is going to pay $7000 if they pay the same percentage.

However....you also start to lose deductions as you go up the income brackets.  My wife and I took a pretty hard hit one year because our income had risen just slightly and we were suddenly not eligible for a bunch of deductions and such.  We ended up making far less that year than the year before when we earned less (wrap your head around that one...).

I also never got the argument about why capital gains is taxed differently than anything else.  I have never put money into something unless I thought I would make some money for it.  You only get taxed on profits...and if your venture is making so little that the difference is a make or break decision you have other problems.
 
2013-02-08 11:22:09 AM  

ongbok: Notabunny: johncb76006: Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.

Where wil Real 'Mericans (TM) move when Texas turns blue in a couple of years?

They will move away from Austin and all of those other liberal leaning cities, into real Texas. And trust me, they are going there as more and more liberal minded people are moving there, they feel they are being pushed out.


My aunt and uncle left Auburn and moved to Colfax years ago when Auburn grew so much it got its first stoplight. Their quiet little foothill town had become too crowded for them. I wonder if the Texans in Austin are leaving for the same reason. I wonder if their leaving because their town has become too big for their tastes, and not because of the politics of the new residents.
 
2013-02-08 11:22:35 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: 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.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.


You must be a liberal.  Look, if the golf guy is a dick, unpatriotic, or a bad amurican for wanting to move to a state with a lower tax burden, does it not stand to reason that a nice patriotic liberal who wants to be a "good" amurican should jump at the chance to pay 2/3 of their income in tax?
 
2013-02-08 11:26:34 AM  

TwistedFark: I never really understood this, how much money do you need? I live in a very expensive city, in a very expensive country, with a very high tax rate. I make more money still after taxes and paying my mortgage/bills than the average American makes - actually more than double. Oh, and also about 9% of my income goes yearly towards a retirement account.

I'm not even a "millionaire", but I'm quickly starting to wonder how much more do I need? If had about double the amount of disposable income as I have now, I can't even think about what I would spend it on.


You would (should) save it for a rainy day, dipshiat! Jesus Henry Tap-Dancing Christ! Unemployment happens! Illness happens! And, if you're lucky, Retirement happens!

If you rely on someone else, or a Government Safety Net, to save you, you will most likely end up screwed. Politicians don't keep their own promises, much less the promises of the politicians they replaced in the last election (or 5 or 10 elections ago.)
 
2013-02-08 11:38:19 AM  
Sharksfan: I also never got the argument about why capital gains is taxed differently than anything else.  I have never put money into something unless I thought I would make some money for it.  You only get taxed on profits...and if your venture is making so little that the difference is a make or break decision you have other problems.

They probably wouldn't be taxed differently if you could deduct all of your losses, but there's all sorts of rules as to how much and when you can deduct your losses. Also it's not like the government pays you if you have a lot of losses, you're just out of luck.

With a steady paycheck, you don't have that kind of risk.

Also, can you imagine selling your Bay Area house? The government would say you made a million dollars in one year, tax the mierda out of you and you wouldn't be able to afford a new house. (but if you did, remember it wouldn't be grandfathered under prop 13.)

One of these days I'm leaving this state.

/How's Wyoming? There's no income tax there...
 
2013-02-08 11:39:27 AM  

davidphogan: MrSteve007: ShawnDoc: But then you have to deal with Seattle weather. There's a reason you have the highest suicide rates in the nation.

I thought so too, but interestingly, this Business Insider article doesn't even put us in the top-15. Bloomberg news says Portland OR is the unhappiest city (Seattle is #20).

Yet Portland's the 5th best city to live in. Go figure.


#3 is Washington D.C.  Really?
 
2013-02-08 11:42:34 AM  

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

FTFY

I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.


The irony of your statement is off the charts.

Never saw a Liberal that saw hypocrisy in terms of ignorance unless it was a brick to his face.
 
2013-02-08 11:52:30 AM  

inclemency: davidphogan: fat boy: 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

It's not the worst place I could live by any means.  But, I don't want to live there.

I could have saved a lot of money, saved some time, and sucked it up and dealt with living in Riverside instead of choosing between LA/OC/SD.  I chose San Diego because quality of life is more important than money sometimes.

If people are willing to relocate to somewhere shiattier to save the kind of money in a month that would be a retirement fund to someone like me, great.  Go for it.  It just means that places that are actually decent to live become a little cheaper because you don't have some millionaire asset taking up as much space.

I'd rather live somewhere with a few less millionaires but people who care about having a good place to live.

Your Vancouver hate is perplexing. It's an excellent city to live in.

/lived there two years
//now back in Toronto
///thank god I don't live in Ethiopia or Haiti or America or any other 3rd world nation


You do know that there are two Vancouvers, right?
 
2013-02-08 11:56:01 AM  

Dadoody: Born and raised native Californian.

Love the weather and the natural beauty.

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


THIS ^


/welcome to California, now GO HOME!
 
2013-02-08 12:01:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Probably North Carolina.

All the godless heathen Yankees in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle and Charlotte are slowly turning what was a solidly red state purple.



Agreed. Lots of IT jobs in RTP too. Love it. State taxes were a little shock after moving from Florida, but they seem to spend some of it on infrastructure.
 
2013-02-08 12:04:51 PM  

sid244: #3 is Washington D.C. Really?


I could see that. Lots of hookers, plenty of under-the-table and tax free earnings, and a large workforce who gets to work short hours, have lots of vacation time, and every couple years gets a sabbatical from their duties for "elections."
 
2013-02-08 12:07:56 PM  

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


You mean like the nearly 60% who pay no state income taxes already, many of whom still get a return as well? Yeah, I want them to leave too.
 
2013-02-08 12:08:46 PM  
Pixiest:
They probably wouldn't be taxed differently if you could deduct all of your losses, but there's all sorts of rules as to how much and when you can deduct your losses. Also it's not like the government pays you if you have a lot of losses, you're just out of luck.

With a steady paycheck, you don't have that kind of risk.

Also, can you imagine selling your Bay Area house? The government would say you made a million dollars in one year, tax the mierda out of you and you wouldn't be able to afford a new house. (but if you did, remember it wouldn't be grandfathered under prop 13.)

One of these days I'm leaving this state.

/How's Wyoming? There's no income tax there...


Yeah - ran into that too one year.  We had a HUGE loss the year after 9/11 and we had to spread the deduction from it over three years which is pretty damn annoying.

As for me - I can't imagine selling a Bay Area house.  I live in the woods in WI :)  But I've been to the Bay Area many time and I know the market there is insane.
 
2013-02-08 12:11:23 PM  
The funny part is, there are more conservatives in CA than anywhere else, they're just outnumbered by liberals who live in the cities.  Those who visit or vacation here go to LA or SF and think the whole state shares those people's views.  But, go anywhere else in the state and you'll experience the same uneducated, fairy-tale believing, paranoid, racist views that most conservatives would be comfortable with and be reminded of home
 
2013-02-08 12:12:11 PM  
All those Mexicans don't feed themselves.
 
2013-02-08 12:22:07 PM  

Sharksfan: cmunic8r99: Sharksfan: I can't believe no one mentioned this so far....

The other thing people miss is that people like Mickelson and other sports stars, actors, etc. typically earn large sums of their income in other states. That income is not taxed by California; it is taxed by the states in which it's earned. Take, for exameple, a major league baseball player. They have to file over 20 different state income tax returns. For players whose teams are based in California, half their games are played away from home, so half their income is not subject to California's state income tax.

I have a relative who plays on a professional sports team.  He plays in about 10-15 states during the year.  His team has a whole team of CPA's that just deal with it for them because of all of the complications, state reciprocity tax agreements (which not all states have) and more.

I submit that when the average person is not capable of doing their taxes accurately AND could be prosecuted for the results of a good faith attempt the system is broken.

JDJoeE:

So the "rich" people that are actually getting their money through their jobs gets hosed.  How about a flat tax and raise the tax on social security instead of a "we dont tax over X" silly cutoff?

Of course the state and feds could spend less and not have to jack up taxes...

I'd prefer to see a flat tax.  I'd love to see the fair tax.  People always say a flat tax is regressive but I never got the argument, even when I was piss poor right after college.  Progressive = taxing rich people more.  If I make $250K this year and pay 28% I'll pay $70,000 in taxes (which is about what I'll end up paying more or less).  Most of my income is taxed at normal (non-capital gain) rates.  Some is not.

A person of more modest income at $25,000 - using the same percentage - is going to pay $7000 if they pay the same percentage.

However....you also start to lose deductions as you go up the income brackets.  My wife and I took a pretty hard hit one year because our income had risen just slightly and we were suddenly not eligible for a bunch of deductions and such.  We ended up making far less that year than the year before when we earned less (wrap your head around that one...).

I also never got the argument about why capital gains is taxed differently than anything else.  I have never put money into something unless I thought I would make some money for it.  You only get taxed on profits...and if your venture is making so little that the difference is a make or break decision you have other problems.


The price of food, clothing, energy, etc, does not scale with income...
 
2013-02-08 12:32:13 PM  

Sharksfan: I'd prefer to see a flat tax.  I'd love to see the fair tax.  People always say a flat tax is regressive but I never got the argument, even when I was piss poor right after college.  Progressive = taxing rich people more.  If I make $250K this year and pay 28% I'll pay $70,000 in taxes (which is about what I'll end up paying more or less).  Most of my income is taxed at normal (non-capital gain) rates.  Some is not.

A person of more modest income at $25,000 - using the same percentage - is going to pay $7000 if they pay the same percentage.


It's not about equality if rates. It's about equality of effect. 28% on 250K likely won't keep you from feeding yourself. 28% on 25k probably will.
 
2013-02-08 12:47:36 PM  

BuckTurgidson: 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,


There's a substantial bloc of oldsters in a nice retirement area near me. Since they're retired
1) there's not much taking up their time, so they can organize
2) they don't want to lost their limited retirement dollars so
3) they vote as a unified, majority voice against increased funding for schools.

Very frustrating.
 
2013-02-08 01:32:57 PM  

gibbon1: dmax: And treasure? It's under da big W.

You're mad. Mad mad even.

California here.  Two things.

Salaries and Rents are high in California.  That make living here expensive. That makes providing government services expensive.

Property tax rates in California are low, half what they are in a lot of other states.  Other taxes go up to compensate.

And California only gets 79 cents for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.


People really need to stop referring to that 2005 study, as it's woefully outdated.

http://kqed02.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/blogs/capitolnotes/2010/BoxerF un dingDocument.doc

Senator Barbara Boxer herself has reported that California receives as much as $1.45 for each $1.00 it sends to the Federal Government.

Original Article here: http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2010/01/08/arnold-to-dc-give-us-th e -money-nobody-gets-hurt/

and here: http://californiabudgetbites.org/2010/01/19/does-california-get-its-% E 2%80%9Cfair-share%E2%80%9D-of-federal-funds/
 
2013-02-08 02:17:15 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: The price of food, clothing, energy, etc, does not scale with income...


I have to disagree.  Do you think the rich are out buying clothes at Target?  Or buying wine in a box or beer in cans?
 
2013-02-08 02:47:09 PM  

Sharksfan: Shakin_Haitian: The price of food, clothing, energy, etc, does not scale with income...

I have to disagree.  Do you think the rich are out buying clothes at Target?  Or buying wine in a box or beer in cans?


Exactly!!  And don't forget vacations.  Do you think rich people go to Branson?  Hell no, they go to Provence.  And Provence isn't cheap.

Also, think about housing expenses... obviously no rich person is going to live in that little three bedroom shack you call home. Rich people have to live in big houses. And then they have to pay someone to clean it! It's very, very expensive.

Even something as simple as plane tickets can add up. Poor people can take coach. Well-off people might even fly first class. But rich folks have to fly around in private planes, which burns a hell of a lot of money.

I feel really bad for rich people, because of all of their expenses.  I don't think they should have to pay taxes at all.
 
2013-02-08 03:12:35 PM  

uselessgit: 100 Watt Walrus: 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.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

You must be a liberal.  Look, if the golf guy is a dick, unpatriotic, or a bad amurican for wanting to move to a state with a lower tax burden, does it not stand to reason that a nice patriotic liberal who wants to be a "good" amurican should jump at the chance to pay 2/3 of their income in tax?


No, it does not "stand to reason" in any way, shape or form. And apparently you're wholly unfamiliar with the simple concept of false equivalency. And "the golf guy" is free move wherever he likes.
 
2013-02-08 03:18:31 PM  
California has mountains and beaches and some of the most beautiful scenery on Earth.

Texas is a hell hole.   If you made millions then you'd own homes in both locations and pay taxes in Texas and actually live in California.

/"If I owned Texas and Hell I would rent out Texas and live in Hell" -- General Philip H. Sheridan.
 
2013-02-08 03:25:07 PM  

The Larch: Exactly!! And don't forget vacations. Do you think rich people go to Branson? Hell no, they go to Provence. And Provence isn't cheap.

Also, think about housing expenses... obviously no rich person is going to live in that little three bedroom shack you call home. Rich people have to live in big houses. And then they have to pay someone to clean it! It's very, very expensive.

Even something as simple as plane tickets can add up. Poor people can take coach. Well-off people might even fly first class. But rich folks have to fly around in private planes, which burns a hell of a lot of money.

I feel really bad for rich people, because of all of their expenses. I don't think they should have to pay taxes at all.


While I appreciate the snark but there's a pretty distinct difference between people in the 2 and 3% and the 1% - you sound like you are referring to the top tier, who are the ones who don't pay many taxes due to capital gains.

It's considerably easier for a person of modest income to get to the 2 and 3% range than for a person in the 2-3% range to get to 1%.  And that's just doing the math, never minding the effect of the good old boys club of truly wealthy - they don't want company.
 
2013-02-08 03:26:04 PM  

xria: HotWingAgenda: 100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)

Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.

Well, you are certainly the stupidest generation to believe that lie, especially given the format of the social security system in the US means that what you describe is literally impossible, but never mind that, some rich guys lackey told you a lie, and in your gut it feels right, so ignore reality and basic economics, you believe what you want to believe.


Just give me back what I and my employers matching funds have paid in inflation adjusted dollars and we'll call it even.

Cause I'm sure if they didn't have to contribute to that retiremant fund my wages would have been equally higher.
 
2013-02-08 03:31:10 PM  

Sharksfan: It's considerably easier for a person of modest income to get to the 2 and 3% range than for a person in the 2-3% range to get to 1%.  And that's just doing the math, never minding the effect of the good old boys club of truly wealthy - they don't want company.


You're the guy who pretended like it was a fundamental law of nature that says that people in the 2% or 3% can't shop at Target.   Hell, I think we're even allowed into Wal Mart.
 
2013-02-08 03:41:51 PM  
The Larch:

You're the guy who pretended like it was a fundamental law of nature that says that people in the 2% or 3% can't shop at Target.   Hell, I think we're even allowed into Wal Mart.

I routinely shop at Target and Walmart.  I can't say that's typical or not.

I can say that my entire original point of this was that Phl Mickelson's tax situation is atypical of normal people in the top 1% bracket.  Most of them don't pay SS/Federal tax on their income at W2 rates.

Anything beyond that was just banter.  I don't actually complain about my tax rates.  I grew up in a trailer house and ate food pantry food and wore hand me downs.  I got where I am now through a lot of work, a fair amount of luck, and living in a country that gave me the infrastructure and opportunity to do that.  I'll gladly pay taxes taking that all into consideration.

I do have a problem with the tax system though.  I don't think anyone disagrees that it's a mess.  And you could solve the vast majority of problems by just streamlining it to a set rate (even if it was progressive or flat rate) and making the math easy.

Beyond that - whatever.
 
2013-02-08 04:07:15 PM  

The Larch: I feel really bad for rich people, because of all of their expenses. I don't think they should have to pay taxes at all.


The trick is to do things like keep your yacht at a native American owned marina . . . no taxes!
 
2013-02-08 04:42:54 PM  

MrSteve007: The trick is to do things like keep your yacht at a native American owned marina . . . no taxes!


Let's be realistic.  This is what the wealthy would do if they wanted a yacht.

1.) Set up new "C" corporation.
2.) Have corporation buy yacht with borrowed money with yacht as collateral - no luxury tax if it's a capital investment (just like Delta buying a 777)
3.) Rent the yacht from your corporation to yourself when needed - invite at least one business associate so you can have a "weekend strategic planning session"
4.) Write off this totally valid business expense on your taxes.
5.) Make sure the yacht company was just barely above break-even every year but retain the earning "for future growth"
6.) If hard times come quit renting the yacht, bankrupting the company and defaulting on the loan.
 
2013-02-08 04:45:04 PM  

Sharksfan: MrSteve007: The trick is to do things like keep your yacht at a native American owned marina . . . no taxes!

Let's be realistic.  This is what the wealthy would do if they wanted a yacht.

1.) Set up new "C" corporation.
2.) Have corporation buy yacht with borrowed money with yacht as collateral - no luxury tax if it's a capital investment (just like Delta buying a 777)
3.) Rent the yacht from your corporation to yourself when needed - invite at least one business associate so you can have a "weekend strategic planning session"
4.) Write off this totally valid business expense on your taxes.
5.) Make sure the yacht company was just barely above break-even every year but retain the earning "for future growth"
6.) If hard times come quit renting the yacht, bankrupting the company and defaulting on the loan.


That works with dancing horses, too.
 
2013-02-08 05:18:57 PM  

Sharksfan: MrSteve007: The trick is to do things like keep your yacht at a native American owned marina . . . no taxes!

Let's be realistic.  This is what the wealthy would do if they wanted a yacht.

1.) Set up new "C" corporation.
2.) Have corporation buy yacht with borrowed money with yacht as collateral - no luxury tax if it's a capital investment (just like Delta buying a 777)
3.) Rent the yacht from your corporation to yourself when needed - invite at least one business associate so you can have a "weekend strategic planning session"
4.) Write off this totally valid business expense on your taxes.
5.) Make sure the yacht company was just barely above break-even every year but retain the earning "for future growth"
6.) If hard times come quit renting the yacht, bankrupting the company and defaulting on the loan.


Mmmm, I think it may be better to incorporate as an LLC. Then you wouldn't have to list any board of directors, liability is even less and there are no shareholders. Although if you were a C-Corp, and the shares were divvied between you and your business associate, you could likely deduct those investment losses when the company goes bankrupt.
 
2013-02-08 05:21:59 PM  
Welp someone has to pay for the crumbling infrastructure, abysmal roads, gridlock traffic, corrupt police, and terrible schools I guess.

Give the government more money, more money is always the answer.  The worse your kids do in school the more money you should give them, it's an income problem.
 
2013-02-08 05:26:19 PM  
49 other states, Phil. Pick one.

This isn't hard.
 
2013-02-08 08:07:03 PM  

MrSteve007: Mmmm, I think it may be better to incorporate as an LLC. Then you wouldn't have to list any board of directors, liability is even less and there are no shareholders. Although if you were a C-Corp, and the shares were divvied between you and your business associate, you could likely deduct those investment losses when the company goes bankrupt.


The only reason to go "C" corp is to get out of personal responsibility when it all goes belly up.  You can do that with LLC's and S Corps but it's harder.

But I'm no CPA or tax attorney, I was just being flippant.
 
2013-02-08 09:46:37 PM  

Notabunny: There are quite a few reasons why it costs more to live in California. Move to Kansas and discover some.


If I could find work there, I would totally live in Kansas. But I'm not trying to chase women - I'm old now.
 
2013-02-08 09:49:08 PM  

Ed Willy: 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.


Both of our girls went to Allen High School ( yes, the one now with the obscenely ginormous stadium ) and were very well prepared.
 
2013-02-08 09:52:36 PM  

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

The problem with living in Austin is that eventually you will have to venture out into real Texas, and real Texas is a horrible place. From what I've been told.


There's a lot of Texas to go around.Some of it is good, some not so much. Frankly, my view of Austin is pretty negative, but it's a bias. Seems overcrowded and worn out to me.
 
2013-02-08 10:47:32 PM  
In Texas, you can drive for hours, but you'd still be in Texas.  However, in California, you can drive for hours and still be in California!

Also, we're having a terrible storm here in So Cal.  I had to literally get my umbrella out of my closet today, just in case.  As it turns out, I didn't have to deploy it, but still.
 
2013-02-08 10:51:23 PM  

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


What is needed is some kind of law to prevent them from leaving. or, if they are allowed to leave, they have to forfeit all their ill-gotten gains to the People.

/some Farkers will actually support this idea.
 
2013-02-08 10:53:47 PM  

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.


No no no, you don't understand. Rich liberals are very moral and ethical people. And they work hard to make sure that other people pay enough taxes, so they are moral and ethical also..
 
2013-02-08 11:00:17 PM  

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

FTFY

I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.

Do all of you douche-bags get this butt-hurt when someone pokes fun of you?


Yes, yes they do.
 
2013-02-09 01:10:05 AM  

davidphogan: inclemency: davidphogan: fat boy: 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

It's not the worst place I could live by any means.  But, I don't want to live there.

I could have saved a lot of money, saved some time, and sucked it up and dealt with living in Riverside instead of choosing between LA/OC/SD.  I chose San Diego because quality of life is more important than money sometimes.

If people are willing to relocate to somewhere shiattier to save the kind of money in a month that would be a retirement fund to someone like me, great.  Go for it.  It just means that places that are actually decent to live become a little cheaper because you don't have some millionaire asset taking up as much space.

I'd rather live somewhere with a few less millionaires but people who care about having a good place to live.

Your Vancouver hate is perplexing. It's an excellent city to live in.

/lived there two years
//now back in Toronto
///thank god I don't live in Ethiopia or Haiti or America or any other 3rd world nation

I was referring to Vancouver, Washington. I wasn't commuting from Oregon to BC.


Sorry, my bad.
 
2013-02-09 02:42:04 AM  
If you're rich and being taxed... you still happen to be rich after the taxes.  Just sayin'.
 
2013-02-09 07:03:40 AM  
"I am happy to pay my taxes, whatever they are: no problem with me," said David Geffen ...

That's some pretty scary revolutionary rhetoric.
 
2013-02-09 12:26:16 PM  

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.


Yeah, as someone who has such a lucid grasp on what tax deductions are, you have every right to call random people asswipes. No irony there, no sir.
 
2013-02-09 02:01:48 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: 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.


Came to say this, leaves satisfied.
 
2013-02-10 01:49:57 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: TwistedFark: I never really understood this, how much money do you need? I live in a very expensive city, in a very expensive country, with a very high tax rate. I make more money still after taxes and paying my mortgage/bills than the average American makes - actually more than double. Oh, and also about 9% of my income goes yearly towards a retirement account.

I'm not even a "millionaire", but I'm quickly starting to wonder how much more do I need? If had about double the amount of disposable income as I have now, I can't even think about what I would spend it on.

Could you have an debilitating accident that rendered you unable to work and still live off whatever income, insurance, and/or savings for the rest of your life?

If not, then you probably don't have enough.


I live in Australia, so - yes.
 
HBK
2013-02-11 01:05:44 AM  

GBB: Real rich people don't pay taxes, regardless of what the tax rate is.


[citation needed]
 
Displayed 220 of 220 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report