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  
•       •       •

16125 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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!
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


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