Prop 30: Southern California vs Texas

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Pri: Yup, it has been a while and, nope, I ain’t arguing with you. You hold your position and I hold mine.

Hopefully, you and yours had a Happy Thanksgiving.

I don’t disagree on defense cuts and I’ve made the case for them on this board. Defense needs to be cut and we need tax and entitlement reform. Again, said all this before.

My comment regarding Russia, China, Iran and North Korea were largely tongue-in-cheek and driven by the fact that America needs her enemies to keep feeding the beast. Yeah, I’m concerned about Russia and China, but not using that as a rationale to keep defense spending where it is. What to cut? Not a clue, but that’s not my job.

Obama as the devil? Nope, not my take and I’ve made that clear, too. That’s your strawman, as I’ve castigated Bush I and II, Clinton and Reagan for their contributions to our ever-diminishing civil rights and liberties. Recognizing that Obama is now supporting and, in some cases, augmenting and expanding the very programs that he once campaigned against is a matter of fact. Why Obama is doing it (need to show he’s hanging tough in the War on Terror, or any other thin excuses) is immaterial. The fact is, he is doing it and NDAA is simply one small part.

So, good luck to you in your endeavors and thus endeth my response. I’m not interested in being insulted by you, nor am I interested in having a discussion with someone who treats ad hominem as a tool, likes to twist the words of others and feels completely comfortable with character assassination.

[Coronita]

BTW: regarding Prop 30..

The tax surcharges kick in as follows

1. Single filer $250k or above

2. Married/joint $500k or above (at least CA got it right…)

3. Head of Household $340k or above…

[ctr70]

I just went on a tax calculation web site and compared what someone living in CA making $400k a year vs. someone making $40k pays in total taxes. The assumption for sake of discussion is single person:

$40k income
-$5,484 federal taxes
-$1,680 social security
-$576 Medicare
-$396 SDI
-$1,320 CA state income taxes
Total:$9,456 – 23% of income

$400k income
-$116,400 federal taxes
-$16,800 social security
-$5,796 medicare
-$3,996 SDI
-$40,608 CA state income taxes
Total:$183,600 – 46% of income

So the person making $400k pays 20 times more in taxes as a total dollar amount! And the liberals want them to pay more!!! $183,600 is not enough blood for the parasites! What would be fair if it was a flat tax and the person making $400k also paid a total of 23% out of their paycheck. They would still be contributing $92,000 vs. $9,456 for the person making $40k. Still 10 times as much!

I personally think the whole escalating tax brackets are total BS. It is basically a legal means for the lower income to steal from the higher income because they outnumber them in the electorate & will always vote for the candidate who taxes “the rich” more. The ONLY guy who EVER got it right was Steve Forbes with the flat tax plan. Why should a person making $400k have to pay out double the % of his income as a guy making $40k? There has never been a good reason for it. It is totally unjust and unfair and IMO a Governmental form of theft, a form of stealing. A much better plan is the RADICAL shrinking of the size and scope of Government and more frugality with tax dollars collected, so our citizens can keep more of their money & choose to spend it how they wish.

I do not want to live in a Euro-style quasi socialist society where the Gov takes 60% of my income and re-distributes it. I don’t want to live in a place with chronic high unemployment and stagnant economies with no decent jobs like Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, etc… I would rather personally choose how I spend my money.

[Coronita]

So what you need to figure out is out of the individuals who make $400k, how many of them have a TAXABLE income of $400k. There’s a big difference.

[ctr70]

That is the point of the post, a person with a taxable NET income of $400k vs. a person with a taxable NET income of $40k.

[ctr70]

Bearishgirl…I have been up to Couer D’ Alene (and Sandpoint). In fact I got pulled over for speeding by a brother of a retired CHP (he was from CA too). There are SO MANY cops up there. It was nice, the there are 2 huge gorgeous lakes up there. But not for me to live. I wouldn’t even vacation there personally, there are much better spots. I like Montana & Colorado much better for example.

I would never live there personally, but I was impressed with Boise ID when I drove through there. Great place for a family fleeing CA. Very nice clean town, very NON ghetto look and feel (as opposed to so much of CA). Close to tremendous pristine hiking, skiing, boating. Great college football team:)

The top no state income tax destinations for me to flee CA & the 10.3% state income tax are Seattle and Portsmouth New Hampshire. Those would be my top choices. With the tax savings you could take a few nice long winter tropical vacations:) The NV side of Lake Tahoe would be OK but too quiet. I knew a guy who lived in Incline Village half the year and Sarasota FL (both no income tax states). Not a big Las Vegas fan. I couldn’t live in TX b/c too flat & hot. Never been a big Florida fan. Jackson WY is beautiful, but not as a full time resident.

I actually like everything better about Seattle over SD except the weather in a few of the rainier winter months. I think it’s much prettier, 1.5 hrs from real skiing, much better architecture, much better culture and look and feel. Portsmouth is a lovely New England town as well with Colonial architecture, 45 min from Boston, a few minutes from the Maine Coast, an hour from the White Mnts of NH, etc.. But I would go with Seattle over Portsmouth right now b/c Ports. is a little too small. But lovely, lovely town!

Bearishgirl… you have to stop going to places so hard on the eyes like ABQ and Tulsa and visit Seattle and Portsmouth:)

[teaboy]

[quote=harvey]Here is the fact that overwhelms all others:

Military Expenditures

Yeah, “we’ve got China and Russia…” What a joke.

Anyone who claims that there is no room to cut military spending is oblivious to basic reality.

The specifics hardly even matter – we could cut 50% across the board and still dominate.

Russia would have to spend about 40% of their GDP to even approach the size of our military.

China? Yeah, they’re going to start a war with their biggest customer…

Iran’s budget is about 1% of ours. Less than 1/3 of Canada’s.

But the bogey men are out there!

I check back in here and see that nothing has changed: Allan’s posts are a string of arbitrary references to history that are devoid of any actual coherent argument or position – it almost sounds like he’s making a point, but he never does.

And of course Obama is still the devil because of NDAA et. al. – gotta get that one in every time while we ignore the 99% of other lawmakers who support the same polices also.

Allan, it’s been a while. I’m sure you had the time to read the book on Constitutional law and executive power that I recommended to you – twice. Since you have such a strong interest in understanding who is responsible for these policies, I’m sure you jumped right on it.

For the curious: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Constraint-Accountable-Presidency-After/dp/0393081338/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Oh, so what’s your donation to the ACLU this year – one of the few organizations that have the will and the means to take on this fight? I’ve already made my donation, but I’ll make an additional one to match yours.

You are doing something, right? Not just complaining? I’d hate to think you were just posting here so that you can feel smart.

Keep pushing folks, and maybe we’ll get to hear him pull out the “big words…”[/quote]

Brilliant post harvey. Superb!
tb

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]I just went on a tax calculation web site and compared what someone living in CA making $400k a year vs. someone making $40k pays in total taxes. The assumption for sake of discussion is single person:

$40k income
-$5,484 federal taxes
-$1,680 social security
-$576 Medicare
-$396 SDI
-$1,320 CA state income taxes
Total:$9,456 – 23% of income

$400k income
-$116,400 federal taxes
-$16,800 social security
-$5,796 medicare
-$3,996 SDI
-$40,608 CA state income taxes
Total:$183,600 – 46% of income

So the person making $400k pays 20 times more in taxes as a total dollar amount! And the liberals want them to pay more!!! $183,600 is not enough blood for the parasites! What would be fair if it was a flat tax and the person making $400k also paid a total of 23% out of their paycheck. They would still be contributing $92,000 vs. $9,456 for the person making $40k. Still 10 times as much!

I personally think the whole escalating tax brackets are total BS. It is basically a legal means for the lower income to steal from the higher income because they outnumber them in the electorate & will always vote for the candidate who taxes “the rich” more. The ONLY guy who EVER got it right was Steve Forbes with the flat tax plan. Why should a person making $400k have to pay out double the % of his income as a guy making $40k? There has never been a good reason for it. It is totally unjust and unfair and IMO a Governmental form of theft, a form of stealing. A much better plan is the RADICAL shrinking of the size and scope of Government and more frugality with tax dollars collected, so our citizens can keep more of their money & choose to spend it how they wish.

I do not want to live in a Euro-style quasi socialist society where the Gov takes 60% of my income and re-distributes it. I don’t want to live in a place with chronic high unemployment and stagnant economies with no decent jobs like Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, etc… I would rather personally choose how I spend my money.[/quote]

The fairest form of taxation is one where ALL types of income are taxed at the same, progressive rates. There is absolutely no reason to tax labor at the highest rates.

The tax collection issues in the above-named countries is one of the main reasons they are having such a difficult time with public finances.

…

“…Tax evasion is less an under-the-radar activity, more a social norm.

From this starting-point, the authors also make an estimate of how much tax is being evaded in Greece. The debt-to-income ratio for wage-earners in a particular profession ought to provide a guide (though not a precise one) to the debt-to-income ratio that banks are comfortable with for self-employed borrowers in the same profession. That assumption enables the authors to work out what multiples banks are applying to reported incomes in various industries; how much taxable income is not being reported; and how much tax is being evaded (see table). At an aggregate level, the authors calculate that the self-employed in 2009 dodged taxes on at least €28 billion of unreported income, enough to fill 31% of the Greek budget deficit that year.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/tax-evasion-greece
—————-

ctr,

Why don’t you move to Somalia, Mexico, or any of those no-tax/low-tax countries? Based on your logic, the effective absence of taxes means that unemployment rates in these countries should be some of the lowest on earth, right?

FWIW, if you really don’t understand why we have progressive tax rates, you need to stop calling other people ignorant.

[The Truth]

[quote]ctr,

Why don’t you move to Somalia, Mexico, or any of those no-tax/low-tax countries? Based on your logic, the effective absence of taxes means that unemployment rates in these countries should be some of the lowest on earth, right?

FWIW, if you really don’t understand why we have progressive tax rates, you need to stop calling other people ignorant.[/quote]

CA Renter, you’re really stuck on this Somalia thing I see.
Three questions for you: Why do YOU think we have progressive taxes? How progressive/how much is enough? How much of MY hard earned wages is YOUR fair share?

[paramount]

California is the worst run state in the country according to Wall Street:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-150415625.html

[paramount]

[quote=The Truth]

CA Renter, you’re really stuck on this Somalia thing I see.
Three questions for you: Why do YOU think we have progressive taxes? How progressive/how much is enough? How much of MY hard earned wages is YOUR fair share?[/quote]

It’s the old tax-your-way-to-prosperity-model that never works.

[paramount]

dup

[CA renter]

[quote=The Truth][quote]ctr,

Why don’t you move to Somalia, Mexico, or any of those no-tax/low-tax countries? Based on your logic, the effective absence of taxes means that unemployment rates in these countries should be some of the lowest on earth, right?

FWIW, if you really don’t understand why we have progressive tax rates, you need to stop calling other people ignorant.[/quote]

CA Renter, you’re really stuck on this Somalia thing I see.
Three questions for you: Why do YOU think we have progressive taxes? How progressive/how much is enough? How much of MY hard earned wages is YOUR fair share?[/quote]

Countries without tax revenue (all taxes all fees) have no infrastructure, no safety nets, and a very low quality of life for most of their citizens.

If you think that YOU are responsible for all of your success, try to duplicate it from scratch in a country with no taxes; let’s see how you do.

The reason we have progressive rates is because poor people have no disposable income since most of their income goes toward basic necessities, so every dollar paid in taxes is more valuable to them than to someone who has hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in disposable income.

Additionally, people who make the most tend to receive a greater benefit, per capita, from the government. While a “welfare queen” might get ~$12K in benefits a year, people like Steve Jobs receive a far greater benefit from our govt in the form of intellectual property protection, government-sponsored R&D (~70-80% of all basic research is funded by the govt), military protection (what do you think would happen to all those cargo ships without military protection?), physical infrastructure (think ports, roads, railways, etc.), tax credits and incentives, financial regulations and enforcement (without which there would be no financial market), etc., etc. [edited]

BTW, YOUR wages aren’t going to ME. I simply know that there is a cost — both to you and me — for living in a civilized, democratic society, and I’m more than willing to pay for it.

[The Truth]

[quote=CA renter]
If you think that YOU are responsible for all of your success, try to duplicate it from scratch in a country with no taxes; let’s see how you do.[/quote]

Oh I get it… ‘I didn’t build that…’

What’s next, ‘From each according to his abilities…’?

And I am not advocating no taxes or a Somalia-like state. Using that as an example is hyperbolic, childish, and ignorant.

And I would do just fine in a county or era of lower/less confiscatory tax policy.

BTW, the ‘government’ doesn’t provide infrastructure; the ‘government’ didn’t build that. I did with my tax dollars, along with every other net producer and those that came before me; and no thanks to the net consumers.

[quote=CA renter]Additionally, people who make the most tend to receive a greater benefit, per capita, from the government.[/quote]

Bullshit. What’s your basis for that? It’s easy to just make garbage like that up.

[quote=CA renter] BTW, YOUR wages aren’t going to ME. I simply know that there is a cost — both to you and me — for living in a civilized, democratic society, and I’m more than willing to pay for it.[/quote]

If I’m paying a higher percentage of taxes, then my wages ARE going to YOU on a relative basis.

And you still didn’t answer my question? How much/what percentage of my wages do you consider your fair share?

[ctr70]

Nice job cherry picking Somalia Mr. renter guy, I wouldn’t have expected anything less from the Pigg serial poster:) Your forgetting prosperous countries like South Korea, New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Uraguay, Malaysia, and Australia (just to name a few), that have lower personal tax rates than the U.S. I especially like Hong Kong tax rates capped at 15% no matter what a persons income is.

A high income earner in America can pay $100k+ over their career into Medicare yet they will never use it. Where the low income guy who will use Medicare most likely paid a paltry sum into it. That is amazing. Liberals should at least go out and shake the hand of those “evil” high income earners once a day, b/c those are the people going out every day to bust their butt to pay all the bills in this country.

Those Americans wanting and receiving a free lunch currently outnumber those that don’t, that showed clearly in our recent elections. And the solution to keep paying for that free lunch is to suffocate our precious few high achievers in our society with massive taxes to pay for it all (Prop 30).

That leads me to a great quote from Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

…something Greece and Spain are finding painfully true.

[Author]

Posts