[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]Note the date of that article is March 17, 2012. It implies that beginning in 2012 that MR will not be deductible. But it links to the same FTB article that was discussed here a year ago, that explains essentially that the current IRS instructions make MR deductible, and that enforcement would not change for 2012. The conclusion reached in the article is wrong.[/quote]

SK, by your post, I take you mean enforcement for the (2011) returns due 4/17/12, NOT the 2012 tax year returns (due 4/15/13)?

I am unclear as to which “article” it is that you believe came to the wrong conclusion.

Was it’s link posted on this thread?

…. maybe I better go clean my magnifying glass :=0[/quote]

I was referring to the trulia article in the original post which comes to the wrong conclusion. It says one thing, then links to an FTB article that says another.

If I remember correctly the FTB had a grand plan to cross check tax deductions with tax collectors records that was partially supposed to be in effect for 2011 and become fully functional in 2012. (I could be wrong on the years.) (which has been discussed here over the last few hours.)

But in the trulia article, it refers to the tax deduction for the 2012 tax year.

[SK in CV]

Note the date of that article is March 17, 2012. It implies that beginning in 2012 that MR will not be deductible. But it links to the same FTB article that was discussed here a year ago, that explains essentially that the current IRS instructions make MR deductible, and that enforcement would not change for 2012. The conclusion reached in the article is wrong.

[SK in CV]

I’m not sure what this has to do with being a republican, but yeah it’s tough. But it’s worth it.

Btw, kids with a 3.0 can’t often get into a UC anyway.

[SK in CV]

[quote=barnaby33]

How far can you go taxing the rich and putting the youth in debt until they say F U? Because once you get to that point you can’t take it back.

I absolutely loved this sentence. I just wished he’d actually typed out fuck you!

Nobody seems to have made the point that spending or taxing problems aren’t the base issue. The real underlying problem is the lack of economic growth. Not in ‘Merican bonars mind you, in real economic output. Since we are now officially energy constrained that can’t happen, hence all talk of real growth is absolute horse shit. Now heap on top of that all the fine points made herein about spending and taxing and we have a great thread!
Josh[/quote]

I’ve been saying here for quite some time that economic growth is what is necessary to fix both the budget deficit and the debt. I said it early on in this thread.

I have no idea what you mean by “we are now officially energy contrained, so that [growth] can’t happen”. Who made it official? Is energy of any kind being rationed?

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]The chart you show put CA about in the middle compared to other states, but I could not tell what it was measuring/comparing. Maybe you can explain it to us, although I tend to distrust studies from the education establishment.
But yes, it showed CA to be far from the worst in the nation. I still maintain that we are not getting our money’s worth, and your comment about per pupil spending being low for CA is indeed colaborated by other studies. So how can CA teachers be highest paid (or nearly so), while per pupil spending is far from highest? Big classes are one answer (as you point out), but also wasteful layers of bureaucracy in school administrators, nonsensical rules, high building costs (unionized labor), and countless other inefficiencies unique to California.
Administrative bloat is a valid complaint of teachers. Administrators are wildly overpaid, and have their own unions to fight for their piece of the pie.[/quote]

Click on the state, and it shows what it’s measuring. A couple dozen different items.

I think a more likely conclusion on how CA can pay among the highest teacher salaries with among the lowest per capita total spending is that CA public education does not have bloated admin costs. A bigger percentage of education dollars are going to pay teachers, not all those other things. If all those other costs were high, then per capita spending would also be high. It’s not.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Yes, if you could show I am hugely wrong.
But if your evidence only moves the needle a little, then no.
For example, CA teachers are not literally the highest paid if you count D.C. And maybe another state or two…but if our teachers are the second highest paid, or third, or fifth…
(Google Teacher Pay by State, or some similar label to see details of many studies. All show our teachers to be very highly compensated. Don’t forget to add retirement benefits, medical, other fringe benefits in to get total compensation.)
As to educaton results…another slippery item to measure. So feel free to cherry pick your study. But you have no case unless you discover our expensive schools give us remotely commensurate results.[/quote]

California per student spending is among the lowest in the country, despite the teacher salaries being among the highest. Class size is among the largest. (some justfication for higher teacher salaries?)

I cherry picked the most recent study I could find. Maybe I’m biased because I think my kids got a great education in public schools in CA. I got my money’s worth.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2012/16src.h31.html

[SK in CV]

I’m very proud of you too. Will be even moreso if you make it to squat300.

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]As we debate whether high CA income taxes do or do not explain the current net outflow of Californians to other states, let’s keep the bigger picture in mind.
What we conservatives resent more is that our high taxes don’t buy us much. We have about the worst education results in the nation–generally tied with Mississippi or Louisiana on performance tests and graduation rates–yet we have the highest paid teachers in the nation. Our prison costs per prisoner per year are twice as high as Texas and three times as high as Montana. Yet Texas has a far lower recidivism rate. In short, taxpayers don’t get much for their money in this state.
Those high taxes in turn push up the cost of living here. Businesses HAVE to charge us more here in order to pay their heavily taxed workers more and deal with the regulations, 50% higher utility rates, and business taxes.
One would think that with all this big spending and liberal policies we would be helping the poor. Yet days ago a new Census Bureau study showed CA to have the biggest divergence between poor and rich when cost of living is included.
Some earler posts claim that CA’s high cost of living is a bigger factor in prompting the move-outs than taxes. My point here is that the high taxes and what little we get from them drive up our cost of living, thus providing another motivation to move.[/quote]

Would your conclusions change any if you learned that CA schools are not the worst (not close to true) and CA teachers are not the highest paid (not true either)?

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]BG, I know plenty of those Asian and East Indian immigrants. Many are in debt up to their eyeballs. And that’s inspite of both of them being highly educated, highly employed and frankly, they’re wondering how to get off the financial treadmill too.

I also know plenty that are working their backsides off scraping to build wealth and get enough capital to open that 2nd franchise or buy the next rental.

BTW, have been to fly-over land lately? Asian and East Indian immigrants are common.

Negative connotations aside of your post, you make our point, you need to down-grade your material lifestyle or make $200K plus to be in the good parts of Cali. And unless someone left you a house, $100K in Cali is lower middle income existence and it just gets worse as you go down from there. And I’m OC/LA where the housing and expense issue is even more pronounced than SD.

Regarding friends #2 & #3, yes, friend #2, was single making $100K+ and basically feeling poor. To get a house he’d have to stretch to buy crappy and in a crappy hood.

Friends #3 same, she was making $100K and hubby another $50Kish. Ironically, making more now in St. Louis.

the 8% plus sales taxes, the 9.3% income tax, just extra kicks in the shins.

And yes, all five of them where in the $100-$300K range. Elsewhere, that’s really good money. In SoCal, that’s comfy with trade offs.[/quote]

The guy making $100K wasnt paying 9.3% if he was married. Even if was single, his taxes would have been closer to 6%.

When I left CA, i was living in Carmel Valley (I think that’s a pretty good part of CA). I lived pretty well, in fact very well, spending no more than if I was making $150K a year AND I had two kids in college I was paying for out of that money. I really wonder sometimes what people think a middle-income lifestyle should look like.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]However, my point was to counter the ‘everybody will come crawling back to SD meme'[/quote]

Point taken. People leave for a lot of reasons. I left and it had nothing to do with taxes. I’m quite content but still expect I’ll be back some day.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl]
Uhhh, Mike? Hello?? Your “friends” haven’t been gone long enough to crawl back to SD broke and desperate to “start over” after asking to “rent a room” from you “for just six months.”
[/quote]

Hmm, let’s see.

Friends #1, moved to Phoenix 5 years ago. Happier than a bikini watcher on main beach in August. They were shaking their heads at the taxes we past over Christmas.

Friend #2, moved to Austin 6 years ago. No longer stressed, feeling broke and living in a nice house on an acre instead of scraping by in a one bedroom apartment in beach town.

Friends #3, went St Louis 6 years ago. Happy, job is good, lots of opportunity. Has a 15 minute commute instead of an hour plus from the IE to the coast.

Friend #4, went to Atlanta 4 years ago. Happy, started her own business, less stressed now.

Friend #5, Vegas 5 years ago. Came back 3 years ago. Not happy there, not all that happy here.

That’s an 80/20 success rate.[/quote]

So none of them actually left because of the tax increase on very high income taxpayers.

[SK in CV]

[quote=asegal]Don’t get carried away because MR is not tax deductible… at least not legally. Still worth it in some 4S neighborhoods.[/quote]

Yes, they are deductible.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]The administrative requirements are pre-requisites to the SOW which act as a barrier to entry and essentially act as an unnecessary and esoteric requirement. i.e. a mil-spec hammer when a $5 hammer from HD would do the job.[/quote]

You may think it’s unnecessary and esoteric. But it’s also part of the process of doing business with almost every Fortune 500 company. It is not solely a government thing. It is a big organization thing. And the federal government is as big as it gets.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]
That’s the mil-spec issue in a nutshell.[/quote]

No, it’s really not. It has nothing to do with SOW’s. It’s purely administrative.

[SK in CV]

Are there still a lot of MM homes underwater, or has that pretty much all been resolved?

[Author]

Posts