Fetterman drops a large truth bomb in the Dem toilet

Please note that Russian oblasts (the equivalent of states) and cities do not levy income taxes. So 22% is the top rate.

For California, the top total rate is,

Federal: 37%
Obamacare tax charged on net investment income & Medicare tax charged on self employment income: 3.8%
State: 12.3%
State Mental Health Services Tax: 1%

Total: 54.1%

The Obamacare (Net Investment Income tax) and Mental Health Services Tax are both income taxes levied on high income taxpayers.

As a Texan you benefit from less regulation and lower taxes than California. If you made the $70,000 a year you mentioned in Texas, you'd require $90,000 to $95,000 in the PRC to have a similar standard of living. Or at least that's what ChatGPT tells me.

I believe state taxes, sales or income, are only deductible up to $10,000. If you're in the 54.1% bracket (federal + state) in California, that's not much. Originally Posted by Tiny

But how many people in California actually pay that rate on their income. I’m guessing very few because when you start making that kind of money you are utilizing other forms of tax avoidance to keep that money from being classified as income.

People like to throw out a huge number as a scare tactic without any real context. The problem is not income tax but rather the way the system is rigged to allow really rich people to avoid paying even a fraction of the percentage of income that middle class people do.

https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/...teractive-tool
Rich people often pay less in income taxes than middle-class individuals because a significant portion of their income comes from capital gains and investments, which are taxed at lower rates than wages. Additionally, the wealthy can utilize various tax deductions and loopholes that reduce their effective tax rate compared to that of middle-class earners, who primarily rely on wages for their income.

PS. The average household income in California is approximately $136,730, while the median household income is around $96,334.

But how many people in California actually pay that rate on their income. I’m guessing very few because when you start making that kind of money you are utilizing other forms of tax avoidance to keep that money from being classified as income.

People like to throw out a huge number as a scare tactic without any real context. The problem is not income tax but rather the way the system is rigged to allow really rich people to avoid paying even a fraction of the percentage of income that middle class people do.



PS. The average household income in California is approximately $136,730, while the median household income is around $96,334. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I said top rate TxDot. If you read the whole thread you'll see I was discussing the redistributive policies favored by Democratic Socialists. That is, taking (or stealing depending on your point of view) from the rich and giving to the poor. You're doing your best to shift the conversation to the entire income spectrum.

Respectfully, Progressive Democratic politicians and news outlets try to brainwash you and apparently they're having some success. This is complete nonsense: "The problem is not income tax but rather the way the system is rigged to allow really rich people to avoid paying even a fraction of the percentage of income that middle class people do."

I linked to and discussed this piece already in Post 17:

https://www.davidsplinter.com/Toptax.html

Take a look at Figure 2 in the link. The really high income earners pay tax (federal + state + local) at much higher rates, 45% for the top 0.1% compared to around 16% or 17% for the middle quintile.

Good point about California. Yes, incomes are higher than Texas. I'd guess that the successful entrepreneurial class (an extreme example, Elon Musk) and highly skilled can make about as much before tax in Texas as California, which is why you see many of them moving. I've spoken with former Californians who don't fit into those categories who tell me they left on account of high home costs and fewer employment opportunties.

I said top rate TxDot. If you read the whole thread you'll see I was discussing the redistributive policies favored by Democratic Socialists. That is, taking (or stealing depending on your point of view) from the rich and giving to the poor. You're doing your best to shift the conversation to the entire income spectrum.

Respectfully, Progressive Democratic politicians and news outlets try to brainwash you and apparently they're having some success. This is complete nonsense: "The problem is not income tax but rather the way the system is rigged to allow really rich people to avoid paying even a fraction of the percentage of income that middle class people do.". Originally Posted by Tiny

Tiny, I’m not arguing that our tax system is not progressive and I think you will see that I have always argued that our tax rates are too low across the board. Despite what many think about progressives I am firmly in the camp that believes that people need to pay for the services that they receive from the government and that in the case of health care the private insurance industry is responsible for most of the administrative costs and profiteering that are associated what they see as a profit oriented business.

A national health care plan that provides a minimum standard of health care should be the norm and private insurance should handle everything else.

Democratic socialism as I understand it has always been

• A robust public education system.
• A nationalized health care system.
• A nationalized retirement system.
• A progressive tax system.

PS. my comments on California’s tax rate is all about putting your claim into perspective. Yes Californians who do claim income over 750,000 in a year will possibly pay a 54% rate on monies above that amount but I would hazard a guess that the number of people doing so is quite low to nonexistent. It’s certainly not 54 cents on every dollar earned. Income taxes don’t work that way.

PS. my comments on California’s tax rate is all about putting your claim into perspective. Yes Californians who do claim income over 750,000 in a year will possibly pay a 54% rate on monies above that amount but I would hazard a guess that the number of people doing so is quite low to nonexistent. It’s certainly not 54 cents on every dollar earned. Income taxes don’t work that way. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

yes it is. that's exactly how a percentage tax on earnings works

yes it is. that's exactly how a percentage tax on earnings works Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No it’s not. Income taxes are a graduated system.

Here is the State of California income tax rate.

Income Tax Rate
$0 to $10,756. 1%
$10,756 to $25,499. 2%
$25,499 to $40,245. 4%
$40,245 to $55,866. 6%
$55,866 to $70,606. 8%
$70,606 to $360,659. 9.3%
$360,659 to $432,787. 10.3%
$432,787 to $721,314. 11.3%
$721,314 to $1,000,000. 12.3%

Excluding federal income taxes from this argument because they have different tax brackets.

Money earned above 721,314 is taxed at 12.3%
Money earned above 432,787 and below 721,314 is taxed at11.3%.

Etc. etc.

Just because you make a million dollars doesn’t mean that the total amount is all taxed at the same rate.

No it’s not. Income taxes are a graduated system.

Here is the State of California income tax rate.

Income Tax Rate
$0 to $10,756. 1%
$10,756 to $25,499. 2%
$25,499 to $40,245. 4%
$40,245 to $55,866. 6%
$55,866 to $70,606. 8%
$70,606 to $360,659. 9.3%
$360,659 to $432,787. 10.3%
$432,787 to $721,314. 11.3%
$721,314 to $1,000,000. 12.3%

Excluding federal income taxes from this argument because they have different tax brackets.

Money earned above 721,314 is taxed at 12.3%
Money earned above 432,787 and below 721,314 is taxed at11.3%.

Etc. etc.

Just because you make a million dollars doesn’t mean that the total amount is all taxed at the same rate. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

the moment you said "Excluding federal income taxes from this argument because they have different tax brackets." you lost your own argument

Tiny is right

bahahahaaa

the moment you said "Excluding federal income taxes from this argument because they have different tax brackets." you lost your own argument

Tiny is right

bahahahaaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

https://accountinginsights.org/what-...-does-it-work/
The core of a graduated income tax system involves “tax brackets” and “marginal tax rates.” Income is divided into specific ranges, or tax brackets, with each bracket assigned its own marginal tax rate. For instance, the U.S. federal income tax system features seven such rates, ranging from 10% to 37% for the 2024 tax year.

A key aspect is that only the portion of income falling within a specific bracket is taxed at that bracket’s rate. For example, if a taxpayer’s income crosses into a higher bracket, only the amount exceeding the previous bracket’s limit is taxed at the new, higher marginal rate.

https://accountinginsights.org/what-...-does-it-work/
The core of a graduated income tax system involves “tax brackets” and “marginal tax rates.” Income is divided into specific ranges, or tax brackets, with each bracket assigned its own marginal tax rate. For instance, the U.S. federal income tax system features seven such rates, ranging from 10% to 37% for the 2024 tax year.

A key aspect is that only the portion of income falling within a specific bracket is taxed at that bracket’s rate. For example, if a taxpayer’s income crosses into a higher bracket, only the amount exceeding the previous bracket’s limit is taxed at the new, higher marginal rate. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

you lost your point right here



game over

PS. my comments on California’s tax rate is all about putting your claim into perspective. Yes Californians who do claim income over 750,000 in a year will possibly pay a 54% rate on monies above that amount but I would hazard a guess that the number of people doing so is quite low to nonexistent. It’s certainly not 54 cents on every dollar earned. Income taxes don’t work that way. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

bahahahaa

you lost your point right here
game over

bahahahaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Please explain further. I’m trying to educate people on how exactly a graduated tax system works. It’s fairly self explanatory as I see it. Exactly how have I lost my point? What exactly do you think my point is?

Please explain further. I’m trying to educate people on how exactly a graduated tax system works. It’s fairly self explanatory as I see it. Exactly how have I lost my point? What exactly do you think my point is? Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Hey tx, you're presuming to "educate" everyone about something most of us grasped years ago in Tax Accounting 101. And you're acting like it's some kind of a major revelation.

(Facepalm pause #1)

Your point seems to be - hey, those sky-high CA state income tax rates ain't so bad! After all, they're graduated and that helps take the sting out of them. Besides, there aren't that many rich fucks out there, so those burdensome rates only screw a handful of people.

(Facepalm pause #2)

Here's an assignment for you - using the CA income tax brackets you listed, calculate the effective rate owed by a California resident with a) $1 million and b) $10 million in taxable income.

Then come back and let us know by how much these effective rates vary from the top marginal rate of 12.3%.

Thanks in advance.

You're just trying to throw us off track LustyLad. We know you're Steve Mnuchin in real life. Seriously, except on taxes, WYID is correct. I'm nowhere close to being in the same league with you and Texas Contrarian. And yeah, it would be great if we had a left of center poster on economics on the same level as you two. Somebody should invite Paul Krugman to join up... Originally Posted by Tiny

Maybe the Ben Bernanke?

...And I love you too WYID. In a brotherly way. I feel compelled to add that because of your recent post on trans anime strippers. I'm almost sure you're not really into that stuff, but just in case I'm 100% hetero. Originally Posted by Tiny

Wait! Were are you going darli'n?!?


Seriously though, I can't fathom how people can afford to live in Commiefornia, much less why Dems think: This time Socialism will really, really win for us.

Here's a hot take on the Golden State: Remember those wildfires that ravaged 100's of homes in Malibu, Commifornia 10 months ago? So far, the Politburo have approved a whopping TWO permits to rebuild to date.

Seriously though, I can't fathom how people can afford to live in Commiefornia, much less why Dems think: This time Socialism will really, really win for us. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

They can’t, unless they’re rich or poor. It’s why the middle class has been fleeing the state for decades. They lost a million middle class citizens in the 2010s and are on track to double or triple that in the 2020s.

Good read on the subject.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/h...-middle-class/

I am firmly in the camp that believes that people need to pay for the services that they receive from the government and that in the case of health care the private insurance industry is responsible for most of the administrative costs and profiteering that are associated what they see as a profit oriented business.

A national health care plan that provides a minimum standard of health care should be the norm and private insurance should handle everything else. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I actually largely agree with you on this, although I'd opt for a system like Singapore has. People there use something like a supercharged HSA (Health Savings Account)/IRA to directly pay the majority of their medical costs. And then excess major medical insurance sponsored by the state kicks in if they have something really major. The free market in health care works a lot better there than it does in the USA, where prices are set by insurance companies, government, hospitals and providers with little competition. In Singapore people shop around for the best deals, so prices are much lower. The plaintiffs' attorneys aren't wreaking havoc either.

But I have to admit that many developed countries with socialized medicine have lower costs and better health care outcomes than we do. Could we do the same thing in the USA? At the state level, maybe so. At the federal level, I doubt it. Our federal government isn't nearly as efficient as many foreign governments. Look for example at how much infrastructure projects funded by our federal government cost, compared to the Europeans.

Jackson, the founder and one of the wisest political observers on International Sex Guide, who was to the right of most of our board members, was on board with you. He lived in Argentina, and believed the USA should model its health care system on Argentina's. That is, a bare bones public health care system, with private insurance, hospitals, clinics, etc.

Maybe the Ben Bernanke?
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

No, someone seriously left wing. Gabriel Zucman or Emmanuel Saez, who graduated from France's far left Ecole Normale Superieure and now teach at Berkeley would fit the bill. They're Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' economic gurus. LL and TC would rip them to shreds. TC and LL might agree with Bernanke more than they'd disagree, which wouldn't make for entertaining reading.

Imma put your whole post below the below graphic, because if I split it point by point, to respond, this post would be 12 pages long.

I nominate this section for most clueless take in the known universe: Our tax rates are too low, while saying just the State rate could be 54%?!?

Ever heard of value proposition, i.e. is it worth it? NYC spends about $5K (if memory serves) per kid in the indoctrination centers, aka schools. They are barely functionally literate as a result. Is it worth it?

Quit it!!
Don't even say it!: Just spend more of other people's money. AmmIrite?!?
Apply similar logic to the rest of the list points as well. Nationalized this, that and the other thing in a Constitutional Republic?!?

I nominate this section for 2nd most clueless take in the known universe: "I am firmly in the camp that believes that people need to pay for the services that they receive from the government and that in the case of health care the private insurance industry is responsible for most of the administrative costs".

receive?!? How about foisted upon Comrade?
Administrative costs?!? How about the burden of complying with diktats Comrade?

You seem totally surprised to be told, not that you seem to actually hear or process it, that we are a Constitutional Republic?!? Wha-z-up-wid-dat?

Tiny, I’m not arguing that our tax system is not progressive and I think you will see that I have always argued that our tax rates are too low across the board. Despite what many think about progressives I am firmly in the camp that believes that people need to pay for the services that they receive from the government and that in the case of health care the private insurance industry is responsible for most of the administrative costs and profiteering that are associated what they see as a profit oriented business.

A national health care plan that provides a minimum standard of health care should be the norm and private insurance should handle everything else.

Democratic socialism as I understand it has always been

• A robust public education system.
• A nationalized health care system.
• A nationalized retirement system.
• A progressive tax system.

PS. my comments on California’s tax rate is all about putting your claim into perspective. Yes Californians who do claim income over 750,000 in a year will possibly pay a 54% rate on monies above that amount but I would hazard a guess that the number of people doing so is quite low to nonexistent. It’s certainly not 54 cents on every dollar earned. Income taxes don’t work that way. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You are exactly what is wrong with the
Democratic Socialist Party Comrade

...Gabriel Zucman or Emmanuel Saez, who graduated from France's far left Ecole Normale Superieure and now teach at Berkeley would fit the bill. They're Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' economic gurus... Originally Posted by Tiny

Naaahhh! Pretty sure Warren's and Sander's money shuffling stance is based, squarely upon:


Aahhh, the covid years where Muy Beno to them...