The only Republicans who understand how taxes work are the rich ones. For most people earning a salary of $66,000, you'd be much better off in a "high tax" state than a "low tax" one, because not only would you likely pay less, you'll get significantly more back in public services.
In California, a person making $66,000 would pay roughly $2565 in income tax. In New Jersey, they'd pay $2099.
In Missouri, they'd pay $2626. In Nebraska, $2913. Alabama, $3060. These are only "low tax" states if you're rich. The suckers don't know! Simply insane!
My last year’s tax filing was $311k. In CA, that would have cost me $22,010, in CO it was $12,972, in WY or TX, it would have been $0. I spent another $16,000 in property taxes last year. For the equivalent amount of Real Estate in San Diego, I would have had to pay roughly $60,000 in property taxes (price per square foot is about 3 times higher and the average property tax rate is about 50% higher). So about $82,000 in property + income taxes vs about $29,000 in property + income taxes. I’ll stay here, thanks.
^ fake story
Our home in CA is assessed at $1M and the property tax is $12,000/year. Your San Diego, $60,000 in property tax, example means an equivalent $5M home. The San Diego the median home price is $900k. So, your price point is 5.6 times the median price.
Please post which state you live in with a $311k salary and a home that is 5.6 times the median price. The best guess is Fantasyland.
My last year’s tax filing was $311k. In CA, that would have cost me $22,010, in CO it was $12,972, in WY or TX, it would have been $0. I spent another $16,000 in property taxes last year. For the equivalent amount of Real Estate in San Diego, I would have had to pay roughly $60,000 in property taxes (price per square foot is about 3 times higher and the average property tax rate is about 50% higher). So about $82,000 in property + income taxes vs about $29,000 in property + income taxes. I’ll stay here, thanks.
^ fake story
Our home in CA is assessed at $1M and the property tax is $12,000/year. Your San Diego, $60,000 in property tax, example means an equivalent $5M home. The San Diego the median home price is $900k. So, your price point is 5.6 times the median price.
Please post which state you live in with a $311k salary and a home that is 5.6 times the median price. The best guess is Fantasyland.
You pay 1.2% property tax. I have 8,000 sq ft of real estate (residence and a free standing medical office building, not just a house). Where I live, that is assessed at about $2.25 million. At roughly .7%, I pay $15,750 a year. For the same 8,000 sf in CA @$600/sf, using your 1.2% rate, I would be paying $57,600 a year.
Don't hate the game, learn the rules. Personally, I'd much rather have an income tax problem than the alternative of paying no taxes because of being broke. Either change where you live or change your perspective. You choose.
Just to be clear, you do realize this is simply the state income tax, correct? The federal tax rate is 37% for the highest earners. The state income tax is added on top of that. Some places even have city income taxes on top of that. Don't forget property taxes and sales tax(8% in California).
State taxes are deductible from federal taxes up to $10k. And you get to deduct your mortgage interest. And you're still confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates. Do you really not understand this? It's the tranche of earnings over ~500k that gets taxed at 37%. The actually average tax rate is much lower.
As someone who is in that income bracket, yes, trust me I get it. Which is exactly why I live in a state that is taxed at a much lower rate. I would never move to California. The taxes alone would cost me at least an extra $30K per year compared to where I live now.
Why would I ever take a 7% haircut to live anywhere, let alone a place that's poorly governed, overcrowded and far more expensive?
State taxes are deductible from federal taxes up to $10k. And you get to deduct your mortgage interest. And you're still confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates. Do you really not understand this? It's the tranche of earnings over ~500k that gets taxed at 37%. The actually average tax rate is much lower.
As someone who is in that income bracket, yes, trust me I get it. Which is exactly why I live in a state that is taxed at a much lower rate. I would never move to California. The taxes alone would cost me at least an extra $30K per year compared to where I live now.
Why would I ever take a 7% haircut to live anywhere, let alone a place that's poorly governed, overcrowded and far more expensive?
1) it’s California there’s a reason is “overcrowded” the geography outside the cities is second to none. I would take a 20% haircut to be closer to the Sierras.
2) you could probably get paid more if you moved to CA
Our home in CA is assessed at $1M and the property tax is $12,000/year. Your San Diego, $60,000 in property tax, example means an equivalent $5M home. The San Diego the median home price is $900k. So, your price point is 5.6 times the median price.
Please post which state you live in with a $311k salary and a home that is 5.6 times the median price. The best guess is Fantasyland.
You pay 1.2% property tax. I have 8,000 sq ft of real estate (residence and a free standing medical office building, not just a house). Where I live, that is assessed at about $2.25 million. At roughly .7%, I pay $15,750 a year. For the same 8,000 sf in CA @$600/sf, using your 1.2% rate, I would be paying $57,600 a year.
Horrifying, that you live in a home with a medical office building.
You cannot compare prop commercial/mixed-use property to a pure residence. Try again, and this time only post the part of the residential part, and not the commercial use part. BTW, out of curiosity, where did you find a such a mixed-use building (single family home and office building) in San Diego to determine your $57.6k tax? Zillow was of no help.
My last year’s tax filing was $311k. In CA, that would have cost me $22,010, in CO it was $12,972, in WY or TX, it would have been $0. I spent another $16,000 in property taxes last year. For the equivalent amount of Real Estate in San Diego, I would have had to pay roughly $60,000 in property taxes (price per square foot is about 3 times higher and the average property tax rate is about 50% higher). So about $82,000 in property + income taxes vs about $29,000 in property + income taxes. I’ll stay here, thanks.
^ fake story
Our home in CA is assessed at $1M and the property tax is $12,000/year. Your San Diego, $60,000 in property tax, example means an equivalent $5M home. The San Diego the median home price is $900k. So, your price point is 5.6 times the median price.
Please post which state you live in with a $311k salary and a home that is 5.6 times the median price. The best guess is Fantasyland.
taxes and cost of living in CA is way too high. Period.
Between state, federal, sales, and property tax, combined with rent, insurance, utilities, gas, car payments you actually get to pocket very little of what you earn.
Why are so many people leaving California? One reason — it’s expensive. According to Zillow, the average home value in California nearly doubled between 2015 and 2022.
You're correct that people are not good at estimating their taxes (for instance, for low income people, it's sales tax that's killer).
I'm just curious what services you think most people earning 66k are receiving that they wouldn't be getting anywhere else in the country?
Long lines at slow California state administered offices.
I work for the State of CA. Due to the enormous population and the services the state provides there are over 200,000 state workers for a multitude of agencies. Like anywhere else there is a range of service outcomes. The agency I work for is very efficient and the public is well served. I assist people who have incurred work related injuries and who are not represented by an attorney. I make sure that they receive the benefits due them from their employer's insurance company. The passage of legislation that makes many types of fraud a felony has severely reduced the worst players. While injured worker fraud is still an issue the biggest driver of fraud and excess has come from unscrupulous medical providers. I have a terrific job and get enormous satisfaction from helping everyone that I deal with, including injured workers, defense attorneys, claims representatives and administrative law judges.
If you make $67,000 TAXABLE (after deductions) then you pay $93 in tax for the extra $1,000 in TAXABLE income. Ouchie, boo-boo.
Rightwinger media-feed ignorance is beyond compare.
The only Republicans who understand how taxes work are the rich ones. For most people earning a salary of $66,000, you'd be much better off in a "high tax" state than a "low tax" one, because not only would you likely pay less, you'll get significantly more back in public services.
In California, a person making $66,000 would pay roughly $2565 in income tax. In New Jersey, they'd pay $2099.
In Missouri, they'd pay $2626. In Nebraska, $2913. Alabama, $3060. These are only "low tax" states if you're rich. The suckers don't know! Simply insane!
One might consider looking at (even the grossly understated) BLS inflation and COL numbers for high tax states relative to low tax states when performing this back-of-the-napkin calculus... And that's before even considering the moral cost associated with stealing someone else's money to use for your own "benefit"
The only Republicans who understand how taxes work are the rich ones. For most people earning a salary of $66,000, you'd be much better off in a "high tax" state than a "low tax" one, because not only would you likely pay less, you'll get significantly more back in public services.
In California, a person making $66,000 would pay roughly $2565 in income tax. In New Jersey, they'd pay $2099.
In Missouri, they'd pay $2626. In Nebraska, $2913. Alabama, $3060. These are only "low tax" states if you're rich. The suckers don't know! Simply insane!
Yes, a progressive tax method is preferable to almost everyone, except the people with influence on the rules. A straight tax is a great talking point but in practice is a terrible idea. The first $66,000/year pays for things like food, rent, utilities, clothing, gas, the second $66,000/year pays for things like second cars, vacations, landscaping, etc.
So then put a flat tax on any salary over the median if you believe that to be an issue...
More than half of the people in the country are tax drains anyway. Codify it so that nobody pays any tax on W2 income <66k, and then you pay a flat x% with no deductions for anything >66k.
Which (less financially successful) state should they be more like, so that you will stop crying?
California is not financially successful relative to the rest of America unless you were the object of Occupy Wallstreet's scorn. Slim middle class and tons of financially destitute people, but also ton's of ultra-wealthy to drag up averages.
Most Americans, except for those in the high earning bracket, would like to have similar social and healthcare system, as in western EU countries. Yet, they cry if the income tax gets to 9,3% if you earn more than $66K/year.
I live in the country where income tax is 20% for everyone up until approx. 40K/year in US dollars, then it gets to 24% over this amount up until approx. 100K, and then to 28% over this amount.
But you are complaining for 9.3% income tax? Consider yourself extremely lucky.
I don't think you understand the tax system in the United states. That 9.3% tax is ONLY the state tax. We ALSO have to pay tax to the Federal Government on top of that, which is as high as AN ADDITIONAL 37%. Plus if you're self-employed then there is AN ADDITIONAL tax of 15%.
Plus a one time sales tax in many states that exceeds 5% of purchase. Plus municipal taxes largely derived from ongoing property taxes (which can be as high as the city wants, since the tax is based on whatever the city wants your house to be valued at rather than its sold price). Plus taxes on the growth in savings/investments that matches your income.
But hey, a flat income tax of x% on any income over $y is too difficult. We'd much rather write an opaque 10,000 page tax code, employ 1000s of IRS agents and personal/business tax accountants, and have you guess what you owe each year.
If you as a California single filer make $89076 in taxable income (wage or salary) your marginal rate is 7.5% (your SS tax) + 7.5% (your employer's SS tax on your income) + 24% (Federal tax) + 9.3% (CA state tax) + 1.45% Medicare tax. That's a marginal rate of 49.75%.
Not how marginal rates work, buddy. In your last sentence I believe you mean to say effective tax rate, which is ~31%. Marginal rate refers to the specific rate within a specific bracket of income.
The marginal rate is exactly what it's name implies-- the amount of every extra dollar earned that you're paying in taxes. So your 89077th dollar in the scenario given is taxed at 49.75%. Whereas your 1st dollar is taxed at much less. Hence why effective rate <= marginal rate.
