Tax burdens - California vs Texas

[fattyflattie 4636]

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What? I'm hoping you don't understand what bottom 80% means. Otherwise, this is a crazy out of touch statement along the lines of this:

20% is 550k net wealth on the chart from '20.  Basically a max'd out 401k with normal double your money every 7-10 years.  That's not a stretch for a late 30's or 40-ish person.  Not including for any home equity. Other investments or accounts.   The '18 numbers for income is 130k, and 149k for '22.  Also not at all a stretch for that demo, either.   Do you believe that I am reading the charts incorrectly?

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

20% is 550k net wealth on the chart from '20.  Basically a max'd out 401k with normal double your money every 7-10 years.  That's not a stretch for a late 30's or 40-ish person.  Not including for any home equity. Other investments or accounts.   The '18 numbers for income is 130k, and 149k for '22.  Also not at all a stretch for that demo, either.   Do you believe that I am reading the charts incorrectly?

 

Well, the chart is in reference to income groups, not net wealth. So I'm not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything.

Stating that it generally isn't ideal for someone to be at the top 20% income threshold either suggests that you're out of touch or that you believe the US is a broke hell hole. Maybe it isn't ideal by the surly standards of banging 10s and being in the top 1%, but for the majority of Americans it would be a dream. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, the chart is in reference to income groups, not net wealth. So I'm not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything.

Stating that it generally isn't ideal for someone to be at the top 20% income threshold either suggests that you're out of touch or that you believe the US is a broke hell hole. Maybe it isn't ideal by the surly standards of banging 10s and being in the top 1%, but for the majority of Americans it would be a dream. 

Sorry, I was referencing the wealth/income charts typically linked here, not the tax charts (confusing).  But not sure I'd want to live in any of the places I listed with less income than that.  Seems like it would be a stretch in anything but the "flyover" country. 

[YGIFS 19449]

5 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Or kid brother in 1955 Back to the Future. 
 

Honey, he’s teasing you. Nobody has two television sets. 

yeah, I think I had that mixed up in my head...I was picturing the kid from the cockpit (no/GQP pedophile) when it was little Wayne from the Wonder Years in a coonskin cap.  

Either way, we all walk in Porterhouse's shadow.  $28k in property taxes.  What a lovely cottage it must be.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by YGIFS

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

8 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Sorry, I was referencing the wealth/income charts typically linked here, not the tax charts (confusing).  But not sure I'd want to live in any of the places I listed with less income than that.  Seems like it would be a stretch in anything but the "flyover" country. 

People should stop being so poor, amirite?

[Dahobbs 17449]

8 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Sorry, I was referencing the wealth/income charts typically linked here, not the tax charts (confusing).  But not sure I'd want to live in any of the places I listed with less income than that.  Seems like it would be a stretch in anything but the "flyover" country. 

If I believed at least 80% of households had to live with unacceptable income, as one of the few that may have acceptable levels of income I would feel morally obligated to support highly progressive tax rates and social structures so that 80% is adequately provided for.  

I mean, I support those things anyway. But I have a hard time understanding the mentality of someone who could believe that and not support a highly progressive tax structure.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17449]

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

yeah, I think I had that mixed up in my head...I was picturing the kid from the cockpit (no/GQP pedophile) when it was little Wayne from the Wonder Years in a coonskin cap.  

Either way, we all walk in Porterhouse's shadow.  $28k in property taxes.  What a lovely cottage it must be.  

In Houston that would be a property with an appraised value of something like $1.7 mil. Surely this group of 10 bangers and 1%s can match that. 

[royiv 9168]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If I believed at least 80% of households had to live with unacceptable income, as one of the few that may have acceptable levels of income I would feel morally obligated to support highly progressive tax rates and social structures so that 80% is adequately provided for.  

I mean, I support those things anyway. But I have a hard time understanding the mentality of someone who could believe that and not support a highly progressive tax structure.  

But how do you afford all your boats?

[TwiceHorn 31297]

So, I see the lege is dicking around with property tax relief, mostly in the form of exemptions/raising same.

I have seen some criticism that fiddling with exemptions is the wrong way to go, and that lowering the rate is the better approach.

I guess that's based on the notion that increased exemptions pressures the tax rates upward?  And then if exemptions go away, we're stuck with higher rates?  Or maybe it's abusive toward those who don't get exemptions?  Really kind of seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other, although dealing with the rate does seem more direct.

[Dahobbs 17449]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, I see the lege is dicking around with property tax relief, mostly in the form of exemptions/raising same.

I have seen some criticism that fiddling with exemptions is the wrong way to go, and that lowering the rate is the better approach.

I guess that's based on the notion that increased exemptions pressures the tax rates upward?  And then if exemptions go away, we're stuck with higher rates?  Or maybe it's abusive toward those who don't get exemptions?  Really kind of seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other, although dealing with the rate does seem more direct.

Generally speaking, I would think increasing exemptions would be a more progressive option. Low valued properties would avoid a higher percentage of taxes compared to high value properties whereas changing rates reduces taxes proportionally across the board. But it all depends on the specifics. 

[safe sex 11685]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If I believed at least 80% of households had to live with unacceptable income, as one of the few that may have acceptable levels of income I would feel morally obligated to support highly progressive tax rates and social structures so that 80% is adequately provided for.  

I mean, I support those things anyway. But I have a hard time understanding the mentality of someone who could believe that and not support a highly progressive tax structure.  

Well, you see, it's my own fault for living in an expensive city and working in a niche nonprofit space to support my community (and keep my mental health). It's my fault my landlord raised my rent almost 40% last year, and it's also my fault for not having the money, the physical time, nor the emotional energy to move for the third time in five years because of unreasonable rent increases. It's my fault cheaper cities in Texas typically aren't all that safe for me to live in, any most anywhere where it's safe for me to live is also expensive. It's my fault what savings I did have were just wiped out (for the third time lmfao) because of a health issue that is not able to be ignored (so many people of modest/poor incomes ignore life-threatening conditions because of the cost of healthcare) and a car accident (that was not my fault). It's my fault I can't just get a better paying job, because I left a better paying job due to combination of severe burnout, mental health crises, and manager discrimination, and can't go back to that world again or I would probably kill myself.

I deserve it, basically. If you ever come across one of us bottom 80%-ers, you should probably just kick dirt on us, spit on us maybe, and keep walking.

You've got a wacky sense of morality, wee-ow.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Generally speaking, I would think increasing exemptions would be a more progressive option. Low valued properties would avoid a higher percentage of taxes compared to high value properties whereas changing rates reduces taxes proportionally across the board. But it all depends on the specifics. 

Yeah but raising exemption levels only lowers taxes in the short term

1. Raise exemption levels.

2. Annual property taxes go down a bit

3. This allows new buyers to buy more when calculating their mortgage. 

4. Home prices rise since new buyers can afford more

5. home valuations and taxes rise to a new equilibrium

 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

21 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

A trailer in the middle of a cow shit littered pasture. Sign me the fuck up.

Are you familiar with the concept of fencing, sometimes called gating, in which you can isolate square footage/acrage using solid materials that prevent sufficiently sized items composed of matter from passing?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I'm a San Diego Realtor.  PM me, and I will help you all I can, no obligation to you at all. 

Wouldn’t be for 8 years. At least til the kids get through HS. Would probably seek to live in LB, SB or Carmel area. You know, cheap areas. If Texas keeps devolving, might as well live somewhere beautiful instead of prairie land. 

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What? I'm hoping you don't understand what bottom 80% means. Otherwise, this is a crazy out of touch statement along the lines of this:

I’m not sure it is out of touch at all. That is the wealth disparity in this country. If you have a family, you’re over 30, and you live in proximity to a population center, under Top 20% isn’t ideal. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Porterhouse

[HamsterHookah 112]

I read that diapers and period products are now tax free in Texas. That seems good.

[HamsterHookah 112]

6 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

I read that diapers and period products are now tax free in Texas. That seems good.

I'm being serious this is a good thing (and apropos to this thread, California was already doing this it looks like and we are catching up there): 

Quote

 

AUSTIN — A bill that would offer sale tax exemptions for supplies deemed necessary, including feminine hygiene products, diapers and wipes, moves to the senate following passage in the Texas House Tuesday.

The Texas House voted in favor of House Bill 300, which adds child diapers, baby wipes, baby bottles, feminine hygiene products, maternity clothing and breast milk pumping products to the list of items exempted from sales taxes. Texans pay an additional base rate of 6.25% and that can extend up to 8.25%.

 

Not sure why @royiv hates women and parents. This is a fine outcome.

Edited March 30, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[safe sex 11685]

Shut the fuck up, Chrispy

[Dahobbs 17449]

1 hour ago, safe sex said:

Well, you see, it's my own fault for living in an expensive city and working in a niche nonprofit space to support my community (and keep my mental health). It's my fault my landlord raised my rent almost 40% last year, and it's also my fault for not having the money, the physical time, nor the emotional energy to move for the third time in five years because of unreasonable rent increases. It's my fault cheaper cities in Texas typically aren't all that safe for me to live in, any most anywhere where it's safe for me to live is also expensive. It's my fault what savings I did have were just wiped out (for the third time lmfao) because of a health issue that is not able to be ignored (so many people of modest/poor incomes ignore life-threatening conditions because of the cost of healthcare) and a car accident (that was not my fault). It's my fault I can't just get a better paying job, because I left a better paying job due to combination of severe burnout, mental health crises, and manager discrimination, and can't go back to that world again or I would probably kill myself.

I deserve it, basically. If you ever come across one of us bottom 80%-ers, you should probably just kick dirt on us, spit on us maybe, and keep walking.

You've got a wacky sense of morality, wee-ow.

I assume you either aren't actually addressing this to me or you misunderstood my post. 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yeah but raising exemption levels only lowers taxes in the short term

1. Raise exemption levels.

2. Annual property taxes go down a bit

3. This allows new buyers to buy more when calculating their mortgage. 

4. Home prices rise since new buyers can afford more

5. home valuations and taxes rise to a new equilibrium

 

This assumes that the new equilibrium results in a one-to-one increase in tax burden as to the new exemption levels. I don't think that is a safe assumption to make. While certainly a lower tax burden will allow home buyers more purchasing power when buying a new home, property taxes are only one small part of the cost considerations. Much more significant limiters are the down payment and monthly mortgage. Those costs aren't changing. I expect that whatever new equilibrium arises will still have lower overall tax burden for those with lower value houses. If your argument were accurate, then no tax decrease (via exemption or rate reduction) could have an overall benefit to homeowners. 

59 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I’m not sure it is out of touch at all. That is the wealth disparity in this country. If you have a family, you’re over 30, and you live in proximity to a population center, under Top 20% isn’t ideal. 

That is adding a lot of conditions that weren't part of the original post. More importantly though, I still struggle to understand how anyone that believes wealth disparity is that bad could oppose heavily progressive tax policies as both of you have done in this thread. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That is adding a lot of conditions that weren't part of the original post. More importantly though, I still struggle to understand how anyone that believes wealth disparity is that bad could oppose heavily progressive tax policies as both of you have done in this thread. 

I did?  In this thread?  Where?

Tell me what you think is an appropriate progressive tax policy and I’ll tell you whether I’m for or against. 

[royiv 9168]

3 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I did?  In this thread?  Where?

Tell me what you think is an appropriate progressive tax policy and I’ll tell you whether I’m for or against. 

What about we start with the ultra wealthy and corporations paying as much or, ideally, more as a % of total income than the lower class?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, royiv said:

What about we start with the ultra wealthy and corporations paying as much or, ideally, more as a % of total income than the lower class?

Oh boy. We’re going to need examples. Because my immediate response was going to be “so pay nothing?”  

[royiv 9168]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

Oh boy. We’re going to need examples. Because my immediate response was going to be “so pay nothing?”  

So you're positing that the lower class pays nothing in taxes? 

[Dahobbs 17449]

24 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I did?  In this thread?  Where?

Tell me what you think is an appropriate progressive tax policy and I’ll tell you whether I’m for or against. 

It's weird that you followed up with the post below. I'd say that is an example of someone resistant to "heavily progressive" taxation policies. 

10 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Oh boy. We’re going to need examples. Because my immediate response was going to be “so pay nothing?”  

 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, royiv said:

So you're positing that the lower class pays nothing in taxes? 

Income tax?  Yes. 

 

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It's weird that you followed up with the post below. I'd say that is an example of someone resistant to "heavily progressive" taxation policies. 

 

First, I didn’t say whether I was resistant to it. I’m stating something that’s directionally correct. Second, you've yet to show “resistance” evidence of me in this thread. 

[Dahobbs 17449]

10 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

First, I didn’t say whether I was resistant to it. I’m stating something that’s directionally correct. Second, you've yet to show “resistance” evidence of me in this thread. 

I don't know that you directly addressed it in this thread, so mea culpa. If you support heavily progressive taxation, great. The implication of your prior post, and my general understanding of you from your posting history, was that you didn't. 

[safe sex 11685]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I assume you either aren't actually addressing this to me or you misunderstood my post. 

This assumes that the new equilibrium results in a one-to-one increase in tax burden as to the new exemption levels. I don't think that is a safe assumption to make. While certainly a lower tax burden will allow home buyers more purchasing power when buying a new home, property taxes are only one small part of the cost considerations. Much more significant limiters are the down payment and monthly mortgage. Those costs aren't changing. I expect that whatever new equilibrium arises will still have lower overall tax burden for those with lower value houses. If your argument were accurate, then no tax decrease (via exemption or rate reduction) could have an overall benefit to homeowners. 

That is adding a lot of conditions that weren't part of the original post. More importantly though, I still struggle to understand how anyone that believes wealth disparity is that bad could oppose heavily progressive tax policies as both of you have done in this thread. 

I was not addressing you. Sorry for the confusion. Venting.