RC Groups

RC Groups
    Life, The Universe, and Politics
        Discussion 52% in California? No, it's 57%

#1 s2000 Dec 05, 2012 08:30 PM

52% in California? No, it's 57%
 
Just had a little discussion with my daughter in-law and she was explaining the effective tax rates she and her husband will pay, 57% is the new rate after the election, and this doesn't include all the user "fees" and taxes such as car registration, park fees fishing fees and on and on. I asked when they are going to move to Nevada, Idaho or Wyoming, because I will follow. The Gimmedats are never satisfied are they? Just keep taxing the rich you ____ ____ soon the rich will be anyone with a house that is payed off.

#2 BE77 Pilot Dec 05, 2012 08:34 PM

What a mess, sure am glad I don't live there.

#3 CrazyLittle Dec 05, 2012 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2000 (Post 23452562)
Just had a little discussion with my daughter in-law and she was explaining the effective tax rates she and her husband will pay, 57% is the new rate after the election, and this doesn't include all the user "fees" and taxes such as car registration, park fees fishing fees and on and on. I asked when they are going to move to Nevada, Idaho or Wyoming, because I will follow. The Gimmedats are never satisfied are they? Just keep taxing the rich you ____ ____ soon the rich will be anyone with a house that is payed off.

Show us the math. Because 57% effective tax rate is unattanable through federal income tax + state income tax. You're leaving out some key pieces of information. If you're talking about marginal tax rates, then the effective tax rate would be much lower. Even millionaire movie stars in California do not pay 57% in Fed+state income tax.

#4 RumRunner_1492 Dec 05, 2012 08:39 PM

Higher taxes drive people and businesses away. CA is heading down the same path as detroit. The model of the liberal dream.

#5 s2000 Dec 05, 2012 09:09 PM

Crazy little, I won't see her again till a few days before Christmas to get all the details, but as I recall she said the new state rate they will pay is about 17%, Fed was about 37%, and there are extra rates that only the rich get hit with, that you and I know nothing about that bring it to 57%, she and her husband are probably the most honest and smartest people I know, and I say god bless them that they have the god given business acumen (and common sense) to make a bucketload of money in SPITE of the lunatics that have the run of California.

#6 Real Ira Dec 05, 2012 09:19 PM

The OP misses the point.
10%? 30%? 57%?
Getting how much is "enough" from the liberal left is like trying to nail water to a wall....because it is never enough until it is all under the control of and allocated by the state.

#7 CrazyLittle Dec 05, 2012 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2000 (Post 23452911)
most honest and smartest people I know, and I say god bless them that they have the god given business acumen (and common sense) to make a bucketload of money in SPITE of the lunatics that have the run of California.

Doesn't change the fact that what they're claiming is probably untrue. Even Mitt Romney won't pay anywhere near 57% if he moves to CA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2000 (Post 23452911)
Fed was about 37%,

Full stop, there's no such thing as a 37% effective federal income tax rate. The top tax bracket is currently 35%.

#8 s2000 Dec 05, 2012 09:45 PM

There

#9 CrazyLittle Dec 05, 2012 10:06 PM

Are you saying Forbes is lying when they referenced the IRS?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybui...irs-tax-rates/
Quote:

Federal Income Tax Brackets for 2012

Here’s a quick rundown of what the Federal income tax brackets are expected to look like in 2012:
Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350
What tax bracket is higher than "over $388k"?

If you're going to try to pass off information as fact, be prepared to defend the veracity of your claims. It's not my fault that you're posting BS. It's also clear that you don't understand how marginal taxation works because you're posting as if that 35% applies to ALL income instead of the margin of income (hence "marginal"). Perhaps you should "do a little more research" yourself and read how effective tax rates are not the same as marginal tax rates.

#10 RCWorks Dec 05, 2012 10:37 PM

Yes, California is a failure... Thats why after 49 years I left it.

Wild taxation and spending will do it anywhere. Does your state take it's ideas from California??? if so vote better or move.

#11 s2000 Dec 05, 2012 10:55 PM

Of course a lib always skews what is said, the rate are higher for 2013, not 2012, and there are penalties, but of cours ea Luddite wouldn't know this.

#12 s2000 Dec 05, 2012 11:00 PM

And of course like another poster said, 10%, 30%, 57%, when is it enough, there will never be enough, because there just isn't enough rich to tax to make a even a teeny but of difference.

#13 srt8madness Dec 05, 2012 11:19 PM

How bout that extra 3-4% tax on "rich" from ocare? The bill that doesn't raise taxes, remember?

#14 s2000 Dec 05, 2012 11:30 PM

Hey no fair SRt8, don't spill the beans just yet, this was just starting to get fun! I was just getting the bait set!

#15 CrazyLittle Dec 06, 2012 03:24 AM

If you think you can just add "3-4% to 35%" to get the effective tax rate then you're wrong, and you're doing Republican math.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.