For Jimmy:
- #3 least tax friendly state = NY
- #4 least tax friendly city = NYC
- #4 most tax friendly = LV
- States w/o income tax: Alaska, FL, NV, NH, SD, TN, TX - Any of those states have bankrupt cities?
- #4 highest property tax = NY
- Top 5 most expensive counties = All NY and NJ
- #3 Highest Tax Burden = ta da... NY!!
- ... GA is #32 btw
"New York City's top resident income-tax rate of 3.65 percent is imposed on top of the state income tax of 6.85 percent, and one is not deductible from the other. Thus the best measure of New York's income-tax competitiveness is the combined rate of 10.5 percent - the highest in the region and, in fact, the country."
As of 2007, the highest rate of state income tax is that of California, with a maximum rate of 10.3%.
In addition, some states allow cities and/or counties to impose income taxes above and beyond the federal and state income taxes. An example is New York City, where there is both a state income tax of up to 8.14%"[2] and a city income tax, up to 4.00%[3].
When you look at the facts it is the cities and states that have heavy tax burdens, heavy union membership and anti-business tax policies that are hurting right now. NYC's latest round of taxes is not going to help.
Still not convinced?
Least business friendly states: Top 2 worst: NY and NJ
Best and worst states for business: NY and CA = THE WORST
.... Weird, GA is 5th best and NV is 2nd best.
Oh, OK. I thought the discussion was at the state level. I'm sure we could also get into property and municipal taxes vs. quality of public schools and other services, but that's OK. You wanna move the goalposts and call it a win, that's fine by me.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion was based on NYC's new set of city taxes.
ReplyDeleteResidents of NYC happen to also be affected by NY state taxes as well.
Yeah, NYC kids are super smart... Didn't you see the movie Kids? Come on!
Jimmy, You took shots at GA tax policy and managed to some how creatively twist the facts to show GA being on par with the states I called out (NY, CA, MI)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the facts just don't support the point you were making.
Don't see how this really changes my original premise that states with high taxes, heavy unions and liberal politics aren't doing so well right now.
People just don't get it in NY. When I was back in town for my sister's wedding, I had to deposit a check at Bank of America. The teller asked for my ID and saw that it was a Vegas ID. She said, "Wow, Las Vegas huh. I could never live there. It's too expensive." I've heard that so many times, but they don't have a clue. Gas? Cheaper in Vegas. Groceries? Cheaper in Vegas. Houses are cheaper in Vegas too. It just doesn't look that way on paper because the price of the house is higher, but you save so much on taxes that it more than makes up for the higher price. Plus when you pay off the house, the higher price is gone, but in NY you still have to pay the high taxes.
ReplyDeleteHere's a specific example of a former coworker in Rochester who has a similar job, similar income, similar house, similar age, etc.
My friend in Rochester paid $20K less for his house than I did on my house in Vegas. And they are about the same square footage.
His property tax: $15,000 / year
My property tax: $3,000 / year
His state income tax: $20,000
My state income tax: $0
The salary for his full time job is also $10K less than my salary. We have the same job title.
So every year he gets screwed out of $42,000 that I do not get screwed out of.
Another thing I've heard is, "Well they charge a lot more for things like car registration. So they get you in other ways." That's true. In NY my Jeep was about $25 to register. In Vegas it's $200. But who gives a shit! $175 < $42,000
If you want to get into public schools, you'll still lose the argument. Vegas has great elementary and jr. high schools. I know because the wife works at them.
So if you want the best education you should send your kid to a private high school. Does that change things? Private high school is $10K per year. So for those 4 years, living here only saves $32K. Oh nos! Our kids are doomed!
(This is to Mike's point above, before James posted his long thing... Christ, I hate this format for quoting/arging.)
ReplyDeleteArticle about state taxes, I make a point about state taxes. You then switch to city taxes, so I talk about federal taxes. The goalposts are moving around so much I'm not even sure what game we're playing anymore.
You try to peg this on liberalism and unions. You might as well peg it on states having vowels in their name. Georgia's got their own budget crisis, and you know it, and I found a dozen articles about it in about 10 seconds on google news.
Don't see how this really changes my original premise that states with high taxes, heavy unions and liberal politics aren't doing so well right now.
Don't you see? Your premise is not that states with high taxes aren't doing well, your premise is that the high taxes/liberalism CAUSE the budget crises. By that logic, republicans, coca cola and Jeff Francoeur also cause budget crises.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Another difference: in Vegas you have to carry a gun to feel safe driving to work.
ReplyDeleteAnd the schools are so awesome that you said you're considering masquerading as a Catholic and going to church so you can get your kids into Catholic private schools.
But to be fair: Portland schools suck (or so they say), the food costs a fortune, and the house prices are double.
Correlation does not imply causation.
ReplyDeleteSo witty, haven't heard that before, i don't understand this, but high taxes will lead to Hitler.
Excellent point. I defer to you, sir.
ReplyDeleteHigh taxes does not encourage growth and are especially bad in a recession. I made that premise in the original thread, you agreed with it (i.e. Mr Staffeld)
ReplyDeleteThe tax facts (state or city) seem to confirm this premise.
Why is that so hard to understand?
GA may have a budget deficit.. that is not the point. The issue is how does a state or city intend to deal with the deficit.
My premise is also that high taxes and unions have not helped cities or states when they have budget issues.
Therefore Georgia state budget deficits would only be relevant if Georgia (or Atlanta) decided to raise taxes in order to resolve it.
Making sense now?
I also think Nevada made several solid points based in facts and personal experience.
ReplyDeleteWant to go international? Research Ireland. See how they produced one of the decades most successful economic turnarounds. (Hint: it wasn't through taxation)
Article about state taxes, I make a point about state taxes
ReplyDeleteYou are right on that point. I honestly thought the original article was about NYC taxes.
Regardless, the correlation between raising taxes and limiting economic growth is so basic that even if you disagree with the concept you can't really challenge the validity of the premise, let alone challenge facts that support it.
I don't know of any macro-economic theory that suggests overrated right-fielders cause budget deficits.... unless of course the budget deficit is the Atlanta Braves payroll. In which case, point for me!
>Another difference: in Vegas you have to carry a gun to feel safe driving to work.<
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to that time when we were at Palms at like 5am and I thought some Mexican pimp was going to stab me, then yes I don't feel safe being unarmed. If you go seek out some coke snorting prostitutes in Portland, chances are you might not feel safe either. I even said that night in our hotel room that it was the only time I've ever actually felt like I needed to be armed.
For the record: we did not "seek out" those shady chicks, they just sat at our table at the bar.
>And the schools are so awesome that you said you're considering masquerading as a Catholic and going to church so you can get your kids into Catholic private schools.<
If you read my post above, you would see that I said, "if you want the best education you should send your kid to a private high school." I said that elementary and jr. high were good. We are planning to send our kids to the catholic high school. I never said that Vegas high schools were awesome. They're awesome if you're looking to join a gang.
My premise is also that high taxes and unions have not helped cities or states when they have budget issues.
ReplyDeleteAnd all I'm saying is to boil it down to simply that is overly simplistic. Lower tax revenue can also lead to budget shortfalls. There's a lot more going on here that I know I don't understand, but you can't just pin it on liberalz.
but you can't just pin it on liberalz.
ReplyDeleteDid I say that?
I'm pretty sure on several occasions I said three things were to blame: High taxes, Unions and Liberal policies (coming from Rep or Dem or Both)
I presented an array of state facts showing very clearly that the states with the highest tax burden also happen to be the least friendly to business which also happen to be either heavily unionized or asking for bailout money or introducing ridiculous taxes and those state also, coincidentally, are primarily liberal and what's even more shocking is that these primarily liberal states have laws passed by liberal governments which leads to the higher taxes in the first place.
See Nevada's comments for first hand account.
Need a map to follow that or do we need a separate post?
And I pointed out that those liberal states also receive the lowest per-capita federal spending.... so, one would think they have to make up for that somewhere.
ReplyDeletehaha, stop it with the separate posts. Is there any way to enable images and links in the replies?
ReplyDeleteAnd I pointed out that those liberal states also receive the lowest per-capita federal spending....
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, I agree, I had to think on it for a few minutes.
But I think that can be explained like this:
Those states have a higher median and average per capita income. Because of that, on average, those people pay into a higher tax brackets People who are in the higher tax brackets use disproportionally less in services than they pay in taxes.
Therefore it would make sense that states that are poorer get more federal tax money since the population is poorer. Poorer populations (state, local, regional) get more federal services per capita.
QED.
By your deduction and cute little latin abbreviation, you have provided a case for a progressive tax philosophy, which you have expressed disdain for in the past.. Poorer people getting more of a break. Or have I twisted your words again?
ReplyDeleteAnd also, you point out what I always wonder... Of all the stronghold red states on that map, only two are really in a deficit when it comes to federal funds received: Texas and Georgia. Other than those exceptions (wealthy states in their own right), why do you suppose that is? Why do the most conservative states, one would assume those least in favor of progressive tax policy, by and large accept the most pork? Especially a state like Alaska, where every citizen gets a fat oil dividend check every year? It's a conundrum I can't quite get my head around.
"you have provided a case for a progressive tax philosophy"
ReplyDeleteNo. I showed the results of the progressive tax policy, which I still disdain.
Get your facts and your logic straight. Talk about moving the goal posts!
You presented facts that were misleading and subsequently debunked.
"why do you suppose that is?"
ReplyDeleteThats an easy one.
The states that get the most federally funding are either a) the poorest or b) military or government states.
LA, MS, AL, AR, WV = The poorest States in the Union.
VA, NM, AZ, AK = Government and Military spending.
Not that hard to figure out.
Funny how when the government spends money on poor states with poor people its called pork.
Its the natural result of the progressive income tax... I completely agree.
And to be clear I never have shown disdain for the progressive income tax... I showed disdain for the increasing burden placed on the upper middle class. Get your facts straight!
And to further debunk your claim: TX and GA. Red States that get about average amounts of government spending... why? Because they are not poor, they are average.
ReplyDeleteAll states are effected in the same way by the progressive federal income tax. Which is exactly why poor and rich states are funded exactly as show in your map. The only exceptions being military and heavy federal government states like VA, MD, DC.
The states that get the most federally funding are either a) the poorest or b) military or government states.
ReplyDeleteLA, MS, AL, AR, WV = The poorest States in the Union.
OK, let's go with your claims for the moment. Sounds like communism to me... From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. It would make sense if those states were filled with crumbling unions, reagan's welfare queens and gay bi-racial couples with flower arranging businesses who burn the american flag on weekends... But those are some pretty solid republican strongholds filled with those (I thought) that held the most contempt for government largess.
I'm not sure exactly what's been debunked here. I may be misinterpreting YOUR personal claims and beliefs (and for that I apologize), but I don't know what I've said that's an actual error of material fact.
And for the record, I'm not trying necessarily to poke holes in your beliefs or change YOUR mind. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives in general.
ReplyDeleteBack up a sec...
ReplyDeleteYou posted a graph to shows which states get the most federal tax money per capita. Your post, I'm assuming, was to make the point that NY and CA needed higher taxes because they were getting less federal tax money. (if that is not the case, please post your rationale)
I pretty clearly showed why certain states get more or less funding and its directly related to our federal income tax system. I didn't say I personally agreed with or had issue with that, I just presented the facts.
The federal income tax has nothing to do with Red states or Blue states. You injected that in an attempt to debunk Conservatism.
I'm debunking your ridiculous graph that isn't relevant to the debate that NY and CA have overtaxed their population and their business and that is why NY is levying iPod taxes and that is why CA needs bailout money and that is why Detroit needs bailout money (which it got today, gee thanks neo-con-fascist-Bush)
I may be misinterpreting YOUR personal claims and beliefs
Take my personal beliefs out of it. The facts support my claims which are, for the umpteenth time: High taxes, Unions and liberal policies are hurting NY, CA and MI.
You tried to challenge that with a graph that clearly represents the progressive tax code we live with. Last I checked Senators from AL and LA don't get to implement separate federal income taxes for their poor states.
Seems like you are being overtly dense here, especially when we were in agreement about the bs NY states taxes that started this debate. My arguments since have fully supported your initial premise: taxation, especially in a recession, is a bad idea (see. Mr Staffeld)
I'm merely showing the results of high taxes, which Nevada backed up with very specific real world examples.
The final point is really very obvious: We all moved out of NY state!!
Since you seem to have this all figured out, please tell me specifically how high taxes, unions and liberal policies are hurting NY, CA and MI.
ReplyDeleteNow, please tell me specifically why Georgia (just as an example, I'm not specifically attacking your adopted home state. It has a lot going for it. Like REM and Jimmy Carter.) is also having a budget crisis, while (I assume) high taxes, unions and liberal policies do not have such a vice-like grip.
I'm not denying that NY or CA have high taxes, unions, or liberal policies. But states in which high taxes, unions and liberal policies do not run quite so rampant ALSO have budget crises.
Your post, I'm assuming, was to make the point that NY and CA needed higher taxes because they were getting less federal tax money. (if that is not the case, please post your rationale)
ReplyDeleteNot really that they NEED higher taxes BECAUSE they were getting less federal money... Just to point out that, while states like CA and NY tax the shit out of residents, there are undeniably some ways in which they are NOT the beneficiaries of government largess.
You know what this all seems to come down to? An argument about federalism. How large a role the federal gov't plays vs. how large a role the state gov't plays. States with low taxes tend to get mad federal money while states with high taxes tend to get less federal money. This almost seems like a zero-sum game. All I want to know is: Where's my bailout? Me and Mrs. Jimmy saved money, bought a house we could afford and kept our debt reasonably low. Were we suckers? Fuck, I'm a liberal. Where's my free gov't cheese?
ReplyDeleteBut states in which high taxes, unions and liberal policies do not run quite so rampant ALSO have budget crises.
ReplyDeleteOMG, are you purposely being dense?
Georgia is not instituting iPod taxes to resolve the budget issue.
As Koj correctly pointed out, everyone is in a recession. The difference is NY is increasing their already high taxes. Hence the original point... why increase already high taxes in a recession. Georgia is not doing that.
What does GA have going for it?
ReplyDeleteWell, What did NC and NV and OR have going for it?
Here is a short list, everyone feel free to add your thoughts:
My new adopted home state is better because:
- Public education is cheaper and better. Ga Tech and UGA are a significantly better bang-for-your-buck than SUNY (even for out of state). No knock on Geneseo and UB, its a fact.
- More jobs and a business environment that attracts more new investment and business (see the plethora of facts already provided that supports this)
- Free college education for GA residents who achieve a B average in high school. (Keeps talent in state and has increased the quality of Georgia Public Colleges and Universities)
- Lower taxes
I never made this debate about how awesome GA was, I'm making the case that NY, CA and MI are hurting, but you asked, so I gave you a list.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStates with low taxes tend to get mad federal money while states with high taxes tend to get less federal money.
ReplyDeleteFor starters I think I already showed that is has nothing to do with states. Areas or regions with less affluent populations are going to receive less federal services and tax money per capita simply because more affluent people always give more to the progressive tax than they will ever receive. It just happens that your graph was organized by state. You could redraw those line regionally and come up with the same facts. And you keep wanting to make it Red/Blue but blue states are wealthier, Liberals are more affluent. Leave political leanings out of it, its a rich/poor/progressive tax thing.
Fuck, I'm a liberal. Where's my free gov't cheese?
Did I answer that question? You aren't poor, you don't get jack doesn't matter if you didn't vote for McCain. You also are not a hedge fund manager, union-guy or minority... tough luck, you are a responsible white dude. No gov cheese for you.