[ExI] taxes again

spike spike66 at att.net
Tue Jul 13 15:34:36 UTC 2010


--- On Tue, 7/13/10, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

	From: Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu>

	>...Well, my url was looking at from the POV of the money actually
taken as
	taxes, as a percentage of income.  Which would seem the most

Ja, but to reduce that to a single number, it must be somehow averaged
across the population.  Oddly enough, it isn't clear how to do that, so the
ranking list is ambiguous depending on how the averaging calculation is
done.  Think about it: are we saying those who make $50k a year in
California are 12th on the list of those who make $50k in other states?  Or
those who make $100k?  Or average of all, and if so, do you count the
illegals and others who do not submit tax returns?  Some of those list
makers do and some do not.  It isn't clear to me how you count those.

	>>...    doesn't hit the illegals at all, since they cannot report
any income.
	>...That's not true.  To get employed, many of them have fake
	and employers will withhold money in their name for both the IRS and
	California.  These illegal immigrants in fact support the system,
	they pay in but have no ability to claim Social Security money

Ambiguous.  Some use fake social security numbers, others work only for
cash.  Depends on the employer.  To say they support the system is
ambiguous: the fake ID users support the social security system, but that is
a relatively small part of taxation.

	>>...California has a high sales tax, 8.7%, so the
	>...Fairly high, but not vastly so.  Lower than Tennessee, only 1%
	than Texas...

	>...California also has lower property tax rates than most states...

	>...fairly high but progressive income tax, and significantly lower
	property tax rates...	-xx- Damien X-) 

Where this argument goes is to point out that California's income tax isn't
so high compared to other states, and the sales tax isn't so high compared
to other states and the real estate tax isn't so high compared to other
states.  The problem is that California has all three.  Many states only
have two of those.  So we are back to looking at the total revenue and
dividing by the number of citizens, but it isn't clear how to count the
number of citizens, nor is it clear how to average it.  California might be
low for some wage categories, but high for others.

Oddly enough, it looks to me like California is a great place to retire from
a taxation standpoint, IF you can get a house you can live in the rest of
your life, buy it 30 years before retirement and sit right there.  Then when
you retire, your income is low, your major purchases are mostly behind you
(plus you have the internet to buy your electronics tax-free) and your house
is prop 13-ed (after 30 years the annual property taxes are about 1.35% of
what you paid for the house 30 yrs ago).  It isn't usually presented as a
good place to retire, but do the math: if you get in here, buy a nice enough
house in your mid 30s and stay put right there, it is a good deal.
Otherwise not.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list