4 ms·
I don't think it's at all hyperbolic once you take taxes into account. Between state and federal the difference is something like $60k, depending on your situa
by gozur88 10y ago
I don't think it's at all hyperbolic once you take taxes into account. Between state and federal the difference is something like $60k, depending on your situation. That's over a third of the difference and we haven't actually taken actual cost of living into account yet.
- douche 10y agoJust moving between Maine, which has not-particularly-onerous state income taxes, and New Hampshire, which has none, I had nearly 10% more going into my bank account each pay period. It amazes me that Texas and Florida professional sports teams aren't overwhelmingly dominant, given that the contracts that they can pay athletes are effectively 10-25% better than other states, due to lack of state income tax.
- 1986 10y agoProfessional athletes, though, end up having to pay tax in the jurisdictions they play in on the road: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_tax
- douche 10y agoWow, that is an idiotic tax policy. Of course it originated in California...
- vacri 10y agoFrom an outsider's viewpoint, the entire US tax system is idiotic, fragmented, hard to understand, and predisoposed to creating conflict.
- ForHackernews 10y agoWhy is that idiotic? It seems pretty sensible to me that you'd pay tax where the money was earned. To take a simplified example, if you lived in low-tax Nevada, but traveled to high-tax/high-population California to play shows, you're earning money based (at least in part) on the large audience in California. Why shouldn't you pay California part of that revenue?