4 ms·

If the average person makes 50K a year then the average person in Oregon takes home about 35K per year. So you say it's "only" 300 extra dollars a year they hav

If the average person makes 50K a year then the average person in Oregon takes home about 35K per year. So you say it's "only" 300 extra dollars a year they have to pay. In other words, this person now owes nearly 1% of their disposable income for life to cover _currently_ unfunded pensions with no corresponding increase in goods or service levels. To put it another way, this person will work ~1/3 of a year out of their career to pay for unfunded pensions.

cma 9y ago
Why would you look at their after tax income when this comes out of their taxes? (But I can't remember the deductibility rules under the new tax code, maybe they can't deduct state tax payments from federal now). (Also, I made a mistake, that number was household income)
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Because unless you can figure out how to get the government to count tax twice that's where the money is going to come from... disposable income now going to tax. Otherwise now the government now has less money to spend. Aka the "no fuel for trucks" you mention.
  - cma 9y ago
    >Because unless you can figure out how to get the government to count tax twice that's where the money is going to come from... disposable income now going to tax. State tax is deductible from federal taxes up to $10,000. So you can pay that $300 without it all coming out of after tax income. Most people may not go over standard deduction, but dollar wise state tax is probably paid by high earners who will, since there is a graduated income tax in Oregon.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      Won't that require the federal government to raise the income tax rate to make up for the revenue lost from the deduction? I don't see how the extra expense won't ultimately result in additional taxes.
      - cma 9y ago
        There would be some, but not the full amount because pensioners will pay federal tax on the pensions.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Why would you look at their after tax income when this comes out of their taxes? Every new expense comes out of your savings rate (or your rate in paying off principal if you're in debt). To understand "kitchen table economics", you're always better looking at the wealth growth rates (or lack thereof) when trying to weigh how much of a burden something is.

cma 9y ago

Why would you look at their after tax income when this comes out of their taxes? (But I can't remember the deductibility rules under the new tax code, maybe they can't deduct state tax payments from federal now). (Also, I made a mistake, that number was household income)

mythrwy 9y ago
Because unless you can figure out how to get the government to count tax twice that's where the money is going to come from... disposable income now going to tax. Otherwise now the government now has less money to spend. Aka the "no fuel for trucks" you mention.
- cma 9y ago
  >Because unless you can figure out how to get the government to count tax twice that's where the money is going to come from... disposable income now going to tax. State tax is deductible from federal taxes up to $10,000. So you can pay that $300 without it all coming out of after tax income. Most people may not go over standard deduction, but dollar wise state tax is probably paid by high earners who will, since there is a graduated income tax in Oregon.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    Won't that require the federal government to raise the income tax rate to make up for the revenue lost from the deduction? I don't see how the extra expense won't ultimately result in additional taxes.
    - cma 9y ago
      There would be some, but not the full amount because pensioners will pay federal tax on the pensions.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Why would you look at their after tax income when this comes out of their taxes? Every new expense comes out of your savings rate (or your rate in paying off principal if you're in debt). To understand "kitchen table economics", you're always better looking at the wealth growth rates (or lack thereof) when trying to weigh how much of a burden something is.