3 ms·
If the local teachers are not getting paid enough, then perhaps the problem lays elsewhere. Why is it that a couple of generations ago, a family on a single inc
by apta 7y ago
If the local teachers are not getting paid enough, then perhaps the problem lays elsewhere. Why is it that a couple of generations ago, a family on a single income where the father was working at a gas station was enough to buy a car and a house, when this is practically impossible today.
- eesmith 7y agoOne obvious and relevant possibility is that two generations ago the marginal tax rates were much more progressive. Don't think that only you will be taxed higher, while the rest of the market stays the same. If everyone making $250K or over is taxed more heavily then they can't afford to take so much land off the market. How many $5 million homes will there be in Atherton if the marginal tax rate for the top 20% of earners was what it was in 1960? https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm says $250K(2019) is about $35K(1969). https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1969 https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1969 says the tax rate on $35K(1969) in 1969 would have been about 55%. BTW, hellisothers wrote "that $250k is taxes down to around $130". https://www.taxformcalculator.com/tax/250000.html https://www.taxformcalculator.com/tax/250000.html says estimated take-home pay in CA on $250K is $160K, which gives extra $30K/year over hellisothers's estimate, which can easily go to savings, retirement, and vacations. That is, the overall current tax rate in CA is about 37%. As the article points out, the tax for >$250K would go from "the current tax of 12.4" to 14.8 percent rate for Warren's proposal, which is also "supported by a broad coalition of House Democrats." So the overall rate would be no more than about 40%. Much less than a couple of generations ago.