4 ms·

The situation with other countries is irrelevant to the matter of California income evading federal taxes. If I'm in Texas, my state income tax is $0. My feder

by burfog 7y ago

The situation with other countries is irrelevant to the matter of California income evading federal taxes. If I'm in Texas, my state income tax is $0. My federal tax rate will be higher without having state taxes to deduct. Part of this money goes to you, in California. If you're in California, you get a reduced federal rate if you can deduct California taxes. The money from California taxes stays in California to benefit you. I do not benefit from your California taxes. California would be getting money from you without paying federal taxes on it. The money then goes to you, via services provided by California. You're getting that money back in the form of superior services like better schools, homeless services, and roads. You're getting to spend that money in your state, free of federal taxes. The deduction is thus a massive subsidy to states with high local taxes. It places a greater burden on states that are less wasteful, since nobody there gets to deduct state taxes. Such a deduction thus encourages wasteful local government. As viewed from outside California, money owed to the federal government is staying in California to be spent for the benefit of people in California. That simply isn't fair. If you are unhappy with the resulting high tax rate, you can leave the state or you can try to get the state to eliminate taxes.

arcticbull 7y ago
Nobody is evading anything lol. > The situation with other countries is irrelevant to the matter of California income evading federal taxes. No it’s very relevant. You’re trying to have it both ways. Either the state represents an arm of the government in which case taxing taxes makes no sense or it’s more akin to a country on its own where you could make the argument double taxation makes sense. But you argue it’s part of the government to the extent it should be contributing to your state but autonomous enough that it should be double taxed. > As viewed from outside California, money owed to the federal government is staying in California to be spent for the benefit of people in California. That simply isn't fair. If you want those services you can move to California. However that money isn’t wasted it’s used to support the people and economy of California which in turn would by itself be the 6th biggest economy in the world. That money is being invested in California and other states benefit from the tax revenue it generates. > If you are unhappy with the resulting high tax rate, you can leave the state or you can try to get the state to eliminate taxes. No haha I’m good, then I wouldn’t live in California where the state invests in its people (to an extent). You can perform all the mental gymnastics you want to justify this but I think you’d feel differently if a democratic administration wanted to tax the tax revenue paid by oil companies or lord help us carbon. This was done plain and simple to own the libs on the coast. Anything else is backing out a justification and fighting for double taxation isn’t a good look.
- burfog 7y ago
  California is neither an arm of the federal government nor akin to a country. It is in most ways a subservient and inferior government, owing resources to the federal government. That's part of the deal that California got when it joined the union. (in exchange, California gets stuff like a currency and a military) California (the land and the people and the government and every other way you could view it) must pay. Internal use and abuse of funding shouldn't have anything to do with what is owed. When you say that the change was "done plain and simple to own the libs on the coast", you presume that the previous situation was fair. It was not. Those "libs on the coast" were evading taxes, plain and simple. That "6th biggest economy in the world" was doing so well partly because it avoided taxes. That was unjust enrichment at the expense of middle America.

by burfog 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

Nobody is evading anything lol. > The situation with other countries is irrelevant to the matter of California income evading federal taxes. No it’s very relevant. You’re trying to have it both ways. Either the state represents an arm of the government in which case taxing taxes makes no sense or it’s more akin to a country on its own where you could make the argument double taxation makes sense. But you argue it’s part of the government to the extent it should be contributing to your state but autonomous enough that it should be double taxed. > As viewed from outside California, money owed to the federal government is staying in California to be spent for the benefit of people in California. That simply isn't fair. If you want those services you can move to California. However that money isn’t wasted it’s used to support the people and economy of California which in turn would by itself be the 6th biggest economy in the world. That money is being invested in California and other states benefit from the tax revenue it generates. > If you are unhappy with the resulting high tax rate, you can leave the state or you can try to get the state to eliminate taxes. No haha I’m good, then I wouldn’t live in California where the state invests in its people (to an extent). You can perform all the mental gymnastics you want to justify this but I think you’d feel differently if a democratic administration wanted to tax the tax revenue paid by oil companies or lord help us carbon. This was done plain and simple to own the libs on the coast. Anything else is backing out a justification and fighting for double taxation isn’t a good look.

burfog 7y ago
California is neither an arm of the federal government nor akin to a country. It is in most ways a subservient and inferior government, owing resources to the federal government. That's part of the deal that California got when it joined the union. (in exchange, California gets stuff like a currency and a military) California (the land and the people and the government and every other way you could view it) must pay. Internal use and abuse of funding shouldn't have anything to do with what is owed. When you say that the change was "done plain and simple to own the libs on the coast", you presume that the previous situation was fair. It was not. Those "libs on the coast" were evading taxes, plain and simple. That "6th biggest economy in the world" was doing so well partly because it avoided taxes. That was unjust enrichment at the expense of middle America.