4 ms·

If that’s the case then something is wrong with their data. They say that 3.78% is the individual income tax “burden” on personal income in California and that

If that’s the case then something is wrong with their data. They say that 3.78% is the individual income tax “burden” on personal income in California and that is just not true unless they are doing some sort of average across the population. The income tax rate in California can be as high as ~13%

MarkSweep 5y ago
The top rate 12.3% only applies to income in excess of $600k for single and $1.2m for married. How is quoting this rate at all relevant for average people? https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2020/2020-California-Tax-Rate-Schedules.pdf https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2020/2020-California-Tax-Rate-S...
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> They say that 3.78% is the individual income tax “burden” on personal income in California and that is just not true unless they are doing some sort of average across the population. Why do so many people not understand how graduated income taxes work? And why wouldn’t you average the tax burden across the entire California population when calculating its “tax rate”, unless you are claiming the highest tax rate in California someone could actually pay rather than the rates paid on average?
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  One camp is referencing the max. The other camp is referencing the average. The max does not refute the average and vice versa therefore both are misleading. A distribution would be more clear.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    If one means to say highest maximum tax rate, just say it. No weasel interpretations. But I guess these are the same people that don’t understand how America dealt with a 90% income tax rate in the 1950s. Or a 77% tax rate until 1981!
    - CyberRabbi 5y ago
      > If one means to say highest maximum tax rate, just say it. No weasel interpretations. To be fair, when people criticize the tax rate, be it state or federal, it is usually implied they are referencing the highest tax rate. Apples to apples, it’s a rough but fairly accurate proxy for relative so called “tax burden.” One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        > One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down. That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%. States with lower top tax rates are usually more regressive than states with higher top tax rates, red southern states being the main example of states with regressive taxation.
        CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%. This actually validates my point. 40K in Alabama goes a lot farther than 40K in California, based on differences in average cost of living. Just look at relative gas prices. Why are you so hostile? You shouldn’t bully fellow commenters on HN.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        That wasn’t the argument being made. The one stated that higher top tax rates mean higher low tax rates as well is false, the converse is true. Alabama is nearly last in everything for a good reason. That Californians have a much longer life expectancy (with correspondingly lower obesity rates and fewer health problems) shows that there is more to measuring COL than just what people can buy. I only pointed out that the assumption that higher top tax rates meant higher bottom tax rates as well is incredibly stupid, if anything, the converse is true (higher top tax rates usually mean lower bottom tax rates, not higher).

MarkSweep 5y ago

The top rate 12.3% only applies to income in excess of $600k for single and $1.2m for married. How is quoting this rate at all relevant for average people? https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2020/2020-California-Tax-Rate-Schedules.pdf https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2020/2020-California-Tax-Rate-S...

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> They say that 3.78% is the individual income tax “burden” on personal income in California and that is just not true unless they are doing some sort of average across the population. Why do so many people not understand how graduated income taxes work? And why wouldn’t you average the tax burden across the entire California population when calculating its “tax rate”, unless you are claiming the highest tax rate in California someone could actually pay rather than the rates paid on average?

CyberRabbi 5y ago
One camp is referencing the max. The other camp is referencing the average. The max does not refute the average and vice versa therefore both are misleading. A distribution would be more clear.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  If one means to say highest maximum tax rate, just say it. No weasel interpretations. But I guess these are the same people that don’t understand how America dealt with a 90% income tax rate in the 1950s. Or a 77% tax rate until 1981!
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    > If one means to say highest maximum tax rate, just say it. No weasel interpretations. To be fair, when people criticize the tax rate, be it state or federal, it is usually implied they are referencing the highest tax rate. Apples to apples, it’s a rough but fairly accurate proxy for relative so called “tax burden.” One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      > One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down. That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%. States with lower top tax rates are usually more regressive than states with higher top tax rates, red southern states being the main example of states with regressive taxation.
      - CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%. This actually validates my point. 40K in Alabama goes a lot farther than 40K in California, based on differences in average cost of living. Just look at relative gas prices. Why are you so hostile? You shouldn’t bully fellow commenters on HN.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        That wasn’t the argument being made. The one stated that higher top tax rates mean higher low tax rates as well is false, the converse is true. Alabama is nearly last in everything for a good reason. That Californians have a much longer life expectancy (with correspondingly lower obesity rates and fewer health problems) shows that there is more to measuring COL than just what people can buy. I only pointed out that the assumption that higher top tax rates meant higher bottom tax rates as well is incredibly stupid, if anything, the converse is true (higher top tax rates usually mean lower bottom tax rates, not higher).