4 ms·

This is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be adjusting our withholding allowances to account for the change. California needs to spend less, not quietly raid my ba

This is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be adjusting our withholding allowances to account for the change. California needs to spend less, not quietly raid my bank account.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
The "10% extra" figure sounds like a lot -- and from one standpoint it is -- but later in the article it mentions that this amounts to an extra $20/month for a $50K/yr earner. So while I'm not a fan of "quiet" tax levies like this, and while I'm not under the illusion that taxes, once raised, are ever really substantially lowered, and while I'm skeptical enough not to trust that we can expect it to be promptly or fully refunded come April ... I also don't see it as a tremendous disaster. California is one of the most progressive states in the union. That progressiveness -- including some of the top public school districts in the country -- comes at a price: higher taxes. Also, it's California's own taxpayers that have driven the various ballot measures that have left California struggling. Seems somehow wrong to turn around and place all of the blame for the state's budget woes on elected officials; even if they are mostly self-serving and fairly useless, they weren't the ones that passed the requests for lots more money without thinking about how to pay for it.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  I don't think I get it, then. 10% of $2000 is $200. How is this 10% extra withholding if they're only taking $17/mo from someone who makes $50k? That's slightly under 1% of the average monthly pay.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Someone making $50k would be getting $4167/month before tax. If an increase of 10% on state income tax is costing them $20/month, that means they used to be paying about $200/month in state income taxes, or about 4.8%. Afterwards they'd be paying $220, or about 5.3%. Looking briefly at California's income tax brackets those percentages seem to be about right.
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      That still doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be an increase to 5.8% from 4.8%?
      - camccann 17y ago
        Well, you can express it any way you like. Math is flexible that way! Note that from 4.8% to 5.3% is actually an increase by 10%, namely: 0.048 * 1.1 = 0.053, or 4.8% * 110% = 5.3%. I imagine you're looking at it and seeing the difference between percentages (0.5%), not the ratio between them (1.1), a distinction that trips people up not infrequently.
- alaskamiller 17y ago
  California's public education program has always been consistently ranked near the bottom last since I was in elementary school. (http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/regional/37673589.html http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/regional/37673589.html)
- anamax 17y ago
  > California is one of the most progressive states in the union. That progressiveness -- including some of the top public school districts in the country -- comes at a price: higher taxes. The assumption that the cost is providing benefits may not be true. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,...
  - camccann 17y ago
    For comparison purposes: http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default -- Note that Vermont and New Hampshire both do very well overall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels -- Note that VT and NH are at opposite extremes of state tax revenue per capita. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that tax rates have little to do with education quality.

This is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be adjusting our withholding allowances to account for the change. California needs to spend less, not quietly raid my bank account.

thaumaturgy 17y ago

The "10% extra" figure sounds like a lot -- and from one standpoint it is -- but later in the article it mentions that this amounts to an extra $20/month for a $50K/yr earner. So while I'm not a fan of "quiet" tax levies like this, and while I'm not under the illusion that taxes, once raised, are ever really substantially lowered, and while I'm skeptical enough not to trust that we can expect it to be promptly or fully refunded come April ... I also don't see it as a tremendous disaster. California is one of the most progressive states in the union. That progressiveness -- including some of the top public school districts in the country -- comes at a price: higher taxes. Also, it's California's own taxpayers that have driven the various ballot measures that have left California struggling. Seems somehow wrong to turn around and place all of the blame for the state's budget woes on elected officials; even if they are mostly self-serving and fairly useless, they weren't the ones that passed the requests for lots more money without thinking about how to pay for it.

cookiecaper 17y ago
I don't think I get it, then. 10% of $2000 is $200. How is this 10% extra withholding if they're only taking $17/mo from someone who makes $50k? That's slightly under 1% of the average monthly pay.
- camccann 17y ago
  Someone making $50k would be getting $4167/month before tax. If an increase of 10% on state income tax is costing them $20/month, that means they used to be paying about $200/month in state income taxes, or about 4.8%. Afterwards they'd be paying $220, or about 5.3%. Looking briefly at California's income tax brackets those percentages seem to be about right.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    That still doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be an increase to 5.8% from 4.8%?
    - camccann 17y ago
      Well, you can express it any way you like. Math is flexible that way! Note that from 4.8% to 5.3% is actually an increase by 10%, namely: 0.048 * 1.1 = 0.053, or 4.8% * 110% = 5.3%. I imagine you're looking at it and seeing the difference between percentages (0.5%), not the ratio between them (1.1), a distinction that trips people up not infrequently.
alaskamiller 17y ago
California's public education program has always been consistently ranked near the bottom last since I was in elementary school. (http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/regional/37673589.html http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/regional/37673589.html)
anamax 17y ago
> California is one of the most progressive states in the union. That progressiveness -- including some of the top public school districts in the country -- comes at a price: higher taxes. The assumption that the cost is providing benefits may not be true. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,...
- camccann 17y ago
  For comparison purposes: http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default -- Note that Vermont and New Hampshire both do very well overall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels -- Note that VT and NH are at opposite extremes of state tax revenue per capita. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that tax rates have little to do with education quality.