Discussion in 'Community' started by Lowbacca_1977, Feb 27, 2021.
yeah actually that's the 2019 rates.
Well, I've treated you respectfully even though you haven't treated others that way and even give you advice about how to fit in better here, and you return the favor by being rude to me, questioning my sincerity (for no reason), and claim that I'm telling you half-truths and using fuzzy facts (without providing any evidence that anything I posted was inaccurate).
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I see that you're not open-minded and that you're not willing to argue in good faith. I have to conclude that Anakinsfan was right when she said that you want to believe that "your ignorance is equal to someone else's knowledge," and it seems like in addition to that you're willing to rudely defend that right to remain ignorant.
Since you're not respectful or don't have an open mind, I don't see a point in continuing any type of dialogue with you.
That sounds right or close to it. So, lets say $60K in taxes for federal if we round up a bit. We havent figured in property taxes which for a person at least in NEW YORK STATE(upstate) and with a home in a price range of $250K to $300K is easily paying $8K in property taxes. Likely more if they are in a nicer area. But I'll quote low so now were at $68,000 in taxes. NYS Income tax can be another $8K to $10K. Then you have fuel taxes. Sorry, they count. Oh and NYS certainly does jam its citizens with utility fees and such as my link clearly showed. Thats a tax regardless of what the do-gooders want to call it. The amount isnt huge but it adds up. Then there's sales taxes on almost everything you buy. A few large purchases adds thousands and thousands of dollars to your yearly tax bill too. So it wouldnt take much to get that $200K earner in NYS to get to $80K in taxes once you comb through the ticky-tack horse pooh. OK, maybe it isnt quite 50%. Hang me - Im like 10% off at the most. But 40% to 45%? EASY to do in tax-happy NYS.
The point remains that even paying a 1/3 of your earnings in taxes is pretty high, IMO. I think its too much. That money is better spent by the family that earned it, not Andy Cuomo and his buddies. I get that lower earners pay less overall but Im not a fan of penalizing success. Two professionals deserve the money they earn, IMO.
Darth - look, some of your post was fine and some was a little iffy to me. I havent been rude to anyone and I feel you did make some insinuations that really arent true. Look, the place has been a tad rough since Im clearly on the other side of the aisle. The welcome mat doesnt get dusted off for folks like me. Thats fine... but some of this has been a little ridiculous, IMO. Still, Ive had some nice chats with the mostly good folks here so thats good.
So - please accept my apology for insinuating you werent being sincere. Thanks for at least replying in a constructive way. I will try to do better and keep my side of the aisle cleaner. I hope to talk more with you.
Why is your hypothetical New Yorker household paying Australia's federal income tax? It's much higher than what they'd be paying if they just paid taxes in the US instead.
This is boring now. Taxes are too high, especially on those that dared to be slightly successful. No numbers, no percentages. They are too high. You wanna talk about waste, bloat and spending reductions then I’m in. Otherwise, I’m all set.
It's boring because you were asked to actually defend your claims? You can't even explain why it is you used Australian income tax rates to try to demonstrate the problem with New York.
It's been boring the whole time for everyone else because you can't bring anything of substance to the discussion. You're not approaching this as a topic, you're trying to preach your faith on others. You can't explain why you believe it, you can't explain how any of it works, you just know that it's what you're supposed to follow. And that appears to also include the belief that the rich should face a smaller tax burden than the middle class.
It's entirely possible for discussion between people that have different interpretations of evidence or have assessed things differently to be very interesting. However, as you are not one of those people it seems, it is always going to be boring for everyone since you are unable to contribute to meaningful discussion.
You claimed taxes are too high because someone making 50,000 a year is easily paying over 50% of their income in taxes. That appears to be not true, and so it would appear taxes are *not* too high per the framework you initially set up. You set up your standard that taxes are too high because people are losing over 50% of their income to taxes. So the measure that there's a problem goes away.
You don't want numbers or percentages because you're covering up for your inability to do math. It's all feelings with you on this and no facts. There is no intelligent way to talk about waste, bloat, or reductions without being able to quantify those things. Waste and bloat are money that are being spent that don't need to be spent. Those need numbers (and the significance of that spending is also measured with numbers). There's no way to talk about spending reductions with any meaning without talking about what sorts of reductions those should be.
This is a thread to discuss actual taxation issues (and as can be seen, other people actually are willing to have that discussion with differing viewpoints, because they're actually willing to discuss things), not for you to fail to win converts to your superstitions because you're either incapable or unwilling to hold an actual discussion. So far, you have shown no interest in discussing taxation policies in the US, and you've shown no understanding of what US taxation policies are to begin with in order to discuss it. You're welcome to decide you'd like to discuss taxation policies, but so far it's very clear you're not actually interested in discussing waste, bloat, spending reductions, taxation, etc as you've been given the chance and have categorically refused to do so.
And before you have another tantrum on this, you made some statements about what results come from doing the math when it comes to taxes, and when asked to actually provide that math so we could have an actual discussion you have repeatedly refused. There is no attempt at good faith discussion on your part if your response to questions boils down to "I believe this without evidence, so you should listen to me", and that is precisely what you're saying when you repeatedly make claims that you are incapable of justifying or explaining. You've been, repeatedly, given the chance to simply explain the basis for your statements and show that you have some actual logic backing it up, and you are unwilling or unable to do so. Being asked to show your math after you've made a statement about the math (or more broadly, any rationale for a claim) isn't some unreasonable thing, it's something that I'd expect most kid to learn by high school at the latest.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that no Democratic (conservative, liberal, or progressive) taxation proposal for achieving a more robust social safety net (whether income tax-related, wealth tax-related, estate tax-related, etc.) would affect Mike (QGM, not Lowie). Considering none of the currently floated proposals would affect me or Ender (were he American), I'm comfortable making that assertion.
Hell, I don't even get stimulus -- which is annoying -- but still want these things for other people!
Half...I dont dare use a number here of what you said isnt accurate and you rounded it out with some insults. Where did I say the middle class should pay more taxes than the rich? Hint: I didnt. So thats a swing and a miss. The evidence is a state thing combined with local & federal. You gonna argue with me about my own home state property taxes? Do you live here? If not, then you have nothing. Sorry. And no, I aint posting property tax info about me or any people around me. So you'll have to just take my word for it. If thats not good enough then why reply? Just google NYS property taxes and punch in some $180K to $300K homes in the burbs. You'll get an idea.
If Im allowed to have a different interpretation then fine, throw out the blanket 50% number. Its not true for someone making $25K, no. But even they are still paying too much, IMO. Oh and sorry but in my home state, it is very accurate that once you add it all up, for the thousandth time, that a households overall tax burden is easily pushing 40% and can also be higher. I already conceded that my 50% figure was high a few posts back. Doesnt matter. The point is that 38% to 42% sure feels like "half" when you are paying it. Even modestly priced home get saddled with these real-estate taxes. Its crushing. Oh and its really great for fixed income retirees who paid their house off years ago but STILL have to cough up thousands and thousands of dollars each month. Nice for Grandma.
I have logic. Myself and tons of other NYers have the logic. Our tax bills overall are way too high. Thats our logic. You cant put a number on everything and I'll never make that mistake again. So, thats the scoop.
Oh its a very possible, fair assertion. Heck, I dont care, we DO qualify for the stimulus in my household. Ya'll bunch of fat cats here, eh?
But, interestingly, I dont view things in a vacuum like that. High taxes even on mean, rich people can cause ripple effects if they take their business and/or residence elsewhere. Jobs disappear. Areas become empty. Store fronts are vacant. Property values decline. The state collects less tax revenue overall and then guess who it gets passed onto? Yeah. Working class stiffs.
The rich are mobile. They can leave. Upstat, NY has lost some prominent residents like Tom Golisano(Paychex founder) to Florida because they unfairly assessed his home and wouldnt budge. So, now they collect zero dollars from him. Heres some "math": Any percent of 0 is always zero. Just saying.
Property taxes vary greatly from county to county. NYC, for example, is half the state average of Florida.
Rich people and corporations love Florida not because of the property tax rates, but because - like all state, county and local agencies here - property assessors are understaffed and underfunded. Orange County fought Universal Studios for years over the assessment of empty lots that the county wanted for public usage - Universal placed a few cows on it and claimed it was being used for "agricultural research" and therefore worth 20x what the county offered for it.
Florida illustrates the mathematics of "Zero percent of a hundred million is still zero". The rich contribute virtually nothing to this state.
QGC: you threw in optional spending "like a new car"which I think does not support your argument. A new car is not an annual spenditure; it is also voluntary.
Sure you pay taxes but but not as a government imposed mandatory tax.
All the "tax burden is higher than ever" advocates, I would like to see a reputable report adjusted for inflation to see how and if the burden has significantly shifted.
This may be ignorance of another country's circumstances on my part, but here, a new car means a new, several years long credit to repay more often than not (3 out of 4 new cars purchases and every other used car purchases are supported by a credit). Insurance is mandatory and a yearly expenditure (in the range of mid-hundreds of €), and of course, use engenders ongoing expenses. And in less urban areas, cars really aren't an optional purchase.
If you're hitting those kinds of tax brackets, no, it's not a crushing burden. You're already making multiple times what a low-wage, full time worker is. These are far from heavy tax burdens. If you want to experience what those are, come to my side of the ocean.
What you do have on your end is considerable overpricing, which inevitably makes all expenses wasteful, regardless of whether the expenses are incurred by the government or by private actors. Here, healthcare is quite demonstrative - the USA are at the lower end of effectiveness for their healthcare system among developed countries, but with pricing that's roughly four times the average of developed countries for the same offerings. If your prices for healthcare were the same as those in the rest of developed countries, for the same amount of expenditure you currently have now, you'd have one of the highest performing healthcare systems in the world, if not the highest.
Business is what has made the USA face crushing levels of inefficiency. Not taxation.
The 2-year Stockton CA experiment with UBI (extra $500 per month, no restrictions) determined that:
Most people used the money for basic necessities.
There was no change in labor levels.
People were better able to cope with unexpected expenses.
You've never, at any point, argued for a consumption tax here? Was that a different QUIGONMIKE where the I's were really lowercase L's?
Numbers exist, if you had anything of substance, you could back this up. But if you want to go that way, @dp4m hasn't exactly backed you up, and unlike you, I have evidence he lives in New York. If he says that the taxes are *not* too high then surely that ends this because he's more verifiably in New York than you are and is paying a higher tax rate than you seem to. So if you refuse to have this be about numbers, the person I have evidence lives in New York, and who would be paying more taxes than you claim to, hasn't said they're horribly high taxes. So your dumb "but I live here and must be right" argument falls short because someone else more obviously lives there and doesn't reach the same conclusions you do as an alleged resident.
And if you're going to say that's ridiculous, well, you want the basis for assessing who is right based on where they live and not what their argument is, and so Dp4m has a much stronger argument than you.
For that matter, if "living in a state makes you right", will you also retract every negative statement about California that you've said and been disagreed with on? If you're going to argue that you have to be listened to as 'right' about New York just because you live there then you also, on the same logic, need to concede to those of us that live in California any time that we tell you that you are wrong about the state of California. For that matter, you also have to concede to blackmyron's comments about Florida because you don't live in Florida and blackmyron does (so you should be conceding that you were wrong that people move to Florida because of the real estate taxes being lower, for example, because the person living in Florida disagreed with that and you allegedly don't). Again, it's a blatantly dishonest attitude on your part. No one can question your baseless claims about New York because you live there, but you also know more about the states you don't live in than anyone else, even if you don't have evidence to back up your claims about them.
Where did you admit you made that number up because you don't know what you're talking about? Where did you concede that you dishonestly made that claim? *That* is the issue here, you make things up and just want everyone to believe it and then refuse to defend them or properly disavow them. Particularly as you made that claim on the premise that you had already accounted for everything.
You have never conceded that you dishonestly presented a number that you had zero rationale for. If you'd like to change and admit you entered dishonestly, then by all means, feel free to turn over that new leaf.
And how many poor fixed-income retirees are living in these multi-million dollar homes?
Either admit you don't know what you're talking about, or demonstrate that. Take a $50,000 household and explicitly prove this claim. You've said it's very accurate once it's all added up, so actually prove this and stop trying to rely on everyone else knowing math just because, it seems, you don't know how to do basic math. This is not an insult, this is an observation that you have not been able to show basic math skills when trying to discuss numerical concepts, to the point that you've argued you want to discuss numerical concepts without numbers being allowed into the discussion. You have been afforded every opportunity to show that you actually understand math enough to demonstrate you're capable of doing the math required to make the arguments that you're making, and you have turned down every one of those chances.
It isn't hard to see the pattern here and surmise that the common thing is that you don't actually know math well enough to either reach or justify your 'conclusions'.
I cant believe Im still doing this but... One more time:
People move to Florida to mainly escape income taxes but property taxes too. If dp4m lives in NYS then let him confirm that, then I need to know where. NYC isnt the same and where I am we have some open spaces and land which we get charged mightily for.
I didnt make up 50%, I said 50% and its still not that far off even if its "only" like 40% to 42% that some people pay. Its close enough to half to round up. $50K a year household and 50% taxes? Nah, probably more like 1/3 but as I said, you are ignoring all those other taxes which add up. Fuel, utility, sales, and on and on. Even for that household Im sure it can get past 33%. So, they are being overtaxed too.
The elderly who even live in modest 1500 sq foot homes still get a fat property tax bill. They get a discount(STAR) when they turn 65 but that only knocks off a little bit. I know this because my Mother-in-law and Mother moved out of their houses to get out of that crap.
As for math? Yeah, Im bad at it. I have to get naked to count to 21. <<<<<< GOOD ONE!
Oh and I take back everything about California. I couldnt care less. If they are content with their little social/fiscal utopia then enjoy. But keep it there, please. . Maybe it will fall into the Ocean as per what Lex Luthor wants in Superman? Remember that classic flick?
It's hard to say as a overall "are taxes too high in NY" answer -- because it varies!
I'm assuming he doesn't live in NYC or Yonkers, both of which also have a City Income Tax on top of the State Income Tax (in addition to being near the top in Sales Tax, but also excluding things like most food, clothes under $100, etc. which I'm not sure is national yet, etc.). I think we're 5th in the country in state income tax.
Similarly, if he doesn't own a home -- then he's at the mercy of the renter's market which is affected by, but not directly impacted by, the real estate tax (which is highest primarily in the NE/Mid-Atlantic states overall). There's also a mansion tax kicking in starting at $1,000,000 (1%) and capping at $25,000,000 (3.9%). And if you own, every time you buy there's a 0.2% tax ($2 per $500) on the sale.
So what do you get for your taxes? Well, for starters NYS requires a whole host of insurance coverage that's illegal to not include in any insurance plans (infertility, IVF, any form of discrimination, pre-existing coverage, etc.). You also get a mandated requirement for a full week of sick leave in most cases. You get paid family leave (67% of salary up to 12 weeks, I believe) for being able "to bond with a new child, care for a family member with a serious health condition, or to assist loved ones when a family member is deployed abroad on active military service"). NYC has the best public transportation in the country, yes even including the joint NY/NJ options.
So it depends on what you define as "too high" -- hell, even I'd prefer to pay less (who wouldn't?) but not at the expense of folks getting screwed...
That clothes under $100 is definitely not a national thing, though that seems really tricky to implement.
Transportation side note, I think I prefer Chicago's to the extent I've dealt with either.
If you did not make up 50%, provide the math that led you to the conclusion that a household making $50,000 a year has an effective tax rate easily over 50%. Either you made it up or you did the math, and you refuse to provide the math.
And you keep doing it. Provide your calculations for the taxes for a $50,000 household. Period. You want to make how much they're making in taxes be a key issue and how much worse New York is in particular, then demonstrate how much tax that household pays in New York vs a state you think is 'right'.
OK - thanks for the reply. So, you one of them rich Yawkers? .
Im in the finger lakes region of upstate, NY. Between Syracuse and Buffalo but closer to Syracuse. I do own a home. about 2K sq feet and about 3/4 of an acre parcel. Of course I do not pay a city tax but that sounds like one of the many "ticky-tack" taxes the the state loves to dump on people. Public transportation doesnt apply here so anything we throw at that doesnt help us one bit. Yes, there is an insurance burden in NYS for lots of stuff. probably has positives and negatives but at some point it does add costs.
Our income tax is pretty high and so are sales taxes - hence that stuff adds up fast. Fuel taxes are also pretty high here but that is something we feel more than the city does.
But yeah - its a perception thing. I feel taxes are too high. Or, I at least find that we spend them frivolously and there is a lot of waste and bloat. Like our state is facing a big pension crisis like many others with unionized state employment. But thats for another time.
Nope, Im good. Thanks though.
Like I said, the wealthy and corporations love Florida because they don't have to contribute. Either the poor and middle class and federal government (i.e.other states' money) pays for state services, or the state services are shoddy; usually both. People from Florida often try to get out of this state - especially if you're in education or entertainment.
But sure, if you're a millionaire, or a business that doesn't want to worry about workers demanding luxuries like "a living wage", Florida is a veritable paradise.
Which again, highlights that either 1. you don't have any interest in a good-faith discussion of taxes or 2. you don't know how to do the math and so are incapable of a good-faith discussion of taxes.
As you keep claiming you *want* a discussion, that leaves us just with option 2, that you don't have sufficient education to have a discussion even though you want to. In either case, why even enter this thread if you're unwilling or unable to discuss the topic?
I think the question of "what do you get for your taxes" is frankly the most important question of all in terms of any discussion about whether taxes are "too high". I travel to France a lot (my wife is a fluent French speaker and extremist Francophile) and it's always amusing to hear our french friends and family complain about their taxes but then get a little quieter when you start to rattle off some of the benefits of living in France compared to other countries, i.e, access to child care, access to good education,access to health, pensions etc etc.
We pay waaaaaaaaaaaay more of the state income tax than you do (overall). So please stop complaining about things, like public transportation.
Best I can tell, the MTA budget is $17bn. This is out of a budget of $192.9bn, so 8.8% to account for the primary transportation (55% of NYC residents do not own a car) for part of the people who pay 70% of the taxes contributing.
In terms of fuel tax -- for downstate car registrations (New York, Kings, Bronx, Richmond, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester) is 5,224,564 which is approx. 45.5% of all cars owned within NYC, so that's roughly a wash in terms of who pays more.
But, really, this is all part of the same conversation -- you're looking at it in "us vs. them" or "why do I pay taxes for those uppity Yawkers?" It's not -- we're one state. NYC contributes the bulk of the tax because we contribute the bulk of the industry (finance/insurance/real estate is like a full-third of NYS GDP, that plus professional services and IT is fully over half). But the state doesn't function without farming, tourism, etc. much of which comes from upstate (in addition to Suffolk and Westchester). Before COVID I was in Buffalo monthly, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar. We all contribute taxes for the betterment of everyone else in the state (and, as it turns out, much of Kentucky).
I can’t buy my own schools, or greenways, or public transit, among other things. And I don’t want these services at the mercy of some ***hole who just wants to make a profit off of them.
My husband and I are both among those government employees whom all the “but mah taxes!” complainers want to cut wages, resources and benefits for, so I see many of that crowd as against us personally.
Kentucky needs all the help it can get