Bill Maher Says CA Taxes Are Too High (Williams: real estate market, credit)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

What tax burden? At least compared to the CA tax burden.

I looked at:

State Income Tax
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Vehicle tax/fees
Insurance

Total them up for the same income, sq ft, age of dwelling and acreage, plus year of vehicle and CA is wayyyyyy higher.


Yep I can run down to, or at least walk down to, the creek and catch dinner if I wish.

By the way what is the price of a gallon of milk in a major Grocery Store there. Mine was $3.29 this week.

*Whooooooosh!*

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Food-4-Less: Mountain Dairy 2% or 1%, $2.88 a gal if you buy two.

Ouch?

Originally Posted by Leonard64

Interesting. How about a standard grade which I think is actually 3% or
"whole milk"?

I also believe Food-4-less is not representative of a major chain, though I think it is owned by Krogers/Ralphs, but interesting. How about Krogers. I have one here I can check it against.

OK, just checked Krogers and $2.99 here. Krogers/Ralph's is not showing anything on line for CA.

*Face palm*

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Groceries aren't taxed. But you already knew that. Didn't you?

That would be his point, I'd guess. The absurdity ...

Originally Posted by Fontucky

I have no idea about grades and percentages, as I don't buy milk. I just happened to have put down the weekly circular about 5 min before reading your boast, errr... post.

Food-4-Less is owned by Kroger and is well-represented in So Cal everywhere but South OC, but you just keep spinning things when the truth doesn't fit, Leonard. You remind me of the play on the NY Times motto: "All the news that fits."

Yes, definitely "Ouch!".

Originally Posted by Senno

Leonard don't like that cause I gotta account for the TVA and the feds in there.

*snicker*

Originally Posted by jm1982

The richest Californians know ways to pay less taxes...because they know the BEST accountants and tax attorneys and have the money to hire them.

Unlike wealthy individuals everywhere?

Originally Posted by jm1982

Maher might just be preaching to the choir . Also he's prob realizing his target audience is tired of not seeing ROI on their taxes.

Yes, because there are no police, fire, sewage, parks, street lights, highways, port operations, health inspections, ad infinitum, .................................

Originally Posted by Fontucky

You're wasting your time looking for Ralphs ads: http://food4less.mywebgrocer.com/Cir...139/Weekly/1/1

Single gallon purchases are $2.98.

Leonard, stop flopping like a fish on the pier. You lost that one. Accept it and move on.

Now that's going to leave a mark ...

Originally Posted by mateo45

That's sorta what happens when you control the majority of the wealth...

SLAM dunk!

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Sure, but people whine about the rich paying their fair share. They already do

Sure. 50% of $1,000,000 annual income leaves them only a mere $500,000.
50% of $50,000 annual would leave a whopping $25,000 (to contribute to the $500,000 lifestyle). Pony up.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Sure, but people whine about the rich paying their fair share. They already do

Not when they get taxed at a lower rate than your typical wage slave. Who BTW, doesn't get the option to ''defer'' it, like the wealthy regularly do with Capital Gains taxes on investments (the real source of most of their income, not salaries)!

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

You can drop the innocent act. You were preparing for a Leonard from Tennessee "what I'm paying" gloat session, much like you do with gas prices.

DENIED.

Fixed that for you. The Fontucky rubber stamp of denial should always be in red ink.

Originally Posted by Leonard64

Your wrong again.

Now gas prices are a real issue, but not milk to me, as only my wife drinks milk.

*double face palm* Again with the gas prices?! Average driver difference between California and lowest cost states? $20 a month. Need the calculation spelled out again in line detail, Leonard?

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by Senno

But you ain't adding in the costs of the second home is ya. What's the math and the total he would pay in total overall taxes, fed, state, local and COLA to own and operate 2 homes instead of just 1 in CA?

Like I said, its not the overall cost, its the tax burden avoidance. If he buys a house in Laguna Beach, cash, gets a good deal etc, most likely it will appreciate. Thats an investment. The house in Texas is an investment. So he has two cash assets. Pays property tax and maintenance cost.

Assuming he owns both houses:

fed = stays the same
state income tax = 0 vs $$
property tax = taxable rate on both houses
local = cost of operating two houses as opposed to one (lots of wealthy people do this anyway)

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Not when they get taxed at a lower rate than your typical wage slave. Who BTW, doesn't get the option to ''defer'' it, like the wealthy regularly do with Capital Gains taxes on investments (the real source of most of their income, not salaries)!

You are talking about capital gains (which everyone can participate in), not income tax which is progressive. We dont need to get into income taxes again.

Perspective from right and left in this article:

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. That's up from 55% in 1986.

The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.

Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, added that looking at just federal income taxes doesn't give the whole picture.
When factoring in state and local taxes, the top 10% pay just under half the tab. And when calculating tax burden as a percent of income, the tax code is even less progressive. The top 10% paid an average of 30% of their income in local, state, and federal taxes in 2011, said McIntyre. That's not much different than the 25% percent paid by the middle class.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-p...101000480.html

[mateo45]

You're just being obtuse. Sure they pay more, but they don't pay the same proportion (let alone the fact that each group depends on completely different income sources, each taxed at different rates)!

BTW, there was this handy little comparison calculator during the election...

http://www.whatmittpays.com/

EX: Family of 2, no kids, $100K income... 23% tax rate. Romney, 13.9%
They would save $8,700 at Mitts rate!

[slo1318]

Originally Posted by Senno

Well, I've got you on one side saying it's an investment and DocGoldstein on the other predicting an immenent collapse of the whole deal. Somehow I'm arguing with both. LoL...

I'm hoping for a nice gentle ride in the middle. That might be to much to hope for though, but I hope not.

I take a global view of his dollars in and out and don't care who they go to, just how much goes out.

You talkin ta me?

Collapse of what?

And obviously the good Doc could afford to just up n move to Laguna if he wanted to....free country right

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by slo1318

You are talking about capital gains (which everyone can participate in),

Oh come on, now you're getting a bit silly ... ... people with no money can't participate in capital gains ...

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Chip noted.
Source problem with attitude and comprehension identified.

Likewise :

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Better yet just move and shut your yap.