U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2013, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,411 posts, read 9,564,419 times
Reputation: 8577

Advertisements

It always carries a lot more weight when people who are earning over $5 million a year remind us of how tough it is to make it these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
Cause Obummer Care now has a Health Care tax on the sale of homes for a rate of 3.88 % of the sale.

So he's still going to get bit in the butt on his way out...
Misleading. The tax is on the amount of profit beyond the capital gains threshold, $500K in poor Phil's case, not on the cost of the home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2013, 09:03 AM
 
17,749 posts, read 15,034,268 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Funny how people expect the government to pay for everything but no one realizes they have to pay back the government for all these freebies.

But they don't in California. Home owners get the housing value boost and roll the bill onto labor and capital.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 16,976,529 times
Reputation: 4304
Quote:
Originally Posted by proverbs23and7 View Post
When are these bums in Government are going to learn? A 3% state tax rate to 13.3?? Wow! How many folks that are near the $1 million threshold is going to hold back on business late in the year?
The rate is being increase 3%, not from 3% to 13.3%. It is currently 10.3%. But this sort of reasoning only make sense to people unfamiliar with business. Firstly, the vast majority of businesses generating an annual profit of $1+ million are going to be taxed as corporations and as such aren't effected by the cited tax change. The increase is on personal income tax. So let's assume that the business in question is a pass-through entity (LLC taxed as a partnership, etc), would it make sense to "hold back on business"? Only if you knew your profit next year (with the additional business) was going to be below $1 million and even then it it would be pretty silly, after all, most businesses can't simply "hold back business" without risk losing the revenue to someone else.

But as I said, this isn't about businesses as most business with this much profit are taxed as corporations. This is about wealthy folks, for example the useless golfer in the fox article, and these people aren't going to make less just so they avoid paying 3% in tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,362 posts, read 2,847,174 times
Reputation: 1453
Not sure why a self-employed golfer who travels frequently would want to be domiciled anywhere but a 0% tax state. There's a reason almost every golfer lives in Florida, after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,697 posts, read 28,583,687 times
Reputation: 14635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Funny how people expect the government to pay for everything but no one realizes they have to pay back the government for all these freebies.
im pretty sure phil mickelson isnt getting much from the government. the problem is that people with options will leave and rich people are supporting a bunch of parasites and when the rich person goes, the parasites have to latch onto another host. the less hosts you have, the greater the burden and when the wealthiest people leave, the remaining hosts have less blood to suck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 02:46 PM
 
10,153 posts, read 13,855,421 times
Reputation: 4567
Quote:
Originally Posted by proverbs23and7 View Post

Mickelson was correct to bring the matter of the high taxes in Ca. to public knowledge. He did apologize and say he should have kept the "numbers" private. He mistated his tax rate at 60-62%.
CNBC gave a breakdown of his income and likely deductions and said he was paying more like 50-52%. Still rather high. Tiger Woods came to his defense. Tiger lives in Florida.
CNBC also said that most millionaires only pay 20-30% and the nature of Mickleson's income put him in the 50% group. He could move to Nevada or Arizona and still be close to his home state of Ca.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:29 PM
 
9,323 posts, read 11,159,538 times
Reputation: 12507
Quote:
Originally Posted by drshang View Post
Not sure why a self-employed golfer who travels frequently would want to be domiciled anywhere but a 0% tax state. There's a reason almost every golfer lives in Florida, after all.

Actually 6 or 7 states with no income tax.......but only a couple like FL/TX are sunny!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,170 posts, read 3,728,778 times
Reputation: 2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And it's not just a state tax. The Fed will also be raising taxes on the wealthy.
So that's a double hit to this guy.

Other states have already done this and their revenues did not improve at the end of a year.

The wealthy can afford to move and conduct their business while living in another state or even another country.

IMHO I think this "tax the rich" that all levels of government are going after is going to backfire and net them less revenue than if they had just tried to cut back and try to operate within the revenue that they get.
Well, the federal rate is what it is, and is not the driving factor.

I ran some numbers when I first heard this story, and in my estimation, Mikelson would become 7-8 million richer by moving to a state with no personal income tax, everything else being equal.

Hard to hide from federal taxes. Not for someone with earned income, as is Mikelson. Unless someone knows some tax trick he can use to shelter his endorsement money somehow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,170 posts, read 3,728,778 times
Reputation: 2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
The rate is being increase 3%, not from 3% to 13.3%. It is currently 10.3%. But this sort of reasoning only make sense to people unfamiliar with business. Firstly, the vast majority of businesses generating an annual profit of $1+ million are going to be taxed as corporations and as such aren't effected by the cited tax change. The increase is on personal income tax. So let's assume that the business in question is a pass-through entity (LLC taxed as a partnership, etc), would it make sense to "hold back on business"? Only if you knew your profit next year (with the additional business) was going to be below $1 million and even then it it would be pretty silly, after all, most businesses can't simply "hold back business" without risk losing the revenue to someone else.

But as I said, this isn't about businesses as most business with this much profit are taxed as corporations. This is about wealthy folks, for example the useless golfer in the fox article, and these people aren't going to make less just so they avoid paying 3% in tax.
As you point out, we are talking about marginal tax rates, something most people do not understand.

Given Mikelson's income, practically all of his earnings are taxed at the highest marginal rates, both state and federal.

If Mikelson were to move to a state with no state income tax, he would lose his state tax deduction on his federal return. Even so, he would still be 7-8 million richer, if my figures are ballpark correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,022 posts, read 16,955,449 times
Reputation: 32179
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
But they don't in California. Home owners get the housing value boost and roll the bill onto labor and capital.
Sorry, but they do (pay taxes to the state government) in California. There are more than negligible property taxes here, although they are not as high as you think they should be, and they are admittedly lower than in some other states.

In addition, there are sales taxes, income taxes, and user fees such as car registration. I am aware that your point is that of the various taxes, property taxes should take a bigger bite (compared to the other taxes) in California, but when you state that people do not pay for government services through taxation in California ("they don't in California"), that is inaccurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top