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.
didn't buy too much house...its a tiny house...bought in 1995 for 150k.....the taxes are based on they THINK they want to ''value'' it at 450k..ergo 12k in property taxes...as I said the biggest portion of the tax is the school tax....I paid it off years ago
BTW, I own a house in NC also..4000sf, on a full acre.. paid 175k for
the prop taxes on it....less than 2k
I still have a very few (3-5) years before I retire and leave the hell hole of NY
Aaah there it is... you pay that ungodly tax and you live in NY.
3-5 years, retiring to North Carolina, mortgage free, $2k divided by 12 months would cost you $167.00 a month and you will still get to reduce your taxable income by if married $24k where today, you have to be in debt to get that benefit. Sounds like a winning plan to me. Now if only you could move out of that high tax state now and save/invest the difference in what you pay in taxes.
So if you stayed in New York, how much "more" would you have to save, invest, risk to pay you for those yearly taxes. Each expense you have after retirement will require you to save and invest more to pay for that expense and as me and you know taxes are a huge expense.
Aaah there it is... you pay that ungodly tax and you live in NY. 3-5 years, retiring to North Carolina, mortgage free, $2k divided by 12 months would cost you $167.00 a month and you will still get to reduce your taxable income by if married $24k where today, you have to be in debt to get that benefit. Sounds like a winning plan to me. Now if only you could move out of that high tax state now and save/invest the difference in what you pay in taxes.
So if you stayed in New York, how much "more" would you have to save, invest, risk to pay you for those yearly taxes. Get my question?
OH I get it...and as soon as I can, I will leave NY
what I am saying is that I generally don't take the STD Ded (which they will increase on this proposal), I use the itemized and it come out to about the new STD Ded idea....
for most it will be good, but for those few it could be a slight hardship
OH I get it...and as soon as I can, I will leave NY
what I am saying is that I generally don't take the STD Ded (which they will increase on this proposal), I use the itemized and it come out to about the new STD Ded idea....
for most it will be good, but for those few it could be a slight hardship
my biggest beef is the personal exemptions
I was having a hard time explaining what I meant but good you get it.
Since you are so close to retirement, and live in a high tax state and pay ridiculously high taxes comparative to the value of your property, and since you are a planner you can understand that when you can move, you pay less taxes, need less investment income or savings and you still get the benefit from the higher standard deduction (thinking longer term), hopefully you'll have 30 years to benefit as apposed to 3-5 years of deduction those high taxes.
$12k / 12 mo's = $1000 a month
vs
$2k/ 12 mo's = $167.00 a month
A difference of $833 a month... how much of your money do you have to risk to pay you enough income to pay this?
I wasn't allowed to take the personal exemption because it was phased out for us. Funny, when I discovered that after the 2012 tax changes and posted about it, I was as much told to shut up by another forum member, and here it is. Either way, I still am mixed and didn't really think about it much, if there is a way to compesate.
Your assumption about people making $400k being wealthy is incorrect. Maybe if they had at least 10 + years of making that. Even if they saved every dime within the first 5 years they still wouldn't be rich. These people don't keep this money sitting in the bank, it's impossible to do that because some of it has to be kept in the business for the following year or are their employees and vendors willing to wait for their paychecks until the business builds up capital to pay them. It's called retained earnings. See how little people think about what really goes on? Some of the money it re-invested, some money used for living expenses (who would have thunk it) and paying other expenses like taxes.
Some people who don't run businesses don't have a clue but are the first to rant and scream. If people thought it was hard to start and run a business prior to Obama's tax increase, he hammered these small business owners and caused them to struggle more, more also failed, others just didn't bother to try. So much for the American dream.
Trump said it himself, this is supposed to help the middle class, and that happens in many ways, improving the economy, encouraging small business, which will result in more competition for employees that will drive up pay rates to attract and retain employees. People think so linear and have to start thinking past the basics.
You know that guy said "people making $400k are more likely to be wealthy [than people making less than that]" NOT that people making $400k are automatically wealthy, right? You keep wanting to point out that there's a difference between income and wealth.... we all know that... it's no big secret... That poster said something with a shade of nuance you didn't pick up on.
You know that guy said "people making $400k are more likely to be wealthy [than people making less than that]"
And I covered that in my post. Some people think just because someone makes $400k in one tax year that makes them rich, Obama, Democrats and the liberal media promoted that lie. Oh come on, you surely remember "raise taxes on the rich, people making $400k a year".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn
You keep wanting to point out that there's a difference between income and wealth.... we all know that... it's no big secret... That poster said something with a shade of nuance you didn't pick up on.
No not everyone knows that high income does not equal wealth and Obama played on that lack of understanding to gain their support to raise taxes on these people who were your doctors, small business owners etc. People who worked hard for their income, not some glitzy celebrity sitting who owns a private jet and multiple luxury cars.
OH I get it...and as soon as I can, I will leave NY
what I am saying is that I generally don't take the STD Ded (which they will increase on this proposal), I use the itemized and it come out to about the new STD Ded idea....
for most it will be good, but for those few it could be a slight hardship
my biggest beef is the personal exemptions
Lets say you invest in T which currently pays a quarterly dividend of $0.49. Todays price is $39.04
At todays share price you'd need to invest $239,020.00 to be paid enough dividend income to pay $12k NY taxes.
At todays share price you would need to invest $39,837.00 in T stock to pay enough in dividend income to pay your NC tax bill.
Thats a $199,183 difference that you need to invest.
Naturally I'm just using T as an example. I'm tired, so please check my numbers but I'm sure you get my point. Heres a cool tool to tell you how much you need to invest to pay you x amount of yearly dividends. You put in the stock ticker for a given company as well as how much income you want to receive from dividends.
True, and of course, its really the employee who pays 100% of the premium. Wages are simply reduced by the amount the employer pays. One big reason why wages have stagnated for so long is the skyrocketing insurance premiums.
Having a tax funded health care system (with the main revenue coming from an employer payroll tax replacing premiums and perhaps a small federal VAT tax) not only means getting health care is no longer dependent on people's income, it also reduce overall health care costs as shown in all other countries. It also provides peace of mind, something the stressed out American people need.
Again, the Labor Force Participation Rate is only 62.9%, about 150 million, many employed only part-time. You can't fund health care for all 320 million on only the backs of workers. It would have to be funded by all. A 25% VAT tax would do it. That would also capture tax revenue from those who earn their income illicitly, and neither report their income to nor file taxes with the IRS. Examples: drug dealers, illegal aliens working for cash, etc.
There must be a small army of lobbyists descending on the capital at this moment, I wonder if the people will be represented.
Most likely we the people will be misrepresented as usual.
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.
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.
