Is San Francisco the only city to have completely priced out its middle/working class? (Oakland: real estate, insurance)

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

It's ok, we all get out talking points from somewhere.

Top income earners now are still paying the same percentage of the tax burden as when the income tax rate was 90%.
Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ

No mater how you slice it, the rich are paying more than their fair share and pushing to confiscate 90% of someone's income like it is a good idea is strait up thievery. You might have seen Robin Hood one too many times as a kid.

And, instead of randomly cherry picking a specific date which suits your argument, why not reflect on what income tax started as and where it is today.

Haha no one is cherry picking. The chart you provided is meaningless, and the article is unavailing. Of course the effective tax rate is lower than the top marginal tax rate, because many people take advantage of the loopholes in the tax code. Nonetheless, LOOK AT ITS EFFECT ON NATIONAL INCOME SHARE


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/267149/MARGINAL-TAX-RATES.jpg


https://acivilamericandebate.files.w...08/dp8675a.jpg


....Capital gains, capital income, business income, and salaries ALL mirror this pattern......No matter how you slice it.......


http://s3.amazonaws.com/inarticles/d...72fb8e4fdb.jpg


Your resistance is futile

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

And, instead of randomly cherry picking a specific date which suits your argument, why not reflect on what income tax started as and where it is today.

Your image said we were only getting like 12 billion in tax revenue in 1913. Obviously we can't go back to that. That would barely buy us a submarine.

Somebody in that top tax bracket can easily afford to pay 35% of their income. Arnold Schwarzenegger, when he was governor, used to say he liked paying taxes because it reminded him of how rich he is.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Donations to religious groups is actually rarely political, it is to help the church and local communities who are served by said church. Religion drives a good portion of donations, most religious people are republicans.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but most local groups that help the poor and needy are faith based. It is not really good methodology to remove a large portion of one group then compare what is left.

Agreed, outright cutting out those numbers would incorrectly alter the outcome.

I think a correction would be fair though. For example creating a standardized methodology to find reasonable ratios for specific conditions then deducting the numbers accordingly. There should be plenty of evidence to support the need for data corrections: Some religions require tithes and the political component in religious organizations has definitely strengthened as exemplified by the activity of religious factions of the Tea Party [as opposed to the original secular and purely economically oriented Tea Party prior to about 2008].

The correction may or may not overturn your point entirely but at minimum would explain a good portion of the observed difference in donated dollars.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You have taken one tax, income tax, out of the total tax burden. When it comes to state and local taxes, low and middle class taxpayers pay disproportionately more than the rich Do the wealthy pay lower taxes than the middle class?

When you look at the total tax burden and see what is paid as a percent of income it is apparent that a wage earner who earns $45,500 and pays 26.9% of that in tax is going to find it far more difficult to meet day to day expenses than a millionaire who has a total tax burden of 33.3% of a cash income of $1,542,000. Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

Also relevant to this discussion is how much of the money actually brought in by an individual is subject to taxation. The middle class do not have adequate income to use tax avoidance schemes and generally don't have a yacht that they can write off as a tax deduction so almost all of their income is subject to taxation unlike the ultra rich.

The corporate tax rate in the US is high, but it is not nearly as high when you calculate the allowable deductions, in fact it drops from #1 to about average. Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world? | PunditFact

I'm not going to argue this to death because I don't think it is really relevant to the topic, but neither am I going to let your claims go unchallenged.

Good points.

And why are we talking about tax rates for the ultra rich again?...isn't this thread about affordability for the middle class?

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Good points.

And why are we talking about tax rates for the ultra rich again?...isn't this thread about affordability for the middle class?

Has to do with comparing which group bears what relative tax burden. Tax rates in CA is always a hot-button issue, at least in here.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Good points.

And why are we talking about tax rates for the ultra rich again?...isn't this thread about affordability for the middle class?

Its related to the crisis of the middle class.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Clampdown69

That may be true. But a family can't rent a room and the majority of Londoners actually do live in single family attached homes and many working class people can get rent subsidies only available to the dirt poor here in America. Off topic though.


Can Joe the electrician, Tammy his dental hygienist wife and his son and daughter afford to live anywhere in the city and county of San Francisco, if so where?

Yes.

Electricians make about $100k/yr, slightly over, base. Many work overtime. Dental hygienists I'm less sure about. Maybe $60k? I don't really know. There's plenty of San Francisco that you can live on at $150k/yr combined. Noe Valley or Marina? Probably not today, although if you got in 10 years ago and are in a rent-controlled unit or bought, yes.

There's a lot of people who make that kind of money in San Francisco. The only places really in that income bracket for a 3bd house is really Outer Mission, Outer Sunset/Richmond, Crocker Amazon, maybe Portrero and the less desirable parts of Mission. The last relatively affordable areas of San Francisco for the middle-class looking for a family home have gotten very competitive. It's much easier to find rentals in the more desirable areas since there's less competition. That's really only happened in the last two years or so though. I think we're at about the end of the crazy rental appreciation, but who knows. It's not like I have a crystal ball. Thing is, San Francisco isn't really that expensive. You're not going to find housing in the suburbs with good schools for significantly less. There's Fremont, I guess. It has pretty good schools. But most of the Peninsula and South Bay is just as expensive.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Malloric

San Francisco isn't really that expensive.

No? Well then that settles it. Perhaps many in this forum are mistaken, then.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

Republicans also favor policies that cut and eliminate social welfare programs that benefit the poor and middle class, which goes countless times further than mere charity donations.

Snicker. Such social welfare programs *don't* benefit the middle class, who end up paying for them. And who end up having the section 8 people and the projects built in their neighborhoods.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

Snicker. Such social welfare programs *don't* benefit the middle class, who end up paying for them. And who end up having the section 8 people and the projects built in their neighborhoods.

well, I can think of a few that benefit the middle class:
Social Security
Medicare
Unemployment Insurance
Pell Grants
low interest student loans