Report: California's Lowest Income Families Pay the Most in Taxes (Montclair: low income, sales)

[18Montclair]

This is an excellent report btw:
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/110412_Who_Pays_Taxes.pdf

Measured as a share of family income, California’s lowest-income families pay the most in taxes. The bottom fifth of the state’s non-elderly families, with an average income of $12,600, spent 11.1 percent of their income on state and local taxes.1 In comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $2.3 million, spent 7.8 percent of their income on state and local taxes.

Between 2001 and 2009, California's corporations saw their profits soar nearly 200% but their state tax liability only grew by 68%.

[SportyandMisty]

Imagine going to the supermarket to buy a gallon of milk.

The person in front of you, you notice, is also purchasing a gallon of milk. The person in front of you pays $3.49 for that gallon & departs.

Now it is your turn.

The checkout clerk scans the milk & says “$6.49, please.”

“WHAT!” you exclaim. “The guy in front of me only paid $3.49 for his milk; there must be some mistake.”

The checkout clerk says "...hmmm... I see that you are in the top state income bracket, so I have to charge you $6.49 for the gallon of milk.”

“That’s ridiculous,” you reply. “You can’t charge me more for a gallon than the last guy simply because I make more money than he does.”

We don’t put up with such BS when we purchase milk, yet inexplicably we do put up with exactly this from our state and federal governments.

The primary purpose of government is to purchase things on behalf of all when it is more efficient to do so collectively rather than individually. Thus, everyone should pay the same in dollars and cents for governmentally procured goods and services.

Measured as a share of family income, California’s lowest-income families pay the most in taxes.

That is an invalid metric. The author might as well say "... Measured as a fraction of people who wear boxers instead of briefs, California’s lowest-income families pay the most in taxes."

There is one and only one way to measure how much you pay, and that is in dollars and cents.

And low income families pay less. High income families pay more.

And that, my friend, is immoral.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

And low income families pay less. High income families pay more.

Actually as far as a percentage of income, the lowest income families pay the most state income tax and the highest 1% income families pay the least. 11.1% is bigger than 7.8%

And that, my friend, is immoral.

Indeed.

Its totally immoral that society has sunk to a new low that we now villify the poor in favor of greed, and now we know that the poorest fifth are also paying a higher personal income tax in California than richest 1%. Bravo for our high moral compass!

And the irony in it all is that the vast majority of Americans claim to derive their 'morals' from Christian values.



I remember in another thread someone tried to say that it was Jesus who taught that we should teach a man to fish. No, he never said that-in fact its not even in the Bible. Instead the Lord did this with fish:

19 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matthew 14*

Immoral my @ss.

[Gentoo]

Good response montclair, you have more patients than I. The only thing running through my head was the comparison itself; making purchases and taxes paid are two entirely different things. We're all taxed the same when making purchases but income is taxed differently as it should be, it's just become upside-down and backwards.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Good response montclair, you have more patients than I. The only thing running through my head was the comparison itself; making purchases and taxes paid are two entirely different things. We're all taxed the same when making purchases but income is taxed differently as it should be, it's just become upside-down and backwards.

And this is going to be the end of us. We mock those who want to help the poor, we make those who cannot do for themselves feel like they are a bain on our existence when all the while, they present an opportunity for us to bless the lives of people who need help-and in return we are promised blessings ourselves.

Anyway, I didnt mean to take this to a religious place, but SportandMisty brought up morals and I was like, "Is he for real?"

LOL.

[Setsuko]

The California Forum seems to be turning into the right wing run politics & controversial topics forum. They are all spreading here. What is going on ?

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Setsuko

The California Forum seems to be turning into the right wing run politics & controversial topics forum. They are all spreading here. What is going on ?

what are you talking about?

Nita

[Snort]

The key sentence is one below Monty's quotation:

Higher-income families pay a larger share of their income in income taxes. Lower-
income families pay a greater share of their income in sales and property taxes.

OK, if you own property in CA, it can be assumed that it is assessed at a very high price compared to a comparable property in Butthole, Idaho. Say the owner bought low, thirty years ago and is on a pension, making very little money. He, she, or it, still has to pay taxes on it, except nowadays his two-bedroom piece of crap in Silicon Valley has an estimated value of $700,000. The billionaire, in his modest $4 million dollar home earns a whole lot more, but still pays the same property tax rate.

The sales tax reference? You got me.

What they should do? IMO, flat tax rate for everybody. The problem with nailing the rich is that they hire tax lawyers to find every loophole there is, or, alternatively, they just pick up and leave, which means CA loses revenue directly from them and also when they also haul their businesses out of CA to a more "tax-friendly" state. The tax revenue from former employees is also history, unless these folks can find equal paying work right away.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by nmnita

what are you talking about?

Nita

He's talking about you lol

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

And this is going to be the end of us. We mock those who want to help the poor, we make those who cannot do for themselves feel like they are a bain on our existence when all the while, they present an opportunity for us to bless the lives of people who need help-and in return we are promised blessings ourselves.

Beautifully said!

Think I'll use this somewhere else if you don't mind?