Goodbye, California: Rich States, Poor States (section 8, 2013, transfer)

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Published by The American Legislative Exchange Council: The 11th edition of Rich States, Poor States.

<mod cut: do not post entire articles, particularly not off of paywalled sites like the Wall Street Journal. Users participating in this thread can go to the link at ALEC and download the pdf file to read the text. Wall Street Journal content removed.>

This comes from an organization with a huge conservative bias.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nected/255869/

[Beardown91737]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

<mod cut: removed Wall Street Journal content>

Silly me I thought that the state of California was gaining in population on it's way to 40 Million Citizen's. The great Golden State of California is one of only a hand full that put Money (state revenue) into the Federal Government Treasury.

The state treasury does not send state revenue to the federal treasury. US residents and non-resident worker pay taxes directly to the IRS. Many of those federal taxpayers are located in California but there can be no assurance that federal revenues are spent in the locations where they were collected. The revenues are spent for priorities of the US as a country, borders to defend, federal lands to maintain, enemies to eliminate, commie spies to thwart, regulations upon regulations to concoct, etc. It is bad for California if the USSR sends a nuke, but the defense line may be based in North Dakota. By the logic you propose, landlocked states should not have to pay for a Navy that defends coastal states.

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Diversity is a bad thing, right?

Interested in what part of the post you are replying to said anything that would warrant that response.

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

its laughable for many of these retirees drawing SS and Medicare to hate taxation when the benefits they are getting now are from our taxes. do you really believe that what you contributed in your working years are enough?

SS and Medicare are Federal programs. Recipients to not have to live in the state where they lived when they paid taxes.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas
its laughable for many of these retirees drawing SS and Medicare to hate taxation when the benefits they are getting now are from our taxes. do you really believe that what you contributed in your working years are enough?

Originally Posted by Beardown91737

SS and Medicare are Federal programs. Recipients to not have to live in the state where they lived when they paid taxes.

Lets see, I have worked for 55 years and am still working and paying SS and have paid far more in than I am likely to be given. Many forget that the total of SS and medicare is about twice what is taken from a paycheck as the employer pays about 1/2 also, unless self employed then you pay it all directly. For many SS is just over $600.00 a month. They can't live on that and it never was intended as a living retirement fund, just a supplement to savings and other retirement plans, that everyone should be contributing to from day 1 of working.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas
its laughable for many of these retirees drawing SS and Medicare to hate taxation when the benefits they are getting now are from our taxes. do you really believe that what you contributed in your working years are enough?

Lets see, I have worked for 55 years and am still working and paying SS and have paid far more in than I am likely to be given. Many forget that the total of SS and medicare is about twice what is taken from a paycheck as the employer pays about 1/2 also, unless self employed then you pay it all directly. For many SS is just over $600.00 a month. They can't live on that and it never was intended as a living retirement fund, just a supplement to savings and other retirement plans, that everyone should be contributing to from day 1 of working.

If my dad hadn't died, his social security benefit was going to be $2,800/month (the top benefit). That can be easy to live on, as the median working person lives on less in this country

[Finper]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas
its laughable for many of these retirees drawing SS and Medicare to hate taxation when the benefits they are getting now are from our taxes. do you really believe that what you contributed in your working years are enough?

Lets see, I have worked for 55 years and am still working and paying SS and have paid far more in than I am likely to be given. Many forget that the total of SS and medicare is about twice what is taken from a paycheck as the employer pays about 1/2 also, unless self employed then you pay it all directly. For many SS is just over $600.00 a month. They can't live on that and it never was intended as a living retirement fund, just a supplement to savings and other retirement plans, that everyone should be contributing to from day 1 of working.

My dad is 90 moved here from Denmark in his 30's and gets 1600,00 a month and Medicare.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

You imply they are perpetrating tax fraud by claiming Nevada as their domicile for income tax purposes yet actually living in California. Perhaps you are correct.

The tax law is quite clear on this. The California State Franchise Tax Board (FTB) knows all the tricks in the book. The FTB looks at that fraudsters ATM withdrawals. The FTB looks at all credit card purchases. The FTB looks at every visit to a doctor, dentist, etc. The FTB looks at any rental property. The FTB looks at hotel stays. The FTB looks at where a boat is docked. The FTB looks at when the person entered a National Park inside California. Etc. The FTB looks at *everything*.

When the FTB decides a hypothetical perpetrator of tax fraud is domiciled in California for income tax purposes, she gets a big bill, a penalty, and interest. And then it is up to her to prove the FTB is wrong.

The California FTB is very, very good at sniffing out individual income tax fraud.

This is nothing new, by the way. Take George Whittell Jr. He was born in San Francisco in 1881, an heir to one of San Francisco's wealthiest families. (His father was the founder of PG&E, the Northern California utility, along with many other businesses.) In today's dollars, George would be right up there with Bill Gates and Larry Ellison in terms of being a multi-multi-billionaire. By establishing a residence in Nevada, Whittell avoided the higher income taxes in California, where he spent the bulk of each year at his 50-acre Woodside, California estate, the present day site of Kings Mountain Vineyard. In 1935, Captain Whittell (he liked to be called "Captain") purchased 27 miles of Lake Tahoe shoreline and nearly 40,000 acres. It encompassed essentially 95% of the Nevada shoreline of Lake Tahoe. He built an amazing house there which is now a museum called the Thunderbird Lodge. Take a tour if you get the chance.

The California FTB got him.

Even when the FTB decides a person is not domiciled in California, that person still owes & is assessed California state income tax on every penny of income earned in California. For example, executives of corporations who live & work in, say, Arizona or Oregon who travel to California for business are assessed California state income tax on the days they were inside California. Indeed, their corporate payroll department checks the work calendar of that executive and withholds California income taxes for the correct number of days inside the Golden State. If that person owns rental property in California, every penny is taxed inside California even though the person is a resident of another state.

Etc.

This is good to know, but... unfortunate. I was hoping to get a remote job and spend more time in California, but claim have my "official" residency in Florida. Looks like it won't be so easy... Thanks for the info. Of course, I imagine you only get on their radar if you make truly huge sums of money no?

[James Bond 007]

Wyoming and South Dakota are ranked 8th and 9th, respectively. So how come those states aren't booming up the kazoo with people and businesses moving there like mad?

Low taxes aren't everything.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Wyoming and South Dakota are ranked 8th and 9th, respectively. So how come those states aren't booming up the kazoo with people and businesses moving there like mad?

Low taxes aren't everything.

Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Arizona, Kentucky are booming? due to low taxes and yet couldn't afford to pay their teachers decent wage. a teacher in Oklahoma was reduced to begging in the streets for school supplies

[Hulsker 1856]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

the residents of low tax states are waking up with these non sense. ask teachers from Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona. they know the real deal and low tax is just BS. taxes are the life blood of government. what happens to you of you have low blood pressure? same thing with government.

Those states you cite - and most others teeming with a bunch of yahoos shouting up-by-your-bootstraps! slogans and the like - are heavily dependent upon federal largess in order not to go belly up. And of course we all know where the federal government gets that extra money to funnel to all those states that are too feeble to fend for themselves: from states like California, which send far more $$$ to DC than they receive in return, money which is redirected to the parasite states.

Yet so many yahoos in those states prattle on endless about the scourge of 'wealth redistribution!', oblivious to the fact that but for regular influxes of cash from places like California, they'd go bust!

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...vernment/2700/

https://www.moneytips.com/is-your-st...-net-taker/356

https://people.howstuffworks.com/whi...t-the-most.htm

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

If my dad hadn't died, his social security benefit was going to be $2,800/month (the top benefit). That can be easy to live on, as the median working person lives on less in this country

It is rare for that level to be reached. The vast majority are far below that, so what he got is no indicator of what millions face each day. The average SS benefit is just over $1100.00 per month. Go ahead and try and live on that. Better yet try living on the lower amounts.