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.
It's my reality based on my life experience... nothing more or less.
Until you begin to broadcast these "life lessons" on message boards as if they were insighful enough to be magically relevant and instructive to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
and yes... I personally know retired wealthy people that no longer reside in California... many still have ties here with homes... they are meticulous to document their time out of State so as not to fall under California Income Tax.
The number of friends that people have never ceases to amaze me. Hopefully, yours are aware in this case that California taxes all income from all sources while a resident and all income from California sources while a nonresident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Anyone that doesn't believe man is not affected by Economics has blinders...
What I said was that the wealthy do not go hopping from state to state or country to country over a few cents worth of extra taxes at the margin. If you are wealthy, so much money is left over after paying taxes that the taxes themsleves have no material effect on your lifestyle. Abandoning personal, family, professional, educational, religious, charitable, medical and other networks built up over years in a particular location will have a vary serious impact on your lifestyle. Taxes alone simply do not drive individuals or corporations around. To think that they do is to be exceptionally gullible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
As to Americans abroad... I lived and worked in Austria for a stint after college... it was a great experience if for no other reason than to gain prospective...
At least a sip of life abroad is always a good idea from a perspective-broadening point-of-view. If you don't have a chance to do that as a student, doing it as a worker is definitely a good idea. Despite what people may hear from bloviating American exceptionalists or triumphalists, the way we do things here is not necessarily the only or best way in which they can be done.
The problem isn't with taxes per se (which most people are effectively clueless about), but rather with the tilted distributions of wealth and income that current tax structures help to promote and perpetuate. There are HUGE differences between what people think these distributions are and ought to be on the one hand, and what they actually are on the other. In the real worlld the wealthy have far, far, far, far more income and wealth than what everybody else thinks they have or ought to have. The wealthy are simply painting everybody else into economic corners. That's the problem.
Hey major b, why don't you work harder so you can become wealthy? Then you can give it all away to all the people who watched you bust your ass becoming successful! Good idea, right?
Hey major b, why don't you work harder so you can become wealthy? Then you can give it all away to all the people who watched you bust your ass becoming successful! Good idea, right?
That's not how the current system works so I'm not sure why you'd suggest it to someone else
[quote=Ivory Lee Spurlock;39554495]Oh my my, the poor down-trodden rich. What are they belly-aching about this time? They raise the taxes on athe rich so now instead of having 60 million $$$ they only have 34 million $$$. Cry me a river. Please.
If it was left up to me, for something so simple as a speeding violation on an interstate, I would fine a wealthy person way more than a middle class or poor person, that is if we want the offender, either rich or poor, to actually "feel" the fine. We'd have to work out the excruciating details and definitions, but morally, it's the only right thing to
If a rich guy commits murder, do we than give 2 life sentences, as opposed to just 1 for a poor dude?
I would laugh at such a ridiculous opinion, but it is too pathetic to laugh at
I, OTOH, think that a wealthy nation is one where per-capita assets are high. It's hard to accumulate assets when a high percentage of one's income is taken in the form of taxes.
You can look this stuff up as well as I can:
Fact: The US has very low median net worth for a developed country.
Fact: The US has very low taxes for a developed country.
You really *need* to look stuff up. Inquire. Think. Your view and the view of most people regarding the economy does not pass inspection. You are more *dependent* on the activity of everyone around you than you are willing to admit.
It was in 1986, and although it was originally intended to be revenue-neutral, it ended up being a two-year tax increase. That said, virtually everyone agreed that marginal rates ought to be lowered, so in that sense, the bill made sense. But some of the clawbacks (what Reagan called "revenue enhancements" and "loophole closings") were damaging in the long-run. Eliminating the tax deduction for all personal interest except that backed by home equity was a key step in advancing the use of a home as an ATM.
Your right there....they should have just eliminated the home mortgage deduction. BUT I am not sure that eliminating the personal interest deduction lead to the housing crises. That is almost two decades later.
Reagan and the Republicans were quite clear that the bill would be revenue neutral, but that it would lead to a significant increase in tax revenues due to increase economic activity.
The only part that I noticed about the 1986 tax reform bill, was the elimination of the IRA deduction. Several rich people I knew got hurt real bad on the reform of the limited partnership tax rules. Particularly those dealing with solar investments. NOW those were a real tax scam prior to 1986!
This is also part of the reason why why Bush's tax cuts for the rich worked so poorly while Obama's tax cuts for the middle and working classes worked so well.
The number of friends that people have never ceases to amaze me. Hopefully, yours are aware in this case that California taxes all income from all sources while a resident and all income from California sources while a nonresident.
Exactly... that's why they are residents of Alaska 6 months and 1 day a year on the most gorgeous water front acreage I have have seen not a National Park...
They own quite a bit of income property in Alaska too in addition to their Pebble Beach Home with Ocean View in California...
They have no California derived Income yet this has not stopped California from trying to collect Income Taxes... so much so they have to document their time in and out of the State...
Same for my High School friend that went on to the NBA... all it took was one year paying California Taxes as a pro for him to pack up and move to Incline Nevada.
Anyone can say taxes have no consequence... doesn't make it so.
Many... no make that just about all of my Law Enforcement friends leave once they retire... a few years back California tried to collect taxes based on the premise their retirement was California derived and it did not work.
I'm 4th generation Californian and time will tell what decisions I will make in the future to minimize my taxes...
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.
