51–55 of 55 posts
...in New York? I would consider that a jump from the fire into the frying pan.
Yeah, NYC has its own city income tax, on top of federal and state income taxes. And the property tax rates in NYC seem to go up every year.
Yes, leave California for the even bigger nanny state of New York where they're busy hiding your cigarettes and soft drinks... I think there are much better choices of state to relocate to.
Come to Texas. You know you want too :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is one big logic failure. First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which…
> This comment is one big logic failure. Well, yeah, because my comment uses rhetoric, not logic. > First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. In the interest of keeping this post relatively short, I'm not going to make a fully fleshed out argument for whether or not supply-side economics is intended to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole retroactive thing strikes me as incredibly wrong and should be illegal.
the tax law was found to be invalid by a court, so all taxes paid under the law had to revert to the rate paid under the previous law. However, only taxes paid in the last four years are subject to court rulings like this due to statutes of limitation, which is why the CFTB went back four years, and not zero (everyone paying after the law was found to be invalid would have a 14th amendment suit since the law is inval…
This isn't quite true, only part of the law was found to be unconstitutional (the part requiring that 80% of your payroll be located in CA). The FTB could have chose to continue the law but would have to retroactively pay people who previously applied for this deduction and were refused because they had >20% payroll outside of CA.