CA seeks to avoid tax hike... In this week's edition of Liberal Hypocrisy

a reply to: Bhadhidar

what are talking about pretty sure they take in more fed snap benifits and wealfare and medicaid than most states.

I don't think that technically counts as "racketeering", think more of the Mafia charging for "protection" kind of stuff. THAT is racketeering, a "service" that "provides" a "solution" to a "problem". You know, like not getting your knees bashed in when Vinny comes to collect & you don't pay up.

This does, however, highlight a loophole for people to use, though anyone with half a brain cell knows this already exists. Want to pay less in taxes? Charity deduction loophole works for that. It's fairly simple, really. If one didn't donate something they could write off before, they will now. The resulting numbers game is called "off-setting".


Edit 2: Because it bugs the f# out me that SO MANY people in this thread evidently have no clue what racketeering actually is and just throw the word around for effect & stars, here's what it is:

A common example of a racket would be if a group of people cut the tires of cars on a specific street, and then that same group, or one in concert with the one cutting tires offered "protection" to the owners of the cars for a price. This fits the definition of a racket because without the organization’s slashing of tires in the first place, the demand for "protection" would be low or non-existent. Other examples of racketeering activity include extortion, money laundering, loan sharking, obstruction of justice and bribery.

www.investopedia.com...

The charity loophole is in no way, shape or form racketeering, it's completely legal.

It’s always funny to read right wingers struggling with issues they can’t possibly understand. a reply to: Edumakated

a reply to: Nyiah

Of course, states are not nonprofit charities.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What a dumb reply (to use your own language). This shows you know zero about how state taxes work. It has nothing to do with "high traffic areas". Your post is a very ignorant one. Texas has zero state income tax and is one of the wealthiest states. Florida is another example and I believe Texas and Florida are two of the fastest growing states by population. (They are also some of the largest/"high traffic" states)

Cali Spending

You have no idea how much waste the state of Cali has. It's awful.

I think most Californian's are o er reacting and it won't effect them. Approximately 3 million Californians, experts calculate, pay more than $10,000 a year in state taxes. The reason is there upper tax rate is 13.3 percent. That's huge considering the next closest state is ohio at 9 percent. But reality is Californian's need to be making over $537,500.00 to have to pay taxes over 10000. And that's about 10 percent of the population.

Easiest solution to this lower their top tier tax rates california is rediculously expensive they have not only the highest state taxes on the country but the highest sales tax as well. One of the reasons I moved away and now live in a state with no state taxes and lower sales tax.

a reply to: Edumakated

California gives something to the tune of $1.40 to the federal government for every $1.00 it gets back in Federal funds.

They are the 6th largest economy on the globe (if they were a country).

They subsidize all the red states (takers).

The REAL HYPOCRACY is red states living off the teet of states like California and then getting upset when California doesn't give them MORE of their money.

HYPOCRACY...Red state stealing from blue states and bitching when they can't steal MORE.

Most Federally Dependent States
1 Kentucky
2 Mississippi
3 New Mexico
4 Alabama
5 West Virginia
6 South Carolina
7 Montana
8 Tennessee

.

.

34. New York
46. California
47. Illinois

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

a reply to: soberbacchus

Tell me what YOU think that list means.

If the IRS audits a single individual prior to going after the state of California on racketeering charges, i'd be willing to march on Washington.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Most Federally Dependent States
1 Kentucky
2 Mississippi
3 New Mexico
4 Alabama
5 West Virginia
6 South Carolina
7 Montana
8 Tennessee

.

.

34. New York
46. California
47. Illinois

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

So what you are saying here is that California, a state with the most to give, isn't willing to give?

Yet, im expected to reach into my empty pockets, sort out the pocket lint from the pennies, and pony up "my fair share"?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Most Federally Dependent States
1 Kentucky
2 Mississippi
3 New Mexico
4 Alabama
5 West Virginia
6 South Carolina
7 Montana
8 Tennessee

.

.

34. New York
46. California
47. Illinois

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

So what you are saying here is that California, a state with the most to give, isn't willing to give?

More.
Disproportionately so.
Someone earning 1 million dollars in TX vs. 1 Million Dollars in CA should owe the Federal Government the same amount.

The GOP figured out a way to financially penalize people for their political beliefs.

Politics aside, it's a little sickening.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: soberbacchus

Tell me what YOU think that list means.

The page clearly explains it in detail.

Both state governments and individuals in Red States are takers and blue states on average fund those takers.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: soberbacchus

Tell me what YOU think that list means.

The page clearly explains it in detail.

Both state governments and individuals in Red States are takers and blue states on average fund those takers.

If you actually read the study the methodology being used is questionable...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Then you completely misunderstand, which is why I asked what YOU think it says. Surely you have the ability to read the underlying research and not the initial opening paragraphs?

The methodology is flawed because if we look at Texas for example:

Texas has no state tax, is among the lowest who depend on the federal government, but def takes more than Cali? Why? Because Texas says "Give us our money back". Ron Paul had a great discussion on this when he was running for president. The way he felt, it was Texas' money, and it was his job to make sure their money went back to them. Most American's agree with this mentality. The discussion was about earmarks and how he was anti earmarks yet he earmarked bills. Why? Because he knew that if he didn't earmark bills Texas would lose it's money to the waste of federal government. Almost ALL red states follow this same mentality. This is not "leeching" or "not paying your share" in any way, and shows a complete ignorance of tax code/law when trying to make the argument for such.

So according to that link, Texas is "more dependent" on the federal government, but arguably has one of the best economies in the US (Cali is slightly better) and has an economy growing among the top 3 because they make the government return quite a bit of money they pay out. It is the philosophy of Texan's that they can better use their own money. They leave enough with the federal government for military defense etc as that is the purpose of the federal government in their mind.

Edit: You are also skipping that fact that the years involved with many of the "red" states involved a "state of emergency" and federal funds were directed to those states. Cali just pulled quite a bit of Federal funding for the fires, so their stats will be skewed for 2017 and it will look like they are "more dependent".

a reply to: soberbacchus

Do you think those people don't pay the federal government the same amount? You are showing some major ignorance here.

Edit: You realize that in your example a Californian would have actually been paying LESS (prior to the new tax change) to the federal government as they are allowed to deduct their state tax from Federal Tax?

You seem to be conflating TOTAL taxes with Federal taxes.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
Taxpayers in deep blue states don't mind paying higher taxes as long as the taxpayers in the rest of the states pick up their tab in the form of a tax deduction for the taxes they paid.

a reply to: Bob350

Explain what you think you said please.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: soberbacchus

Then you completely misunderstand, which is why I asked what YOU think it says. Surely you have the ability to read the underlying research and not the initial opening paragraphs?

The methodology is flawed because if we look at Texas for example:

Texas has no state tax, is among the lowest who depend on the federal government, but def takes more than Cali? Why? Because Texas says "Give us our money back".

But that’s no longer the case. Thanks to demographic shifts, a surge in military spending and other factors, Texas has crossed the break-even line. In six of the past eight years, including the entire tenure of President Barack Obama, Texans got more out of the federal Treasury than they put in.

www.dallasnews.com...

a reply to: raymundoko
The states that have high taxes that can be deducted from your Federal Income Tax are taxes not paid into the Treasury. If the tax deduction for high tax states are are not paid into the Treasury the money needs to be replaced by taxes paid elswhere or just added to the debt.
Am I wrong here?