Texass........

[grapedrink]

YES, TEXANS ACTUALLY PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN CALIFORNIANS


Data Source itep.org/whopays
Texas politicians often tout how low their state taxes are, compared to “crazy liberal” states like California. What they actually mean, is that state taxes for the very rich are low, compared to states like California.
If you judge tax equity, by taxing the richest more than the poorest, then California has the most “equitable” state/local tax structure in the US. Texas has the 2nd least equitable tax structure in the country.

Texas is part of what the ITEP calls the “Terrible 10”:
IN THE 10 STATES WITH THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX STRUCTURES (THE TERRIBLE 10), THE LOWEST-INCOME 20 PERCENT PAY UP TO SIX TIMES AS MUCH OF THEIR INCOME IN TAXES AS THEIR WEALTHY COUNTERPARTS. Washington State is the most regressive, followed by Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
ITEP or Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, is a non-profit, non-partisan tax policy organization.
Now, if you’re skeptical about this report, and you’re thinking, “this sounds like liberal Californian propaganda”, well think again, The graphic reportedly contains 2018 data from the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), which compiled statistics regarding IRS income tax, sales tax, property tax, and information from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey from sources including the U.S. Census Bureau, according to a report by the San Antonio Express News.
According to ITEP, Texans whose salaries fall into the lowest 20 percent of income earners (making less than $20,900 annually) pay about 13 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Meanwhile, Californians in the bottom 20 percent (making less than $23,200 annually) pay 10.5 percent. In Texas, the middle 20 percent of income earners ($35,800-$56,000) pay 9.7 percent in state and local taxes in contrast to middle-income Californians ($39,100-$62,300), who only pay 8.9 percent. Most glaringly, the top 1 percent of earners in Texas ($617,900 or more) pay 3.1 percent of their income in contrast to top earnings in California ($714,400 or more) who pay 12.4 percent.
Despite California being the fairest tax system in the country, CA’s tax system still isn’t really progressive, which exemplifies how regressive state and local tax structures in the US are across the board.

Why is the top 1.1-19.9% income group not in that graph

Probably because it would show that income group paying more taxes in California and less in Texas than the 60% middle. Especially given how steep the drop is in Texas.

No agenda there in that graph

 

[grapedrink]

Link? Who debunked it Rogan?

I did. See my comment above.

I’ve been crushing narratives lately

 

[Woke AF]

I’ve been cherry-picking narratives forever

Fixed for honesty

 

[$kully]

You mean lIke the narrative that the overly woke are racist against Asians?

 

[grapedrink]

Fixed for honesty

Do you have a rebuttal to my post about why the 1.1-19.9% income class, which ranges from ~$70k-700k, isn’t represented in that graph
You post that nonsense, and Im the one who’s cherry picking

 

[grapedrink]

You mean lIke the narrative that the overly woke are racist against Asians?

I proved that in that thread.

 

[hal9000]

Who do we think Texas' regressive tax structure hurts the most? And which group do you think makes up the largest share of both populations?

Taxes are surprisingly similar in Texas and California

www.motherjones.com

 

[Sharky]

I can’t stand it anymore.

WOKE IS PAST TENSE YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

There. I feel better now.

 

[hal9000]

I can’t stand it anymore.

WOKE IS PAST TENSE YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!

There. I feel better now.

settle down grammer not-see.

 

[grapedrink]

Who do we think Texas' regressive tax structure hurts the most? And which group do you think makes up the largest share of both populations?

Taxes are surprisingly similar in Texas and California

www.motherjones.com

Finally, somebody willing to post all of the income distribution . . . . And it shows exactly why the other graph left out the 1.1-20%

It makes sense that a state without an income tax would play out like this. There is only so big of a house that most people want to live in, even if they are super wealthy, which caps how high the property taxes can get. Whereas income for the 1% scales up much higher. Which is why it's tough to compare a state with income taxes to another without.

How exactly are the poor being taxed in Texas if they are not homeowners? Sales tax? I honestly don't know.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Finally, somebody willing to post all of the income distribution . . . . And it shows exactly why the other graph left out the 1.1-20%

It makes sense that a state without an income tax would play out like this. There is only so big of a house that most people want to live in, even if they are super wealthy, which caps how high the property taxes can get. Whereas income for the 1% scales up much higher. Which is why it's tough to compare a state with income taxes to another without.

How exactly are the poor being taxed in Texas if they are not homeowners? Sales tax? I honestly don't know.

Yeppers on that, and the graph is by percentage of family income. Median household in TX is $64k range and CA is a hair under $80k.

 

[grapedrink]

Yeppers on that, and the graph is by percentage of family income. Median household in TX is $64k range and CA is a hair under $80k.

Which reinforces my point that we aren’t really comparing apples to apples with an income tax state vs a non income tax state. And if we do compare, Texas wins once you have a grown up job. There is no getting around income taxes if you live in California, but you do have the choice of whether you pay property taxes or not. Texans also have the latter choice, and I’m sure that there are a fair amount more homeowners in lower income brackets in Texas. Whereas California has a lot of of high income renters.

As for the bottom 20%, a lot of that is explained by consumption taxes. Fair or not it is what it is.

 

[kidfury]

"once you have a grown up job."

The woman who barged into the elementary school in Uvalde had left her job harvesting produce in a field. Bet she's rolling in dough.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Which reinforces my point that we aren’t really comparing apples to apples with an income tax state vs a non income tax state. And if we do compare, Texas wins once you have a grown up job. There is no getting around income taxes if you live in California, but you do have the choice of whether you pay property taxes or not. Texans also have the latter choice, and I’m sure that there are a fair amount more homeowners in lower income brackets in Texas. Whereas California has a lot of of high income renters.

As for the bottom 20%, a lot of that is explained by consumption taxes. Fair or not it is what it is.

The median Californian household's jobs are $15k more "grown up" than the median houslehold's job in Texas. It's almost a 25% improvement over Texas median household income as a baseline.

I am glad to see you saying that renters aren't affected by property tax, and I hope you ram that argument up the conserBBative's turd cutters with extreme brutality!

Owning a house in Texas is like owning monkeypox.

 

[grapedrink]

The median Californian household's jobs are $15k more "grown up" than the median houslehold's job in Texas. It's almost a 25% improvement over Texas median household income as a baseline.

Yes, and the CA cost of living is also higher, especially on the coast. For good reasons, of course, and it's worth it. But it's higher. The increased cost of fuel and real estate is priced into everything we buy. Therefore $65K in Texas probably gets you a similar standard of living as $80K in California.

I am glad to see you saying that renters aren't affected by property tax, and I hope you ram that argument up the conserBBative's turd cutters with extreme brutality!

On one hand you could say they are because the landlord passes on the cost. On the other hand the landlord charges the market rate, for a profit or not. Either way, the tax that the renter is paying on behalf of the landlord isn't showing up in the tenant's income bar of this bar graph.

It's clear as day that when you finally see that conveniently missing 19% ( ), the drop in taxes in is quite significant in Texas once you hit your stride economically. Mostly because those who own a home don't see increased taxes if they stay in the same home, while income tax will always scale up.

These graphs and the Mother Jones article are nothing more than desperation hit pieces by democrats and their media stooges. Lots of high profile politicians and celebrities are retwating it brainlessly and ignoring the glaring flaws in their half baked argument. California is losing residents to Texas like crazy, and it might cost a House seat and therefore an EC vote.

 

[Sharky]

The higher the property tax the landlord pays the higher the rent goes. Pretty basic.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Yes, and the CA cost of living is also higher, especially on the coast. For good reasons, of course, and it's worth it. But it's higher. The increased cost of fuel and real estate is priced into everything we buy. Therefore $65K in Texas probably gets you a similar standard of living as $80K in California.


On one hand you could say they are because the landlord passes on the cost. On the other hand the landlord charges the market rate, for a profit or not. Either way, the tax that the renter is paying on behalf of the landlord isn't showing up in the tenant's income bar of this bar graph.

It's clear as day that when you finally see that conveniently missing 19% ( ), the drop in taxes in is quite significant in Texas once you hit your stride economically. Mostly because those who own a home don't see increased taxes if they stay in the same home, while income tax will always scale up.

These graphs and the Mother Jones article are nothing more than desperation hit pieces by democrats and their media stooges. Lots of high profile politicians and celebrities are retwating it brainlessly and ignoring the glaring flaws in their half baked argument. California is losing residents to Texas like crazy, and it might cost a House seat and therefore an EC vote.

Way to focus on the big picture of the 19% most fortunate! But you go grrrl!

Texas totally isn't a gigantic shithole with no zoning laws. You should move there. You'll have more disposable income to replace all the sh!t you didn't bother filing an insurance claim for after the last hailstorm. Enjoy!

 

[grapedrink]

The higher the property tax the landlord pays the higher the rent goes. Pretty basic.

That's one argument. The other argument is that the landlord charges the market rate, because if it's too high the tenants will look elsewhere.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

That's one argument. The other argument is that the landlord charges the market rate, because if it's too high the tenants will look elsewhere.

That's the stuff! Northern Shores is sound asleep. We won't get any more Campbell bros blasphemy until we rush to the erBB tomorrow and see what Sinter Klaus left under the Christmas Tree.

We're counting on you!

Also, if the Mother Jones article isn't accounting for the renter's contribution to property tax, that bolsters their argument, because Texas has higher property tax rates and lower-income people spend more of their income relative to middle/upper income brackets.

A brief googling tells me Texas's property tax rate is more than double California's.

Let me know if you need suggestions on where you want to move in Texas. Best surf options are Waco, SPI Nat'l Seashore and Corpus/Aransas in my view.

Houston is a safe city. I'm sure nothing like the horrors of some dude jacking off down by the bone-dry paved "river" in California. Dallas Fort Worth is a very charming walkable city. Nobody has to spend an hour in traffic each way to get to/from work and the gated community they have to live in so their neighbors don't decide to start a hog farm or a halfway house.

 

[grapedrink]

Way to focus on the big picture of the 19% most fortunate! But you go grrrl!

Actually no, they aren't the most fortunate. I'm talking about everyone between 20% and 1% that was conveniently left out of that graph that's been floating around. I would imagine that you are somewhere in that bracket, along with many other regulars here. This link covers the range used in the graph:

Yes, Texans actually pay more in taxes than Californians do

While the findings were from compiled from 2018 data, one expert says not much has...

www.chron.com

"In Texas, the middle 20 percent of income earners ($35,800-$56,000) pay 9.7 percent in state and local taxes in contrast to middle income Californians ($39,100-$62,300), who only pay 8.9 percent. Most glaringly, the top 1 percent of earners in Texas ($617,900 or more) pay 3.1 percent of their income in contrast to top earnings in California ($714,400 or more) who pay 12.4 percent."

So I'll ask again . . . . where on the graph are the people between ~$60K and $600-700K That is an incredibly huge range, and it is beyond dishonest to leave that out. The thresholds on the Mother Jones link seem a bit more accurate and show a higher amount to crack the top 20%, but either way it shows that once you crack 6 figures and up mark in Texas you pay significantly less. And a lot of the people who left California for Texas are of that ilk.