Common claim: "For the middle class, Texas's taxes are higher than California's."
Really?
Texas has higher property tax *rates* than California does, and CA's Prop 13 limits assessed value growth, but after you account for higher property *values* in CA, it's a wash (and you get more property for your money in TX).
Sales tax: slightly more in TX.
Income: 0% vs. high
So when there's a California proposal to double tax collections, and which has an 11.55% marginal rate at less than $62,000 in income (hitting 18.05% at the very top of the income scale), Texas, which is already the better deal for most taxpayers, is MASSIVELY better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For context, $163 billion in new taxes would *double* California's pre-pandemic tax collections, and it would be adopted despite a 30% surge in collections and an anticipated $31 billion annual surplus.
The California LAO's current forecast is $51 billion above the biennial budget's numbers. And there are lawmakers who want another $163 billion a year on top of this?
To put a 2.3% gross receipts tax in context, Ohio has a 0.26% GRT that replaced its corporate income tax, its corporate franchise tax, *and* its tangible property tax.
California would impose this in addition to TPP taxes and its 8.84% CIT.
I love a good historical example, but I'm not terribly convinced by this @taxjustice piece holding up classical Athens as an exemplar of progressive taxation embraced by the wealthy, and don't know how you'd distinguish it from, say, all of feudalism. 1/
The basic premise here is that the wealthiest Athenians paid a wealth tax to fund military and religious expenses, and that they took pride in these duties, in contrast to today's wealthy. I'm skeptical on a number of points. 2/
I'm not qualified to adjudicate historians' disputes on these taxes, but most think the eisphora, while sometimes progressive, applied to all landowners, rich and poor. All agree it was low, only imposed during war, and was actually a property tax.
This has struck a chord, and I've seen lots of questions about what happens next. (No, you cannot establish yourself as the official government of Hartford County, sorry.) THREAD. 1/
This is a genuine mess, and the solutions will be imperfect at best. For nonfunctional counties, Treasury will most likely allocate the money to the states for distribution to localities within the county on a per capita basis. But this raises issues. 2/
Governments must certify to receive the funding; does this funding have to be claimed as well, or will Treasury just send it with instructions? And if states allocate it, who is responsible if it's misspent? Does it get recouped from state or locality? 3/
A benefit that (combined with state regular UC) gets most people to about 95% salary replacement through September seems better than one that gets most >100% but expires sooner. But exempting the first $10,200 from tax creates problems. Short thread.
(1) Many people have already filed and will have to file amended returns. Making benefits available as long as needed seems way more important than this complicated retroactive provision, which requires changing tax forms or instructions.
(2) Thirty-five states tax UC and will get about $13B from that this year. Most follow the feds on this, so the exemption will affect them as well. It lowers revenue -- and again, amended return issues, and states have to change their systems very late in the process.
Almost half the states saw revenue increases during the pandemic. Typically not as high as projected, but sometimes exceeding projections. Losses frequently way less than aid. So what do you spend it on if you didn't lose much revenue? Lots and lots of rural broadband? 2/
I understand Congress not wanting states to turn this into tax cuts (though if you give states money they don't need...), but what about states already planning a tax cut? Surely Congress can't ban state tax cuts through 2024. There could be some interesting adjudication. 3/
The initial PIT reductions only applies to wage, salary, retirement, and unemployment income, not business income, investment income, farm income, etc. If the goal is economic growth, no relief for small businesses or entrepreneurs is surprising (and nonneutral).
2/
In fact, small business owners would face higher taxation, not only still facing current PIT rates, but paying a higher sales tax that now applies to business purchases (legal, accounting, advertising, data processing, other professional services).
3/