Everything Is Bad. Blame the Tax Code.
 

https://i.imgur.com/Vxu4FYz.jpg
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/o...&rref=homepage
Eh ... hard to understand?:k_confused:

I don't pay TAX. :haha:

^Zero taxis, I knew it.:03:

I fall outside the TAX band here in the UK so I keep all my wage packet. :)

I see, bunt of money instead:D

$500,000.00 mortgage interest threshold basically hurts everyone in the major cities and coastal areas which just happen to be areas where democrats are the majority and home prices are high. Coincidence?

Straight in to the bank and straight out again paying bills.

the problem here is that a dependency has been created.

an entire sub culture in America who are entirely dependent upon others paying their taxes. You have a group of people who either dropped out of high school, or got their GED and immediately went into the baby making business trying to maintain a household with mother crawling around on the floor with 3 kids before her 22nd birthday and father heading off to try and make it all work with a minimum hours, minimum skill, minimum wage job. They coast through the year barely making ends meet, until tax season. when they receive an $11,000 "income tax refund" from the Federal Government.

the irony of calling it a refund is hilarious... because undoubtedly, this household's tax burden was likely under $2,000 for the year - so where did the remaining $9,000 come from?

You and I.

so it could be easy to see why someone would be upset that you "didn't pay in your share" - because in their eyes... when you didn't pay in enough, they didnt get enough of your money.

pretty simple.

So a single person with a million dollar house only gets to deduct the mortgage interest on the first 500 grand. Hard to feel sympathy here.

Well, yes. There are not many homes available in California in the urban areas that sell for less than that amount. Single? So this is a tax on lifestyles that are not in that traditional comfy looking Norman Rockwell style? Looks like more of a tax on individuality. Where's the freedom in that?

Maybe not in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons but there are plenty of houses going for much less than that in urban areas. Are you saying that 90210 residents are really going to be harmed by not being able to deduct the interest on the value of their mansions over 500 grand?

As for Norman Rockwell i'm not sure what a dead painter has to do with it but yeah single as in half the deduction given to two people.

You are under the misconception that California is all about the LA area.
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/...e13255952.html

And you also miss the Norman Rockwell point. Why must someone live like June Cleaver to enjoy tax benefits? Why does marriage carry a benefit? Only to support an antiquated Christian ideal of what is "normal". And I will repeat, where is the freedom in that? Don't want to live by an arbitrary standard? Then pay more for your freedom.

While it may not apply to the same degree for the US, in case of Russia I would use the argument from utility - that marriage with kids generates population growth, which serves common good.

From your link:

Note that the median sales price is still $107,000 under the limit for an individual ($607k for a couple) and again we're only talking about not allowing the deduction of mortgage interest on a houses value over the first $500k/$1M

Maybe California ought to get it's runaway housing costs under control before asking the rest of the nation to subsidize it.

Well for one thing they are twice the people so of course they should get twice the tax benefit. Seems like you're saying that you think you are entitled to more than June and Ward just because they live together. Does that include Wally and the Beaver too?

That link is two years old. Runaway real estate is driven by thriving economy so perhaps the CA contribution to the GNP and defense industry should be allowed for despite all the terrible EPA laws restricting pollution and waste that stifle business.

The "rest" of the nation as you put it is economically stagnent.

The claimed cradles of democracy, ancient Greeek city states, did not accept taxes. They saw it as a servile gesture of surrender and subjugation, honour demanded that this was not accepted.

Taxes today stem from medieval societies with villeinage, where the villeins were de facto owned and owed their productivity to their owners/masters.

Today, a monumental apparatus of bureaucrats, professional nannies, polticians and parties live by continuing this scheme. These, and "citizens" that directly live by taxes paid by others, grow in numbers, and cannot get enigh of it. What wonder that is... After all, the parasytical is nature's most suscessful living style, and probably even the reason why heterosexuality was invented: to fight the vulnerability towards one single parasite that comes with genetical monoculture. Cloning - originally is more effective.

Not much excuses can be made for the existence of states. One such argment that can be talked about, is the securing of borders and the proteciton against foreign enemies. Another is maybe basic polcie work, meaning the protection of property rights of people, protecting the three human rights, and enforcing the equality of men and women regarding the law.

But when a state underfunds the military and shows to be impotent to deter an enemy, if the state is unable or in case of severla EU states even is unwilling to protect the borders, and police officers get betrayed by judges that forgive everythign and let the crimjnals go again - why could I be expected to pay taxes then?

Taxes are neither moral, nor just, nor a right the collective holds over the individual. They are a crime, and a violation of all three human rights. Taxes are blackmailing of protection money, based ont he law of the jungle and law of the stronger side, taxes are an expression of the fact that the mentlaity the feudal elites based their villeinage on,still is alive and well today. Those in power, live well by it.

"Altruism" that gets blackmailed and enforced by brute power, is no altruism, but violence. This term, like solidarity, makes sense only if the content that it means to express it is voluntarily and undemandedly given.

I pay for what I expect, want, take. I barter. But I am forced to give much more than I want, for purposes that I ba mjaority strictly oppose, to finance people and causes that I also oppose. I cannot evade it, but I ust not accept it.

Tax avoidance only is a crime when you take more from society than you give back, may it be a single fraudulent person, may it be a company or corporation. But anything that is being taken from you beyond tyour compensation and return for what you take, is plundering, and a crime. In this case, tax evasion, if you can get away with it, is not a crime, but legit, morally fine self-defence.

States mean to live in the company of thieves. Many people find it okay to live with their both hands in the pockets of others. Quite some people have made this their basic income model, they could not live anymore without this plundering. That ranges from wellfare receivers who despite their material impasse think theym ust breed and make more children that they cannot afford, expecting the society to pay for them, leads over overboarding bureaucratic structures and an expanding officialdom, and finally leads to career politicians that make it their model for their life to let the working community pay for their income and giving in return only an uphaodlign of the rules that say that this is how it must be, and self-protecting their parasitical interests.

All these thingss are expression of a deeply anti-social base attitude.

Says a lot about the moral and civilisational "superiority" of our societies. Words like "spineless", "fraudulent", "servile", "parasitical" instead come to my mind.

Now I am grumpy again. Oh wait, I already was. I always am.

Often mirrored here in the UK :yep:

So if that is the case then I say let Californians pay for their success. It's not fair to ask the rest of the "economically stagnant" nation to subsidize it.

Subsidies and market, are antagonists. What yiu get by subsidies,m is an ill economy because non-competitive, non innvative market participants are artificially kept alive by putting them on an expensive drip all others have to pay for.

Subsidies are planned economy, plain and simple.

What makes you think we don't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...y_GDP_(nominal)