Just completed my income taxes -
Feb 15, 2019 16:15:27 #
10MPlayer wrote:
Yes, I owe more this year than last. So much for the tax cut. I live in CA so our 13% state income tax isn't deductible anymore. Sucks. Tax cuts benefit the rich? I'm not rich, just comfortable, so I don't know what to think. Rich is driving a $150,000 car or owning a private jet. Not a 7 year old car, a 10 year old car, and a mortgage. Sure didn't benefit me and my wife.
Don't blame the politicians because you're a fool and live in California.
Texas no state taxes and etc, I saved $20,000.00 a year when I move from NC to TX.
Feb 20, 2019 04:19:27 #
tjw47
Loc: Michigan
I agree with you..
3 1/2 percent more...
On $10,000 income tax that would be $350 of it.
3 1/2 percent more...
On $10,000 income tax that would be $350 of it.
Feb 20, 2019 17:35:09 #
exakta56
Loc: Orford,New Hampshire
Goldwinger: yes you saved big money! Great. But look at Texas schools.
Feb 20, 2019 18:19:11 #
exakta56 wrote:
Goldwinger: yes you saved big money! Great. But look at Texas schools.
They have schools in Texas?
Are you sure?
Feb 21, 2019 06:57:24 #
foathog wrote:
California contributes more the the federal treasury than ANY other state and gets back less than it puts in. And your so-called affordable states take in more than they pay out. How about that bud?
Feb 21, 2019 07:27:12 #
phlash46 wrote:
Just think about how much more they could contribute if we did not have to support over 4 million undocumented aliens. While I am thinking about it, just how many extra Representatives does Ca. have because of the undocumented non voting Aliens, think about that and understand why Ca. has declared itself a Sanctuary State and is fighting against the wall and increased security at the Border.
Alabama now has a case in court trying to contest the counting of Illegals when determining the number of representatives as it deprives states with low illegal population of Representatives in the House and Gives states like Ca, and NY to much power.
Feb 21, 2019 07:29:52 #
letmedance wrote:
Just think about how much more they could contribu... (show quote)
and why would we, who already pay out far more to the Feds than we get back, want to contribute still more to states like Alabama?
Feb 21, 2019 07:33:01 #
phlash46 wrote:
and why would we, who already pay out far more to the Feds than we get back, want to contribute still more to states like Alabama?
To make it clear I was talking about Alabama's representation in the House and not give or take states.
Californian presently is not a Donor State.
I see now you are a New Yorker and as you have many high earners in the big city you pay in more than most states. If every state got back more or even just what they sent in then what would the Federal Govt. use for funding?
Check this list and story and maybe it will help you understand.
http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html
Feb 21, 2019 09:15:25 #
I understood already. It’s called income redistrbution something the Republicans in the receiving states abhor...unless it benefits them.
As for representation in the House I agree.
As for representation in the House I agree.
Feb 21, 2019 09:30:52 #
phlash46 wrote:
I understood already. It’s called income redistrbution something the Republicans in the receiving states abhor...unless it benefits them.
As for representation in the House I agree.
As for representation in the House I agree.
I do really think that SS and Medicare are to be considered income redistribution. These two items were basically paid for by those now receiving them and are the largest part of taxes sent back to the states.
Feb 21, 2019 10:57:51 #
letmedance wrote:
I do really think that SS and Medicare are to be considered income redistribution. These two items were basically paid for by those now receiving them and are the largest part of taxes sent back to the states.
I respectfully disagree on SS being income redistribution. Sounds like you are a proponent of Al Gore's fuzzy math concerning SS. I paid into SS for 45 years and am now collecting. If the government would let me have the choice in not paying SS I would have invested the money. I would be much better off and not relying on Uncle Sam to make the payments.
Vaughan K.
Feb 21, 2019 11:36:21 #
Black Elk Peak wrote:
I respectfully disagree on SS being income redistribution. Sounds like you are a proponent of Al Gore's fuzzy math concerning SS. I paid into SS for 45 years and am now collecting. If the government would let me have the choice in not paying SS I would have invested the money. I would be much better off and not relying on Uncle Sam to make the payments.
Vaughan K.
Vaughan K.
I hope you do not think I referred to SS as being income redistribution, if I did it was a mistake in sentence composition. That retirement insurance the Govt forced me purchase is paying out now and helps maintain the standard of living I am accustomed to.
Left the not out but it is to late to edit.
Feb 21, 2019 15:24:58 #
letmedance wrote:
I hope you do not think I referred to SS as being income redistribution, if I did it was a mistake in sentence composition. That retirement insurance the Govt forced me purchase is paying out now and helps maintain the standard of living I am accustomed to.
Left the not out but it is to late to edit.
Left the not out but it is to late to edit.
No harm no foul. I am with you and I too sincerely apologize for any miscommunication. All good with me. Thanks. Vaughan K.
Feb 21, 2019 21:05:32 #
Black Elk Peak wrote:
No harm no foul. I am with you and I too sincerely apologize for any miscommunication. All good with me. Thanks. Vaughan K.
No foul at all, my mistake.
Feb 21, 2019 23:15:29 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.