https://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-texas-cheaper-tax-burden-161359267.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAQpCQdi74JF67FIkV9Hf2YwXHdBSBEEfim9EHc90wmmkDhCLOPbRX6zPeQE9HnmiJ8pe1onPmsNpGyQ5jGqkz9Eeby_59-uWtYkW9KoIBkBJ_A8vFiNogmEc2-RSumApynKqOPATq33XV46_eJ4KIXpNcxE8FMBbIMHP-_sQZaL#

"Though Texas has no state-level personal income tax, it does levy relatively high consumption and property taxes on residents to make up the difference. Ultimately, it has a higher effective state and local tax rate for a median U.S. household at 12.73% than California's 8.97%, according to a new report from WalletHub".

Checkmate! They got us

What is the tax revenue per resident in each state?

I just moved to California from Texas and one of the true downsides is the taxes. 0% to 8% income tax is a massive increase. The people in California who pay less are old property owners who have their homes locked in at a valuation from 20 to 30 years ago with a low property tax rate. If you buy property now the basis is so high the low rate doesn't mean jack. Your $700k one bedroom condo is going to cost you a bundle despite the "low rate". I moved for several reasons but taxes and rent was one of the primary cons.

Now do cost of living due to all the regulations. The times I've been in CA, the gas was more than $1-$1.50 / gal over TX prices.

TomFoolery said:

---

Checkmate! They got us

---

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics:



Decide your conclusion/narrative and select the information that supports your position.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

That says based on Median Household. California's Income Tax is egregiously heavy and progressive on the higher incomes.

Having said that. I don't believe their numbers. I don't know that it is mathematically possible.

These 2 Tax Brackets should cover the Median.
8% on $54,082-$68,350
9.3% on $68,351-$349,137.

Single Tax Deduction of $5,363
Married Tax Deduction of $10,726. Saves less than $1000.

This has Median HH Income in California at $88K. That's well into the 9.3%.

California has a 7.25% Sales Tax.

At 9.3% of $88K, that's $8,184.

The problem with an Income Tax is that people can't control their taxes, unless they make more money. Using a Property Tax, you can buy a smaller house if you want to pay less taxes. OR you can not spend everything you make.

---

I'm not here to defend California's tax system, but a HH income earning $88K would not be paying $8,184. These are marginal tax brackets, so the only portion that pays the 9.3% rate is the income earned between $68,350 and $88,000 in this scenario. The total amount from $0 to $68,350 would be $3009. So the total income tax for this hypothetical person would be $4,836, not $8,184.

I also have a different take on "you can control your taxes". With an income tax, if I earn more, I pay more...but hey, at least I made more money. With property taxes, your property can double in value and you will be paying for those increases (albeit slowly due to the cap) without seeing any personal benefit. If someone determines that my house is twice as much, I'll be paying more in taxes without any increase in income.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Everyone outside of Texas is flabbergasted by how high the property taxes are in Texas.

---

Everyone???? Or only those who think that State Government gets money via income tax? Nevermind, you said everyone…..

Quote:

---

The report breaks it down by median income in the U.S. and the median income in each state. It also assumes the median earner owns a median-valued home, a car valued at $26,220, and spends "an amount equal to the spending of a household earning the median U.S. income," in order to calculate property tax, vehicle tax, and sales and excise tax burdens.

---

This is the rub. Using a national median spending to calculate sales tax in both Texas and California is the same. It also assumes the median earner owns a median-valued home.

I can believe someone with no/minimal income pays less in taxes if you include the prorata share of property taxes paid by a rental owner being passed on. CA also gives a lot of handouts to people that have no income. I think that is a large part of why they have more homeless and very low income people.

That said, for the vast majority of people and especially the most productive in society, CA is way higher. If you are looking for lower taxes, there are better than TX though. The real dream is to be in far southern WA where there is no income tax and then go over the border in OR and buy all your stuff where there is no sales tax. A buddy of my reminds me of how great he has it every time we get together.

To count total tax burden in addition to federal income tax, you have to add FICA and the 7.5% paid buy the employer, in addition to corporate taxes. Locally, you have sales tax and property tax. Also add in federal gasoline tax. Also toll roads are called tolls, but it's a tax by another name. Similar fir car registration fees.

When you add all that up, the total tax burden in the US approaches 50%. They take half of your money from you. That's on par with most of the highest tax rate countries in the world that we laugh at, except we get far less government services back than they do. We are the ones being fooled.

We receive less benefits from our government because 90% of our tax money is already spent on our enormous military to be the international police force for the entire world, government give aways to non- workers and paying interest on the debt built up paying for those.

It's saying if everyone had national median income and home value and was a homeowner, California as a percentage of that income is lower than Texas.

Numbers used:
Income: $69,508
Home value: $244,900

Actual California medians:
Income: $91,905
Home value: $859,800

Bill Clinternet said:

---

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-texas-cheaper-tax-burden-161359267.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAQpCQdi74JF67FIkV9Hf2YwXHdBSBEEfim9EHc90wmmkDhCLOPbRX6zPeQE9HnmiJ8pe1onPmsNpGyQ5jGqkz9Eeby_59-uWtYkW9KoIBkBJ_A8vFiNogmEc2-RSumApynKqOPATq33XV46_eJ4KIXpNcxE8FMBbIMHP-_sQZaL#

"Though Texas has no state-level personal income tax, it does levy relatively high consumption and property taxes on residents to make up the difference. Ultimately, it has a higher effective state and local tax rate for a median U.S. household at 12.73% than California's 8.97%, according to a new report from WalletHub".

---

Hard for me to believe. If you own expensive property but have low income then California may be a better situation tax wise, so perhaps some retirement scenarios.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

That says based on Median Household. California's Income Tax is egregiously heavy and progressive on the higher incomes.

Having said that. I don't believe their numbers. I don't know that it is mathematically possible.

These 2 Tax Brackets should cover the Median.
8% on $54,082-$68,350
9.3% on $68,351-$349,137.

Single Tax Deduction of $5,363
Married Tax Deduction of $10,726. Saves less than $1000.

This has Median HH Income in California at $88K. That's well into the 9.3%.

California has a 7.25% Sales Tax.

At 9.3% of $88K, that's $8,184.

The problem with an Income Tax is that people can't control their taxes, unless they make more money. Using a Property Tax, you can buy a smaller house if you want to pay less taxes. OR you can not spend everything you make.

---

Always against any property tax as it is a tax on unrealized gain, subject to a wide variance in what properties are worth.

It's not just taxes. CA also imposes much stricter and more socialistic regulations that drive up the cost of everyday life. Compare CA to TX on:

-- gas price
-- real estate cost
-- fast food and restaurant cost
-- insurance cost
-- you name it...

These are the "hidden" taxes that make CA cost-of-living higher than TX. Just follow the U-Haul traffic... it's a net migration from CA to TX, not the other direction.

Fake

If you live in Texas, we'll help pay your travel expenses if you'll move there.