Philly's taxes

**~BigTymer~** · 01-20-13, 11:14 PM

Quote from 09. I am sure much hasn't changed. So in other words regualtions and laws killing shit there.
Costs of California’s business regulations: start with $1/2 trillion and keep counting | Bottom Line | an SFGate.com blog The total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product.
The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business.
The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business.

**~BigTymer~** · 01-20-13, 11:17 PM

I was here to post news about somone paying high ass taxes not debate how to fix it. If you that interested then start here. Laws & Regulations - State of California

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-20-13, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

Please explain. I have never had an issue with toooo much money and had to wonder what to do with it.

Investing is the path to lower taxes. Of course, I rely on my father to handle that for me. There are things over shores you can do albeit whilst tip toeing so as not to cross fine legal lines. There are lots of loopholes to legally take advantage of. I don't think all of them should stay or all of them should go. Some are obviously useful for promoting economic growth although others convince people to invest out of state and/or country.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

**~BigTymer~** · 01-20-13, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Investing is the path to lower taxes. Of course, I rely on my father to handle that for me. There are things over shores you can do albeit whilst tip toeing so as not to cross fine legal lines. There are lots of loopholes to legally take advantage of. I don't think all of them should stay or all of them should go. Some are obviously useful for promoting economic growth although others convince people to invest out of state and/or country.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

sounds good to me. If I ever need someone I will hit you up

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-20-13, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

sounds good to me. If I ever need someone I will hit you up

I would refer you to the company my father works for. They manage estates of varying sizes. They've managed to weather the economic down turns of the last decade pretty well. If you're serious I can always refer you. It's never too soon to start planning your retirement.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

**triggerhappy2005** · 01-21-13, 12:46 AM

California is close to balancing it's budget.

California Budget Balanced, Agrees Analyst

**Ranger10** · 01-21-13, 03:07 AM

Page one, paragraph one:

"After years of cutting education and social services to close deficits, California's budget is finally in balance as long as the state lawmakers follow Gov. Jerry Brown's guidance to hold the line on spending, the Legislature's nonpartisan budget analyst said Monday."

Sorry to point this out, but this is exactly what most GOP lawmakers are wishing for the Federal Government, are they not? Aside from cutting education, which I don't support, how is this conclusion made by these guys any different than what the Republicans, even those on this forum, have been asking for? Funny how it would work here, in a heavily Democratic state. I find it... amusing.

"Living within our means, paying down debt, and strengthening education are the right policy choices for California,"

Palmer [Financial spokesman of Gov. Brown (D)] said in a statement. "Given the potential risks to our forecast -- both from Washington and overseas -- fiscal restraint is a prudent insurance policy."

These appear to be Democratic leaders, taking GOP-like measures to ensure financial responsibility. Am I reading this correctly?

Also, I'm not pointing this out to you Trigger, more of a general question to everyone from the article you linked, bro.

*underline mine

**triggerhappy2005** · 01-21-13, 03:30 AM

It seems to me that what Governer Brown did was just common sense, something missing from our Federal representatives. They weren't GOP initiatives but just iniatives. Since the GOP nor Democrats follow these iniatives regulary, they can't be assigned to any one party.

I posted that link in response to BT's assertion that Cali was still in the hole and getting worse. Something also important to note is that Gov. Brown has actually raised funding for education by 5%. He's managed to do this by raising taxes on the wealthy and an increase in the state sales tax. All this approved for by the voters.

It worked.

**Ranger10** · 01-21-13, 03:35 AM

Agreed on all accounts. I think raising taxes is a key element. The GOP have wisely consented to do that on a federal level. Now if only the Dems would start to legitimately cut spending, then I would think we could see some real progress in the "common sense" category.

I don't mean to derail the thread by making this a Federal topic, rather it was just something that worked on a state level, in a traditionally Democratic state, that could be applied elsewhere.

**Glitch** · 01-21-13, 08:49 AM

I get ticked when people talk about these things but fail to talk about everything.

How Getting A Raise Affects Your Taxes

The progressive tax system means that you pay different amounts of tax on different portions of your income. As you earn more money from your job, you'll pay higher rates of tax on your additional income. However, you won't pay a higher rate of tax on all of your income

Meaning he only pays that top rate on the amount over $1mil. HOWEVER

The taxing life of a pro athlete - Los Angeles Times

You actaully pay taxes where you earn them. So winnings from a Tourney in Florida are paid at Florida tax rates. Earning from a commercial filmed in Canada are taxed at Canadian rates. (although there is some federal taxes still due)

The point being that he most likely didn't earn all he 47.8 mil in Cali and therefore doesn't owe their tax rate on 46.8 mil of it.

Even if you assumed he DID make it all in Cali. The difference (if he were to earn the same in 2013 that he did in 2012) and only figuring the top bracket

46.8m * 10.3% = $4,820,400
46.8m * 13.3% = $6,224,400

The change for him is $1,404,000, again assuming he made every penny in the state of Cali.

The federal $ he is going to have to pay no matter what state he lives in so nothing to be said about that.

Of course if he moves to a state with no state income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming) he would say a ton of $ on income tax but may pay more else where.