so far?

0 for 14 ™!

I also have never qualified for EITC. 

I understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. (I know a reasonable person understands, yet I claim the very title of this piece IMPLIES a 55% effective tax rate: misleading and sensationalistic)  effective and marginal rates are ambiguous throughout the article, such as Mr. Miller’s statement : 

“Marginal tax rates for self-employed people in California earning $300,000 and up (who pick up both “sides” of the payroll tax on a chunk of their earnings) could reach 55 percent or more.”

That “chunk” does affect their effective tax, but no longer affects the marginal rate. 

California and federal taxes are very complex. Depending on source of income  and other factors, any two persons with identical incomes could have wildly different tax liabilities, whether in the lowest 20% or in the highest 1%. 

Those who earn over $300K are likely either astute enough or wealthy enough to hire someone to keep them out of the 55% total marginal bracket. 

I still maintain that VERY few, if any, will pay that much. 

If 19,000 US households with income over $200,000 pay NO income tax, how difficult is it to stay below the maximum marginal bracket?

But the *marginal* rate is the most important one because it taxes every *added* dollar made. And it really will be 55% in California for those making enough. It can be avoided by not working any more, or by leaving the state or country.

— John Seiler

And your stats come from a bogus liberal study. For instance, it fails to count the income received by low income folks (EITC, CA tax exemption credits, and other direct subsidies — including food stamps). Poor people may pay some money into the tax system, but they do NOT pay ANY net taxes after the cash and equivalent subsidies they receive.

But then, I bet you knew that.

Gee, that comes to a tax PENALTY for making money — a fine OVER AND ABOVE taking 100% of rich people’s earnings.

And I’ll assume it goes without saying that Krugman supports the confiscatory 55% or highest ESTATE tax rates kicking in next year.

And this fellow is still the darling of the liberal media because . . . ?

Check out their video on the Laffer Curve.

Daniel Mitchell:
“One of my frustrating missions in life is to educate policy makers on the Laffer Curve.

This means teaching folks on the left that tax policy affects incentives to earn and report taxable income.”
…..” If you double tax rates, for instance, you won’t double tax revenue.”

“BUT……it also means teaching folks on the right that it is wildly wrong to claim that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” or that “tax increases always mean less revenue.”

Ceteris paribus: If tax increases were the ONLY factor being changed in Illinois or Connecticut, or California, you might have a point. But when is that ever the case?

Notice Mr. Mitchell doesn’t say it is “wrong” to assume that tax increases always mean less revenue.

He says it is WILDLY WRONG.
————————————————————
My point in this post, however, has nothing to do with the effect the tax increases will have on the budget, or on the California economy. My point is that:

“55% taxes loom for $300K-plus earners in California”

is BOGUS! I seriously doubt if ANYONE in California will pay 55% marginal tax rates.

It’s just sensationalism.

The purpose of the link: the top 1 percent of California pay an effective rate of 7.4% for state and local taxes. That’s ALL state and local taxes. For California income tax, the effective rate is 5.2%, after the federal deduction offset.