http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf

p. 37

“Note: Figures show temporary California tax law enacted in November 2012 (Proposition 30) at 2012 income levels. Temporary provisions impact the personal income tax (three upper-income brackets) through 2018
and the sales tax (.25 cent increase) through 2017. Top figure represents total state and local taxes as a share of income, post- federal offset. Figures for permanent California law can be found in Appendix D on page”

Richard Rider,

It’s a complicated subject, I’ll grant you. Like snowflakes, there are no two “studies” the same.

Thank you for sharing the technique for posting a link. I had assumed, since I gave the name of the ITEP analysis in a previous post, you would be able to locate that and scan the entire study, rather than just the one page I cited.

My apologies, again, for what you considered “cherry picked data”. I thought it was a direct response to your request for the source for my smugly presented “fact” that the average Californian pays less taxes than people in most of other 49 states.

(Appendix A, page 21,22, by the way, http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf)
…………………………………………………………………………
I believe we’ve actually discussed this before, which is why I anticipated your distrust of ITEP. If that site is uber-progressive, I assume we can agree TaxFoundation is at least scosche-conservative.

It seems, however, in their ongoing tiff, TaxFoundation criticized several elements of ITEP philosophy, but not their actual data. Their biggest gripe with the actual data was ITEP,s treatment of the federal offset. (ITEP gives both figures, with/without the offset) and felt that the top quintile should have not been split into three groups. Not that it was incorrect data, but that TF found it “misleading”. I thought that was useful information, but perhaps I, too am biased.
………………………………………………………………………….
I am truly sorry you feel that “Douglas churns out many questionable figures and exaggerates to put his spin on things”; although admittedly, the reason I originally responded to your post was that your constant emphasis on “rates” was, and still is, misleading, in my opinion.

Bad enough that California has the fourth highest tax burden (as a percentage of income), I stress that it is more important that people realize, as discussed before, that the “average” tax burden should be looked at very skeptically. I have seen people on many blogs; this one included, who can’t wait to exit this state, mainly because they have come to understand that it is a “high tax” state. Knee jerk reactions. It is possible, if carefully considered, to move to a lower tax state (for your particular income group, income source, and other tax factors). Also possible to jump from the frying pan into the fire. Even if you do happen into a lower tax state, it could take the remainder of your life to recoup relocation expenses.

I don’t think Ulysses does refunds.

What happened in 2012? We retroactively passed a MASSIVE “millionaire’s tax,” plus bumped up the state sales tax rate a quarter percent.

Net result? It’s likely our tax collections jumped compared to other states in 2012, and especially in the following two years. After all, our politicians are relentlessly seeking that coveted “numero uno” ranking.

BTW, several other states have recently been CUTTING their tax rates — going in the opposite direction. Even Taxachussetts! We’ll, CA has always been a maverick state.

Well done, Douglas! A URL AND a chart number! That wasn’t too hard for you, right?

Well, aside from the fact that you listed table #5, when you MEANT table #6. Close enough by your standards! Grading on the Obama curve, I give you a “B+” — plus the coveted participation trophy of the day.

Now, let’s take it a step further, shall we? You list the DOLLARS collected. But CA is ranked 16th in INCOME per capita, which largely explains the 11th place rank on collections. This relatively low income flies in the face of what most of you progressives claim — that CA is a high income state. On average, it’s definitely not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

A more accurate measure of our tax level is the PERCENT of income paid to state and local governments — not DOLLARS. And, as I keep pointing out, CA ranks 4th in the average per capita PERCENT we pay to state and local governments.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/Facts%20and%20Figures%202014.pdf

Table 5

State plus local collections per capita 2011…$4,938…ranked 11th

John, while Douglas churns out many questionable figures and exaggerates to put his spin on things, he’s not TOO far off in his incorrect assertion above — given his innate dishonesty. If you take the top $70,000 income and assume his family of three and renter status (standard deduction), the owed state income tax (according to my back-of-the-envelope accounting) is about $940.

Remember that from the $70K gross income we take out the standard deduction ($8,984) and take the tax credits for family members and renters credits.

Now, most people would say that $940 is a HELL of a lot more than “little or no income tax,” but let’s just call it a “rounding error” by Douglas.

If you do it for $60K income with the same parameters, you pay about $480 state income tax. For $50,000, you’ll pay ZERO state income tax — and likely get a check back for your exemption credits.

If we assume such a family is “house poor” (buying a modest abode rather than renting — a difficult feat in California), even a $70,000 gross income could end up paying zero or less state income tax — though they’d be living a hand-to-mouth existence from a cash flow standpoint.

Just really chill and relax, grab your chubby ankles, pay your taxes and enjoy the weather…..the money will run out and then you collect…..think on it…an investment….like your government pension finally…..Golden Annuity!

“A family of three with normal itemized deductions would likely pay little, if any, state income tax on incomes (gross) up to $70,000.”

Ridiculous.

Douglas, doing “cut and paste” (or invent and paste) posts from an uber-progressive website is NOT the same as showing the SPECIFIC source. You do that by posting the URL AND (if a full study) the page(s) you are referencing. How can you not know that?

Of course, you DO know that, but choose not to provide such specific source material. Gosh, I wonder why??

Your cherrypicked/invented figures do NOT agree with the Tax Foundation and others as you claim. Au contraire!

Here, let me show you how it’s done:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/annual-state-local-tax-burden-ranking-fy-2011

Go to the interactive graphic map, OR the chart. CA is the fourth highest when it comes to average percent of income paid in state and local taxes.