| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (82)

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:05PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LaughingTarget:
Apparently it's not.

The ratio is (total revenue to the state government)/(total personal income within the state).

This ratio is lower now than at other recent times (like half of the years in the last 10 or 42). So that means of the money people are making within the state, the state is taking less of it as a percentage than at many times in recent years. It's pretty basic and you managed to not understand it or just plain are making crap up. Click the link. Learn something.

You do realize there's a lot more to taxation than just personal income tax, right? Sales tax is not progressive, for example. There are states with no personal income tax at all that still take in a lot of tax revenue.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:27PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh for Christ sakes. Do the math.

If you have one person in the state making $1 million and 9 people making $20,000, the total state income is $1,180,000. The person making $1 million is taxed at 8% effective and the people at $20,000 are taxed at 2% effective. This is a tax generation of $82,000.

The total revenue is $83,600
The total state income is $1,180,000

$82,000/1,180,000=7.08% or $7.08 per $100 earned generated from taxes.

Now the guy making $1 million decides he had enough of the taxes and moves to Texas. This leaves 9 people making $20,000 each and the state increases the income tax to them to 3%. The state income is now $180,000 with total state revenue of $5,400.

$5,400/$180,000=3% or $3 per $100 earned generated from taxes.

$7.08 per $100>$3 per $100

Please, please, PLEASE tell me you don't do anything important that requires remedial third grade math.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:29PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ignore the $82,000, I put in 5 instead of 9 the first time through and caught it but didn't change two of them to $83,600.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:43PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LaugingTarget:
Stop making up your own figures and working forward from them. The actual figures are in the link I gave.

In 2010 (projected), the state will genereate $6.93 in revenue (taxes) per $100 of personal income in the state. In 2007 it was $7.57 per $100 of personal income in the state. In 1999, it was $7.45/$100. In 1991, $6.72/$100. 1984, $6.96. Right now in 2009 the actual tax rate is lower than it was under "government is the problem" Ronald Reagan in 1975 (next year it is very slightly higher than it was in 1975).

Note that it is lower now than in the recent past. Thus, on the whole, people in California are paying lower taxes to the state right now than most (meaning more than half) years in the last 10 or in the last 42.

So why are you doing your own figures forward from tax brackets. Again, that's only personal income tax, it doesn't take into account other taxes. And besides, it's unnecessary since I gave you the actual figures.

Stop ridiculing my math skills just because you cannot absorb the figures you were given.

So, if what you say about big earners leaving is true, then actual taxes must be dropping even faster than earned dollars are leaving.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 8:40PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know NBC are liars but I didnt think it was fake when they had the legeslative body of Cali on the radio talking about declaring a state of emergency so they could get around the 2/3rd majority issue...they are doing exactly what I said they are going to do. I'm sure you'll hear all about it when the vote comes up.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 8:48PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Shag:
You're confused. The state of emergency just allows a budget to be passed with a regular majority instead of a 2/3rds majority. It does not work for raising taxes, which still requires a 2/3rds majority.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 4:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And here I thought they were shut down for making shitty games and those shitty games not selling well enough.

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its all about Texas baby, Hook 'Em

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 8:13PM CheeziePotato said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh yeah! TEXAS FTW
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The trouble is, no one wants to admit how true that is.

Though it should take one look at Detroit to see where California is headed.

AZ may have a big deficit (thanks to Napolitano, your new Sec of Homeland Security(thank you for taking her away, Obama!)) but, (and libs hate this) they solved the shortfall for this year without raising taxes. California would never do that.

There's a reason that AZ has a huge number of technology companies (Intel does a lot of their development here, along with over 100 optics companies, Rathyeon, Hughes, they're all here). It's our relatively low taxes, low cost of living, and friendly people.

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:32PM SpaceFox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I live in Florida so I don't give.

Anyone who's sick of California, I heard Charlotte, NC is a pretty good place to live.

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:44PM GuardianLegend said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Canada is more left-wing than Cali, and has higher taxes. They also have labor (union) political parties that are popular too.

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:48PM GuardianLegend said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada#Personal_income_taxes

According to the chart at the bottom of this page, a married Canadian couple with 2 kids pays about three times as much in taxes as the same American couple. So even after factoring in tax breaks for Canadian game companies, it appears that Canadians pay far more taxes, and yet still manage to attract big movie studios and game companies.

Sup with that?

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:51PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Many of those corporations are headquartered outside of Canada, especially movie studios. I'm not sure how that impacts the tax structure, but in many regions of the world, it's huge. Further, look at other costs, like comparative salaries, payroll taxes, and benefits.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:52PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A lot of those taxes are returned as subsidies to what is considered desirable industry. For example, Ubi pockets a lot of it. This is part of the problem, competing against places with lower standards of living and subsidies.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 7:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@why not the LS2LS7? - Canada has a low standard of living compared to the States? This is news to me what with our constantly high-ranking HDI, life expectancy, and other scores...

@GuardianLegend

See, you're actually giving the reason without knowing it.
Business taxes are what matters.
A game company moves to Canada, the province and/or city and/or country gives them a subsidy or tax rebate.
The U.S. tries to make money off of its companies through taxes while keeping personal income rates low.
Canada tries to make money off of its people through taxes while enticing businesses to come by keeping business taxes low. The money they lose in the subsidy will be made up in through personal taxes.

The Canadian rationale is this: Good Job w/High taxes (Ubi/Montreal) > No Job w/Low taxes (Pandemic/California).
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 7:40PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Argus:
Take the chip off your shoulder and read my post again. My post said that both lower standards of living and subsidizes make it tougher to compete. Canada has subsidies for game development (especially in Montreal!), thus the problem. Other places mentioned in this article (Eastern Europe, Asia) have lower standards of living.

And I never even said anyone had a low standard of living, I said lower.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 7:45PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whoops, where I said Montreal, I meant Quebec.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2009 1:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Chip off my shoulder? Your comment was very simply misinterpreted, don't be so defensive!
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:49PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If I absolutely had to leave California and Texas wasn't an option, meaning overseas is somehow required, I'd move to New Zealand.

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:50PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Immigrating (or even just working in) to New Zealand isn't easy, there's a good chance you wouldn't qualify.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:52PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not true. Between my education level (masters degree), profession (auditing), credentials (CPA), and age (28), I have enough points in their immigration structure to obtain immediate citizenship if I were offered a job there.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:00PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can I buy you a plane ticket? I hate to see a fellow gamer in distress as you obviously are.

Where did you find the point's system on NZ's site? I can't find a way to calculate scores on NZ's site. Furthermore, they don't even seem to express an absolute "you're in" score unlike Canada. They seem to grade upon a curve every year, selecting the top "X" candidates from the expressions of interest.

I personally would have difficulty hiring a CPA auditor who can't figure out that tax revenue per $100 income within the state is not a ratio that goes down if large earners leave the state. That's some pretty basic math and business understanding there.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:19PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's a shortage of me in America and I still have hope we can turn this around if we kick Obama and Crew out in 2010 and 2012, so I'm hardly in distress, just making a comment that if I otherwise had to work outside the US, it would be there. For instance, I just bought a $40,000 car in cash, no loans required.

Use this calculator:

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/pointsindicator/

Auditors are on the long term skill shortage list:

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/templates/custom/SearchskillshortagesPopup.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={17CCA408-8572-4E07-80EB-26FAC203D4F7}&NRORIGINALURL=%2fmigrant%2fstream%2fwork%2fskilledmigrant%2fLinkAdministration%2fToolboxLinks%2fessentialskills.htm%3flevel%3d3&NRCACHEHINT=Guest&level=3

I get 205 points when I add my post-graduate degree and 4 years experience in the field.

The guaranteed entry of 140 seems to be gone (I haven't looked at their page in 9 months), but based on my high score, I'm basically a shoe in if I get a job offer there since their site has shown that in the past two weeks, people with well below my points total have been admitted.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:36PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cool, thanks for the links. That looks just like the Canadian form too, I just wasn't able to find it!

Seriously what's up with the bragging? I just bought a $50K car for cash. I guess I forgot to brag about it!

I'm with you about the 140 points thing, if you look at their stats, unless a lot of people get the same idea as you to apply, you'd be a lock (it's shoo-in, btw, not shoe-in). It's just they don't actually guarantee it. Unlike Canada, where there is a score where you can get in automatically, a score I pass (this year, soon I'll be too old) even without a job offer.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:49PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Texas is projecting a 33% larger shortfall per capita per year (Texas works on a two-year budget system) over the next two years than California is.

I guess it's a Democratic test state too.

Arizona "solved" their shortfall this year, same as California. California requires a balanced budget and this year, just like every year, the budget is indeed (projected) balanced. However, about $8 of it is ridiculous accounting tricks like Arizona's plan to sell the State House and lease it back.

Arizona's projected shortfall of $3.4b (correct me if it is updated) is half the size of California's $8b one, but with 1/5th of the population it's far far larger per capita and per GDP. about 3x.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

How can you talk down on California when you're standing in an even deeper hole?

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 5:50PM GuardianLegend said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada#Personal_income_taxes

According to the chart at the bottom of this page, a married Canadian couple with 2 kids pays about three times as much in taxes as the same American couple. So even after factoring in tax breaks for Canadian game companies, it appears that Canadians pay far more taxes, and yet still manage to attract big movie studios and game companies.

Sup with that?

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 6:08PM spin cycle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Holy cow, I didn't mean $8 of it, I meant $8B of it.

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 7:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
! ... who the hell are you?! an imposter :O

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 8:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You, sir, are the imposter.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 8:53PM Jimmyjames said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does it sound to anyone else like Richy-tello is openly admitting that he plans on closing EARS and EALA?

Posted: Dec 4th 2009 9:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I second Cj's Mercernaries2 comment!

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW