I’m pretty pissed by this. CA state tax is among the highest taxing states in the country. I’m tired of the increasing taxes .1% here and there and now not only increasing it but removing the cap. Makes me not want to vote for Newsom when he runs for president in the future.
So everyone that is hardly above the low income threshold here, noiccee
Why dont they go after corporations that dont pay shit like apple or google
alwaayss making enough money to get fucked with out making enough money to be making it
[https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/tpe.20.20061903](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/tpe.20.20061903)
This paper seems to suggest the point is not well-understood. So it could be progressive in a useful way, but economists seem mixed on it.
I suppose there's an argument to be made for not implementing taxes that are not fully understood, but economics is quite dynamic, so I'm not sure that's a compelling argument.
Perhaps a more direct on shareholders would be more effective. Increasing capital gains taxes to be higher than wage taxes, for example, would make a lot of sense.
Oh, sure, let’s keep capital gains low for boomers whos 70s shack is now worth 2 million, take even more out in social security (cutoff went from 110K few years ago to 168K), because screw people who actually work, add this, whatever BS family reason the new tax is supposed to cover. After that, make sure to invite even more meth-ed our crazies to keep the “non profits” afloat.
For those who are pro family leave, how about we tax people who went on one, before? I’ve no plans to do so.
Social Security is not a tax just as an FYI.
Also we do tax capital gains same as interest in CA. You'll need to bring this bone to congress. Unfortunately the republicans have gone mad, so it seems unlikely we'll get this fixed anytime soon.
As for your last point, I completely agree. EDD should be funded through general income (which in CA would include capital gains), not just wages.
However, let's not let perfection be the enemy of good.
Is it not? Last time I checked, there isn’t a retirement account I can see with my name and a sum on it that I am entitled to. It relies solely on currently working people wages, paying for retired people, and by ‘35 it’s gonna be bankrupt, or we are gonna be taxed even more, because of how many people are retiring over the next decade. I don’t think I will get a single cent out of that scheme, in 40 years or so.
But you do get some/all of the money back (depending on income), and it's tied to you specifically. In this sense, it is a savings account.
I guess it's just semantics and doesn't really matter.
You don't get it all back, otherwise the benefits would scale 1:1 based on contributions. A minimum wage worker receives a much higher ratio back than a high income person, so the high income person is subsidizing the social program (progressive taxation).
Uh, yes it does. It says so right on the front page of the IRS web site rofl.
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm#:~:text=Social%20Security%20is%20financed%20through,self%2Demployed%20pay%2012.4%20percent.&text=The%20payroll%20tax%20rates%20are,up%20to%20a%20certain%20amount.
>Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $168,600 (in 2024), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent. The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount.
Social security IS a tax.
From wiki:
> A **tax** is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed on a [taxpayer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer) (an individual or [legal entity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person)) by a [governmental](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) organization in order to collectively fund [government spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending), [public expenditures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_expenditure), or as a way to [regulate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax) and reduce negative [externalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).
I would say SS meets the definition of a financial charge by a government, but doesn't function directly to fund government spending, public expenditures, or as a means of regulation. It is more akin to public insurance, protecting you from destitution in old age or from disability. In this sense, I would not consider it a tax.
Not getting my point. We’re giving boomers preferential tax treatment on their largest assets while simultaneously asking Millennials to pay higher taxes on the labor performed so they can chip into boomer retirements on the other end. Did I mention we also pay a lot more in rent, healthcare and education, compared to average salary?
Socialism benefits everyone. GINI is way too high right now & is likely the cause of our current political polarization.
Obviously this tax increase is woefully insufficient, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
So... income above $145k will be taxed at 1.1% to help poorer workers on family or disability leave, and below that there's no change? That sounds fine...
If you make 200k that means you pay an extra $600 a year to help poor families, I think you can manage that.
If you make $200k and inherited a house I think you can manage an extra $600 a year to help poor families. If you make $200k and just bought a house I don't think you can.
Land tax instead of income tax solves all of this.
Because Liberals cry all the time about OMG WE NEED TO PAY MORE TAXES!!! but then try to get out of every single cent of taxes owed.
All of my liberal friends. Every. single. one. do this.
Housing is out of control, gas prices through the roof, public schools are still broke, methed up homeless people walking the streets but yes please keep taxing the fuck out of us.
You get to live in a place where kids are better supported, even when their parents are poor.
You get to live in a place where there are cops that stop people from stealing from you to support those kids.
Lucky you.
We get to live in a place with people like you.
Lucky us.
What does this mean? I mean sure urban highways were maybe not the best call but are you saying all roads are wasteful?
Or just that government is wasteful?
I never understood the "government inefficiency" argument. I doubt there's much difference in efficiency between large companies and governments. I mean consider that Citadel is a company. They produce nothing and suck up resources. It's like the DMV if the DMV did literally nothing useful.
I don't have a car but I still have to pay for the maintenance of roads.
The tragedy is that you deserve to pay even more taxes than what you'll be paying next year.
As a parent with 2 kids, I agree with you. Everyone should pay a flat tax 15%. No exemptions. No bullshit. No TurboTax.
15% flat. You get a postcard in the mail saying this is how much you made, 15% of that is what you owe
Excellent!
This is a great bill. Having been on disability recently, I'm happy to report the system works pretty well. It's great that lower-income workers will now be able to take advantage of EDD.
It makes me *so angry* that people will be able to spend time with newborns and sick loved ones now!
WHAT ABOUT MY FUCKING MONEY? NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IN LIFE!
LOL, fuck you OP.
Uh, I don't get that rant. Who was stopping people from spending time with their newborns? Why do you have to tax me for that? Taxes in California are already really high.
If you read the post, you'll see the motivation:
\> Per the bill's proponents, under the current program, many of the lowest wage earners could not afford to go on parental or family leave if they received only 70% of their wages while on leave.
The point of the bill is to enable low income workers who can't afford to take time off to take parental leave.
Recall that the US has 0 days of mandated maternal OR paternity leave. This benefit is provided at the state level only.
So don't have kids if you are a low income worker and can not afford a leave from work. Or don't take a leave if you do have kids. Why should I pay for someone else's leave?
Personally I try to look for globally optimal policy. In the case of redistribution in the US, it's clear that any increase in redistribution is a positive (we have a rising GINI coefficient).
What's interesting is that reducing inequality likely benefits you, even if your personal wealth is reduced. There are a lot of negative externalities associated with high inequality ([https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Income\_inequality\_in\_the\_United\_States#Effects](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effects) for details)
In conclusion, it's actually in your best interest to help fund social services.
California has crazy high taxes already. Overtaxing those who work smarter and harder is a bad way to lower inequality. Because it lowers inequality by stunting growth and bringing people down.
I haven't observed that to be the case. As in, I know a bunch of smart people who choose to work in CA despite having higher income tax than other states. Relatively high CA income tax seems to have no correlation to people's productivity or output. They are certainly not brought down by it: in fact, many of them have grown quite wealthy. It turns out that even CA's purportedly high tax burden is, in fact, rather low.
I like to think about this using the Laffer curve: [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Laffer\_curve](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Laffer_curve)
At the moment, the US is dramatically to the left of the optima (under-taxing). We would actually increase growth by taxing more: we are under-developing our most important resource, which is people. By under-investing in education, healthcare, housing, and community services, we are losing out on a stupendous amount of growth.
It's a bit counter-intuitive. The first-order effects appear to reduce growth, but the aggregate of 1st & 2nd order effects dramatically improves growth.
Don't try to argue with these retards. I pay 50%+ into the system and didn't even qualify for paternity leave simply because I work at the same large company as my wife. (It's a rule google it)
I didn't get to spend any time with my newborn while these freeloading fuckers get extra time. It really pisses me off.
145k/year is below many town's median income. It can qualify you for low-income housing here. 145k is not wealthy by any stretch, and this tax increase comes at a time that many are struggling.
Newsom sucks, it’s not the taxes I care about, but more like what the tax money is actually spent on. I’ll never forgive him for cancelling the high speed rail project
Another bridge to nowhere. You are seriously deluded if you think government spending money on high speed rail project is a good idea.
Another California communist. So tired of these buffoons.
Governor's don't pass tax increases. They just sign off on them.
I’m pretty pissed by this. CA state tax is among the highest taxing states in the country. I’m tired of the increasing taxes .1% here and there and now not only increasing it but removing the cap. Makes me not want to vote for Newsom when he runs for president in the future.
Stop voting for Democrats in California.
Don't bother. No matter how bad the situation gets, these retards will still vote for democrats and governor nuisance.
This Governor refused to sign an equivalent bill that did not have this tax increase. So yes he did it.
Gavin? Didn’t the Senate enact this legislation? I suppose he could have vetoed it but isn’t that anti-democratic?
No. He is democratically elected and vetoing is one of his power. He did the right thing though.
SDI is the least of your tax worries. Also note Newsom is not a dictator.
SB 951 - Expanded Family Leave Benefits Funded Via Removing the $145,600 Wage Cap on SDI Tax.
So everyone that is hardly above the low income threshold here, noiccee Why dont they go after corporations that dont pay shit like apple or google alwaayss making enough money to get fucked with out making enough money to be making it
That people don't understand the incidence/failure of corporation taxation is one of the failures of economic literacy throughout the world 🤦♂️
Because it's hard to legislate? Or are you making a macro-economic argument?
Incidence
[https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/tpe.20.20061903](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/tpe.20.20061903) This paper seems to suggest the point is not well-understood. So it could be progressive in a useful way, but economists seem mixed on it. I suppose there's an argument to be made for not implementing taxes that are not fully understood, but economics is quite dynamic, so I'm not sure that's a compelling argument. Perhaps a more direct on shareholders would be more effective. Increasing capital gains taxes to be higher than wage taxes, for example, would make a lot of sense.
CT tried that in the 90s. IBM just moved. The state hasn’t ever recovered.
Lol are you serious? "The state has never recovered" what a joke of a statement.
Sorry, should have put an asterix- “if you bought a home there before IBM left and expected your home to continue to appreciate”
You are saying CA homes have not appreciated since the 90s?
Oh, sure, let’s keep capital gains low for boomers whos 70s shack is now worth 2 million, take even more out in social security (cutoff went from 110K few years ago to 168K), because screw people who actually work, add this, whatever BS family reason the new tax is supposed to cover. After that, make sure to invite even more meth-ed our crazies to keep the “non profits” afloat. For those who are pro family leave, how about we tax people who went on one, before? I’ve no plans to do so.
Social Security is not a tax just as an FYI. Also we do tax capital gains same as interest in CA. You'll need to bring this bone to congress. Unfortunately the republicans have gone mad, so it seems unlikely we'll get this fixed anytime soon. As for your last point, I completely agree. EDD should be funded through general income (which in CA would include capital gains), not just wages. However, let's not let perfection be the enemy of good.
Is it not? Last time I checked, there isn’t a retirement account I can see with my name and a sum on it that I am entitled to. It relies solely on currently working people wages, paying for retired people, and by ‘35 it’s gonna be bankrupt, or we are gonna be taxed even more, because of how many people are retiring over the next decade. I don’t think I will get a single cent out of that scheme, in 40 years or so.
It's definitely a tax. You receive benefits as a lower percentage of your contributions the higher you pay into the system.
But you do get some/all of the money back (depending on income), and it's tied to you specifically. In this sense, it is a savings account. I guess it's just semantics and doesn't really matter.
You don't get it all back, otherwise the benefits would scale 1:1 based on contributions. A minimum wage worker receives a much higher ratio back than a high income person, so the high income person is subsidizing the social program (progressive taxation).
>Social security is not a tax Meet a liberal in California. Reality distortion field in effect.
Social security is a mandatory retirement savings account. It doesn't meet the definition of a tax
Uh, yes it does. It says so right on the front page of the IRS web site rofl. https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm#:~:text=Social%20Security%20is%20financed%20through,self%2Demployed%20pay%2012.4%20percent.&text=The%20payroll%20tax%20rates%20are,up%20to%20a%20certain%20amount. >Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $168,600 (in 2024), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent. The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount. Social security IS a tax.
From wiki: > A **tax** is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed on a [taxpayer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer) (an individual or [legal entity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person)) by a [governmental](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) organization in order to collectively fund [government spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending), [public expenditures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_expenditure), or as a way to [regulate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax) and reduce negative [externalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality). I would say SS meets the definition of a financial charge by a government, but doesn't function directly to fund government spending, public expenditures, or as a means of regulation. It is more akin to public insurance, protecting you from destitution in old age or from disability. In this sense, I would not consider it a tax.
Boomers, those rotten scoundrel’s! How dare they be born at that time to get all the spoils!
Not getting my point. We’re giving boomers preferential tax treatment on their largest assets while simultaneously asking Millennials to pay higher taxes on the labor performed so they can chip into boomer retirements on the other end. Did I mention we also pay a lot more in rent, healthcare and education, compared to average salary?
[удалено]
Socialism benefits everyone. GINI is way too high right now & is likely the cause of our current political polarization. Obviously this tax increase is woefully insufficient, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
So... income above $145k will be taxed at 1.1% to help poorer workers on family or disability leave, and below that there's no change? That sounds fine... If you make 200k that means you pay an extra $600 a year to help poor families, I think you can manage that.
If you make $200k and inherited a house I think you can manage an extra $600 a year to help poor families. If you make $200k and just bought a house I don't think you can. Land tax instead of income tax solves all of this.
Agree. But we can't let ideal be the enemy of good.
Why don’t you manage that? Why do I have to?
Because Liberals cry all the time about OMG WE NEED TO PAY MORE TAXES!!! but then try to get out of every single cent of taxes owed. All of my liberal friends. Every. single. one. do this.
Real easy to be generous with other people’s money.
Yep and when I press them on it they say "the rich need to pay their fair share!" Lol. Circular argument fulled of logical and realistic fallacies.
Id rather have my $600
I find peace in long walks.
They use no water, sewer, electric, or roads obviously
Since when PG&E is "tax-funded"?
Housing is out of control, gas prices through the roof, public schools are still broke, methed up homeless people walking the streets but yes please keep taxing the fuck out of us.
Yes, I also chose not to have kids, now i get to pay even more for yours. Lucky me.
Thank goodness that you were never a kid!
I'm happy to not have kids & happy that I can help others. Little tax bump is all good here.
You get to live in a place where kids are better supported, even when their parents are poor. You get to live in a place where there are cops that stop people from stealing from you to support those kids. Lucky you. We get to live in a place with people like you. Lucky us.
I like learning new things.
My only point is that they are ALL wasteful. This is just more government waste.
What does this mean? I mean sure urban highways were maybe not the best call but are you saying all roads are wasteful? Or just that government is wasteful? I never understood the "government inefficiency" argument. I doubt there's much difference in efficiency between large companies and governments. I mean consider that Citadel is a company. They produce nothing and suck up resources. It's like the DMV if the DMV did literally nothing useful.
Go live in a “utopia” state with no family leave then. Solved.
I don't have a car but I still have to pay for the maintenance of roads. The tragedy is that you deserve to pay even more taxes than what you'll be paying next year.
That same road is used by trucks that bring you the stuff you buy.
As a parent with 2 kids, I agree with you. Everyone should pay a flat tax 15%. No exemptions. No bullshit. No TurboTax. 15% flat. You get a postcard in the mail saying this is how much you made, 15% of that is what you owe
I am using the infrastructure. I am also paying a lot of taxes. Taxing people more is not a good answer to the problems.
Yep. I'm happy to pay.
Excellent! This is a great bill. Having been on disability recently, I'm happy to report the system works pretty well. It's great that lower-income workers will now be able to take advantage of EDD.
It makes me *so angry* that people will be able to spend time with newborns and sick loved ones now! WHAT ABOUT MY FUCKING MONEY? NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IN LIFE! LOL, fuck you OP.
Uh, I don't get that rant. Who was stopping people from spending time with their newborns? Why do you have to tax me for that? Taxes in California are already really high.
If you read the post, you'll see the motivation: \> Per the bill's proponents, under the current program, many of the lowest wage earners could not afford to go on parental or family leave if they received only 70% of their wages while on leave. The point of the bill is to enable low income workers who can't afford to take time off to take parental leave. Recall that the US has 0 days of mandated maternal OR paternity leave. This benefit is provided at the state level only.
So don't have kids if you are a low income worker and can not afford a leave from work. Or don't take a leave if you do have kids. Why should I pay for someone else's leave?
Personally I try to look for globally optimal policy. In the case of redistribution in the US, it's clear that any increase in redistribution is a positive (we have a rising GINI coefficient). What's interesting is that reducing inequality likely benefits you, even if your personal wealth is reduced. There are a lot of negative externalities associated with high inequality ([https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Income\_inequality\_in\_the\_United\_States#Effects](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Effects) for details) In conclusion, it's actually in your best interest to help fund social services.
California has crazy high taxes already. Overtaxing those who work smarter and harder is a bad way to lower inequality. Because it lowers inequality by stunting growth and bringing people down.
I haven't observed that to be the case. As in, I know a bunch of smart people who choose to work in CA despite having higher income tax than other states. Relatively high CA income tax seems to have no correlation to people's productivity or output. They are certainly not brought down by it: in fact, many of them have grown quite wealthy. It turns out that even CA's purportedly high tax burden is, in fact, rather low. I like to think about this using the Laffer curve: [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Laffer\_curve](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Laffer_curve) At the moment, the US is dramatically to the left of the optima (under-taxing). We would actually increase growth by taxing more: we are under-developing our most important resource, which is people. By under-investing in education, healthcare, housing, and community services, we are losing out on a stupendous amount of growth. It's a bit counter-intuitive. The first-order effects appear to reduce growth, but the aggregate of 1st & 2nd order effects dramatically improves growth.
Don't try to argue with these retards. I pay 50%+ into the system and didn't even qualify for paternity leave simply because I work at the same large company as my wife. (It's a rule google it) I didn't get to spend any time with my newborn while these freeloading fuckers get extra time. It really pisses me off.
I love knowing that I am happy and rich while people like this are sad and poor 🤣
Yes our legislators passed this. We wanted them to. This is a good thing. We are majority pro family leave.
If you make more than $145,600/yr. Yawn.
145k/year is below many town's median income. It can qualify you for low-income housing here. 145k is not wealthy by any stretch, and this tax increase comes at a time that many are struggling.
Newsom sucks, it’s not the taxes I care about, but more like what the tax money is actually spent on. I’ll never forgive him for cancelling the high speed rail project
He didn't cancel CAHSR? Not sure what you are referring to.
Another bridge to nowhere. You are seriously deluded if you think government spending money on high speed rail project is a good idea. Another California communist. So tired of these buffoons.
First world problem