Why are income taxes not indexed for cost of living?

[XMan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XMan
Take the Obama tax plan, for example. Tax increase for people making 250K or more.

But for a family making 250K or more in, say, Manhattan, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a family of the same income bracket living in, for example, rural Indiana.

Reading about some of NYC's problems and Bloomberg's proposed solutions I'm suprised ANYBODY can afford to live there, heh.

Awwwwwwww then I will borrow from your Republican play book.

Move

Don't need to, I already live in one of the lower cost of living areas in the country. And thanks to good fiscal conservative leadership at state and local levels the effects of the recession have been somewhat dampened compared to surrounding states.

Milk's only $2.50 a gallon, too. Thought it was supposed to hit 5, Dave?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XMan
Take the Obama tax plan, for example. Tax increase for people making 250K or more.

But for a family making 250K or more in, say, Manhattan, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a family of the same income bracket living in, for example, rural Indiana.

Reading about some of NYC's problems and Bloomberg's proposed solutions I'm suprised ANYBODY can afford to live there, heh.

Awwwwwwww then I will borrow from your Republican play book.

Move

Don't need to, I already live in one of the lower cost of living areas in the country. And thanks to good fiscal conservative leadership at state and local levels the effects of the recession have been somewhat dampened compared to surrounding states.

Milk's only $2.50 a gallon, too. Thought it was supposed to hit 5, Dave?

I don't know about your particular area, but many "fiscally conservative" low cost of living areas can afford to be that way thanks to a huge influx of federal funds and very little being paid back out.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XMan
Take the Obama tax plan, for example. Tax increase for people making 250K or more.

But for a family making 250K or more in, say, Manhattan, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a family of the same income bracket living in, for example, rural Indiana.

Reading about some of NYC's problems and Bloomberg's proposed solutions I'm suprised ANYBODY can afford to live there, heh.

Awwwwwwww then I will borrow from your Republican play book.

Move

Don't need to, I already live in one of the lower cost of living areas in the country. And thanks to good fiscal conservative leadership at state and local levels the effects of the recession have been somewhat dampened compared to surrounding states.

Milk's only $2.50 a gallon, too. Thought it was supposed to hit 5, Dave?

I don't know about your particular area, but many "fiscally conservative" low cost of living areas can afford to be that way thanks to a huge influx of federal funds and very little being paid back out.

We're (Indiana) 30th in the nation as of 2005, at $1.05 per dollar sent out.

State government has privatized a lot of state programs, cut out some fluff, done a lot of tax incentives to attract new businesses, and leased one of our toll road for several billion dollars. They've left the principal almost untouched and used the interest for infrastructure improvement programs.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XMan
Take the Obama tax plan, for example. Tax increase for people making 250K or more.

But for a family making 250K or more in, say, Manhattan, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a family of the same income bracket living in, for example, rural Indiana.

Reading about some of NYC's problems and Bloomberg's proposed solutions I'm suprised ANYBODY can afford to live there, heh.

Awwwwwwww then I will borrow from your Republican play book.

Move

Don't need to, I already live in one of the lower cost of living areas in the country. And thanks to good fiscal conservative leadership at state and local levels the effects of the recession have been somewhat dampened compared to surrounding states.

Milk's only $2.50 a gallon, too. Thought it was supposed to hit 5, Dave?

I don't know about your particular area, but many "fiscally conservative" low cost of living areas can afford to be that way thanks to a huge influx of federal funds and very little being paid back out.

We're (Indiana) 30th in the nation as of 2005, at $1.05 per dollar sent out.

State government has privatized a lot of state programs, cut out some fluff, done a lot of tax incentives to attract new businesses, and leased one of our toll road for several billion dollars. They've left the principal almost untouched and used the interest for infrastructure improvement programs.

Hmm, that's pretty good, actually. What I'd really be interested in seeing though is the value you get for your money there. It's easy to cut costs if the quality of service goes down, has Indiana managed to avoid doing that?

 

[XMan]

None that I can think of. They've actually added state employees in some areas, Child Services in particular. Governor Mitch won re-election by 20 points.

The best complaint a lot of the people campaigning against him could come up with was "He made us go on daylight savings time!"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Pay is better in urban areas because you probably aren't going to find a $250K / year job in a rural area. Besides, not everyone defines quality of life the same way. Maybe you like having a huge house and a nice car. Me? I'd rather be close to everything.

It was hypothetical...however I wouldn't say that pay is that much better in urban areas, just that jobs are more available and there is more opportunity.

My post was that you could probabily buy yourself a better quality of life in a rural area with the same amount of money one makes in the city.

You could buy a bigger house, but again as Rainsford said quality of life is a big collection of things. You want to be near the arts, cultural events, shows, etc. you need to be in the city.

Another interesting thing is that the size of your house is actually negatively correlated with expressed happiness. That would seem to imply that the sacrifices people make to get a big house aren't worth it to them.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You could buy a bigger house, but again as Rainsford said quality of life is a big collection of things. You want to be near the arts, cultural events, shows, etc. you need to be in the city.

Another interesting thing is that the size of your house is actually negatively correlated with expressed happiness. That would seem to imply that the sacrifices people make to get a big house aren't worth it to them.

And as Rainsford and I agreed it is all about perspective and priorities...

Sure in a city you can be near everything you say, but if you lived in the burbs or the sticks and made the same money you could afford to fly your ass into the city every once and a while...

Personally I wouldn't lump accessability to cultural events as "quality of life"...rather house, land, healthcare, and financial security.

And with the size of housing, again it is all about perspective and priorities...so while having a large house might not make some happy, it will for others...personally I see little value in a big house as I don't want to clean nor pay to clean it.

 

[her209]

Stop sending "your" kids to "our" colleges.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just dont make as much income and you will not be taxed as much.

It would be an accounting nightmare to keep track of. Then you have to account for people who commute because they moved out of downtown because housing was cheaper in the suburbs.

Actually it would be easy, just keep an "cost of living index" : zip code mapping table.

Figuring out that "cost of living index" for each zip code would be the difficult part. Also keeping these numbers accurate each year would be a pain.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XMan
Take the Obama tax plan, for example. Tax increase for people making 250K or more.

But for a family making 250K or more in, say, Manhattan, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a family of the same income bracket living in, for example, rural Indiana.

Reading about some of NYC's problems and Bloomberg's proposed solutions I'm suprised ANYBODY can afford to live there, heh.

Awwwwwwww then I will borrow from your Republican play book.

Move

Don't need to, I already live in one of the lower cost of living areas in the country. And thanks to good fiscal conservative leadership at state and local levels the effects of the recession have been somewhat dampened compared to surrounding states.

Milk's only $2.50 a gallon, too. Thought it was supposed to hit 5, Dave?

I don't know about your particular area, but many "fiscally conservative" low cost of living areas can afford to be that way thanks to a huge influx of federal funds and very little being paid back out.

So those damn libruls in high-cost areas are "spreading their wealth" to conservatives living in low-cost areas. I'm sure the conservatives will reject this influx of funds when they find out.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: XMan
Take the Obama tax plan, for example. Tax increase for people making 250K or more.

But for a family making 250K or more in, say, Manhattan, their dollar doesn't go nearly as far as a family of the same income bracket living in, for example, rural Indiana.

Reading about some of NYC's problems and Bloomberg's proposed solutions I'm suprised ANYBODY can afford to live there, heh.

Awwwwwwww then I will borrow from your Republican play book.

Move

Don't need to, I already live in one of the lower cost of living areas in the country. And thanks to good fiscal conservative leadership at state and local levels the effects of the recession have been somewhat dampened compared to surrounding states.

Milk's only $2.50 a gallon, too. Thought it was supposed to hit 5, Dave?

Were you asking these questions for the past 8 years? Or does it only matter now that a democrat is in power?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Isn't it ironic that everywhere in this country your dollar doesn't go far is controlled by liberals/Democrats?

Isn't it also ironic that red states get the most federal spending for each tax dollar they send to the federal government? http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html Maybe if all the red states would stop sucking on the government teat, the blue states wouldn't have to tax their citizens as heavily.