Why are income taxes not indexed for cost of living?

[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.

 

[Ronstang]

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

 

[XMan]

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

I think Bloomberg is a Republican. But he's definitely republicus rinus.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XMan

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

I think Bloomberg is a Republican. But he's definitely republicus rinus.

Bloomberg left the Republican party awhile ago.

Income tax isn't indexed for cost of living because that would seem sort of silly. Places with high costs of living nearly always have them because they are desirable places to live. This is just another way of spending money to improve quality of life. (at least perceived quality of life) If you asked someone if they would rather live on the beach, or live in a tumbleweed farm in the middle of Texas, most people would say the beach. Why should we give the beach people a bonus for wanting to live there?

EDIT: Another way of looking at it Ronstang is asking why it is that all of the most desirable places to live in the US are controlled by the Democrats? I mean property values are little more than market forces at work. More demand to live somewhere, higher prices.

 

[soccerballtux]

Because Government doesn't do smart things like that.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: XMan
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.

Right, but they're also on two different salary scales. That person in rural Indiana would be considered wealthy, while the person in Manhattan still has a ways to go in their career.

 

[ehhhh]

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.

Why should it be indexed? People living in Manhattan live in an area with far greater government supported infrastructure and services. So as far as money is concerned, yes they take home less, but their quality of life is much better ( obviously imho). Money isn't everything...

 

[PingSpike]

Why wouldn't all places then just crank up their taxes then...if they're just going to be charged more by the federal government if they tax their citizens less, they may as well take control of the situation and keep the tax revenue for their local area.

 

[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

 

[Capt Caveman]

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.

Pay scales are higher in areas with higher costs of living.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

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.

Pay scales are higher in areas with higher costs of living.

Don't confuse him with facts

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan

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

I think Bloomberg is a Republican. But he's definitely republicus rinus.

Bloomberg left the Republican party awhile ago.

Income tax isn't indexed for cost of living because that would seem sort of silly. Places with high costs of living nearly always have them because they are desirable places to live. This is just another way of spending money to improve quality of life. (at least perceived quality of life) If you asked someone if they would rather live on the beach, or live in a tumbleweed farm in the middle of Texas, most people would say the beach. Why should we give the beach people a bonus for wanting to live there?

EDIT: Another way of looking at it Ronstang is asking why it is that all of the most desirable places to live in the US are controlled by the Democrats? I mean property values are little more than market forces at work. More demand to live somewhere, higher prices.

I think there is more demand to live in these "desirable places" because of the pay. If it wasn't for the good paying jobs they would move out of the rat race, which they are free to do.

 

[Craig234]

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.

There's a certain justice in that, which puts some pressure to equalize the cost of living.

If you tell someone 'you own a million dollar home and make a half million in income, but because you live in an expensive area we'll tax you at a lower rate', you're just encouraging that expensive area to be even more expensive, instead of facing some downward pressure to have lass variation in our country where there are enclaves of incredibly concentrated wealth.

It lets you not give the wealthy too much of a tax break over 'average citizens'.

Fairness isn't just about the standard of living, but the bigger picture too. People who can afford the more expensive areas are already doing ok.

When you think about it, all you would be doing is shifting taxes onto poorer people to say to the wealthy, 'you pay less, so you can drive your wealth up even more'.

 

[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.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan

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

I think Bloomberg is a Republican. But he's definitely republicus rinus.

Bloomberg left the Republican party awhile ago.

Income tax isn't indexed for cost of living because that would seem sort of silly. Places with high costs of living nearly always have them because they are desirable places to live. This is just another way of spending money to improve quality of life. (at least perceived quality of life) If you asked someone if they would rather live on the beach, or live in a tumbleweed farm in the middle of Texas, most people would say the beach. Why should we give the beach people a bonus for wanting to live there?

EDIT: Another way of looking at it Ronstang is asking why it is that all of the most desirable places to live in the US are controlled by the Democrats? I mean property values are little more than market forces at work. More demand to live somewhere, higher prices.

I think there is more demand to live in these "desirable places" because of the pay. If it wasn't for the good paying jobs they would move out of the rat race, which they are free to do.

I could, but I don't. I've gotten sort of used to being a rat.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan

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

I think Bloomberg is a Republican. But he's definitely republicus rinus.

Bloomberg left the Republican party awhile ago.

Income tax isn't indexed for cost of living because that would seem sort of silly. Places with high costs of living nearly always have them because they are desirable places to live. This is just another way of spending money to improve quality of life. (at least perceived quality of life) If you asked someone if they would rather live on the beach, or live in a tumbleweed farm in the middle of Texas, most people would say the beach. Why should we give the beach people a bonus for wanting to live there?

EDIT: Another way of looking at it Ronstang is asking why it is that all of the most desirable places to live in the US are controlled by the Democrats? I mean property values are little more than market forces at work. More demand to live somewhere, higher prices.

I think there is more demand to live in these "desirable places" because of the pay. If it wasn't for the good paying jobs they would move out of the rat race, which they are free to do.

I could, but I don't. I've gotten sort of used to being a rat.

It was probably the way you were raised.

Or possibly your self hate is preventing you from living someplace where you can really live free?

 

[Rainsford]

Income taxes aren't indexed for cost of living because it would turn off conservatives even more. Liberals tend to live in higher cost of living areas than conservatives, so even though it might be more "fair", nobody is going to do it because folks who live in conservative areas would pitch a fit. Plus it tends to balance out anyways, as salaries tend to be higher where the cost of living is higher. Sure, I could buy a huge house in suburban Texas for less than I'd pay for a smallish condo in an urban section of the east coast, but I'd probably make less in Texas as well.

 

[Rainsford]

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

Cost of living is usually pretty closely correlated with how many people want to live somewhere...which raises a much more interesting question...

 

[Deeko]

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

hahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

You're right! Big cities aren't expensive because of supply and demand! It's all because of the dirty liberals running those cities!!!

Come on dude - you weren't serious, were you?

 

[bozack]

I don't think much about income taxes but rather the classification of wealth and household income into middle, upper middle, and rich...

Here in MA my wife and I are clearly middle class given where we live (Town) and the lifestyle we lead, however if you go by our income alone and compare it to the national averages we are put in the upper middle class...kinda crazy IMHO

Under the former McCain proposal and compared to what we will get with Obama's plan we will be paying about $800 more a year in taxes (after he removes the Bush tax cuts)..at least according to a website someone had linked here before...

My wife and I make well under $250K/year combined, and while $800/year won't kill us, it is still nice to have had that.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: ehhhh
Why should it be indexed? People living in Manhattan live in an area with far greater government supported infrastructure and services. So as far as money is concerned, yes they take home less, but their quality of life is much better ( obviously imho). Money isn't everything...

Quality of life better in the city? maybe if you're only talking about public transportaton and accessability to services and what not...but I would easily take $250K / year in a rural area over the same amount in a major city as it means the difference between a mansion and a high end car and a condo/loft and a subway pass.

And while pay is typically "better" in urban areas, often times it is more dependant on the job....however cities do usually have alot more job openings and opportunity.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: ehhhh
Why should it be indexed? People living in Manhattan live in an area with far greater government supported infrastructure and services. So as far as money is concerned, yes they take home less, but their quality of life is much better ( obviously imho). Money isn't everything...

Quality of life better in the city? maybe if you're only talking about public transportaton and accessability to services and what not...but I would easily take $250K / year in a rural area over the same amount in a major city as it means the difference between a mansion and a high end car and a condo/loft and a subway pass.

And while pay is typically "better" in urban areas, often times it is more dependant on the job....however cities do usually have alot more job openings and opportunity.

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.

 

[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.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Why wouldn't all places then just crank up their taxes then...if they're just going to be charged more by the federal government if they tax their citizens less, they may as well take control of the situation and keep the tax revenue for their local area.

States already do that, since local tax is deductible on your federal returns. Just look at Crap Jersey. Mortgage interest is deductible.

This indexing already exists.

 

[Rainsford]

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 ther 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're right on both counts, but you can't discount job availability when considering quality of life. Sure, IF I could make the same salary in a rural area that I make in an urban area, I might be able to buy a better quality of life (depending on what I was looking for, of course). But chances are good that I WON'T be able to make the same salary, or anything close to it, because the same job probably isn't available.

But in the end I suppose it doesn't make much difference. A dollar goes less far in urban areas than rural ones, whatever the reason.