Is Texas Becoming the New California?

It’s not true those companies pay no taxes. They are good at tax planning for sure and they may not be paying what some expect them to be. They are paying taxes though.

Taxes can be very complicated especially when you start accounting for companies making massive investments and foreign earnings. And book earnings aren’t the same thing as tax earnings but those things will match up over time.

There are more than just federal income taxes too which is what grabs the headlines. There are lots of articles out there talking about them paying no taxes but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

This is for you Randy.

Why do you think amazon is fighting union?

Going back to the main subject. Californians moving to Texas, Arizona, Idaho (huge shift) have to understand why they move there. That is unfortunately not always the case. From that aspect there is an education part that needs to be conveyed.

Go look at their 10-Ks over time. They are paying taxes. These companies are also investing like crazy which is likely driving some tax losses. That won’t last forever.

And those articles are mostly about federal income taxes which have nothing to do with this thread. Not to mention they call out just a couple of years and focus there. You mostly do that because you have an agenda.

They ignore state income taxes, property taxes, etc. That’s the important taxes for this thread because they are paid at the state and local level. I can also read the articles and tell they don’t fully understand federal income taxes either. Or sales and use or payroll for that matter.

I wonder what would happen to the high tax states if we did away with the SALT deduction. Just asking for a friend who thinks subsidizing high tax states is wrong as it diverts tax burdens away from states that are irresponsible in their spending to states that are responsible in their spending. Oh by the way the SALT deduction helps the richest of the residents of the high tax states not the poorest. Just puttng that out there in case everone was feeling sanctimonious this morning.

That’s largely already been done. They limited the SALT deduction significantly in 2017 tax reform. It’s now capped at $10K/year.

You don’t have to be rich at all or live in a high tax state to hit that ceiling.

I’m not sure of the relevance of any of this to the original discussion, but I am surprised no one else has pointed out the inconsistencies of your theory…
More jobs do not mean higher wages.
Pro-business policy does not favor workers.
Trickle-down economics are a myth.

Carry on.

1 Like

Agenda? Randy people are leaving the state of California in droves for a reason. This is not an agenda but reality.
The city of San Diego had at one point a $2.5Billion hole due to the then existing pensions. The then mayor took drastic measures. They recovered. This has nothing to do with an agenda. newsom has been a momentous failure and will be recalled. This will be the second California governor recalled in 18 years.
What is wrong with this picture?
California has the world’s sixth economy and it can’t fiscally manage herself?
This is why Californians are leaving.
Californians moving out of state ought to remember why they left.

1 Like

I’m only talking about the articles being written about the companies not paying taxes like you posted above (most of those kinds of articles really). That’s the only agenda I was talking about and has nothing to do with any of what you just posted.

Trickle down had somewhat to do with jobs and it was a ridiculous concept that if you cut taxes the economy will take off and the increase in the economy will result in more taxes and it will be revenue neutral to the government. All it did was cause deficits and government debt that is astronomical and it caused gross wealth inequality. This wealth inequality has now caused a very real problem of asset bubbles that are about to burst. Ok that was Laffer and Reagan and so my team owns that ridiculousness.

If you are asking me, now we have a bloated government with ridiculous waste and we let it happen because we aren’t paying for it. If we actually started paying for it instead of borrowing the money, it would bring clarity and sensibility to government. But neither side is willing to actually pay for it. One side wants to increase taxes so they can spend more and the other side simply doesn’t want to raise taxes (read my lips…).

But supply side or trickle down has nothing to do with what Texas is doing. Texas is taking the right stance that mo business means mo jobs which means mo business which means mo jobs, rinse and repeat.

Texas will win in the end. It always wins.

That is fundamentally correct, except that more jobs is not the same as higher wages.

Maybe but I can guarantee you less jobs means lower wages.

Closed thread per request of the original poster.

©Copyright 2017