Hacker News Reader

Comment by STRiDEX | Hacker News Reader

Tax rate needs to be area dependent. 150k in the bay area isn't the same as 150k even just a few hours in any direction. I don't know how they'd implement city based tax rates, but I'm never going to own a house here if I keep getting taxed 50% and more.

Sanders calculator says I'd be paying more.

View on HN

> I'm never going to own a house here if I keep getting taxed 50% and more

The idea is that you wouldn't be the only one paying more. Real estate prices would need to come down as well, so everyone else buying a house would feel a similar crunch.

What it really comes down to is that the US has collected a lot of infrastructure debt over 30 years of budget austerity dating back to Reagan. Roads and bridges are crumbling, water systems are poisoning people, our education system is a joke, and there are a lot of people without access to health care.

These are all federal programs that have been cut over the last 30 years because we have been determined to make sure the US has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. As a result, it's one of the most run-down and least safe places in the industrialized world, and that trend isn't going to stop until we pick back up the investment in infrastructure. We leveraged our long-term prosperity for short-term growth, and it's about time to pay the piper.

Oh please. You're not getting taxed 50% or more. Also, according to this website, you're only paying 52% on the last $ 10,000,000 of your income. If you're brining in more than 13,000,000 per year, cry me a river. You can afford a solid gold house and rocket car.

But. But. But.

"temporarily embarrassed millionaires".

As simple as that. Every one's worried, even the guy who is making $5 an hour, is dreaming it will be unfair to him to pay that tax, even if there is no realistic chance that he will see that kind of money ever.

The tax code already (unfortunately) subsidizes high state and local taxes by making them deductible.

Bay Area living is expensive because lots of people want to live there: There are more dollars chasing limited real estate and other resources. Making it "cheaper" by shifting around tax brackets based on how expensive it is will only make it more desirable to more people.

Sanders plan will adversely impact the bay area, and home prices in particular. If you're making over $250k, the social security phase out goes away, you have 2.2% of extra income tax, and 6.4% of new payroll taxes. Add in 11% for CA, and you could easily be losing 70% to tax all-in at the margin. It'll be tough to get employers to pay an extra $100k a year to cover a $30k rent differential. Considering that you can already afford much higher quality housing with a higher standard of living outside of the bay area on half the money, why stay out here? San Francisco is gross anyway.

This plan will push the bay area in particular far to the right on the laffer curve. What'll happen to US GDP growth if the tech industry starts imploding and moving out? It's possible to make more in the bay area than in the rest of the country, but if you're only retaining 30% of that excess, all of which is soaked up by long-time landowners and the insane cost of living, why bother.

It's Federal income tax for a reason. Are you suggesting people get a cost-of-living adjustment for federal taxes?

Deductions are basically exactly this. They come out of top bracket income too.

Purchase an expensive house on a big loan? Get a bigger reduction in federal tax liability than someone in a lower bracket that is buying a cheaper home.

Yes, see you get it.

Move somewhere cheaper.

But the reason why you're being paid 150k is _because_ of the high cost of living in the Bay Area. That's why people doing the same job in Kansas are not making as much money as you.

If the people in Kansas were doing my job they'd get paid the same because they wouldn't be in Kansas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com