California has 9.3% income tax for people making above $66,000 per year

Libs asked for it and half don't even know why they are liberals. It's nothing short of stupid.

if you're single, yes, although at $67k your effective rate would be more like 4%

TAXABLE INCOME ≠ SALARY

If you make $67,000 TAXABLE (after deductions) then you pay $93 in tax for the extra $1,000 in TAXABLE income. Ouchie, boo-boo.

Rightwinger media-feed ignorance is beyond compare.

What’s the next bound? 66-99k counting as second-tier working poor there, receiving 9% income tax, I’m assuming? Sub 66k get no income taxation, eh?
then 150k yearly salary (median per capita I guess) get 30% rate, then 300k+ get taxed at 60%?

Even less than that if you use salary as the denominator.

Then don't take pay above $66,000.

Easy

The only Republicans who understand how taxes work are the rich ones. For most people earning a salary of $66,000, you'd be much better off in a "high tax" state than a "low tax" one, because not only would you likely pay less, you'll get significantly more back in public services.

In California, a person making $66,000 would pay roughly $2565 in income tax. In New Jersey, they'd pay $2099.

In Missouri, they'd pay $2626. In Nebraska, $2913. Alabama, $3060. These are only "low tax" states if you're rich. The suckers don't know! Simply insane!

Where you at, OP?

They realized they were out of their element here and slumped back over to their normal "but Chicago! but Baltimore!" routine.

If California were a country, its GDP would be 4th in the world. Who cares about this minor detail?

I would be more interested in the percentage of California residents that pay no state or federal tax, and their average annual support from taxpayers.

You're correct that people are not good at estimating their taxes (for instance, for low income people, it's sales tax that's killer).

I'm just curious what services you think most people earning 66k are receiving that they wouldn't be getting anywhere else in the country?

Long lines at slow California state administered offices.

Yes, a progressive tax method is preferable to almost everyone, except the people with influence on the rules. A straight tax is a great talking point but in practice is a terrible idea. The first $66,000/year pays for things like food, rent, utilities, clothing, gas, the second $66,000/year pays for things like second cars, vacations, landscaping, etc.

Which (less financially successful) state should they be more like, so that you will stop crying?

Texas is a low tax state for actual taxpayers. Welfare states are better if you don't want to work.

Maybe they shouldn't propose $5 million in reparations when they have a horribly balanced budget, let alone since they were a free state?

How are tax brackets confusing? It's not that complicated. If you make $10 million in annual income, your first $66,000 is still taxed the exact same as John Doe's first $66,000.

This site has way, way too many America haters.