- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Taxes aren’t a burden. They are an easy way to pay for the things we all use like roads, public services, parks, and the infrastructure to run it all.
Calling taxes a “burden” plants the idea that taxes have no use and are unfair. Taxes are only as fair as the people make them - vote.
When I moved from FL to MD I immediately noticed that there were a lot of services paid for. Like parks, schools, and other things that made life better. I’d rather pay for things than not have them.
I think I’m gonna name MD America’s official most forgettable state.
I’m not American so obviously there’s not particularly important reason for me to be able to name all 50 states, but with the aid of this chart I could get all the way to 48. I dunno if I placed them all correctly (who could possibly know if “ME” and “MA” refer to Massachusetts and Maine respectively, or inversely, and unlike MO, which devoid of the context of the full map I might’ve guessed was Montana, these two don’t have geography to help out, being right next to each other), but even with a map and the abbreviations, I can’t for the life of me figure out MD.
Or MN, while I’m at it. But for some reason that one feels like one I’ll be slightly more embarrassed to have forgotten if I looked it up.
Yeah but you probably didn’t forget about Baltimore. I’d argue Arkansas or Rhode Island is most forgettable, well I would if I didn’t get reminded of Delaware after remembering these states. It’s not big enough to matter. It’s first but so what. I couldn’t tell you a single city in it or fact about it except that it’s first and in the northeast fucking somewhere. If you left it off a map of the United States and just included it in whatever state it’s next to who would really notice? I assume I’ve been there, but I have to assume so because for the life of me I can’t fucking remember.
Arkansas is definitely not forgettable, if only because it’s just Ar+Kansas with a ludicrous pronunciation. It’d be a bit like getting Virginia but not West Virginia.
Rhode Island isn’t forgettable for me at least, partly just because “it’s got island in its name but mostly isn’t an island” is a fun bit of trivia, and also because of pop culture things like Miss Congeniality, or that Providence judge who’s popular on YouTube.
Baltimore is a city that I recognise the name of, but couldn’t have told you what state it’s in without looking it up. It’s also not in that top tier of famous cities I would have banned if asked to name cities, like NYC, Vegas, and Austin. I might have gotten to it eventually, but that’s only a maybe.
Delaware I think you’re probably right. I probably wouldn’t remember it without the prompting of both the letters and the map. Just the map alone and it’d have no chance of getting it. I’d maybe get it from just the abbreviations. But as it was, I did get it, which is better than I did for Maryland. As for Delaware facts…it has an eponymous river, right? I definitely can’t give many facts about it.
Oh yeah some west coast state crossed the Delaware River at one point.
deleted by creator
I actually completely agree with your first paragraph about the definition of burden. I think anything which places a cost on you is fair to call a burden, even if it’s one that greatly benefits society or even yourself personally in the long run.
But your second paragraph is nonsense. There’s nothing fair about a flat tax. Flat taxes place a greater burden on the lowest income, because they tend to spend a higher percentage of their income and save less, simply due to necessities being a higher percentage of their income. A flat tax completely ignores this fact.
A fair society is one on which the more you earn, the more you give back. Because you can give back more without it causing you significant extra burden.
The first paragraph is important because of this way of defining what is fair. The fact that we can accept that tax is still a burden means we can explain what is a fair tax by trying to minimise the cumulative burden on taxpayers while maximising the amount of tax brought in.
I think there is a miscommunication between both comments here on ‘fair’. Here is what I interpreted-
Taxes are never fair in the sense that one poor person will put in a penny, one middle person will put in a dollar, and one rich person will put in 1.99 and they will each receive 1 dollar back in services. This was only fair to one person of the 3, beneficially unfair to one, and penalizing unfair to another. But by paying what each was ably to pay society as a whole has been invested in 3 more dollars and no person was asked to pay outside their means.
I am not taking sides in this, just conveying the thought that ‘fair’ taxes can have multiple meanings and not just automatically jump to flat taxes.
Equality vs. equity. It may not be equal, but it is equitable. Some people don’t think that is fair.
No I understood what they meant. I just completely reject the notion that that is in any way fair.
Texas has significantly higher property taxes than California. So high in fact, many of the tech bros that moved out there and bought a million dollar home had a higher total tax burden even though California has higher income and sales taxes.
Don’t ever trust a cool guide to figure your taxes, just do the math yourself.
Also higher taxes can save you money in the long term if those taxes support things like infrastructure, education, and healthcare. Living in Texas, getting back 10-20% of your income back through lower taxes but receiving a fraction of the benefits of a social democracy in a Nordic country ain’t a fair trade for working people.
Glad you’ve put a little more meat on the bone. Taxes are so much more complicated in every country than memes like this ever capture. Second point is totally true, but who wants well maintained roads and hospitals?
Not a fair comparison if they leave out property taxes.
Last year I paid twice as much in property tax as I did in state income tax.
I bet a bunch of ‘low tax’ states wouldn’t look so great if they included the full picture.
In texas I went to dinner with 5 people who complained a solid hour about property taxes, and then asked when I was finally going to buy a home there.
Texas homeowner here! The homestead exemption used to be awesome for keeping property taxes down and probably still does in rural areas. My property taxes have gotten crazy high in the last few years in a Houston suburb.
Taxes are necessary. We have high property, sales, and use taxes to offset the fact that we have no state income tax. I think anyone that is bitching about it probably doesn’t understand that if it were lowered then either one of the others would get raised or they’d have to amend the state constitution and start taking income tax. Governments need money to run and build infrastructure.
I am also a texas home owner. The issue I have is when my county assessor has found their own incentive to ride the housing bubble and claim my property (a 2/2 condo in dallas) has somehow gained +60% in value over 3 years so they can get far more tax out of me knowing fully well that it isn’t worth that much. And when I argue it down all I get it down to is “just” +50% in value, knowing fully well that I might actually get +30% at best, but realistically +20%.
The state is incentivized to pump land values for more tax revenues and it will only cause a stagnation down the road when the bubble pops. It is a short sighted money grab from the state and it fuels the bubble that much more. It is one of the multiple catch 22 factors to make a housing crash into a self fulfilling prophesy.
Are you homesteaded? I just looked it up to make sure I’m not talking out my ass here. The maximum annual assessment increase for a homestead is ten percent. Over three years, your max increase should be thirty three percent, not sixty. Additionally, the homestead exemption went up from $40,000 to $100,000 this past year. My tax bill went down year over year because of this. My assessment that just came in the mail went up three percent for 2024. Granted I don’t live in the most fashionable neighborhood. I’m sure the HOA infested suburbs went up more than that.
I am homesteaders and you are correct in your numbers. And to be transparent here, I am actually a disabled veteran and receive an even larger exemption than most people. The value can grow more than the capped 10% in a few ways. The first was from the first assessment after I bought it. I bought for 170k and yet it was immediately assessed for 210k. Now I am up to about 250k. No improvements. I will be happy to sell for 200k.
The second thing they can do that I discovered was this last time they tried to say it was worth more than that (before I got it down to the 250k it is now), and did even note that the capped “taxable” increase- essentially saying that they have pre-locked in +10% increases for the next so many rounds of assessments until the taxable value is even with the assessed value. I argued it down. The value is still inflated.
Now, my personal opinion? I’m actually not mad about paying for taxes. I enjoy the idea of everyone pitching in what they can afford and together we can build a better community, nation, and world. I just hate that my city is playing in the real-estate speculation game as a way to pump their budget and the taxes I pay are going to a bunch of bullshit. Fuck dallas.
That makes sense. I was curious because my boss who lives in Plano neglected to homestead so he was getting violated on his taxes. I discovered it, we filled out this form and talked to that person and eventually got him several thousand dollars of retroactive credit.
My house was assessed at something like $130k the year before I bought it and two years later it’s in the $230k range, but I’m fine with it as the old assessment was based on a structure that was torn down and my current house was built brand new on the original footprint. So it’s more or less assessed at what I paid for it.
I do get amused trying to explain to people out of state how property tax protest is pretty much the national sport of Texas.
I may have lived in Texas too long. My thought was that the people bitching were the kind of people who just bitch about having to pay taxes at all because those people are EVERYWHERE. I wasn’t taking into account your view because it’s not one I hear often. I’m personally in favor of amending the state constitution, putting a progressive tax in place, and lowering property and sales tax. Realistically, with the people in office right now, they’d amend, keep the taxes that already exist in place, then institute a flat tax.
You’re right, of course.
So true. I am from Houston and loved it. I know what you mean about people bitching about taxes no matter what. The oil and gas guys are the worst. They have million dollar town homes, jobs that bring in 250k or more, and then bitch about the sales tax being on their bar tabs that are over a thousand dollars. They will bitch about their city taxes going to nothing, but then when I bring up the port of Houston, all the amazing museums, Herman/memorial park, miller outdoor theater, any of the amazing parks really, or any of the other things Houston pays for- that doesn’t count because they don’t use it and they just want a city paid for frat house with free booze and prostitutes. Ahhhh, classic Houston O&G…
I did IT for O&G for years and you fucking nailed it. Plus, have you seen some of the nicer schools?!? I grew up in a very rural area and the schools were an absolute tragedy. The ones here, paid for with my property taxes, at least look amazing and I’m here for it. I just wish the taxes were spread more evenly so that places like where I went to school had opportunities for stand out kids and resources for neuro-divergent kids and the children with learning disabilities.
Let me step off this tangential soapbox.
From the bottom of the graphic: “Total tax burden based on property tax, individual income tax, and sales & excise tax.“
Several states have no state income tax at all, so it wouldn’t make sense to only look at that.
What does make this a bit of an unfair comparison is that it doesn’t break it down by income. Compare tax burdens for the bottom quartile earners and it tells a different story.
What does make this a bit of an unfair comparison is that it doesn’t break it down by income. Compare tax burdens for the bottom quartile earners and it tells a different story.
I’m curious how they handle rentals with regard to tax VS income. Obviously, the landlord is paying the property tax, but they’re rolling that into rent. I assume it gets counted as their tax burden, but they’re not really the ones paying it. The renter is paying that surplus cost from their income, but I’m guessing it’s not counted as part of their tax burden.
I also don’t know how that all shakes out when you look at it over the population. It might average out the same, regardless of who gets credit for the payment, but I agree that a breakdown by income would be very interesting.
…and yet, the states with the highest tax “burdens” seem to be doing the best economically?
Maybe–and just hear me out!–letting the rich off the hook for paying their fair share doesn’t actually work out?
It’s not the taxes
No matter what tax system you put in place; California, Texas, and New York are going to do better economically than Alaska, Wyoming, Tennessee
Well tell that to the rich making the laws… Oh wait
this is kind of ‘idea imprint’ effort where tax=burden.
Why not being impartial instead when conveying something academic like this.
Honestly I can’t believe anyone complains about their taxes being too high in the US.
Sure, we don’t have 70% tax rates like some countries do, but the 30% taxes we do pay don’t actually do anything to improve our lives.
I feel like it’s valid to complain about paying taxes into a system that doesn’t have any interest in making our lives better or longer.
Also, we still spend that extra 40% in ridiculous health insurance and copayments.
Wyoming resident here. I think it should be made clear that the Jackson Hole metro area is overflowing with billionaires and multi-millionaires. The state also has the lowest or close to the lowest population count of the entire country. In other words, take that % with a bucket of salt.
Horrible way to display this.
In states with no income taxes and mostly regressive taxes like sales taxes and other consumption tax, the rich with large income (who always disproportionately account for all income in any state) pay a very low share of their income in taxes. Some people will be paying 10% of their income in taxes because their entire income is spent every month and taxed as consumption (sales taxes). While others pay only 2% of their income in taxes because a good portion of their income goes into savings and tax-free retirement accounts and not on consumption.
Meanwhile states with a progressive income tax ensure that (closer to) everyone pays a more fair share of their income. So the rich end up paying more of their income. While lower income families pay a lower sales tax rate (and/or are able to see the benefits of better social programs funded by the taxes on the wealthy)
Yes, this chart is worse than uninformative, it’s misinformative. Total tax “burden” for what bracket? With what specific assumptions about other taxes, social services, etc? The small print sounds “good” but actually provides no functional detail.
People who think Texas equals freedom from taxes but are low income will be paying a significantly higher percentage of their paycheck than the top 10/5/1% in Texas, compared to say New York, which maintains higher taxes on rich people.
Most likely this chart just flattened or averaged tax rates across all brackets, which is incredibly dumb considering a good tax system will not treat different groups the same.
Tennessee clearly illustrates the burden imposed by low taxes
Call it “Adult Subscription Fee.”
Cost of participating in society and getting to use all the things built with other people’s money.
“Adult Subscription Fee.”
I dunno that sounds kinda porny
I was trying to find the equivalent stats for my country. So far I have failed to do so, but I did find this page. And holy shit I didn’t realise it was so rare to have a 0 marginal income tax bracket. America being shitty is little surprise to me, but Canada, Spain, and Germany wow. And the UK and Sweden with their lowest marginal rate being as high as Australia’s median income’s marginal rate. That seems grossly unfair to the poorest people in the country.
Edit: I did later find this which at first seemed to be pretty much the thing I was initially looking for, but on closer inspection…the UK’s effective average tax rate is way less than half of their lowest marginal income tax, so it’s obviously not doing what it seems to be doing from the title.
I can’t say for other countries, but Canada uses a non-refundable tax credit called the basic personal amount. As long as you make less than that, and file your taxes correctly (and maybe even if you don’t), you will pay no income tax. Each province has a similar thing at a similar amount.
So yes, there is a marginal tax rate at even $1, but no one is paying until about $15k.
Interesting. How does that interact with your take-home paycheque? In Australia your income tax is deducted by your employer, so if your only interaction with the tax system is “do job. make money. pay tax on that money”, come tax time you should get 0 tax bill and 0 refund, it already having been paid as you go.
If it’s a tax credit outside the income tax system, I imagine that would be taken into account after the fact? So you end up getting a big refund every year. Which is nice, but surely would be nicer to have had the money all year? Or do employers’ payroll systems take that into account basically like it’s part of income tax?
As a general rule, it will be calculated as part of your tax withholding. If, based on the portion of your annual pay for the year covered by that paycheque, you would be under the limit, no income tax would be withheld. There are a number of modifications to help ensure you’ve had the expected taxes withheld by the end of the year, and they usually work out well. If your paycheques vary wildly, you may see some tax withheld on one and not the other, but if you’re consistently not earning enough to put you at a point where you’d be paying taxes for the year, you won’t see any deductions and won’t have to wait for your tax return to have those withholdings returned.
That said, there are a number of tax credits that apply for low income earners, so you will probably see a tax return even if taxes weren’t withheld. Also, there are other deductions that will happen regardless of your income.
Guess they aren’t counting the social security bill I’ll never benefit from.
That’s a federal tax. I think this picture is referring solely to taxes paid at the state level.
