[ipaddr]

These are the rates and includes a over million 1% tax for mental support.

California 13.3% Hawaii 11% New York 10.9% New Jersey 10.75% District of Columbia 10.75% Oregon 9.9% Minnesota 9.85% Massachusetts 9% Vermont 8.75% Wisconsin 7.65%

Tax burden is a different measurement including property. Parent poster has no property.

[acdha]

I don’t know your source. None of the ones I’ve seen support that ranking:

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/tax-burden-by-state...

Ah, I see that was copied from the list of top tax rates rather than what most people actually pay:

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/fun-facts/states-with-t...

So, yes, if you’re making millions per year in taxable income, California’s top rate is higher. That is not a concern for anyone outside of the 99.5th percentile, which is uncommon even in FAANG circles.

Tax burden is also the best metric to use because the money has to come from somewhere. If you’re trying to decide where to live, looking at state income tax only is as foolish as only looking at housing purchase prices without also considering your commute, utility, and maintenance expenses.

[gunapologist99]

> So, yes, if you’re making millions per year in taxable income, California’s top rate is higher.

But isn't that what "top rate" meant in the first place? It doesn't mean "median".

Seems like you're moving the goal posts over a few percentage points. Whether it's 12% or 14.4%[0], it's very high.

And at some point those very wealthy and highly mobile people start thinking, "maybe we should crunch the data and do what other wealthy people are doing: find a state with a more reasonable tax bite."

0. https://www.wsj.com/articles/gavin-newsoms-stealth-tax-incre...

[acdha]

Remember that I was correcting someone who hyperbolically claimed California “taxes are the highest in the country and take almost 40% of your income” in a thread claiming that taxes were high enough to make California employee-unfriendly. Whether it’s the 2023 or 2024 rate, they were arguing triple the actual rate and very, very, very few employees in the state are paying even that top rate. Even the WSJ editorial board–hardly neutral–clearly state that this only applies to people making over $1M a year (the top 1% starts around $550k, so that’s pretty elite!).

If you want to accuse anyone of shifting goalposts, start with the people trying to portray the concerns of the top .1% as employee issues.

[kelnos]

I find it weird that people quote top-tax-bracket rates and try to use tha tto directly compare state taxes.

That's nonsensical. You need to compare the effective tax rate that people pay.

When I was making bank at tech, sure, I was in CA's top tax bracket. But I never paid that rate across all my income. My effective tax rate was quite a bit lower.

[acdha]

> But I never paid that rate across all my income. My effective tax rate was quite a bit lower.

This seems to be a strangely common cognitive pitfall - I’ve seen so many people talk about progressive tax rates that way, even claiming that a raise would cost them money, and it’s not like this is a secret or requires advanced math skills.

[borski]

But it does require thinking about more than just the headline. A lot of people are lazy (I don’t mean that as a moral issue, just literally) and don’t want to think for themselves, so often they simply parrot.

[jjallen]

The top tax bracket is more like 50% all in. So I was not quoting the top one with 40%.