California hits 6 million residents with unprecedented water restrictions, agriculture is exempt...lol

[Harry Dresden]

DemoKKKrats

you consider yourself a KKK rat?....

 

[sealybobo]

you consider yourself a KKK rat?....

No. The guy I was talking to does. He called me that. I was responding to him. You buttinskied in to our conversation. Don't try to make more out of it than there is. I simply said just like we raise the cost of living to keep blacks from moving from Detroit to Metro Detroit, it seems like the rich in California are trying to run all you rats out of Cali because there aren't enough resources for all of you.

You can't afford to live in NY, Cali or Hawaii. Sorry Harry.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No. The guy I was talking to does. He called me that. I was responding to him. You buttinskied in to our conversation. Don't try to make more out of it than there is. I simply said just like we raise the cost of living to keep blacks from moving from Detroit to Metro Detroit, it seems like the rich in California are trying to run all you rats out of Cali because there aren't enough resources for all of you.

You can't afford to live in NY, Cali or Hawaii. Sorry Harry.

you couldnt afford to live there either......yea i know you think you can.....

 

[sealybobo]

you couldnt afford to live there either......yea i know you think you can.....

I would be able to afford to live there because I wouldn't take a job there unless it paid me a wage that would afford me the same standard of living and lifestyle I'm accustom to Harry. A salesperson doing the exact same thing I do here in Michigan makes more than me because it costs more to live there.

Do I really need to explain this to you Harry?

Do mailmen in California make the same as mailmen in West Virginia Harry balls? No??? WOW! Are you getting the point Harry?


If you make $100,000 a year living in the region of California, USA, you will be taxed $30,460. That means that your net pay will be $69,540 per year, or $5,795 per month. Your average tax rate is 30.5% and your marginal tax rate is 43.1%.

If you make $100,000 a year living in the region of Michigan, USA, you will be taxed $26,909. That means that your net pay will be $73,091 per year, or $6,091

That's only $3K difference

So it must be things cost more in Cali?

Bottom line is

What is the cost of living in California compared to Michigan?


Michigan is 19.0% cheaper than California.


So I would need to make $120K in Cali.

 

[marvin martian]

There you go. You just said the population doubled. We don't like that. So yes, we probably raise prices and taxes to run the rats out.

We do that to black people in Metro Detroit. It's kind of expensive to live in Metro Detroit. You have to cut your grass which means you have to buy a lawnmower and actually cut your grass. Taxes are a bitch. We don't want to make it affordable for just anyone to live here. Take the hint.

Why can't you address the topic? People like you, who have run California for decades, haven't built any new water storage infrastructure in 40 years, during which time the population of the state has doubled. That's an intentionally created crisis. It's your fault, and your fellow DemoKKKrats are now punishing mostly poor and brown people (of course) for their own bad policies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Q. Where does the salt go?

Back in the ocean.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Putting all the salt into the Ocean has serious consequences to all that live in the Oceans.

LOL!

All the life in the ocean was already killed by the saltwater.....wait, whut?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I would be able to afford to live there because I wouldn't take a job there unless it paid me a wage that would afford me the same standard of living and lifestyle I'm accustom to Harry. A salesperson doing the exact same thing I do here in Michigan makes more than me because it costs more to live there.

Do I really need to explain this to you Harry?

Do mailmen in California make the same as mailmen in West Virginia Harry balls? No??? WOW! Are you getting the point Harry?


If you make $100,000 a year living in the region of California, USA, you will be taxed $30,460. That means that your net pay will be $69,540 per year, or $5,795 per month. Your average tax rate is 30.5% and your marginal tax rate is 43.1%.

If you make $100,000 a year living in the region of Michigan, USA, you will be taxed $26,909. That means that your net pay will be $73,091 per year, or $6,091

That's only $3K difference

So it must be things cost more in Cali?

Bottom line is

What is the cost of living in California compared to Michigan?


Michigan is 19.0% cheaper than California.


So I would need to make $120K in Cali.

mail carriers make the same no matter were you live except Alaska....wrong again bobo.....

 

[eagle1462010]

Why would anyone want to live in California.........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would anyone want to live in California.........

Dirty needles and feces.

 

[eagle1462010]

Dirty needles and feces.

Sounds like a leftist thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds like a leftist thing.

They must like it, they haven't done anything to stop it.

 

[sealybobo]

Why can't you address the topic? People like you, who have run California for decades, haven't built any new water storage infrastructure in 40 years, during which time the population of the state has doubled. That's an intentionally created crisis. It's your fault, and your fellow DemoKKKrats are now punishing mostly poor and brown people (of course) for their own bad policies.

Are you kidding?

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

....the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan won. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

....the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan won. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

That darn Reagan!!

How much did he cut corporate rates?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you kidding?

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

....the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan won. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA),

Huh?
Reagan didn't double FICA for people earning less than $40,000

and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Like every President in history?

 

[sealybobo]

That darn Reagan!!

How much did he cut corporate rates?

Corporate tax rates were cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983

 

[sealybobo]

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA),

Huh?
Reagan didn't double FICA for people earning less than $40,000

and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Like every President in history?

I found where Republicans are admitting it's true but that it was Democrats fault. So if I prove he did double FICA for people earning less than $40K, what are you going to do for me? Will you S my D?

 

[sealybobo]

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA),

Huh?
Reagan didn't double FICA for people earning less than $40,000

and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Like every President in history?

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top tax rate for ordinary income from 50% to 28% and raised the bottom tax rate from 11% to 15%. This was the first time in U.S. income tax history that the top tax rate was lowered and the bottom rate was increased at the same time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporate tax rates were cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983

Interesting claim.
What were the rates in 1951? In 1983?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I found where Republicans are admitting it's true but that it was Democrats fault. So if I prove he did double FICA for people earning less than $40K, what are you going to do for me? Will you S my D?

I found where Republicans are admitting it's true but that it was Democrats fault.

Republicans admitted that FICA was doubled? LOL!

So if I prove he did double FICA for people earning less than $40K, what are you going to do for me?

I'll congratulate you for being right, for a change.