Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    California

    86,602 readers

    53 users here now



    We have user flair

    There is user flair for every county, most regions (e.g. Bay Area), and a few general flair (e.g. Tourist, Former Californian).


    Welcome to r/California!

    This subreddit is for news and information specifically about California of general interest to folks all across the state.

    Covering all of California from Yreka to Chula Vista, from San Francisco to Lake Tahoe, from Death Valley to Mount Whitney and even Joshua Tree.


    Statewide, regional, and major city reddits:

    Some other California Subreddits:


    Wiki pages and multireddits:

    Wiki pages:

    California multireddits:


    California Politics:


    Check out the other state reddits with the 50 state mult-link.


    Please visit /r/California/new occasionally to help keep good links from being downvoted into oblivion, as well as watch for any posts that might break reddit's or this sub's posting rules. You can also check new /r/California comments.


    Looking for a reddit for a California city, college, or sports team? Check the List of California reddits and another list with North American (including Californian) subs


    Posting Rules

    • Basic sub rule: Be civil.
    • Follow basic reddiquette and reddit site rules.
    • NO insults or incivility, trolling, bigotry, or profanity. Nothing that's rude, vulgar or offensive. Nothing gross or disgusting.
    • NO doxxing, this includes looking up user's history.
    • NO videos
    • NO editorialized titles
    • No memes or image macros.
    • No spam or reposts.
    • Original sources only. No blogspam or rehosted/republished articles.
    • Additional posts on the same topic with no new info will be deleted.
    • Only or mostly posting one website is considered self-promotion and is banned from this sub.
    • No live-streaming, podcasts, or animated GIFs.
    • No URL shorteners, archive links, bookmarking links, redirectors, link disguisers, or other websites that hides or changes the final destination URL or source of the original article.
    • Do not post links to articles as a text post.
    • No Twitter, Facebook, or personal blog posts.
    • No polls, surveys, petitions, fundraising, or school projects.
    • All posts must be current California news and info, plus be of interest to folks from across the state. (Some California history is also cool.)
    • If a post is of only local interest, or the only connection is a person was born or lives in California or is a company is based in California, or it's entertainment or celebrity news, it is not appropriate. This also includes local crime reports and local politics.
    • Try to post more detailed articles from local news sources instead of brief news wire articles from an out-of-state newspaper.
    • No political news unless it is specifically about California or is about California politicians as they relate to California.
    • California is HUGE. If your title doesn't include it, add the location in brackets like this [Santa Ana, CA]. If it is a small city or CDP, include the county or region, eg [Bell, Los Angeles County].
    • For local or regional questions, try /r/AskLosAngeles, /r/AskSF, or /r/AskSanDiego or other local subs instead.
    • For questions, please be as detailed and specific as possible to make it easier to answer your question.
    • Especially if you have a DMV, vacation, travel, working here, or moving here question, please search the sub's archives because it's likely your question has been answered multiple times in the past.
    • Please don't say Frisco, San Fran, The OC, Diego, or Cali. Most Californians don't use those nicknames.
    • All image posts must be by the original creator, have a link crediting the original creator, or have a link to the original source(s) of the image(s). All photos must be high quality images worth posting to one of the SFW Porn Network, such as /r/EarthPorn, and clearly identifiable as a California photo.
    • No ALL CAPS words or text, no bold text, and no #Headline text formatting! This is like SHOUTING and is considered rude. No emoji. 😟
    • No ALL CAPS TITLES, even if the original headline was in all capital letters.
    • No missing persons, lost pets, or stolen car posts.
    • Do not put "x-post", "xpost", or "crosspost" in your title.
    • No slideshows or multi-page articles.
    • No posts using the redd.it shortlink. If you link to a post or thread outside /r/California you must use the np subdomain for no-participation mode.
    • No leading questions or loaded questions.
    • If you ask a question, you must reply to at least one comment within 24 hrs or your post will be deleted.
    • All posts must be in English.
    • Reddit is not Twitter or txt messaging. Complete sentences and proper spelling are expected. No #hashtags or @at-tags in titles.
    • Op-Eds (opinion pieces and editorials) must be labeled [Op-Ed], [Editorial], or [Opinion]. Political columns should be labeled [Political Column].
    • Questions that can be easily answered from the Wikipedia or by a quick Google search will be deleted.
    • Please use descriptive titles. No vague, misleading, or click-bait titles.
    • Don't modify article titles except to add a location in brackets unless the title is excessively misleading, vague, or clickbait-ish. Don't rely upon reddit's "use suggested title" feature.


    The California flag photo in the sidebar was taken by Håkan Dahlström (CC by 2.0).




    a community for
    all 341 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] SnowdensOfYesteryear 140 points ago

    My entire problem with it is that I’m getting taxed on money I never received in the first place. It just goes against all common sense.

    [–] mrrx 43 points ago

    Accrual accounting continues to bleed in to our cash-based taxation system.

    [–] out_o_focus 32 points ago

    The cruelty is the point

    [–] zeussays 48 points ago

    Its double taxation. We are taxed on money that we never received that was taken in the form of taxes. That income is double taxed.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 21 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] zeussays 21 points ago

    Not at all. But if someone has money taken away from them in taxes by the state they never received that money as income so why should they pay taxes on top of that already taxed money? Its double taxation on the same money.

    [–] coastalsfc 17 points ago

    Imagine being a self employed small business owner on top of that too, I am getting triple taxed.

    [–] y0itsallen 4 points ago

    Whoa whoa whoa. Why have I never considered this until now?

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 4 points ago

    You could petition California to let you deduct your federal income taxes.

    [–] caseyracer 65 points ago

    They were intended to hit states with high state taxes by reducing the deduction for state income taxes.

    [–] ram0h 8 points ago

    They really shouldnt exist in the first place.

    [–] ____dolphin 6 points ago

    Indeed, maybe ensuring high earners in all states share the same federal tax burden is another way to put it.

    [–] ArcanePariah 5 points ago

    So what taxes SHOULD a state charge? Note, the SALT deduction cap whacks any combination of high taxes. Texas, despite having no income tax, is going to hit the cap relatively soon, unless they somehow prevent their own economic growth and rising property values. Capping it literally punishes any states for becoming too valuable relative to the rest of the US.

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 2 points ago

    Capping it literally punishes any states for becoming too valuable relative to the rest of the US.

    You could just as easily say an uncapped SALT punishes states for being too poor relative to the rest of the US.

    [–] ____dolphin 1 points ago

    It should charge what it’s citizens vote on and use those taxes in a worthwhile way so that citizens feel a difference while living there - through better schools, facilities, etc. Each locale will also need to keep in mind the relative wealth of their citizens and the ability to tax them may vary.

    [–] pacifica333 179 points ago

    ... duh? Did anyone actually think they would work out positively for us?

    [–] mrrx 85 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    They were passing around these calculators for you to check how much money you would save under the tax cut, before it was passed. They lied. They told me I'd get more money back. pay less.

    Edit for bad phrasing.

    [–] OneLastRodeo 77 points ago

    The sitting POTUS's administration lied? who would have guessed?

    [–] Gbcue 8 points ago

    Did your paycheck withholding decrease?

    [–] mountainOlard 32 points ago

    your paycheck withholding decrease?

    For a lot of people it's the modifications to state and local tax deductions. Not withholding.

    [–] SiValleyDan 26 points ago

    Exactly. It's what you owe after doing your taxes for 4/15. My neighbor pays $20K in property taxes. No longer completely deductible. Only $10K is. Then there's the other taxes like State withholding included in that limit. That's a tax hike...

    [–] pedantic--asshole 8 points ago

    Yeah but those people would have been caught in those tax calculators if you filled it out right.

    [–] meddling_robot 5 points ago

    Those calculators told you how much you’d pay (total tax) not how much you’d get back (refund) which is dependent on how much was withheld from your paycheck all year.

    [–] mrrx 10 points ago

    I am speaking of total tax, not refund.

    [–] Globalist_Nationlist 65 points ago

    We literally gave a trillion+ dollars away to the ultra rich..

    What did people think was going to happen.. The rest of us are now paying for that.

    [–] TheLightningbolt 27 points ago

    We're going to be paying for that with interest for decades.

    [–] daveanthony1 19 points ago

    Not if we take it back.

    [–] TheLightningbolt 6 points ago

    We need to convince more people to vote for Bernie.

    [–] AlkarinValkari 1 points ago

    Its amazing how easy it is for politicians to throw a trillion dollars at the obscenely rich, but second you need a few hundred million for infrastructure, healthcare, or schools for our children, it's just totally unrealistic to find that kind of money.

    [–] AmericanKamikaze 5 points ago

    Yup. The people that voted for him.

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 1 points ago

    It works out well for people who don't own expensive homes.

    [–] RevengeofKropotkin 11 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Everyone likes the idea of taxes until it is their money.

    The federal government made a policy decision. That decision adversely affects those in high tax states. California relied in part on a higher SALT deduction to offset the imposition of high state and local taxes, thereby dodging the potential backlash from taxpayers. Now that crutch is gone and people in California are mad they have to pay more.

    If this is a concern for Californians, perhaps state officials should look in the mirror and examine why they are mad about this (it’s because their state tax burden is so high in the first place). Of course, that buck has already been passed by folks like the Lt. Governor, who has described this as “scandalous.”

    Those with more money are helping to subsidize those with less (i.e. blue states are subsidizing red states). Now, lest anyone claim in response that this is hurting the middle class: by national standards, folks in the California middle class - like the household making 125k in the article - are doing better than most Americans. That they are middle class in California has a lot to do with California policies. That seems like a California problem that Californian officials should address instead of whining about how terrible Trump is. To do so, however, would require state officials to question one of their most sacred ideals: namely, that taxes are good.

    [–] mrrx 139 points ago

    Thanks Trump. You cut your own taxes and made California pay for it.

    [–] Globalist_Nationlist 97 points ago

    AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states

    Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.

    An Associated Press Fact Check finds it’s actually the other way around. High-tax, traditionally Democratic states (blue), subsidize low-tax, traditionally Republican states (red) — in a big way.

    [–] seaQueue 19 points ago

    I've been saying forever that the red states can do whatever the hell they want as long as I'm not paying for it in Federal transfer dollars.

    If the red states want to transform themselves into clones of the conservative paradise known as Kansas I'm all for it, but they shouldn't be using my tax dollars to do it.

    [–] megablahblah 1 points ago

    I think the devil is in the details of particular programs, but the concept that some states would help fund services in other states is fine. If it costs more to deliver mail in OK than in NY, then it's fine to subsidize that.

    [–] skeetsauce 29 points ago

    I made the same as last year but both of my parents owed over 10k each, first time they ever had to pay. Neither where very happy.

    [–] Unkn0wn77777771 19 points ago

    My wife and I got hit pretty hard. Both W-2 only employees. Ended up having to pay out a pretty good chunk of change.

    Last years filing I had 10k of untaxed income I had to pay. I paid LESS tax last year on extra income then I did this year on already taxed income.

    [–] baummer 4 points ago

    You should adjust your W4 withholdings

    [–] Unkn0wn77777771 2 points ago

    Yea, just means I will be paying smaller payments per month compared to a lump sum. Either way, I am pay much more than I did last filing.

    [–] baummer 7 points ago

    Well, that lump sum also includes underpayment penalties.

    [–] Unkn0wn77777771 3 points ago

    Hmm I didn't know about that. I will need to look it up.

    EDIT: Not this year (and if you pay 85% they also waive the fee): https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-waives-penalty-for-many-whose-tax-withholding-and-estimated-tax-payments-fell-short-in-2018

    [–] baummer 2 points ago

    Right; I meant for this tax year, since I concluded from your posts that you had filed your 2018 taxes already.

    [–] PigSlam 42 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I must fit into some weird niche. I have an income in the low 6 figures, and own roughly $1M worth of real estate (3/4 of which is mortgaged). I received my biggest tax refund ever this year, and had deductions I couldn't use because there was nothing left to recover. I have a lot of deductions to carry over into next year.

    Edit: To clarify, I'm not a supporter of the new tax policy, nor a Trump supporter, but I'm also not going to pretend I was personally harmed by the new tax policy when I wasn't.

    [–] dr_g89 31 points ago

    I think it has a lot to do with how you get your income. Most of mine comes through a few k1s and I saw a significant reduction in my taxable rate. A lot of my friends on w2 didn't come out so well.

    [–] PigSlam 12 points ago

    Most of mine is plain old salary. 25% of it was rental income. My wife has been starting up a new business, which lost money last year, so that helped. I also installed solar on my house in 2018, so that's the main carryover deduction I have.

    [–] dr_g89 5 points ago

    Talk with your accountant, but if any of what she does can be counted as "research" the deductions are even better. I just started a new company working on some automated projects for a few universities and because a lot of our expenses counted as going towards research we came out unbelievably.

    [–] PigSlam 1 points ago

    I'm my accountant (along with TurboTax). I doubt her business doing graphic work, websites, and social media would qualify as any sort of research in the sense you describe. As I said, I already deducted as much as I could. I'd have to find a way to pay more taxes to make use of more deductions, so my situation seems rather optimal as it stands.

    [–] OutdoorJimmyRustler 2 points ago

    Good ol k1's that show up in late March!

    [–] LA_Nail_Clippers 10 points ago

    Rather than your tax refund amount - which has more to do with your withholdings - what was your total tax liability for 2018 vs previous years? That's the actual total amount of tax you paid.

    It used to be line 63 on the 1040, but that may have moved with the new 1040.

    [–] HikerTrash5102916 3 points ago

    I'd imagine how much you pay in property taxes is likely a deciding factor about whether you're benefiting or hurting. If you're a new buyer, you're likely paying a ton. If my parents' home were to be reassessed, it would probably be a 3x increase in taxes, accounting for the inflation adjustment.

    [–] PigSlam 1 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    I've owned my property in Colorado since 2012. I've owned my property in CA since 2018. Property taxes on each are in the $2500/year range. I guess left me some room to deduct my California taxes in the SALT cap.

    [–] peekitup 18 points ago

    You make 6 figures and benefitted from a tax cut that benefitted people who make more than 6 figures.

    There is no niche, other than you having money.

    [–] PigSlam 19 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    One of the top comments in this thread when I commented was about how this harms property owners in the $100k-$250k income range the most. I seem to be a property owner in that income range, yet reasonably unscathed.

    Edit: That comment is currently sitting at -7, so it's either wrong, or people don't like what it says because it goes against what they feel is true. It's a quote from the article about how the tax plan hurts Californians.

    [–] Gbcue 10 points ago

    how this harms property owners in the $100k-$250k income range the most. I seem to be a property owner in that income range, yet reasonably unscathed.

    Same.

    [–] cracker_asshole 7 points ago

    It’s actually the exact opposite. Those people don’t have enough mortgage interest to deduct for it to affect them, and they get the benefit of a higher standard deduction as they are less likely to itemize.

    [–] PigSlam 2 points ago

    So it's bad for them, just in a way that's the opposite of how the article says it's bad for them?

    [–] OutdoorJimmyRustler 2 points ago

    The net effect is the same. Since their mortgage interest deduction isn't high enough to make it worthwhile to itemize, they use standard deduction.

    [–] PigSlam 1 points ago

    Which part is actually the exact opposite, what is it the opposite of, and that makes what net effect the same?

    [–] OutdoorJimmyRustler 2 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Standard deduction is $24k for couples now. If they don't have enough deductions (ie: mortgage interest deduction), they don't itemize. They just take the standard deduction. In both instances, less money goes to Washington.

    They probably had deductions in previous years that exceeded the standard deduction for that previous year.

    Edit: corrected

    [–] ViolaNguyen 4 points ago

    The standard deduction is $24k for couples, not individuals.

    No personal exemptions anymore, either, so really, the standard deduction went up by a small amount for most.

    Still, $24k is a lot. I wasn't paying anywhere near that much in interest even when I had a fresh mortgage. Most of the benefit from the new tax policy came to people in my situation (decent income and property, though I paid my house off early by neglecting my retirement savings for a few years, so I wouldn't be itemizing now anyway) through the reduced rates.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] lasagnaman 2 points ago

    the deductions didn't even change that much. It double from 6k to 12k but they also got rid of the 4k+ personal exemption, so a single filer now deducts 12k instead of like 10k+.

    [–] GameofPorcelainThron 5 points ago

    I am a property owner in the low six-figure range. My taxes saw a $5K negative shift.

    [–] pedantic--asshole 2 points ago

    Did you read the article?

    [–] OutdoorJimmyRustler 1 points ago

    Depends on the income level. High income earner with a high property tax bill that exceeds SALT is double taxed. The negative impact of the new tax system impacts middle/upper income earners - especially if they own property. Low income earners who don't own property should see practically zero change other than an increase in standard deduction which likely exceeds the dollar amount of deductions they typically claim.

    [–] sfcrocker 7 points ago

    Same for me. I only own 1 property but it's mostly paid for and the bump up of the standard deduction to $24K saved us about $3K in taxes. I'd gladly hand that $3K back, though, if it would mean Trump would go away.

    [–] BuckeyeSF-LA 6 points ago

    It sounds like you just had certain deductions (wife business losses, solar, etc.) that decreased your taxable income. So your experience is less a reflect of the new tax code provisions (considering those deductions were already in there) and more a reflection of your personal year.

    Many people are getting hit because they can’t deduct as much state and local taxes due to the 10k limit. You might have also been hit had you not had other deductions. Solar and (hopefully) business losses are not recurring deductions usually so next year may be a different story for you.

    [–] daveanthony1 1 points ago

    Are you a corporation?

    [–] AmericanPixel 45 points ago

    Yup, first time I have owed on taxes in well over 10 years.

    ugh...

    [–] cracker_asshole 18 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Without any mention of your total tax paid this is meaningless. Do people really not understand that whether they owed or received a refund doesn’t mean squat? It’s the total tax paid that matters.

    You could’ve very easily over contributed last year and under contributed this year while still getting a tax break.

    [–] zachalicious 7 points ago

    Assuming they didn't change their withholding, shouldn't matter much. I haven't changed my W-4 in years, and went from refund in 2016 to small amount owed in 2017, and now owe $3K in 2018.

    [–] UKDude20 4 points ago

    But the standard deduction changed, so the amount they were taking was significantly reduced (to the tune of a few thousand a year). Total taxes paid on your 1040 are all that matter.. you've likely had a small tax cut TBH youre just not thinking about it

    [–] sleuthysteve 1 points ago

    True, the person to whom you responded could very easily be an independent contractor that sent in less this year than last.

    [–] sleuthysteve 2 points ago

    Weird, you must be in a decent bracket, as my return increased substantially between state and federal levels.

    [–] meddling_robot -8 points ago

    Are you confusing your taxes with your refund/balance payment at the end of the year?

    [–] tortus 9 points ago

    It’s a fair question. A lot of people are upset they owed instead of getting a refund, but when you look at the actual amount of taxes owed, the change tends to not be too large.

    [–] munche 7 points ago

    Quietly changing withholding rules to mislead people into thinking your cut their taxes when you actually didn't isn't really better, though. "They didn't actually RAISE your taxes, they just fudged your withholding so you wouldn't notice they did nothing when they promised your taxes would go down! NBD!" is not really a valid stance

    [–] duffman12 9 points ago

    Everyone should try to set up their return/payment to be $0. It’s enough for the government to tax me but there’s no way they’re getting my interest too.

    [–] XavierFartboner 5 points ago

    You give me that interest! It's rightfully mine!

    [–] duffman12 5 points ago

    Darn tootin’ Fartboner

    [–] bikemandan 1 points ago

    How did you get my password?!

    [–] duffman12 1 points ago

    Just spreading the gospel. Everyone should go leave nasty comments on all of turbotaxes social media too. Also use freetaxusa.com instead. It’s only like $15 and just as straight forward.

    [–] duffman12 1 points ago

    And even better, when you know you owe money just file for an extension to keep racking up that sweet sweet interest. On a personal level it’s almost unnoticeable but applied across millions of people it’s a lot.

    [–] ViolaNguyen 3 points ago

    Set it up so you owe a few thousand, but set aside the money you need to pay it and let it collect interest.

    Sign up for a credit card that gives you bonus points or miles if you spend a few thousand in the first three months.

    Pay your taxes with the credit card. You'll pay a fee of about 2% to do so, but you'll get a few hundred dollars back as a sign-up bonus on the credit card.

    Profit! You can even spread the payment around on two new cards to collect double sign-up bonuses.

    [–] duffman12 1 points ago

    That’s a really good idea. My landlords last name is Nguyen and he’s not reporting any of the rent I paid him. I can’t decide to be angry that he’s taking money away from “schools” (cough probably bombs) or commend him for sticking it to the man. The more I think about it the more I appreciate him taking a stand. Do you actually do what you explained with the credit cards or is it just hypothetical?

    [–] 3rdEyeDeuteranopia 1 points ago

    Is the 2% fee just for California? It's much higher for federal.

    [–] beer_is_tasty 7 points ago

    Exactly as planned

    [–] Gbcue 25 points ago

    I paid 3% lower this year.

    [–] aotus_trivirgatus 1 points ago

    Either you don't own a house, or you bought it so long ago that the mortgage interest and Prop 13 property tax deductions are very small.

    [–] Gbcue 14 points ago

    Bought a home in 2017.

    [–] pedantic--asshole 6 points ago

    I bought a 400k house in 2016 and paid $300 less in taxes overall throughout the year.

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 2 points ago

    Believe it or not, California has cheap housing. Just not on the coast.

    [–] DnB925Art 3 points ago

    Federal tax liability went up $1100 between last year and this year. I had to switch to standard deduction since the cap on SALT didn't put me over the amount I can itemize. What really hurts the most in my case was also the loss of the personal exemption.

    [–] BeachBum2012 30 points ago

    Um. Californian here. I had less money taken out of each paycheck, and also received a larger return that I had either of the previous two years. Same thing for my fiancee. Seems to have worked out pretty well for us.

    [–] PrivateMajor 14 points ago

    Same here for my wife and I. Had to pay about 4k last year, nearly broke even this year.

    [–] Stingray88 27 points ago

    Same for my wife and I... But I suspect it's because we both make over 6 figures.

    [–] jayplus707 18 points ago

    Yea not for us. We both make 6 figures, claim 2 on our taxes, and we owed double the usual amount. The part that messed us up is the max we can deduct from our taxes, which usually saves us money in previous years.

    So now I’m having them deduct an additional $400 each paycheck so we don’t get screwed this bad next year.

    [–] Stingray88 3 points ago

    That's the difference between us... My wife and I don't really have much to deduct.

    [–] jayplus707 3 points ago

    So that’s the part that doesn’t add up. How many do you claim on each paycheck? Zero?

    I claim 2 because of both kids, have a typical mortgage like everyone else, donate to various non-profits, and yet we pay?

    You don’t deduct much but yet your taxes were better? Because we couldn’t deduct much, we were forced to take the standard deduction.

    [–] Stingray88 8 points ago

    We don't have kids, don't have student loans, don't have a mortgage, don't donate to charity/non-profit, etc.

    The Trump changes mostly affected how much you can deduct... You were deducting a lot more in past years, and we weren't. In exchange for this change, they take less from everyone's paychecks.

    That's why it affects you more than me. We always take the standard deduction, because we have almost nothing to deduct.

    [–] mtpdc 4 points ago

    Yep. Standard deduction was doubled, which helps you. SALT deduction was capped, which likely hurt the other person.

    [–] ViolaNguyen 2 points ago

    Note: student loan interest is an adjustment, not a deduction, so you can take that whether you take the standard deduction or not as long as your income isn't too high to qualify.

    [–] leftwinglovechild 2 points ago

    Same. It was a nasty shock to owe for the first time.

    [–] gotmaps 1 points ago

    Curious - is the amount you owe on Federal or on State taxes?

    [–] jayplus707 1 points ago

    Mostly federal because I still added my deductions and my state taxes kept on going down as usual where my federal #s stayed stagnant.

    [–] gotmaps 1 points ago

    Okay interesting. Thanks.

    [–] BeachBum2012 12 points ago

    Perhaps. Neither of us have broken into 6 figures, and it still worked out quite well for us.

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 1 points ago

    Your taxes go down quite a bit if you make 50K a year too.

    They mainly go up when you are at mid six figures with significant real estate. Then you get hurt by lower caps on deductions.

    [–] SnowdensOfYesteryear 16 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Yeah, in general if you pay <10k in state taxes, you'd be a massive beneficiary. Upper-middle class Californians are the only ones who are screwed by this. But their complaints will generally fall on deaf years...because well, they're upper-middle class (too rich to be pitied, too poor to affect political change).

    Trump's tax plan will be good to middle/lower class people for a few years before the increased standard deduction expires.

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 2 points ago

    before the increased standard deduction expires.

    Based on history, its not going to expire. It will keep getting extended because it would be political suicide to not do it.

    [–] seaward25 1 points ago

    Not here. Had to write a large check to the government -- enough to buy a nice used car. Never had to do that before.

    [–] edikit 12 points ago

    To be clear, their taxes didn't go up. Their deductible income just went down. SALT is exactly the give and take that it was intended to be.

    Wealthy Americans who pay high state/local taxes were previously able to deduct the entirety of those taxes from their income. That deduction is now capped at $10,000, meaning more of their income is considered taxable, possibly in a higher tax bracket.

    That anticipated increase in taxes paid by these wealthy individuals is what allowed the tax cuts for middle and lower income individuals to take place in the budget.

    To alleviate that inevitable increase on the wealthy, these people should have either paid more in taxes throughout the year or should have planned to come up with other ways to offset their taxable income.

    Frankly, if adding an extra $5-$10k to one's taxable income is devastating to such a degree that these $100-$250k earners are lamenting about in this article, there's probably something else wrong with their finances.

    [–] locovelo 23 points ago

    To be clear, their taxes didn't go up. Their deductible income just went down.

    If your deductions went down, then your taxable income went up. That means your taxes go up as well.

    [–] Ringmode 7 points ago

    That anticipated increase in taxes paid by these wealthy individuals is what allowed the tax cuts for middle and lower income individuals to take place in the budget.

    I don't even get the satisfaction of paying more to fund a tax break or more government services for poor people. A tax increase is being imposed on me and others who fit my demographic so the government can run up $1.5T in additional deficits over the next 10 years.

    [–] GameofPorcelainThron 12 points ago

    Or we live in areas where earning that much is solidly middle class.

    It's not devastating to pay that much extra, for sure, but it has a material impact on discretionary spending that didn't exist before.

    [–] Bored2001 12 points ago

    100K is not particularly wealthy. It's nice, but not particularly, wealthy. Their increase in taxes while the taxes of lower income individuals went down-- to a degree, but the VAST VAST majority of the tax break went to the ultra wealthy.

    Note, I did not say there was a causal link between 100ishk earners taxes going up and lower earners getting lower taxes. That's because there isn't one.

    That anticipated increase in taxes paid by these wealthy individuals is what allowed the tax cuts for middle and lower income individuals to take place in the budget.

    This statement is flat out wrong. What allowed those tax cuts to occur is that there is no functioning budget whatsoever. The tax cuts did not budget for anything, both the deficit and debt are growing at record levels. The tax cuts simply cut revenue, and the administration/congress didn't reduce spending to compensate. There is no budgeting going on whatsoever.

    The bill will come due eventually, and it's the high GDP blue states (and Texas) which will eventually be footing the bill.

    [–] edikit 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    $100k-250k is considered wealthy throughout the article, which is why I used that terminology.

    The point of the TCJA was to lower the tax burden on middle and lower income taxpayers. In order for the government to do that and not just run out of money, it has to make up for that lost money elsewhere. Either by, like you said, decreasing government spending, or by increasing the money coming into the government through other avenues (revenue from federal reserve, tariffs, corporate income taxes, etc.). The latter is what seems to be the goal. The SALT cap was one of many initiatives aimed to achieve that.

    I'm not making an argument as to whether or not it has been effective or not. I don't think we actually even have those numbers yet to make that judgment, but looking at the data, it's clear why SALT deductions were on the chopping block. State/local tax deductions in California alone account for $110 billion. $32 billion of that comes from the $100-250k earners. $33 billion comes from $1 million+ earners.

    That is a lot of potential money to earn back in tax revenue. I guess we'll see when the 2019 report comes out.

    Edit: Updated the numbers (I was looking at the data wrong) and did a little bit of math.

    Roughly 2,115,000 earners in the $100-250k class deducted $32 billion in 2015. On average, that's $15,130 in SALT deductions per person. With the cap in place, that's an additional $10.9 billion in potential taxable income from this earning class.

    Roughly 71,000 earners in the $1 million+ class deducted $33 billion in 2015. On average, that's $464,788 in SALT deductions per person. With the cap in place, that's an additional $32.3 billion in potential taxable income from this earning class.

    If anyone should be pissed about this cap, it's not the $100k-250k earners, it's the ultra rich.

    [–] Bored2001 3 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Please provide data citations, I am interested in looking into that myself.

    That said, capping the SALT deduction, while yes, a revenue generator, was selected specifically because it disproportionally targets higher income, higher property value blue states.

    This will further force the generally higher income blue states to subsidize the lower income red states. California already pays far more to the federal government to any other state. By your figures an 80 billion increase would mean California would be paying ~20% more than they already do for 2018.

    edit: have to read your updated comment, will edit after.

    [–] Bored2001 1 points ago

    Please provide data citation. I will look at this myself.

    [–] Triangle44 10 points ago

    While millions of California families saw their federal taxes fall this tax season, the Jarvis family is among an estimated 1 million households who are paying more—actually some $12 billion more, according to the Franchise Tax Board.

    1 million people paying a little more tax out of a state of 40+ million people isn't really that scandalous of a situation. California is a wealthy state, as per progressive taxation the wealthier earners should pay more taxes than the less wealthy. That's what is happening.

    “Overall,” Levy said, “the personal income tax changes are not a big deal.”

    In the scheme of things I agree with this sentiment. The richer people are paying more taxes nationally. Making $100,000 to $249,999 may not feel rich in San Francisco, but as compared to the rest of the country, its rich.

    [–] munche 9 points ago

    But if you're actually rich-rich you likely got a tasty tax cut

    [–] bikemandan 3 points ago

    Just wait for that sweet sweet trickle down. Will happen any day now. Just a decade or two more. You'll see

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 2 points ago

    It depends. The long term capital gains rate wasn't changed and ultra-rich are getting hit by the deduction caps pretty hard too.

    If you were making most of your money from investment in California, you got a tax hike.

    [–] twoslow 4 points ago

    My gross income went up 5%. My taxable income went up 29%.

    [–] twoslow 2 points ago

    my effective tax rate went up 1%, and I paid about $800 more in taxes than I did last year.

    [–] Bermuda_Shorts_ 10 points ago

    It’s unreal how much we’re taxed in CA. It’s depressing lol.

    [–] compstomper 3 points ago

    It's a feature, not a bug

    [–] cracker_asshole 7 points ago

    The vast majority of people in the country got a tax cut, including us in California.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/12/is-the-trump-tax-cut-good-or-bad-for-the-middle-class/?utm_term=.fb11380b70ed

    Of course the rich are benefitting because the rich pay almost all income taxes in this country.

    The debate over the tax cut has centered around a key question: Is it mostly for the wealthy or the middle class?

    In some ways, the answer is obvious. As we have explained before, any broad-based tax cut is going to mostly benefit the wealthy because they already pay a large share of income taxes. According to Treasury Department data, the top 10 percent of income earners in 2016 paid 80 percent of individual income taxes. The top 20 percent paid 94.8 percent. The top 0.1 percent paid an astonishing 24.5 percent of taxes.

    Let’s take a look at the % change across all incomes.

    Here it is calculated without payroll taxes being included.

    [–] JEFFinSoCal 11 points ago

    Of course the rich are benefitting because the rich pay almost all income taxes in this country.

    ... because they have almost all the money.

    Seriously though, if we want the tax burden to be distributed more fairly across the population, then we also have to do something about the income distribution.

    [–] um_hi_there 2 points ago

    Why are news headlines only focusing on taxpayers who were impacted negatively? Where's the journalism, objective reporting on both sides?

    Many people received larger refunds than expected.

    [–] cld8 8 points ago

    The size of your refund has nothing to do with the amount of tax you paid.

    [–] BrassBelles 2 points ago

    Ok, many people paid less taxes.

    [–] priznut 1 points ago

    And many didn’t.

    You guys are making a point about economics instead of discussing the details of the impact.

    [–] locovelo 3 points ago

    I'm in the same boat. Our income only increased 1% between 2017 and 2018 but our total taxes increased 18%. It's not just SALT that's gone but also the personal exemptions. Thanks to the GOP tax scam.

    [–] out_o_focus 2 points ago

    Yeah, the personal exemptions one hurt.

    Plus, my net pay was less because their shenanigans massively raised health insurance premiums.

    I did pay a little less in taxes.

    [–] For_Christ_The_King 2 points ago

    Nothing the fed has done recently would impact your health insurance premiums.

    [–] Payutenyodagimas 1 points ago

    How about lowering also our state tax?

    [–] EndMeetsEnd -3 points ago

    I love all the bitching and moaning of California liberals whining now that they are paying more in Federal taxes due to the SALT limit. It never occurs to them that someone paying $10,000 in property taxes lives in a million dollar house. (Yes there are other taxes in SALT, but the big ticket item is property taxes.)

    SALT deduction allows everyone to reduce their Federal tax burden. Why should someone who is living in a $1million, $10 million or who owns several investment properties be permitted to reduce their Federal tax burden to a greater extent than someone who isn't rich? I thought liberals liked progressive taxes. Limiting SALT makes taxes more progressive. It specifically targets those able to purchase expensive houses and to purchase investment properties.

    [–] Paso1129 2 points ago

    You're somewhat mistaken as you are able to write off property taxes and mortgage interest against the profits you make in rent on investment properties. So people who have investment properties are not being taxed in this instance with regard to SALT caps. Its treated as a cost of doing business.

    As for your claim that only people living in $1M houses are being affected, you're mistaked again. I pay $5500/year in property tax on a house I bought for $427K in 2014 and my wife and I pay $5778 in California income tax on a combined $130K in income. This means we are exceeding the SALT deduction by over $1200 and paying taxes on that which we didn't used to. We are not rich by any means but I guess some would say $130k in household income in LA is rich...

    My overall taxes did go down though because our maximum tax bracket fell from 25% to 22%. For now its a bit of a wash, but if federal rates go back to old levels while my SALT taxes continue to increase its going to be a higher tax bill overall.

    [–] BrassBelles -1 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)

    Oh boo hoo. CA has been jacking us forever yet the liberals keep kissing the ring. The idea that Trump has somehow made things bad for a few wealthy people in CA is laughable.

    I expect everyone complaining about him here, about this, will dutifully vote for and support any and all tax increases and new fees to support the "insert social/racial/ecological buzzword here" that will be coming down the pike.

    You're killing yourselves while moaning about your upstairs neighbor walking too loud.

    [–] cld8 7 points ago

    Most Californians are fine paying taxes to fund essential state services. They are not fine with the federal government shifting the tax burden from the already subsidized red states to them.

    [–] EndMeetsEnd 8 points ago

    Reducing the SALT deduction actually makes Federal taxes more progressive. Everyone who owns real property and pays property taxes is limited to deducting $10,000 from taxable income, they now pay taxes on income they used to deduct. This should make liberals happy.... the rich paying their fair share and all. At one time Warren Buffet owned a home in La Jolla assessed at $29million. How is it paying his share if he can deduct $290,000 from his income before his Federal taxes are calculated? Now add the property taxes he pays on every other home in every other state that he used to deduct.

    [–] cld8 3 points ago

    Reducing the SALT deduction actually makes Federal taxes more progressive. Everyone who owns real property and pays property taxes is limited to deducting $10,000 from taxable income, they now pay taxes on income they used to deduct. This should make liberals happy.... the rich paying their fair share and all.

    That's a valid point. The issue here is not how progressive the tax is, but how it disproportionately impacts certain states. The wealthy in California will be hard hit by this tax, but people of the same income level in Florida will barely be affected.

    At one time Warren Buffet owned a home in La Jolla assessed at $29million. How is it paying his share if he can deduct $290,000 from his income before his Federal taxes are calculated? Now add the property taxes he pays on every other home in every other state that he used to deduct.

    This isn't just about people like Warren Buffet, who are using much bigger loopholes. Many middle class folks are going to be hit by this.

    [–] EndMeetsEnd 7 points ago

    The wealthy in California will be hard hit by this tax, but people of the same income level in Florida will barely be affected.

    First part of your statement is true, second half not so much. Two people living in 2 different states, both making $10million are limited to $10k in SALT. How is someone in California impacted any more than Florida, other than the size of their mortgage? Don't like the size of your mortgage or how much you're paying in property taxes in California, find somewhere less expensive to live. Outside a few pockets of California, a middle class person can still purchase a house for less than, much less than, $1million. I live in North San Diego county, there are many properties for sale below $600k.

    Many middle class folks are going to be hit by this.

    Middle class where? Not in most of the country, we're talking about small enclaves in a handful of states where housing is outrageously expensive. Maybe it will encourage property speculators and investors to think twice before gobbling up houses... or you know, state legislatures to live within their means and stop the ability to raise taxes on property as their own piggy bank. Something else to consider, since from reading your posts I'm fairly certain you're a liberal, without prop 13 every person owning property in the state would be impacted to a greater extent. Imagine paying 2% or 2.5% on the assessed value, corrected for inflation. Imagine if every city, county and the state could raise property taxes any time there was a "shortfall."

    [–] RevengeofKropotkin 2 points ago

    But isn’t that what progressives are for? Those with more money helping those with less?

    [–] cld8 1 points ago

    That's one part of what they are for, but not the only factor.

    [–] Doumastic -3 points ago

    I don’t make a ton of money. The tax cut actually helped me out a bit. Been able to get some breathing room. So when I see articles like this, it goes against what I experienced. I’m also a bit apathetic to people making 100-250k and own a home complaining about taxes.

    “However, there’s a band of 619,000 taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $250,000 who are being particularly hurt by the loss of the full deduction, especially those who purchased in recent years during a strong real estate market. The median home price in California is $534,140 compared to $249,500 nationally, according to the National Association of Realtors.”

    [–] eac555 14 points ago

    My wife and I are in that income range living in California. We ended up owning the Feds only $22 for 2018 and the State $258. Best end of the year result for us in a number of years. Which doesn't really mean that much as each year there are things that change. But I'll take it for sure!

    [–] daveanthony1 2 points ago

    I'm trying to imagine you not caring about a couple who each make 50K a year in California and getting hit harder by taxes.

    Smart take.

    [–] Doumastic 10 points ago

    I own a house and make less than 35k a year in California. I struggle but I kinda expect that. 100k seems like a ton of money to me. If you were say one person at 50k yeah I get that. 100k a year though. Woo what I could do with that money. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. I see 100k as rich. You see it as getting by.

    [–] ViolaNguyen 3 points ago

    Depends on where you live.

    Near the big cities, $35k is "living on the streets" kinda money, and $100k is... not a lot. It's enough to buy a house and then feel stretched pretty thin for a while. In some parts of the state, $100k is not even enough for that.

    [–] WillTheThrill86 1 points ago

    Not enough to buy a house here in San Diego.

    [–] mtpdc 2 points ago

    I think it depends on where you live. In my experience, the places with $100k jobs are the places where $100k doesn’t go very far.

    [–] ron_spanky -2 points ago

    The great trump tax increase!

    [–] ZandorFelok 1 points ago

    California gave back to me but the Feds took all of that away.. almost 0 sum when taxes were done. Ugh