A question about state income taxes

My state, Texas, does not have an income tax. Many voters, and legislators, are very strongly against imposing an income tax, even if it will better fund education and other programs. The odds of an income tax in Texas are pretty slim.

My question is to those who have a state income tax:

  1. Is the amount you pay to the state deductible on your Federal income tax form? If so, doesn’t the total amount of income taxes you pay balance out?
  2. Disregarding all other taxes (property, sales, use fees, etc.), do you pay more income tax because of your state’s income taxes? (Okay, I guess that’s kind of the same question again.)

I tend to think that an income tax would be good for Texas, provided that sales and property taxes would be lowered. I’m trying to understand the ramifications from those who already have a state income tax.

Thanks.

  1. Yes, but it doesn’t balance out because you get to deduct the taxes from your income, not your taxes due. So if I pay $3000 in NJ State taxes, and my federal tax bracket is 33%, I will pay $1000 less in federal taxes, for a net increase of $2000.
  2. Yes, it is, and that is kind of the same question.

The problem is that if we didn’t have the income tax, theoretically our property taxes would be even higher. The I.T. was supposed to be used to help local schools, which are funded mostly from local real estate taxes. Many people doubt that the I.T. has reduced their overall tax burden, though, since property taxes seem to be as high as ever.

I wonder what the effect on the entire US would be if a state as huge as Texas went to a state income tax. With all those tax payers making a new deduction, would the IRS feel the hit?

Well, the info you’d need to make an estimate would include Texas’ taxpayer population and the income distribution, and the same data for the whole of the U.S. taxpayer population.
While not precisely what you need, some of the figures on this Census Bureau page might let you make some estimates.

California, a state even huger than Texas, has a state income tax.
I once tried (pre-internet) to find a chart of total state tax burden, by state and individual, but I didn’t get anywhere with it.
Nevada doesn’t count.
Peace,
mangeorge

Whyy doesn’t Nevada count?

In Oregon, we have income tax but no sales tax.

We are allowed to deduct (if I remember correctly) up to about $3,500 of our federal income tax. But even that looks like it is going to go away.

You are allowed to deduct state income tax if you itemize your deductions. Does this make it a wash? No… here’s why:

Your income: $100,000

Your federal tax rate: 20%

Amount you owe with no state income tax: $20,000.
Net in your pocket without a state income tax: $80,000.

Amount deducted from your paycheck for state income tax: $10,000 (10% rate)

Amount you owe feds with a deduction: (20% x $90,000) = $18,000
Amount in your pocket: ($100,000 - $18,000 - $10,000) = $72,000

Whatever numbers you choose will work the same way. A deduction is not the same as a credit and as a result you will have less money at the end of the day. It won’t be the state rate lower, but it will be lower. Your effective state rate will be: state rate - (state rate * fed rate). In this example, that would be 10% - (10% * 20%) = 8%. On $100,000, that would be $8,000. And, as shown, you are in fact down $8,000 more than if you didn’t have a state income tax.

In raw formula form:

X = amount you made

f = federal tax rate
s = state tax rate

Amount you have with no state tax:
x - f*x

Amount you have with state tax and no deduction for state tax:
x - fx - sx

Amount of fed tax with state tax deduction
f*(x - x*s)

Amount you have with fed tax and state tax deduction
x - f*(x - xs) - xs (income - fed tax liability - state tax liability)
= x - fx + fxs - xs

Compare this with x - fx - sx.

The difference is, of course, that little f*s factor talked about earlier. In other words, that deduction will save you just a fraction of what you would save if there were no state tax to begin with.

This is worst case as you might fall into a lower fed bracket with the added deduction, but it is highly unlikely this will make the difference to the point you break even.

Because they don’t (or didn’t) levy much taxes on residents. That might have changed, though, due to out-of-state competition in the gambling business.
Anyway, I like to pick on Nevada.

OK, mangeorge define huger!:wink:

Doesn’t CA have an upper limit on property taxes? Even though the value of real estate has been exploding out there, the rate limit restricts the amount of revenue the state guv’mt can collect.

For Drum God , I think we end up paying “normal” amounts of taxes in TX, its just collected differently. The sales tax is 8.25% where I live (add that to a new computer, or a new car - ouch!). That and higher property taxes mean that the amount the state gets from each citizen is probably roughly equal to other states. Of course, you have more control over your taxes here (don’t buy that computer, or don’t buy that house), but I think the end result is mostly a wash.

So for comparison purposes, in Dallas TX:
State income tax: 0%
Sales tax: 8.25%
Property tax (varies by city, but): 3.75%

The obvious variables are how much you pay for your house, and how much you consume (other than food, which is taxed at a lower rate or not taxed at all).

Anyone have examples from a state with an income tax?

In Napa county, CA –

State income tax: between 1.0 and 9.3%
Sales tax: 7.75%
Property tax: 1% plus local levies

The income tax mostly goes to the state government; the local governments mostly rely on the property tax (which is ridiculously low, but nevermind).

IIRC the state of Texas put it the people and it was decided that rather than have a state income tax, the state would sponsor a lottery and a large % of the proceeds would go to education. The figures arrived at showed that more revenue would be raised by having a state sponsored lottery than an income tax.

Plus, whether true or not, it was portrayed as being somewhat “voluntary” this way. Meaning you don’t have to buy lottery tickets and those folks who felt they couldn’t afford to pay more taxes wouldn’t be burdened. Although, it’s the folks from lower incomes who purchase the bulk of the tickets. <roll eyes>

That’s fine with me, because I really can’t afford to pay any more in taxes AND I do NOT buy lottery or scratch off tickets.

We therefore do NOT currently have a state income tax. I’m not sure how long this “deal” was supposed to be honored though.

The problem now is where the hell is the money going?

t-keela thanks for pointing out the lottery - I’d forgotten about that as a source of revenue.

I’d limit the comments about where the money goes - this is GQ, not GD, after all!

From the only post so far with numbers from another state, it looks like CA makes up for low property taxes with the state income tax.

CA sales tax: 7.75%, TX sales tax: 8.25%
CA property tax: 1%+local levies, TX property tax: 3.75%
CA income tax: 1-9%, TX sales tax: 0%

But CA also has a lottery, doesn’t it? Is that money earmarked for something specific (like schools) or does it go into the general state budget?

I admit that I find this subject fascinating - states for the most part have balanced budgets, and every state has a different demographic. How do they raise the money? And what do residents of State X get for their money?

The “what do they get” is more for GD, but the “how do they raise it?” can stay here, I think. Its amazing that states like FL and TX have no state income tax, but get along just fine (and by that I mean they are not ready to declare bankruptcy).

I know it’s late, but hopefully in the morning some more folks will chime in with their state’s methods of gathering the money!

No prob. p141 I surely don’t want to open that can of worms. Nor do I wish to hijack this thread.
Although that might be an interesting topic…adios. :slight_smile:

Texas and Florida also have large populations of illegals and because those states have no state income tax, the legals and the illegals have the same state tax burden. Maybe that’s part of they why. If you use sales and property taxes* to make the cash, you get it from everyone. Any fans of tax code and attendant literature run across a discussion of this? Or is this some kookoo notion that makes no sense?

*In many cases, by the way, recent immigrants (perhaps not entirely documented) live in with an extended family (some of whom are documented). And, of course, landlords make sure their property taxes are covered by rent.

Actually, I think we Texans pay significantly lower taxes than residents of other states. We certainly receive fewer services than residents in other states. Also, the sales tax on a new car is computed differently than the tax on other consumer goods. The state takes a bigger bite of new car sales.

I disagree with your assertion that you have more control over your taxes. Sales tax does depend on consumption, but it falls equally on everyone, without regard to their ability to pay. Some people, for example, can swallow that 8.25% on a new computer more easily than others. An income tax takes into account the taxpayer’s ability to pay. I think this is a significant difference that should not be ignored.

Most food is not currently taxed in Texas, but the recent legislature did consider taxing groceries. Again, there goes your idea of control. Everyone has to eat.

Your property tax illustration left out the largest property taxing authority in Texas – school districts. I know on my tax bill, that’s where the hit is. This is certainly a GD statement, but I would like to see taxes spread more evenly accross the population and based, at least in part, on the taxpayers ability to pay.


Completely off topic: I have been absent from this discussion because my son died on May 27. My wife nearly died a few days later (pre-eclampsia). We are in a bit of shock around here. Any positive thoughts/prayers/etc. would be appreciated.

To put numbers to this assertion, here’s a specific example -

Flood - .01%
College - .10%
Hospital - .24%
County (Bexar) - .34%
City (San Antonio) - .58%
Local School Disrtict - 1.64%

I’m not sure how this compares to the California example of 1% + local levies. What is the definition of local?