I will say that this article points out a CNBC article on "$400k in a big city...". And FAIR seems to be missing that both earnings _and expenses growth_ have been growing very fast for those in cities.
Progressive taxation of someone earning $100k per year in San Francisco or NYC is hardly fair. At least prior to covid19 causing a crash in the rental market one could expect to pay ~$2500 a month to share a 2bedroom place. That's spending 42% of take home pay to have roommates! Not to mention everything else costs more, a meal out, riding the bus, getting your bicycle repaired, clothing etc.
$400k per year is about what it takes to run a middle class family w/ 2 kids in such a city. -- They're already paying $162,121 in taxes annually.
When we progressively tax those who actually have less than the median after CoL, we're being unfair (IMO)
If people were taxed less, housing and rent would be even more expensive in SF.
The solution to the problem is not taxing people in SF less. This is the same flawed idea that the solution to houses being unaffordable is to have a mortgage interest deduction and (previously) a property tax deduction for home-owners.
All this did was make houses and land more expensive to make up for the tax deduction.
I agree that the solution to housing crisis in California is not by reducing taxes. I'm pointing out that progressive taxes on those who, on a cost of living adjusted basis, have less than their less progressively taxed peers.
I full agree that housing costs should not be deductions.
Another way to think about it is that in a high CoL markets, not only does a marginal dollar buy you less marginal goods (such as a burrito), but you also are likely in a higher marginal tax rate making it geometrically worse.
The point is why should someone get progressively taxed when they are attempting to live a "median" American lifestyle.
That is a home, a bedroom for each child (etc as the CNBC article pointed out)
But that's the point. If the median experience, in absolute goods is a certain thing, then why should someone making 6x the median income not be able to afford such a thing. And more topically, why should we introduce additional progressive marginal decrements to what they are able to have?
Middle class is not median. I’d agree that $400k is barely enough to get to the comparable middle class living in NYC. Earning below $100k will get you subsidized college, right?
> Earning below $100k will get you subsidized college, right?
That's more reflective of the insane inflation in college costs (and our typical "socialize things, but in the silliest possible way" approach in the States) than what lower/middle/upper class thresholds are.
Throughout history 99% were lower class. This is coming back. Not being secure about housing, education and healthcare puts you into the lower class. The middle class is almost dead.
Obviously, the «middle class» is a nebulous term defined differently by different authors, but ability to buy a home, having access to good education and childcare, surviving medical bills and set aside enough retirement money to keep the same lifestyle seems pretty reasonable to me.
Progressive taxation of someone earning $100k per year in San Francisco or NYC is hardly fair. At least prior to covid19 causing a crash in the rental market one could expect to pay ~$2500 a month to share a 2bedroom place. That's spending 42% of take home pay to have roommates! Not to mention everything else costs more, a meal out, riding the bus, getting your bicycle repaired, clothing etc.
$400k per year is about what it takes to run a middle class family w/ 2 kids in such a city. -- They're already paying $162,121 in taxes annually.
When we progressively tax those who actually have less than the median after CoL, we're being unfair (IMO)