Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Dredly t1_jbgjhb2 wrote

But we have the lowest tax on companies stripping our our natural resources! Yay Republicans!

109

HomicidalHushPuppy t1_jbgpk03 wrote

They forgot to include our ridiculous death taxes

Edit: the state taxes your wealth when you earn it and your stuff as you buy it, they have no right to just take all your shit when you die

9

berraberragood t1_jbgt372 wrote

Depends on your situation. Taxes on the rich are a lot lower than many states.

38

j428h t1_jbgvc96 wrote

We live in a gold plated dumpster

65

ProleAcademy t1_jbgww8t wrote

We need a progressive state income tax so we can make other, more regressive taxes more reasonable.

But to do that we need enough votes in the legislature to push a constitutional amendment

4

sizzlemac t1_jbgxjvk wrote

.....no shit....

The state motto should be: Because fuck you; That's why.

78

Au2288 t1_jbh02y1 wrote

Breaking News: Nothing’s changed

4

kidneysrgood t1_jbh2s0f wrote

I don’t buy into the property tax calculation. As a percentage of the property value, it seems reasonable when compared to states like Connecticut and Massachusetts. Either way, we pay for our local services and school districts.

10

Aisling207 t1_jbh3ly2 wrote

I’d love to see a source on that estimate. As for lawyers’ fees, that’s bs; you can’t avoid it. And there’s no amount exempt; you pay it if your estate is $10 or $10 million.

0

psychcaptain t1_jbh4yxy wrote

Because it doesn't really matter to most people? Honestly, inheritance tax is still such a pittance, and does nothing to prevent the concentration of wealth into a new, crappy aristocracy.

The fact that people like Paris Hilton exist is a reason to support 100% I heritage tax when only adults are involved.

−3

HomicidalHushPuppy t1_jbh7jjk wrote

But think about what you could do with extra money - reinvest it, build a business, start a charity, etc. Instead it just disappears into the state's coffers. If it's ever seen again, it'll be in the form of a public service where the benefit to everyone is financially negligible.

0

psychcaptain t1_jbh82j0 wrote

You mean pay for roads, police, hospitals and schools because Rich people do Fuck all with their money, except make sure their descendants stay wealthy, and give large endowments to build statues to their honor.

I have no interest in support somebody's Egyptian Pharaoh Cosplay, when the money could be better used in the Commonwealth.

If you don't like how the money is being used in the Commonwealth, do something about. Run for office and make a difference.

3

Aisling207 t1_jbh96za wrote

That’s a very uninformed comment. Some people would lose pension and/or social security benefits that they need to live on if they remarry. Or the ability to be buried with a military vet former spouse.

3

psychcaptain t1_jbh9mhe wrote

Unmarried couples is a pretty easy problem to solve.

If they are unmarried for tax reasons than this is the risk they take.

As for the Fed, there is a lot they don't tax and a lot they do tax that is different from the state.

The Fed doesn't tax 401(k), but the State does. The State doesn't taxes 529, but the Fed does. It's not a serious argument.

Found families aren't taxed any different from regular families with kids over 21 so I don't think that works either.

0

psychcaptain t1_jbh9yqc wrote

Sorry, as a strong believer in Capitalism, and Earned Wealth, the idea of Generational wealth is horrifying.

You earn your own money, not get it past down to you. That shit is for pansy ass white lily aristocrat wannabes. This is the United States of America. You pull yourself up by the bootstraps, you work hard, and you get things done.

2

Aisling207 t1_jbhatl3 wrote

Oh, boy.

I never said “unmarried for tax reasons,” I pointed out that many widows/widowers will lose all of their pension and social security benefits if they remarry. That’s not about taxes, it’s about survival.

The Fed absolutely does tax 401(k) benefits.

Found families are taxed at 15% by PA. Lineal descendants are taxed at 4.5%, siblings at 12%. So yes, they are absolutely treated differently.

2

Aisling207 t1_jbhbh6p wrote

So a widow trying to scrape by on a pension they’d lose if they remarry is gaming the system? I guess widows should retreat into perpetual mourning and never find another relationship to satisfy your “sympathy” requirements. Good grief. Literally.

2

Aisling207 t1_jbhbuzn wrote

You have that completely backwards. A Roth IRA has already had federal taxes withheld and withdrawals are not taxed. 401(k)s contributions and gains are not taxed by the Feds until withdrawal.

And no one is “giving” anyone “more” by abolishing inheritance tax.

0

psychcaptain t1_jbhcdlb wrote

I don't think Pensions are written the way you think they are.

Those that are a based on the idea of 'double dipping' where the money is a last resort. If you happen to get married, than the last resort shouldn't be necessary any more.

0

Aisling207 t1_jbhdhxs wrote

I’m very familiar with pensions, including civil service, military, and private company pensions, as well as social security, thanks to helping several older relatives deal with their reduced pensions and social security benefits upon the death of a spouse. I honestly have no idea what you mean by “double dipping” or “last resort.” Do you know any retirees or widows?

Perhaps you think everyone should have an IRA or 401(k)? Well, many current retirees spent their main working years before those were the main way to save for retirement. And many people spent years out of the workforce caring for children or elderly relatives (for no pay).

It’s easy to be unsympathetic to hypothetical situations. When you actually see people struggling, it gets real.

2

psychcaptain t1_jbhdj0l wrote

Ironically, I've worked in the retirement industry for over half a decade, and I do know the rules for 401(k) and Roth pretty well. I was talking about taxes per payroll.

Since we are talking about being dead, you aren't actually taxes on your 401(k). It can be passed on to your children and or spouse.

As for inheritance Taxes, I love it. It solves 3 distinct problems and no one suffers.

1). In a capitalist system, money should be earned. People should work for it. Competition should bring out the best. Generational Wealth distorts the system. It creates dynasties of people earning wealth on their wealth based on little or no input of the one holding it. It creates lazy lay abouts landless aristocracies and new version of feudalism. It breaks the system down.

2). The funding can be used for things that people care about, rather than statues, university wings of colleges you family will never attend, KKK groups or Libraries.

3). It helps people realize that they should spend their hard earned money and enjoy life. Accumulating wealth should not be something people do as an end goal Eye of a needle vs camels.

Now, I am happy to make exceptions for spouses and minor children, but outside of that, well, I hate the idea of creating more loop holes where none are necessary.

−3

psychcaptain t1_jbhflr7 wrote

I am unsympathetic to Babies Boomers who voted GOP for decades, and now getting hurt by their own rules.

I do now a bit about Social Security Benefits though. As a widow, you get up to 75% of your spouses PIA as long as it doesn't exceed your benefits. Homemakers are screwed by this, but so is everyone without an income, whether you are married or not. God, if you have been disabled for a while, that's a lot of potential income you have lost for Social Security Benefits. You do get COLA.

But, I digress. As widow (er), you can get up to 75% of your spouses PIA, as long as it doesn't exceed your own Payments. Depending on the situation, that should be more than half the income people usually get, which makes some sense, because it's supporting half the people.

Here's the thing, if you remarry before 60, you might lose it (unless you divorce again), but if you remarry after 60 you don't.

If you remarry before 60, hopefully you are working and making your way in the world, and of reliant on your dead husbands pension.

−1

Aisling207 t1_jbhft7l wrote

My point was that even the Fed recognizes that taxing all estates/inheritances regardless of size is unfair. You are arguing for a regressive tax. A widow/er who would lose their income or right to be buried with a previous spouse by remarrying should not be forced to sell their house to pay the state if their partner dies. A person without children should not be penalized for wanting to provide for the time and expenses of an unrelated caregiver.

1

start260 t1_jbhg2zs wrote

That’s still a substantial amount of tax revenue. However I did not realize how much the revenue has gone down. The feds getting rid of the estate tax which effectively repealed the Pa Estate tax and legislation allowing the ability to pass down family owned businesses and farms without paying the tax has had a huge effect on revenue. So yes there are ways to avoid the tax and Estate lawyers do earn their keep.

1

psychcaptain t1_jbhg399 wrote

A widow only loses the benefits if they get married before age 60.

Do you know a lot of 50 year Widows living off their dead spouses Social Security Benefits?

We aren't talking about 75 year Meredith, we are talking about 50 year Sandra's, who should get a job.

And if they are disabled at 50, and getting DIB, they also keep their Spouses benefits.

−1

Aisling207 t1_jbhh4cp wrote

Oh, cool, I see we’ve moved into the ASSumption phase here. News flash: not all Silent Generation and Baby Boomers voted GOP. Not all of them lived in PA for their entire voting/working lives.

Social security is one thing. Pensions are absolutely lost upon remarriage. And the thing is, half of one’s expenses don’t disappear when one spouse dies. Some expenses decrease, but not all, and often not by half. And some widowed spouses are caring for minor children.

But, whatever. The fact is that one half of an unmarried couple, whether it is a romantic couple, relatives or roommates should not have to lose their home to pay the state when someone dies.

3

Aisling207 t1_jbhi6f2 wrote

Look, it’s really not your business to tell anyone to get a job. But realistically, yes, we ARE talking about 75 year old Meredith, who relies on a pension and cannot remarry, but who met a nice person she’d like to be with, but would lose that pension and the ability to be buried with her first spouse if she remarried. She and her partner own a house together. Or maybe she and her sister own the house. If that person dies, she owes PA a big check, which forces her to sell. Plus she has to turn over part of her bank accounts.

We really aren’t talking about Real Housewives of Altoona or Paris Hilton or whatever.

1

hippata2023 t1_jbhjj35 wrote

PA's death tax is insane. The lowest rate is 4.5% between direct descendants/lineal heirs (e.g. parents to kids) and there is no floor. If your parent's estate is greater than 0, you're going to owe 4.5% of whatever's there.

For context, the Fed's do it right: in order to be subject to it, the estate has to have be in excess of $12 million.

25

hippata2023 t1_jbhl03i wrote

That's bad information, which is surprising come from a law firm.

While joint assets will avoid probate, they're still subject to PA inheritance tax. My grandmother got nailed with this because she comingled (joint bank account) her monies with my aunt (my aunt had a long, hard road to death through severe dementia and multiple strokes). She did it because she found it easier to manage my aunt's estate while she was alive. When my aunt died, my grandmother was on the hook on paying tax on the half the balance of this account -- even though, by this time, most of the funds in the account were my grandmothers, not my aunt's. Yes, she was taxed on her own money.

Joint assets held by spouses will avoid the inheritance tax, but that's it. Only spouses.

Regarding irrevocable trusts, I researched this awhile ago and can't quite get back to it. While most states do observe irrevocable trusts as a way to avoid probate, PA is a weird one in that in order to do so, the trust has to meet certain conditions. 2 common conditions found in irrevocable trusts: the right to income and the right to change beneficiaries, will make the irrevocable trusts subject to inheritance tax, even if it avoids probate.

TL;DR: talk to an estate lawyer

5

MoreOfAGrower t1_jbhubm9 wrote

It’s okay though because that means our infrastructure, especially roads, are top notch

63

ThePopeJones t1_jbi97kt wrote

Well at least we have our well maintained roads to show for it!

1

Super_C_Complex t1_jbi97up wrote

Lowest is 0 actually.

Certain farmland is exempt, children under 21 don't qualify, and property owned by spouses

But also, this is money owed on transfer and as much as the tax is the alternative is that it's taxed like income by the recipient.

1

gslavik t1_jbiff88 wrote

Would it be enough to add to the constitution that progressive tax rates are fair? (My understanding is that the PA Supreme Court ruled that flat rate taxes are the only "fair taxes".)

3

IamChantus t1_jbiijcx wrote

In Presidential years generally. Or if there's a terrible candidate for the Pubs that cycle like Mastriano or Oz.

The state legislature has been controlled by the Pubs since well before Corbett put in the gas tax everyone blames Wolf for.

10

w00dm4n t1_jbiuy6r wrote

happy to hear this. Hopefully this will help more Billionaires tear down forests so they can build giant warehouses on tax free land so they can abandon it in 10 years

5

ronreadingpa t1_jbj2k8k wrote

PA has a lot of local nuisance taxes, but is far from the highest. Take car registration. It's around $44 per year versus $500-$1500+ in some other states. Sales tax is middle of the road at 6% (Philadelphia 8% and Allegheny County 7%) with clothing (big draw for outlet shoppers, especially back before the internet), most food (bought in a supermarket, etc; not made to order or restaurants) and some essentials excluded. Income tax 3.07% flat.

Basically, for many in PA, taxes aren't that terrible with the possible exception of property taxes (varies a lot) and local taxes, in particular, Philadelphia with their earned income tax and higher sales tax. Also, property assessments there for some have greatly increased in recent years.

In short, PA taxes are a mix bag. One needs to also consider the services they get. While PA could do better, it could be far worse.

3

IrrumaboMalum t1_jbj47p0 wrote

Don't forget the taxes you have to pay whenever you transfer a car too. And if the state doesn't think you paid enough taxes to them, they'll just take more from you by withholding your state income tax return until they're satisfied.

0

ProleAcademy t1_jbja308 wrote

My understanding is that the uniformity clause of the PA constitution would still need to be amended or repealed. Although I think there's some discussion that you can tax income from different sources (like, for instance, dividends or capital gains income) differently from wage income. That could help but is also a big haul and perhaps easier to cheat than an across-the-board progressive rate scheme across all sources and income brackets.

1

JAK3CAL t1_jbjbth2 wrote

All that frack moneys gonna pour in any day… they’re gonna lower the gas rates any day… 🤡

0

MayorOfCentralia t1_jbjnjks wrote

At some point people need to realize we're just circling the drain when we blame our problems on a specific party. At the end of the day, both parties have failed this state in so many ways, and won't be the ones that actually fix anything.

−1

No-Setting9690 t1_jbjvedw wrote

If you're not first you're last. We're working hard to be #1.

1

HomicidalHushPuppy t1_jbk72u5 wrote

My family has been in PA for over 200 years, but my brother has left the state, I'm looking to follow within the next 5 years, and we're hoping to move our parents (or at least the one who is still currently single, they divorced years ago) out at some point in their lifetime.

2

TrashApocalypse t1_jbkbomm wrote

See that’s where I disagree. One party’s platform involves legislation to help American’s. The other party’s platform is made up culture wars.

One party believes that government should do more to invest in the American people, while the other party doesn’t believe in government.

Trying to equate the two parties is exactly what Fox News wants you to do, because if you focus on policies and congressional voting records, it’s pretty clear which party actually has an interest in working for the American people (which is what we pay them for)

3

SocialAssassinz t1_jbkt2gq wrote

We are also one of the few states that doesn’t tax retirement income

1

Unlikely-Hawk416 t1_jbl72xl wrote

taxes are ridiculous for the amount of benefit they provide. tolls are ridiculous for the road conditions they provide. maybe we'd have millions more in mmj taxes if that was done the right way. But regardless, I wouldn't live anywhere else!

1