tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post2768791652419514967..comments2024-03-28T01:09:48.303-07:00Comments on 21st Century Taxation: Tax Implications of California's Vax for the Win ProgramProfessor Nellenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03288632402197167948noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post-84590637360381887142021-06-12T15:47:26.184-07:002021-06-12T15:47:26.184-07:00There isn't legislation on this one.
It is t...There isn't legislation on this one. <br /><br />It is too bad the big payments were not reduced with more people getting them. At $1.5 million to 10 people, the federal government will also be a winner by picking up 32% to 37% of these amounts. And roughly 9% will go back to the State of California.21st century taxation (Annette Nellen)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16822488200730640168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135788133426971614.post-17880442981028447392021-06-12T12:29:32.238-07:002021-06-12T12:29:32.238-07:00Well, that all seems correct to me. Why didn'...Well, that all seems correct to me. Why didn't the legislation characterize the "winning" payment as a tax refund? As the article points out, the earlier stimulus payment was so characterized, and therefore was non-taxable. By having a taxable "winning" payment, California loses a good bit of the aggregate payments to the federal government, doesn't it? Characterization as a California tax refund might have had some slight leakage to the the federal government, but probably not much since so many recipients either i) don't itemize their federal deductions, or ii) are over the federal $10,000 annual limit with or without the winnings. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06059060625070812512noreply@blogger.com