First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Kansas kills Reaganomics
20760 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

gvblackmoon wrote:

I'm not sure where the hell you are getting your numbers


Effective tax rates are not marginal tax rates.

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/tax-center/effective-tax-rate-1229

More importantly, this is a pretty fucking basic concept. If you don't understand what an effective tax rate is, you should probably stop trying to discuss tax policy, because you do not understand tax.
84850 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

gvblackmoon wrote:

Nice attempt you are the second person that made a similar statement they failed the same way you just did by trying to distract with facts that are correct but incorrect for what is being talked about in this case. What is being talked about is income purely income this means the income tax not Social security or Medicare and I'm not sure where the hell you are getting your numbers for the highest tax bracket because you are off by several percentage points. Unless you are mixing up capital gains with the actual income tax rate which would be closer to your 21% number. The actually rate on average for the top margin was 68% but the actual rate was 70% I suggest you actually study some history on the subject. http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/64/1979


OK, now you have made it abundantly clear that you have no understanding of taxes. I don't know how you have gone this long without actually doing your own taxes, but that doesn't really matter much I guess. The rate you are quoting is the marginal federal income rate, which no one pays on their gross income, no one. The tax that people actually pay is the effective federal income rate, which is the amount of federal income taxes actually paid divided by gross income.

The process for doing your taxes is as follows:
1. Take the adjusted gross income, which is the gross income minus certain allowances that are typically automatically removed from your paycheck, such as 401K contributions.
2. Identify your deductions, such as traditional IRA contributions, personal deduction, standard deduction or various deductions (like home, various business expenses, etc).
3. Subtract the deductions from the adjusted gross income.
4. Identify credits, such as earned income credit or renters credit.
5. Subtract the credits from the total of step 3.
6. Identify additional income, dividends, and other such things that you need to pay taxes on outside your income.
7. Add the total from 6 to the total from 5. This is the amount that you will actually pay taxes on, not your gross income.
8. Take the value from 7 and identify where in the marginal tax brackets it lies. You use the marginal rate at each bracket up to the max amount for that bracket until you have reached the value from 7.
For instance, using the single brackets from 2016, if the value from 7 was $50,000, then you will pay 10% on the first $9725 ($972.5 in taxes), 15% on the next $28,375 ($4,256.25), and 25% on the next $12,350 ($3087.5). This would mean the taxes you were responsible for would be 972.5 + 4256.25 + 3087.5 = $8,316 (rounded).
9. You take the amount that you already paid through automatic paycheck deduction and subtract the value in 8 from it. That is your refund or the amount you still need to pay.

If you take the amount in step 8 and divide it by your adjusted gross income (step 1), that is your effective federal income tax rate. It is the amount that you actually paid the government. That is what the chart and numbers I posted were. There were so many deductions and credits that people could take advantage of in 1979, that the effective rate was in the twenties for the top tax bracket even though the marginal rate was 70%.

Also, SSI and medicare come out of your income and are a percentage of your income. So, while they are not "called" your federal or state income tax, they are income taxes.

Edit:
Correction of first line of second to last paragraph. Mistakenly typed subtract rather than divide.

Edit:
Ok, evidently effective tax rate is taxes paid / taxable income (step 7), rather than taxes paid / adjusted gross income. Makes sense for those cases where you are making money outside of payroll income, such as dividends and tenant's rent payments. I've never actually had any of the non-payroll income.
20007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 6/8/17
If, you enjoy this converstion, may I recomend a game. Democracy3. You get to manipulate laws and taxes to try to improve your country. Be careful though you might get assaniated.
2027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Online
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

iriomote wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:

The exorbitant waste by the government is mostly centered around our "mostly useless" military - 50% or more of our budget goes there when it's rarely used outside of political statements. That, on top of contractors that charge significantly higher than the national average for jobs that can be done in-house for far cheaper ... compare those two things to how little we spend on "socialist programs" (unemployment, WIC, State Highway Administration, etc..) and you'll find that those programs are nothing but a drop or two in the bucket.

Do you mean 50% of discretionary spending?

The military doesn't actually account for 50% of the budget. You'd have to take large bites out of programs like social security, and medicare first.


BULLSHIT! Social Security is supported though it's own tax, Medicare the same it's preminums it's not 100% but it's the majority of it. Defence spending tops over a trillion a year and has for a long time and has no off set. The same Defence Spending where the Pentagon admited to loseing 6.5-10 trillion dollars over the last 15 years alone. That Trillions just gone poof they can't account for the money. Can't show if it bought something, if someone walked out the door with a bags full of crisp 100 dollar bills, just Poof gone. Defence spending which does accounts for more then 50% of Our spending because unlike medicare which has preminums or SS which has their fund there is no off set for defence spending It's pure spent money. Medicare would be fine if we allowed it to negotiate on prices which we outlawed them from during during Bush Jr term. Social security would be fine if Congress payed back what they stole from the fund to pay for tax cuts and defence spending, also if we remove the reagen tax cap. As we see with kansas regonomics failed. Defence spending on the other hand can only be fixed though a complete reform on how we spend. As of now most defence contract have no punshment for not meeting goals. As seen last year when the new generation of destoryer had to be placed on hold because the gun it was designed around a smart cannon cost too much to fire. The Contractor promised 40k a shell(still too much to me) , but it ended up being 800k a shell. So they have to redesigen the gun to fire a british round that cost 35K a shell. That has to change! Contractors can't be allow to just fail like this and get more tax payer money. Nor can we let congress use the defence budget as a jobs program there is a field out in New Mexico with over 10,000 Abrams tanks sitting rusting away because the army has no use for them. That the Pentagon ever begged congress to stop ordering more tanks for the past 20 years.

When you add up the numbers all of them defence spending tops out our spending by a large magin. 2nd is corprate welfare targeted tax cuts, grants, land leases for pennies on the dollar and such. Then and only then a ways down you get social programs like medicare and SS.
11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

Dude, you need to stop. You don't understand what I'm saying, and you're taking things out of context. I already talked about how a fiat currency messes with things a bit, so you're making yourself look stupid by beating and taunting a straw man while I watch you saying "Hey. Um. Dude. I'm over here. That's not me".

Reading comprehension may be the problem. For example, you say the part you quote says:

"the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"

and then say That is a direct quote from the very first passage of the Bill of Rights.

No. It's not.

You're quoting a speech by Madison

Quote mining is pathetic enough.

Shitty quote mining is unacceptable. Any American worth his salt knows that the Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, starting with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


Meh. Not an american, so I had to google it. Was full of a bunch of constitutional legalese, so it looked right at first glance and I was uninterested in reading a very lengthy article that would've corrected my misconception. My bad, won't deny a hasty fuck up on my part. I'd say what he said about the primary purpose of a government being to take care of the people first and foremost still stands as valid however, and that your attempt to compare a fluctuating system of currency with a static system of measurement as an analogy and then proceeding to declare it an undeniable fact was stupid beyond belief. In your own words, a dollar is to value what a centimeter is to length, except what a dollar is to value is constantly evolving.
21774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/8/17

cdarklock wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

I'm not sure where the hell you are getting your numbers


Effective tax rates are not marginal tax rates.

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/tax-center/effective-tax-rate-1229

More importantly, this is a pretty fucking basic concept. If you don't understand what an effective tax rate is, you should probably stop trying to discuss tax policy, because you do not understand tax.


Effective tax rates the actual tax rate paid by a person back in the late 50's the effective tax rate was about 70% for those in the top margin the actual tax rate was 90% for the top margin. The marginal rate is the rate that is paid depending on which margin you fall into is paid there are multiple margins within a progressive or graduated tax system. Clear enough for you so yeah I do actually understand what I'm talking about. So in 1979 the effective tax rate on the margin for those paying 200k or more was 70% which was the actual tax rate as well. Now a person could pay less then the margin which is why I posted what I did it showed the average rate was at about 68% within 2% of the margin not the much lower rate given by the other poster.
21774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/8/17

ishe5555 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Nice attempt you are the second person that made a similar statement they failed the same way you just did by trying to distract with facts that are correct but incorrect for what is being talked about in this case. What is being talked about is income purely income this means the income tax not Social security or Medicare and I'm not sure where the hell you are getting your numbers for the highest tax bracket because you are off by several percentage points. Unless you are mixing up capital gains with the actual income tax rate which would be closer to your 21% number. The actually rate on average for the top margin was 68% but the actual rate was 70% I suggest you actually study some history on the subject. http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/64/1979


OK, now you have made it abundantly clear that you have no understanding of taxes. I don't know how you have gone this long without actually doing your own taxes, but that doesn't really matter much I guess. The rate you are quoting is the marginal federal income rate, which no one pays on their gross income, no one. The tax that people actually pay is the effective federal income rate, which is the amount of federal income taxes actually paid divided by gross income.

The process for doing your taxes is as follows:
1. Take the adjusted gross income, which is the gross income minus certain allowances that are typically automatically removed from your paycheck, such as 401K contributions.
2. Identify your deductions, such as traditional IRA contributions, personal deduction, standard deduction or various deductions (like home, various business expenses, etc).
3. Subtract the deductions from the adjusted gross income.
4. Identify credits, such as earned income credit or renters credit.
5. Subtract the credits from the total of step 3.
6. Identify additional income, dividends, and other such things that you need to pay taxes on outside your income.
7. Add the total from 6 to the total from 5. This is the amount that you will actually pay taxes on, not your gross income.
8. Take the value from 7 and identify where in the marginal tax brackets it lies. You use the marginal rate at each bracket up to the max amount for that bracket until you have reached the value from 7.
For instance, using the single brackets from 2016, if the value from 7 was $50,000, then you will pay 10% on the first $9725 ($972.5 in taxes), 15% on the next $28,375 ($4,256.25), and 25% on the next $12,350 ($3087.5). This would mean the taxes you were responsible for would be 972.5 + 4256.25 + 3087.5 = $8,316 (rounded).
9. You take the amount that you already paid through automatic paycheck deduction and subtract the value in 8 from it. That is your refund or the amount you still need to pay.

If you take the amount in step 8 and divide it by your adjusted gross income (step 1), that is your effective federal income tax rate. It is the amount that you actually paid the government. That is what the chart and numbers I posted were. There were so many deductions and credits that people could take advantage of in 1979, that the effective rate was in the twenties for the top tax bracket even though the marginal rate was 70%.

Also, SSI and medicare come out of your income and are a percentage of your income. So, while they are not "called" your federal or state income tax, they are income taxes.

Edit:
Correction of first line of second to last paragraph. Mistakenly typed subtract rather than divide.

Edit:
Ok, evidently effective tax rate is taxes paid / taxable income (step 7), rather than taxes paid / adjusted gross income. Makes sense for those cases where you are making money outside of payroll income, such as dividends and tenant's rent payments. I've never actually had any of the non-payroll income.


I am not referring to the rate at which you pay after you determine your deductions again this is the margin not the effective rate which you pay. You are referring to the effective rate what you pay within your margin based upon deductions and other crave outs that are in the tax code. Everything you have refereed is used to determine a persons effective rate which can very greatly depending on what deductions you have available to you.

The margin that I sited initially was 70% for those making 400k that would be the top margin you would then figure out the effective rate based upon deductions from there. You start at 70% and if you have things you can deduct it reduces it to the effective rate.
36010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/17

neotag wrote:

BULLSHIT! Social Security is supported though it's own tax, Medicare the same it's preminums it's not 100% but it's the majority of it. Defence spending tops over a trillion a year and has for a long time and has no off set. The same Defence Spending where the Pentagon admited to loseing 6.5-10 trillion dollars over the last 15 years alone. That Trillions just gone poof they can't account for the money. Can't show if it bought something, if someone walked out the door with a bags full of crisp 100 dollar bills, just Poof gone. Defence spending which does accounts for more then 50% of Our spending because unlike medicare which has preminums or SS which has their fund there is no off set for defence spending It's pure spent money. Medicare would be fine if we allowed it to negotiate on prices which we outlawed them from during during Bush Jr term. Social security would be fine if Congress payed back what they stole from the fund to pay for tax cuts and defence spending, also if we remove the reagen tax cap. As we see with kansas regonomics failed. Defence spending on the other hand can only be fixed though a complete reform on how we spend. As of now most defence contract have no punshment for not meeting goals. As seen last year when the new generation of destoryer had to be placed on hold because the gun it was designed around a smart cannon cost too much to fire. The Contractor promised 40k a shell(still too much to me) , but it ended up being 800k a shell. So they have to redesigen the gun to fire a british round that cost 35K a shell. That has to change! Contractors can't be allow to just fail like this and get more tax payer money. Nor can we let congress use the defence budget as a jobs program there is a field out in New Mexico with over 10,000 Abrams tanks sitting rusting away because the army has no use for them. That the Pentagon ever begged congress to stop ordering more tanks for the past 20 years.

When you add up the numbers all of them defence spending tops out our spending by a large magin. 2nd is corprate welfare targeted tax cuts, grants, land leases for pennies on the dollar and such. Then and only then a ways down you get social programs like medicare and SS.
Looked it up to make sure I was remembering correctly. Objectively, net Medicare spending alone is roughly equal to overall defense spending.

Coincidentally, ninjitsuko appears to have been correct if he meant half of discretionary spending goes to defense.

Here's the Federal Budget in 2016:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/graphic/52408-budgetoverall.pdf
2027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Online
Posted 6/8/17

iriomote wrote:


neotag wrote:

BULLSHIT! Social Security is supported though it's own tax, Medicare the same it's preminums it's not 100% but it's the majority of it. Defence spending tops over a trillion a year and has for a long time and has no off set. The same Defence Spending where the Pentagon admited to loseing 6.5-10 trillion dollars over the last 15 years alone. That Trillions just gone poof they can't account for the money. Can't show if it bought something, if someone walked out the door with a bags full of crisp 100 dollar bills, just Poof gone. Defence spending which does accounts for more then 50% of Our spending because unlike medicare which has preminums or SS which has their fund there is no off set for defence spending It's pure spent money. Medicare would be fine if we allowed it to negotiate on prices which we outlawed them from during during Bush Jr term. Social security would be fine if Congress payed back what they stole from the fund to pay for tax cuts and defence spending, also if we remove the reagen tax cap. As we see with kansas regonomics failed. Defence spending on the other hand can only be fixed though a complete reform on how we spend. As of now most defence contract have no punshment for not meeting goals. As seen last year when the new generation of destoryer had to be placed on hold because the gun it was designed around a smart cannon cost too much to fire. The Contractor promised 40k a shell(still too much to me) , but it ended up being 800k a shell. So they have to redesigen the gun to fire a british round that cost 35K a shell. That has to change! Contractors can't be allow to just fail like this and get more tax payer money. Nor can we let congress use the defence budget as a jobs program there is a field out in New Mexico with over 10,000 Abrams tanks sitting rusting away because the army has no use for them. That the Pentagon ever begged congress to stop ordering more tanks for the past 20 years.

When you add up the numbers all of them defence spending tops out our spending by a large magin. 2nd is corprate welfare targeted tax cuts, grants, land leases for pennies on the dollar and such. Then and only then a ways down you get social programs like medicare and SS.
Looked it up to make sure I was remembering correctly. Objectively, net Medicare spending alone is roughly equal to overall defense spending.

Coincidentally, ninjitsuko appears to have been correct if he meant half of discretionary spending goes to defense.

Here's the Federal Budget in 2016:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/graphic/52408-budgetoverall.pdf


If you loook at those number they do not add around 400 billion or so that's defence spending but tucked into places like the energy department nukes and more, and such. Hell Nasa's budget is where they hide military satellite programs. There also the estamated dark money(Black project we not even allowed to know the true cost of) not added which is estamated as 100-200 billions. I also see they do not off set Social Security at all with those numbers.

Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

iriomote wrote:
Do you mean 50% of discretionary spending?

The military doesn't actually account for 50% of the budget. You'd have to take large bites out of programs like social security, and medicare first.


Yeah, discretionary budget. For defense it's around, what? $825b or so? The issue with increasing this any further is that it doesn't really account for much in the long-term. This is just the "resting defense budget" - not including any wars that we may find ourselves in, military operations, and so forth. It also counts towards the FBI, Homeland Security, Justice Department, Veterans Administration (including, but not limited to the Veteran's Association), and the State Department. Increasing spending on the military isn't really the best method of creating jobs either, so it ends up being a pointless increase; even if it's part of the discretionary budget. The emergency fund accounts for the "increase" that Trump has asked for in his budget (around $64.6b) and is not necessarily part of the discretionary budget. Though, it pales in comparison when you look at the $120.4b that Bush used for the "War on Terror".


karatecowboy wrote:
I'm afraid I still don't understand. What does "in general" refer to? If everyone is taxed at an equal rate then will people spontaneously combust while walking down the street? Will government workers turn into vampires? I don't get it. Sure, the military is bloated, just like any government operation. That's just human nature, because the spending is easy when you're spending someone else's money on someone else.

Tax equality is about living up to the ideal that the government should treat people equally, not charge one class three dollars and the other class five.


"In General" meaning that it would cause a greater deficit in the budget, would continue to push this country further into debt, and wouldn't balance itself out without (quite literally) ending a massive amount of programs, military bases, and reducing everything the government does in general. This would cause the unemployment rate to go higher, the need for programs (welfare, medicare/medicaid, and so forth) to increase [despite, of course, having ended these programs to cut costs].

"In General" that your idea of the government treating people equally would end up causing more damage to the lower class and the middle class citizens than what minute benefits the "upper class" would get from tax equality. The principle behind the tax brackets, essentially, is that if you earn more - you can afford to pay more. Which, that's usually the case.

I pay more taxes than most people I know my age as I'm in the 28% tax bracket (this isn't including the 7.65% that is taken out for Social Security, Medicare -- nor the additional 5.75% that's taken by the state of North Carolina, nor employee witholding - so technically, I'm taxed at a total of 41.4% or so). That doesn't necessarily bother me in the least. It's an expected "norm" and I don't view it as "I pay more taxes so I have more say in how the government spends it" (like some do).

Tax equality would mean I would have more at the end of the day, sure. But it would also mean that the government and the country as a whole would be suffering. That's not something I necessarily agree should occur just because of a few extra dollars in my bank account every year.
378 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / In the Mountains
Offline
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/16/17
I just read this. Really? If you and your spouse work your butt off for several years of your life and now are making over 400K why should we be penalized like this? Working your way through school and then clawing your way up. Not to mention you had to get really good grades at all levels of your education to keep going. Had to pay outrageous school loans for 15 years plus. Both come from poor families. How is this fair - 70%? What is the incentive to raise your standard of living? This didn't mean a lot to me when I was younger but now I see both my alpha parents going through this.

What income bracket are you in? Do you pay taxes? It says your 46 you must really be feeling the tax pain so I'm not really sure what you are complaining about? Statistically you should be making the most money in your life right now and have a vast portfolio of investments. You should be looking at how you are going to protect you nest egg from taxes as you approach retirement.

I think we all start out in this liberal ideal set put once you get older and have accumulated some wealth and have something you need to protect your thinking changes.

Our tax laws are far from fair. We should have a flat rate for everyone. I don't like how our system punishes you for making more money. It is outrageous and it encourages you not make anymore than $120K (combined). My parents paid so much in taxes this year that it would of been better had my mom not worked at all. How do you tell a Alpha high achieving spouse that worked hard to get where they are now ...oh don't work stay at home.

Redistribution of wealth...Really - yes lets punish those who worked their way out of the gutter....Because it makes me feel better. Lets punish those who work hard!



84850 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/17

gvblackmoon wrote:

Effective tax rates the actual tax rate paid by a person back in the late 50's the effective tax rate was about 70% for those in the top margin the actual tax rate was 90% for the top margin. The marginal rate is the rate that is paid depending on which margin you fall into is paid there are multiple margins within a progressive or graduated tax system. Clear enough for you so yeah I do actually understand what I'm talking about. So in 1979 the effective tax rate on the margin for those paying 200k or more was 70% which was the actual tax rate as well. Now a person could pay less then the margin which is why I posted what I did it showed the average rate was at about 68% within 2% of the margin not the much lower rate given by the other poster.


I don't know where you get the 68% statistic from, because the link you posted doesn't have that number anywhere. The closest it has to that is the average top marginal rate of 63%, which is the what you get if you take all the historical top marginal rates in US history and average them out. In 1979, the effective tax rate for those paying 200K was not 70%, nor was it 68%.

In 1955 the top marginal rate was 90%, but noone was paying it. The amount, after deductions, that you would have to be making to even breach into the 90% bracket was $200,000 (if single, 400,000 filing jointly), which would translate to about $1.6 million dollars after inflation. So, that means that only money made over the equivalent of $1.6 million was taxed at 90%. I don't know where you get that the effective tax rate in the 50s was 70%, but I'm certain it isn't true. Everything I have seen where the effective rate of the top 1% has been estimated, it is around 50%. That is higher than the effective rate today or in the 70s, but still no where near what you are touting. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare

Lets do this though, since you are so stuck on marginal rates. Lets have the following tax brackets for single payer income:
10% $0 - $9,999
15% $10,000 - $50,000
45% $50,001 - $80,000
100% 80,000+
But, everyone will have a standard deduction of $2 million dollars. Of course no one would actually be paying any taxes, but you would have your ridiculous margin rates.
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

Shinosushi wrote:
What income bracket are you in? Do you pay taxes? It says your 46 you must really be feeling the tax pain so I'm not really sure what you are complaining about? Statistically you should be making the most money in your life right now and have a vast portfolio of investments. You should be looking at how you are going to protect you nest egg from taxes as you approach retirement.

I think we all start out in this liberal ideal set put once you get older and have accumulated some wealth and have something you need to protect your thinking changes.


I know you're not speaking to me, directly (just to start off with). I'm not 46 (33 here) - and I already have a hefty investment portfolio, decent salary (over $120k on my own), and have a happy nest egg.

I think the reason why people change in their mentality as they get older is mostly due to the idea that they have children that will inherit it all after they pass away. They have to be sure to keep their investments sensible, have enough money to retire without being a burden on their children, and so forth. Personally, I won't ever have children so this is not a concern for me in the least. As for being married and filing together, their tax bracket is lower than filing separately. The lower tax due to joint filing is the only real benefit of marriage on an economic level (which is why I'm not even going to bother getting married).


Shinosushi wrote:
Our tax laws are far from fair. We should have a flat rate for everyone. I don't like how our system punishes you for making more money. It is outrageous and it encourages you not make anymore than $120K (combined). My parents paid so much in taxes this year that it would of been better had my mom not worked at all. How do you tell a Alpha high achieving spouse that worked hard to get where they are now ...oh don't work stay at home.


This isn't necessarily true (the bolded bit). No matter the tax bracket you're in, you're still making more with additional income than you would if you weren't working (together or separate). Regardless of how much your parents are making together, they're still making more than if one of them had quit their job. Most of my married friends making $300-500k a year together are just fine with paying more taxes - they're just more conservative in their spending and focus on long-term investments than short-term gain. It's more so a personal decision as to how to handle the tax bracket you're in. The few I know in that situation that is complaining have lifestyle choices that make their financial situation more complicated (like spending excessive amounts on dining out, treating multiple friends and family members to dinner, and the likes).


Shinosushi wrote:
Redistribution of wealth...Really - yes lets punish those who worked their way out of the gutter....Because it makes me feel better. Lets punish those who work hard!


It's not really a "punishment". I think people look at it as some type of a punishment because of the insecurity that they feel when they're spending outside of their means because they feel more confident in doing so (as they get more money in the long term). Having a nest egg, responsible spending, and investments that strive for long-term returns are the best options for anyone. If you're making enough to be in an upper-end tax bracket, then you should be able to do these things without sacrificing a comfortable lifestyle compared to those in lower tax brackets.
84850 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

This isn't necessarily true (the bolded bit). No matter the tax bracket you're in, you're still making more with additional income than you would if you weren't working (together or separate). Regardless of how much your parents are making together, they're still making more than if one of them had quit their job. Most of my married friends making $300-500k a year together are just fine with paying more taxes - they're just more conservative in their spending and focus on long-term investments than short-term gain. It's more so a personal decision as to how to handle the tax bracket you're in. The few I know in that situation that is complaining have lifestyle choices that make their financial situation more complicated (like spending excessive amounts on dining out, treating multiple friends and family members to dinner, and the likes).



I don't really take much issue with the effective federal tax rate on high income earners being raised a bit. However, I don't want that to see that happen by increasing the marginal rates to some asinine degree. Because that would be coupled with further complication of the tax code and effective rates wouldn't change much, for any bracket. It just serves as obfuscation of the actual tax burden. The tax code is far too complex anyway. You really shouldn't need a tax professional in order to pay your taxes. Rather than making the tax code more complex and giving additional loopholes for the rich to exploit, the tax code should be drastically simplified. Allowed deductions and credits should be decreased and the marginal rates should be decreased somewhat as well.
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

ishe5555 wrote:
I don't really take much issue with the effective federal tax rate on high income earners being raised a bit. However, I don't want that to see that happen by increasing the marginal rates to some asinine degree. Because that would be coupled with further complication of the tax code and effective rates wouldn't change much, for any bracket. It just serves as obfuscation of the actual tax burden. The tax code is far too complex anyway. You really shouldn't need a tax professional in order to pay your taxes. Rather than making the tax code more complex and giving additional loopholes for the rich to exploit, the tax code should be drastically simplified. Allowed deductions and credits should be decreased and the marginal rates should be decreased somewhat as well.


Yeah, I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I don't think that 70% tax on those making over $400k a year is a good idea. Yes, it's been at that tax rate for that bracket before but times have changed and we don't want to rely solely on a handful of people who make enough to offset that high tax rate.

The problem with taxes is that anyone with a decent nest egg/savings knows that you should have your money moved around into different banks (FDIC only insures up to $250,000 per account - even between CD accounts to personal/savings). The more money and more investments you have, the more likely that you're going to need a proper accountant to handle your taxes (unfortunately). I agree that it's too complicated and the whole process is too obfuscated as it is, no matter what tax bracket you're in.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.