|
Debt Crisis - Really?
|
Well, there's been a deal announced. I wouldn't finish relaxing just yet, but it should be safe to breathe.
=========== =============================================== "V, did you do something foolish?" "Yes, and it was glorious."
To answer RobKelk's question:
Officially, the 25% tax bracket starts at an annual taxable income, for a single person, of $34,501. What that actually means is that a person making $34,501 will pay: 10% of income up to $8,500 15% of income between $8,500 and $34,500 25% of the $1 above $34,500 For a total of about $4,750, or a bit under 14% of the total. Also, that's total taxable income, and there are a lot of things you can exempt from it (the "standard" deduction you can choose to take if you don't want to itemize and risk being asked to document every deduction is $5,800 for a single individual, so the gross pre-tax income at that point is really $40,300, making the actual percentage under 12%). The next tax bracket up is 28%, for income over $83,600 (thus a gross of $89,400). At that point you're paying about 19% of gross. A total tax burden equal to the 23% you specify starts to hit near the top of that bracket, at a gross of around $180,000. About 6% of the total US population falls at this point or above. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode. 
Thanks, ECSnorway.
That tells me that somebody in my tax bracket in the US is paying roughly two-thirds of what I pay in federal taxes. Granted, some of the additional money I pay goes to fund state-sponsored health care, but not that much of the difference... I'm thinking that you folks still have some room to maneuver with tax hikes before things get tight. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Just out of curiosity, do you pay anything like our state income taxes ("provincial income tax," I suppose) in addition to the federal tax?
Yes, we do. We also pay both federal and provincial sales taxes.
-- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I looked up my copies of the tax forms from 2010, and found that I'd lost 17.6% to federal income tax, and 6.3% to California state income tax. In addition, I lost another 7.6% to Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are federal taxes separate from the official federal income tax but are withheld from paychecks in the same way. So, a total of 25.2% to the Feds and 32.8% in all. My theoretical income puts me in that 25% tax bracket ECSNorway mentioned.
I followed Rod H's link and if I was the Absolute Dictator of America(TM) I would do roughly 2/3 tax increases and 1/3 spending cuts. Also some options not presented here would be enacted, such as reducing the expensive Contractors and replacing them with federal employees. I would also make it slightly easier to get rid of federal employees than it currently is.
The extra money that my suggestions save would be spent on Education, Infrastructure and Research, since America needs more of all 3. http://www.nytimes.com/in...ic.html?choices=40lsd5rc E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell." khagler Wrote:I looked up my copies of the tax forms from 2010, and found that I'd lost 17.6% to federal income tax, and 6.3% to California state income tax. In addition, I lost another 7.6% to Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are federal taxes separate from the official federal income tax but are withheld from paychecks in the same way. So, a total of 25.2% to the Feds and 32.8% in all. My theoretical income puts me in that 25% tax bracket ECSNorway mentioned.And that's still not counting sales taxes, fuel taxes, and other taxes and fees... -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Be grateful that you aren't dealing with self employment taxes in which the amount you pay to social security is double what you'd pay if you worked for someone else. This is due to the lovely fact that you are paying both halves of social security (what your employer pays and what you pay) also known as the self employment penalty. I've had to deal with self employment taxes for three years running and it is a royal pain no matter how you cut it.
in MD i'm paying rougly 5% in income taxes. --Werehawk-- My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."
I'm very familiar with that, Werehawk; I did some freelancing/contract work a few years back and had to enter that on my taxes. It was... an unpleasant surprise.
-- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Why is it considered a penalty? Your employer pays it so you could consider it part of your wages, just like what they contribute to retirement and to your healthcare. Even if your employer only pays you 80k$ in direct wages, the true cost for the employer is probably closer to 120k$ a year.
It's this whole thing with in america the price never being the real price, in most countries the sales tax is already included in the sticker price. E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell." 
It's a penalty because the employer's share doesn't come out of your wages -- unless you are also the employer.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
But that's pure fiction, your wages also come from the employer, so if he has to pay a certain amount on top of that in taxes that is essentially part of your wages. remember when accounting from the employers side it doesn't matter how much is paid into all the various things (vacation time, healthcare, taxes, wages) what matters at the end of the day is how much they have to pay you total.
It's an accounting trick, nothing more. E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
To an employer it may make no difference, but to an employee it certainly does. If the employer contribution was suddenly eliminated, it would not mean a sudden increase in take-home pay for the salaried employees of J. Random Corporation. (And I don't think anyone could argue that such an elimination would mean a general corresponding increase in overall salaries. It's far more likely that such a windfall is going to back into corporate coffers and stay there.) However, for Alice of Alice's Sole Proprietorship, eliminating that contribution suddenly means she's got $X% of her pay back.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
That's part of the problem with a lot of companies in America. So many of them are looking out for their bottom line and nothing else. The very idea that the minimum wage actually be a decent living wage is an anathema to most employers.
Of course, this all comes back to fixing the economy.
The problem with Minimum wage being "a decent living wage" is that that eliminates a lot of opportunity for people who don't want to earn that much.
You're eliminating a lot of minor income-earners -- youths looking for summer jobs so as to have a bit of spending money for school, housewives and retirees wanting a little extra, etc. There are a lot of cases where people are looking for a job that is not going to be their primary means of support, and a minimum-wage law has to allow for that. -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.
Well there's an obvious difference between a student working on a break between school terms or after school hours and a man or a woman trying to support their family. I think it's very possible to write minimum wage law that allows for these things.
Are there other countries that has minimum wage law setup to allow for low-income workers like that while making sure that others can support themselves and their families?
They're also not likely to be working full time.
Pronounced "shy guy."
Earlier today, Warren Buffet told Congress that he isn't paying enough taxes:
Quote:Buffett's words that the newly created Super Congress, which has been charged to propose at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, should also propose increased taxation on the nation's super-rich will likely resonate with the 99.7 percent of Americans who do not fit the category.Since the second-richest man in the US thinks he isn't paying enough income tax, what does that say about the tax rates? -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012  robkelk Wrote:Earlier today, Warren Buffet told Congress that he isn't paying enough taxes:I don't know what it says about the tax rates. But I know Buffet comes across as whiny and out of touch, writing an editorial where he basically is asking to be forced to give more money when he could have just CUT A DAMN CHECK to the government for the extra he thinks he owes and otherwise shut his trap!
If he did that, then the rest of the super-rich – including half of Congress – wouldn't have any reason to follow his example.
-- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I fully agree, while I am not anywhere near warren buffet's level of income, I also believe that the tax rate is too low and has too many loopholes but as long as they exist I will take advantage of them. It is wrong that some of my poorer co-workers are essentially subsidizing me (they rent, I own my house, there are tax advantages.), but me not participating in the system is not an option.
You can't ignore tax laws that you think are stupid, and government is not a charitable enterprise. You can point out that the rules of the game are stupid while still playing the game, but you can't just go play under better rules by yourself. E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Cutting a check wouldn't send the same kind of message. He is not saying, "I, personally, am prepared to contribute more."
He is saying, "This is a systematic flaw that should be corrected." For that matter, I don't even know if the government takes donations. I know that they don't accept earmarked ones, but... =========== =============================================== "V, did you do something foolish?" "Yes, and it was glorious."
Oh, they certainly do. You can always pay more than your share of taxes -- the government only refunds overages if you file and ask for them back. If you deliberately give them extra, they'll happily take it and put it... um, I forget. Some kind of general coffers, I don't recall the specifics.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
Interesting...
Up here, one may make a gift to Canada (or a province), but it counts as paying taxes early - one claims such a gift on one's income tax form. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
