Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > The Unemployment Line
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-18-2010, 12:55 PM
Fast_Eddie's Avatar
Fast_Eddie Fast_Eddie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
We're addressing two separate subjects: marginal or effective rates (you) versus taxes on W-2 earnings (me). You suggest my numbers are misleading by posting something unrelated. Interesting debate strategy...
Okay, I'm trying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "marginal" tax rates refer to the higest level of tax you pay. We have a graduated taxation system and the marginal tax rate applies to the highest level of taxes you pay. It is a number, as I understand it, that is much higer than your average tax rate. Your average tax rate, again, as I understand it, refers to the percentage of tax you pay on all your income- that is, at all the rates that apply to you up to and including the portion of your income on which you pay the marginal rate.

So, no, I have no idea what you mean when you simply say "taxes on W-2 earnings". That doesn't say anything. Do you mean averge tax rate? If so, you're making your case worse as I'm reasonably certain that your 44% fiugre is speaking to a marginal rate. No way anyone is paying 44% on ALL their W-2 earnings.

Try this:

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

If you are single, no dependents and make $1M a year (pretty sure that's none of us) you *still* only pay 32.4% average tax rate on W-2 income, putting nothing in an IRA, nothing in a 401k and with NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL. I can't figure out a way to make more of a "worst case scenario" as I'm almost sure that would be virtually no one in the United States.

So, yes, please tell me where I'm doing anything but giving you the most favorable counter to your argument. If you are talking about average tax rates your figures are even MORE misleading than I made them out to be.
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.

Last edited by Fast_Eddie; 11-18-2010 at 12:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:02 PM
Fast_Eddie's Avatar
Fast_Eddie Fast_Eddie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,075
Okay, yeah, I'm pretty sure I got that right:

http://taxes.about.com/od/preparingy...ax-rates_2.htm
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:06 PM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete View Post
Ford's a great example. HE made something that people wanted, not his customers, and he (kinda) invented a new way to do it too. And changed the world to boot.

If poor folks drive the economy, Obama's doing a great job!

Pete
The U.S. Economy was 75% consumer driven. The top 1% beggared the consumer and wages did not keep up with inflation. So what really happened is that all those smart-ass businessmen shot themselve in the foot.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:23 PM
Fast_Eddie's Avatar
Fast_Eddie Fast_Eddie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Current Highest Federal income tax rate = 35%
FICA Tax = 6.2%
Medicare Tax = 1.45%
Total tax on income - 42.65
Let's try this, because I think I now understand what you mean. A hypothetical example. You believe there is an American, let's call him Rube, who has a sallary of $275,000 a year. If I follow you, you believe that Rube had deducted from his check, or pays at tax time a total of 275,000 * 42.65%. Right? You think Rube pays the government $117,287 a year?

Using the IRS Calculator for our friend Rube "Your anticipated income tax is $72,781" again assuming NO deductions, single, no contributions to tax deferred... etc. Again, NO ONE does that. Zero people. But even with that, 72,781/275,000= 26.4%.

Is there some Tea Party propoganda that leads you to believe this? If so, I can see why they're so angy. They think people are paying insane amounts of tax, almost higher than anyone in the world!
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:26 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie View Post
Let's try this, because I think I now understand what you mean. A hypothetical example. You believe there is an American, let's call him Rube, who has a sallary of $275,000 a year. If I follow you, you believe that Rube had deducted from his check, or pays at tax time a total of 275,000 * 42.65%. Right? You think Rube pays the government $117,287 a year?

Using the IRS Calculator for our friend Rube "Your anticipated income tax is $72,781" again assuming NO deductions, single, no contributions to tax deferred... etc. Again, NO ONE does that. Zero people. But even with that, 72,781/275,000= 26.4%.
Damn you, Eddie, with all your fact-based arguments!
You shouldn't let truth get in the way of indulging in a good fantasy.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:28 PM
Fast_Eddie's Avatar
Fast_Eddie Fast_Eddie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Damn you, Eddie, with all your fact-based arguments!
You shouldn't let truth get in the way of indulging in a good fantasy.
Man, I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. No wonder he thinks taxes are too high. I'd be marching on Washington myself if I paid 40% of my income in taxes.
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-18-2010, 01:43 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657 View Post
Changing the definition midstream. Interesting debate tactic.

Regards,

D-Ray
I know you're not suggesting here that taxable income is the same as W-2 income. "Taxable income" can be derived from a number of sources. W-2 income = wages. I was pretty clear about what I was referring to: W-2 income. Why try to make this into something its not?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-18-2010, 02:00 PM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie View Post
Let's try this, because I think I now understand what you mean. A hypothetical example. You believe there is an American, let's call him Rube, who has a sallary of $275,000 a year. If I follow you, you believe that Rube had deducted from his check, or pays at tax time a total of 275,000 * 42.65%. Right? You think Rube pays the government $117,287 a year?

Using the IRS Calculator for our friend Rube "Your anticipated income tax is $72,781" again assuming NO deductions, single, no contributions to tax deferred... etc. Again, NO ONE does that. Zero people. But even with that, 72,781/275,000= 26.4%.

Is there some Tea Party propoganda that leads you to believe this? If so, I can see why they're so angy. They think people are paying insane amounts of tax, almost higher than anyone in the world!
If you want to try calculating it with actual wages, the 35% tax bracket starts with income earned above $373650/yr. And yes, individuals do earn and are taxed on income at that level. Also, the increased Medicare withholding on wages/investment income starts in 2013, so that may be why you're not finding it in 2010 tax calculation data.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-18-2010, 02:05 PM
Fast_Eddie's Avatar
Fast_Eddie Fast_Eddie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,075
(edited- even THOSE numbers weren't right)

Estimated Federal tax with no itimized deductions etc. $105,331. $6,621 max for SS. 1.45% for Medicare is $5,417.

105,331 + 6,621 + 5,417 = 117,369

117,369/373,650 = 31.4%

Where's the 42.65%?
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.

Last edited by Fast_Eddie; 11-18-2010 at 02:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-18-2010, 02:08 PM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
Is this apples to apples, country to country, are we talking total taxation to total taxation - we have state county and local taxes as well.

I'd like to see that.

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.