GOP to Jobless: Drop Dead

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

LOL. Before we figure out who was "wrong" you might want to edit prior posts and clean up your calculations.

I think they're fine as they are. If there is a mistake feel free to point it out and we'll look at it.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

Here's the 35%: [url]

35 + 6.2 + 1.45 = 42.65%.

This is on income earned over $373500. Income below that amount is taxed at a lower rate.

On income over $373,650, you pay 35% + 1.45. You do not pay 6.2 because of the FICA cap. As D-Ray said, 35+1.45=36.45%

And, once again, the 35% assumes no deductions, no dependants. There is no scenario in U.S. tax code that can get a sigle dollar of income taxed at 42.65%. It does not exist.

[Fast_Eddie]

I'm sorry, this is bull shit.

Originally Posted by whell

My post wasn't referring to marginal tax rates. I was referring to income tax rates.

Okay, "income tax rates". What does that mean?

(edit, because the more I think about this the more pissed I get) Income tax doesn't include FICA! So if you were talking about "income tax rates" you don't include the 6.2% or for that matter the 1.45% AT ALL.

Originally Posted by whell

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...

Here you seem to be equating marginal and effective rates, which are not the same thing. Then you say you are talking about "taxes on W-2 Earnings". That is NOT saying "just the highest rate". W-2s include everything you earn.

Originally Posted by whell

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?

This... just doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by whell

Again, I was simply posting the "highest tax rate." I wasn't the one who went about attempting to (incorrectly) calculate actual tax liability.

"Again?" Where in this thread have you said that before? Even when we specifically tried to explain the concept to you, you posted stupid "W-2 blah blah" B.S. And even if we now change what we're talking about to address ONLY the higest taxes paid on any portion of income, you STILL do not get to your 40+% tax.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Its shocking that you believe its a good idea to tax our way out of this mess.

Please review the first post of this thread. Everything you need to know about how to fix this mess is explained.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=1909

[whell]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I'm sorry, this is bull shit.

I couldn't agree more. We've at least found some common ground.

You're wearing me out on this, and you're busy taking my statements out of context, or putting words in my mouth. I'm done with this. My comments stand.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

I couldn't agree more. We've at least found some common ground.

You're wearing me out on this, and you're busy taking my statements out of context, or putting words in my mouth. I'm done with this. My comments stand.

I think you're "done with this" because you have realized you are wrong. You said I figured it wrong - could be. Show me the mistake. If I've made one, which is entirely possible, I'll own up to it.

Did I misunderstanding something with the FICA cap? Is there some rule I don't know about that gets us to the 40+% you stated? Did I misunderstand something to do with marginal rates? I don't believe I did, but if so, I'd admit it if shown information I wasn't aware of. I've made mistakes on here before and admitted them. I proud of that, actually.

I honestly believe you didn't understand what you were posting, then tried to change what you were saying in mid-stream to try to cover it up, but finally had to give up when you realized that you were dead wrong. Now you're playing it off as righteous indignation and storming off rather than facing up to it.

Be a man. Just admit you were wrong.

I've taken nothing out of context that would somehow distort the meaning of your posts. If you disagree, show me an example and I will apologize for it and admit any error in logic it exposes. I've made my case pretty solidly and backed it up with references. You've said I was wrong. I don't think it's too much to ask to point out where.

But if you think you can just slink off without being called on it, you are wrong. I invite anyone to go through every post in this thread and point out any information that is wrong.

Your comments do *not* stand. They are wrong.

[noonereal]

it's called blind love

[Fast_Eddie]

One more hypothetical. This time, well and clearly into the highest marginal tax rate.

Income - $400,000
Effective income tax rate - 28.59%
Marginal income tax rate - 35%
Total income tax –$114,360
Income taxed at marginal rate of 35% - $62,350
Total tax paid at marginal rate - $21,822.50
FICA - 6.2% on first $106,800
Total FICA - $6,621.50
Medicare -1.45%, no cap
Total Medicare - $5,800
Medicare on income taxed at marginal rate – $904.08

Total federal income tax paid including SS and Medicare - $126,781.5
Percent of total income – 32%

Total tax paid at marginal rate of 35% plus Medicare – $22,726.58
Percent of marginal tax income – 36%

I'm honestly trying to find a scenario that gets us to 40+%. This is the best I can do. Figuring the percentage ONLY on the taxes paid at 35% plus the Medicare taxes paid on that portion of income. "Worst" I could do was 36% on any portion of income.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I couldn't agree more. We've at least found some common ground.

You're wearing me out on this, and you're busy taking my statements out of context, or putting words in my mouth. I'm done with this. My comments stand.

I can't fault you for including FICA and Medicare within the calculations of the tax rate, because that has consistently been my position every time you said that half of the population doesn't pay federal tax. I'm glad to see that you have adopted that logic.

What is irrefutable is that no one - under the tax rates that would go into effect under current legislation; under the GOP plan to re-enact all of the Bush tax cuts; or under the President's plan to re-enact the tax cuts for all but the highest 2% of incomes - will pay taxes at the 42.6% rate, because the 6.2% tax rate for social security falls out of the equation long before w-2 income reaches the top rate. Therefore you must subtract that 6.2% from what you say is the highest rate. I sincerely wish that that modification to the calculations did not have to be made, because that would put the fund in much better shape, but that is the way it is - FICA is a regressive tax.

Now you can surprise all of us by acknowledging that one fact - not including my commentary - the simple fact that those whose pay scale puts them into the top bracket do not pay the 6.2% FICA tax on the income that is taxed at the the top rate. Therefore your suggestion that people pay 42.6% is not accurate.

I'll close with a quote from Elvis Costello:

No, don't ask me to apologise.
I won't ask you to forgive me.
If I'm gonna go down,
you're gonna come with me

You say 'Why don't you be a man about it,
like they do in the grown-up movies?'
. . . .

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Even if I amaturize the total FICA over the entire $400k, which is NOT how it is figured at all, and tax the entire income at 35% I can only get to 38% total. Even though 38% is not paid on a single dollar of income. This is kind of into Mythbusters "reproduce the result". But I'm affraid I can't find any math, even beyond the scope of acutal tax law, that gets a single penny of income taxed at 40%. But I can honestly say I tried to give your statement some kind of leg to stand on- since you were unwilling to show how it could happen.