Putting a face on tax increases

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


I guess so, as I am not a CPA.

No more so then anyone else here.

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by Fitch303
I have no problem with increasing the tax for $1 million and up earners as long as the bottom 40% do not continue to have ZERO federal income tax liability. Were all in this together, everyone needs to pay their fair share.

That's not the argument: Billo Argued that he would *quit* if top tax bracket got raised.
Let's guesstimate that he has 10 Million income in the top tax bracket (It's propably more)
Right now he gets to take home 6.5 Mil
After the tax increase it would be 6.39
Thats a 110.000$ Increase

Billo says that if he has a 110.000$ tax increase he will voluntarily lower his income from 6.69 Milliion Dollars to 300.000
He is willing to give up 6.3 Million to save 110.000$
That's the problem: with the faces come numbers, and they make no sense.

Well, you realise that you left out some other things here. If we assume that he lives in New York, and that Newscorp pays him a monthly check here is the break down of his payroll deductions before any voluntary deductions such as 401(k) insurance etc.....

Gross pay $833,333.33
Federal income tax $289,714.92
Social Security $4,485.60
Medicare $12,083.33
New York $81,183.06
Net pay (take home) $445,866.42


if we then multiply that by 12 we get $5350397.04 then you have to figure all the other tax burden, I am sure ole billy boy there has a three million dollar home, not hard to do in NYC area, theres another 50 grand give or take in property taxes. Then there are the taxes associated with his car(s) all the toll roads, hell it costs $12 a trip across the George Washington bridge. I am not saying he doesnt make a butt load of cash, I am just saying that when you talk about taxes, you need to look at the big picture. Out of the 10 million doallar salary the government graciously allows him to keep roughly half of that. Now how would you feel if the government took half of your money? What makes you think the government is entitled to take even more of someones money just because they reach some magical salary number? Justify it to me please, change my mind, Until that happens I will continue thinking that the government and the liberal/progressive/democrats are just wealth redistributers and want to give hand out to those that refuse to work thier butts off on the backs of the people that have worked hard to get where they are.

reply to post by SM2


But, what are his write offs?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by narwahl

 

I love the rah rah rah chants of tax the wealthy when I seem to recall people with incomes of $45k or less pay no income taxes. And that income rate should probably be what $75k actually.

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
You're just going to post this crap without backing it up with some type of evidence?

You obviously do not understand the tax code, or you're actually choosing to be dishonest, and either way it is a LIE (look up the definition). Regardless of whether or not you actually believe what you typed, there are some people that DO BELIEVE IT. This type of ignorance is unaccetpable and I'm here to make sure it doesn't continue.

Let's all do a little research and not succumb to stupidity.


Stupidity of the American public aside, I'm also curious about the claim that 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes, but I won't attack that claim because I don't know anything about it. I do know for a fact that I've ALWAYS paid taxes no matter what I've earned, so I'd like to know who is earning money without actually paying taxes.

edit on 9/22/2011 by Sunsetspawn because: (no reason given)

What are you peddling?
Anyone earning around $45k a year gets all the taxes they paid back in the form of a return.
I know this because I remember getting all the taxes back while making under that amount. Both state and federal. Going through all the deductions, you get your money back.

Did a little research. It's a military thing. If you're in a combat zone or are a warrant officer you pay no taxes on everything you earn up to the maximum an enlisted person makes (which I will now assume is somewhere around 45k). If you are withholding anything you will get it all back. It's the least the government can do, which still isn't enough by any stretch.

This doesn't apply to civilians, so you've lost a talking point. I'm sure you'll use it again in the future anyway.

And as for 50% of people not paying taxes. Well, I think that has to do with the Earned Income Credit and children. With each child you have, things change...

Size of credit (tax year 2010) for Single, Head of Household, and Qualifying Widow(er).[1][3] Earned income (x) Stage Credit (3+ children)
$1–$12,549 phase in 45% * x
$12,550–$16,449 plateau $5,666
$16,450–$43,349 phase out $5,666 - 21% * (x - $16,450)
>= $43,350 no credit $0
Earned income (x) Stage Credit (2 children)
$1–$12,549 phase in 40% * x
$12,550–$16,449 plateau $5,036
$16,450–$40,362 phase out $5,036 - 21% * (x - $16,450)
>= $40,363 no credit $0
Earned income (x) Stage Credit (1 child)
$1–$8,949 phase in 34% * x
$8,950–$16,449 plateau $3,050
$16,450–$35,534 phase out $3,050 - 16% * (x - $16,450)
>= $35,535 no credit $0
Earned income (x) Stage Credit (no children)
$1–$5,949 phase in 7.65% * x
$5,950–$7,499 plateau $457
$7,500–$13,449 phase out $457 – 7.65% * (x - $7,500)
>= $13,450 no credit $0

en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing I can see from that mess is that if you don't have children you'd need to be making less than $13,450 to qualify, and even then I don't know if you'd be getting everything back.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


Your crystal ball of assumptions is broken.
Never said combat pay, never said warrant officer.


Sorry, but it is now time to move on from this as it is 90% anecdotal and the internet.

reply to post by macman


Yeah, given that this is the internet and anybody could lie about whether or not their evidence is from expertise or mere anecdote, all evidence carries the same weight. I prefer to attack the arguments drawn from the evidence, not whether or not the evidence is genuine. I apologize for the snottiness of my last post.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


No apologizes needed.
No worries on my part.

**ATTENTION**

The staff will not tolerate any further off topic remarks or "pot shots" at each other.

Any further T&C violations will result in immediate removals up to including the loss of posting privileges.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by FallenWun

 

Oh, so sorry. I guess you and some others don't get everything back.
Sounds like you and the others need to get better people doing your taxes.

I guess talking out of your ass is pretty common, as all of your retorts are basically the same anecdotal posts.

You are the only one that posted a blatant lie, tried to stand by it, then finally resorted to just insulting me when it finally came completely crashing down on you. Nothing I offered was anecdotal. Everything you offered was.

See, when you say something is a fact I ask you to prove it because your entire argument falls apart when you use lies to make it. I was hoping you made an innocent mistake but 4 posts later you have yet to admit it was not correct to state and instead have only gotten belligerent toward me for questioning you.

Thanks for at least demonstrating that logical, honest discussion is not to be had with you as lies and insults seem to be your entire stock in trade thus far.

Let me sincerely apologize for asking you to back up the BS you spout with some facts.
Let me further apologize for how upset it seems to have made you to realize you cannot back up your BS and had to just deal with it.

reply to post by FallenWun


Who is upset?
You are a poster on an internet forum.
Way below even sticks and stones.
Sounds like you got your panties in a bunch over nothing.

And no, I have not lied, as I will go back to the statement of "Everyone that I have known".
Further more, maybe look inward as to why the mod put a multi-directional smack down.


I have made sent 2 "red Alerts" to staff, ever.

This is funny someone saying that those that make less than 45K a year should get everything back and if not then they need someone better filling out their taxes while others say if you are making more and not getting everything back you need someone better filling out there taxes.

Looks to me like both sides are right and it's just a game of how much you can get away with.

reply to post by daskakik


I guess exactly?!?!?!

There are standard deductions that a single person can claim, and married couples.

And then there are itemized deductions.

I have always gotten everything back, while being under $45k a year. No house, a time single and a time married. Time was through HS, 2 jobs, military and then out as well.

Between $45k and $60k, I end up getting back about 90%. House, married and kids.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by FallenWun

 

Who is upset?
You are a poster on an internet forum.
Way below even sticks and stones.
Sounds like you got your panties in a bunch over nothing.

You are the one resorting to personal attacks and now more lies just because I asked you to back up a claim. If this is not you being upset then you just usually lie and attack people that question you?

And no, I have not lied, as I will go back to the statement of "Everyone that I have known".
Further more, maybe look inward as to why the mod put a multi-directional smack down.

More lies.

The fact that a person making around $45k a year gets all their taxes back is the glowing example that the few carry the many.

and

What are you peddling?
Anyone earning around $45k a year gets all the taxes they paid back in the form of a return.

Those are actually what you said BEFORE you adjusted it to what it is now.

I have made sent 2 "red Alerts" to staff, ever.

edit on 24-9-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Uh ok.

reply to post by FallenWun

What personal attack?

reply to post by FallenWun


Further more, no lies.
I went on further to state that yes, it was anecdotal on everyone I knew for the $45k a year. I also did reveal that I am not a CPA.

I also went on to read where you and mastahunta went on to provoke me on talking out of my ass statements.

Even with being called a liar, Sunsetspawn has refrained from personal attacks (for the most part). And SmedleyBurlap even hashed our differences out.

I know childish taunting when I see them.

You two can have it.
When you want to return to the topic at hand, I am ready. As for this jumped rail back and forth, I am done.

Enjoy.

reply to post by macman


Here's another dot to connect. The GDP per capita is around 45K so anyone making less than that is already giving up part of their fair share (by commie standards). So even if you get everything back from your 30K you still lost out on the other 15K you were "entitled" to.

Mixed economic model anyone?

reply to post by daskakik

I agree that it is not fair.
Any time any sliding scale is introduced, whether it be taxes, grades or what ever, it will not be fair.

Flat tax or fair tax is the key.
Everyone pays say 8% (Or what ever percentage the creators of it proposed, as I am not an economist nor a CPA) with no deductions on any and all income. Or no income tax and just a tax on consumption.

reply to post by macman


I meant to say that the mixed exonomic model is already in place and 45K is the cut off point. Everyone making less gets their socialistic security net and those above get to participate in a somewhat free market to make as much as they can. But in both cases you have to work at keeping what you have made in your pockets.

reply to post by daskakik


Yes, i agree.

But I bet that people in higher tax brackets have to work harder and pay more to keep their money.

reply to post by macman


Yeah but they also get to keep more so it would seem fair that they work harder for it or at least smarter. Maybe even a little crooked.