GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
How did you arrive at $50k in taxes from $300,000?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even more
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
It is an approximate number, of course.
It is based on a combination of two things:
Buffett pays 17% federal taxes (17% of 300,000 would be close to 50,000)
And, I have been there, and it was what I paid in taxes, after deductions and tax loop holes. (however, it was under Clinton's tax code).
If you do want to nitpick, please feel free to do so.
I was given an exemple, and didn't intend to make it a "penny crunching" experience for anyone.
It is an approximate number, of course.
It is based on a combination of two things:
Buffett pays 17% federal taxes (17% of 300,000 would be close to 50,000)
And, I have been there, and it was what I paid in taxes, after deductions and tax loop holes. (however, it was under Clinton's tax code).
If you do want to nitpick, please feel free to do so.
I was given an exemple, and didn't intend to make it a "penny crunching" experience for anyone.
ThisTooShallPass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 168
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
I for one have no problem with taxing the rich far more heavily than we currently do. A sizable chunk of them are government employees, anyway, and the rest have profited from manipulating government trade and immigration policies to enrich themselves at the expense of the average worker.
I for one have no problem with taxing the rich far more heavily than we currently do. A sizable chunk of them are government employees, anyway, and the rest have profited from manipulating government trade and immigration policies to enrich themselves at the expense of the average worker.
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
There are very few government employees making $250,000 or more per year....or $200,000 for a single person I suppose.
There are very few government employees making $250,000 or more per year....or $200,000 for a single person I suppose.
ThisTooShallPass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 168
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
A considerable number make well over $100,000, and that's rich enough to me.
And there are, of course, the lawyers, lobbyists, developers, contractors, etc., who make their money off the government without being directly employed by it.
A considerable number make well over $100,000, and that's rich enough to me.
And there are, of course, the lawyers, lobbyists, developers, contractors, etc., who make their money off the government without being directly employed by it.
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
$100,000 a year will get you nowhere in a place like New York or DC.
So what?
$100,000 a year will get you nowhere in a place like New York or DC.
So what?
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
So what????
Should all those people loose their income too? Whatever business (in addition to your inherited wealth) you are involved with, it's obviously not providing services or contracting with the U.S. Government!
But several of your clients might be contractors of the U.S. Government!
And... I agree that $100,000 in NY City is not huge. . .but it beats $50,000 in no-where Kansas!
So what????
Should all those people loose their income too? Whatever business (in addition to your inherited wealth) you are involved with, it's obviously not providing services or contracting with the U.S. Government!
But several of your clients might be contractors of the U.S. Government!
And... I agree that $100,000 in NY City is not huge. . .but it beats $50,000 in no-where Kansas!
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
BigRob specified the federal income tax, 15% of Buffet's 17.7% came from capital gains taxes, not the Progressive income tax.
Income: $300,000
Income tax liability: $83,897
% of income: 27.97%
Tax bracket: 33%
Income: $40,000
Income tax liability: $6,125
% of income: 15.31%
Tax bracket: 25%
Source
BigRob specified the federal income tax, 15% of Buffet's 17.7% came from capital gains taxes, not the Progressive income tax.
Income: $300,000
Income tax liability: $83,897
% of income: 27.97%
Tax bracket: 33%
Income: $40,000
Income tax liability: $6,125
% of income: 15.31%
Tax bracket: 25%
Source
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
You misread my post...I am saying so what if there are people who earn $100,000 or more working as government contractors etc...That does not make them rich...and it is not a comment on the value of their job.
If anyone is advocating for people to lose their income, it is you, and the idea of "paying your fair share", whatever that even means.
You misread my post...I am saying so what if there are people who earn $100,000 or more working as government contractors etc...That does not make them rich...and it is not a comment on the value of their job.
If anyone is advocating for people to lose their income, it is you, and the idea of "paying your fair share", whatever that even means.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
I'm sorry I didn't understand what you met!
But, face it, if ANYONE is making $100,000 or more (up to $250,000 NET), NO ONE is talking about raising THEIR taxes.
So. . .what's the argument again?
And I have NEVER advocated for anyone to lose their income. . .just a tiny little part of a huge income. . .like maybe 3 to 5%. . .of NET income over $1 million?
When did you EVER read that I wanted ANYONE to lose their income?
Although. . .I must say that if someone should not receive a check after the 3rd of August, I believe it should be every Congress person!
I'm sorry I didn't understand what you met!
But, face it, if ANYONE is making $100,000 or more (up to $250,000 NET), NO ONE is talking about raising THEIR taxes.
So. . .what's the argument again?
And I have NEVER advocated for anyone to lose their income. . .just a tiny little part of a huge income. . .like maybe 3 to 5%. . .of NET income over $1 million?
When did you EVER read that I wanted ANYONE to lose their income?
Although. . .I must say that if someone should not receive a check after the 3rd of August, I believe it should be every Congress person!
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
We seem to agree here. TTSP indicated that he wanted to tax "rich" people more, and then stated that many of them were working for the government.
I pointed out that very few government employees actually make that much money, and it made little sense as a justification for taxing the rich.
Interestingly enough, Congress keeps getting paid in a government shut down.
That said, in terms of losing income, you have never said that anyone should lose their entire income, but losing a part of income is still losing income.
This excerpt from CATO fits into previous discussions we have been having as well, so I will post it here.
"We are nonetheless constantly told that consumer spending is the driving force behind economic growth or recession, simply because 70% of GDP is used to finance consumption. This demand-side fallacy arises from focusing on uses of income rather than sources. In reality, consumption depends on income and wealth, and income and wealth depends on business. If business is profitable, personal income from work and investments will rise and that will finance consumption."
We seem to agree here. TTSP indicated that he wanted to tax "rich" people more, and then stated that many of them were working for the government.
I pointed out that very few government employees actually make that much money, and it made little sense as a justification for taxing the rich.
Interestingly enough, Congress keeps getting paid in a government shut down.
That said, in terms of losing income, you have never said that anyone should lose their entire income, but losing a part of income is still losing income.
This excerpt from CATO fits into previous discussions we have been having as well, so I will post it here.
"We are nonetheless constantly told that consumer spending is the driving force behind economic growth or recession, simply because 70% of GDP is used to finance consumption. This demand-side fallacy arises from focusing on uses of income rather than sources. In reality, consumption depends on income and wealth, and income and wealth depends on business. If business is profitable, personal income from work and investments will rise and that will finance consumption."
ThisTooShallPass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 168
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
So they hardly have a basis to complain about the government taking a slightly larger chunk of the income it gave them in the first place.
And nearly everyone who is even modestly wealthy is in bed with government somewhere.
So they hardly have a basis to complain about the government taking a slightly larger chunk of the income it gave them in the first place.
And nearly everyone who is even modestly wealthy is in bed with government somewhere.
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
So government employees ought to pay higher taxes simply because they work for the government?
Perhaps.
So government employees ought to pay higher taxes simply because they work for the government?
Perhaps.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
ONLY If their income is above the $250,000 NET mark.
Although the $1million NET mark was also offered by some Democrats and was STILL rejected by the GOP!
ONLY If their income is above the $250,000 NET mark.
Although the $1million NET mark was also offered by some Democrats and was STILL rejected by the GOP!
Werbung:
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
Re: Dems: highest 2% of earners,who already pay 50% of all incm taxes, must pay even
You should always include the FICA tax when making comparisons.
Income: $300,000
Income tax liability: $83,897
% of income: 27.97%
Medicare portion of FICA will be $4,350.00
Social Security portion of FICA will be $6,621.60
Total payroll tax liability: $94,868
% of income: 31.6%
Income: $40,000
Income tax liability: $6,125
% of income: 15.31%
Medicare portion of FICA will be $580.00
Social Security portion of FICA will be $2,480.00
Total payroll tax liability: $9,185
% of income: 23%
Source: http://www.calculatorpro.com/fica-tax-calculator/
That calculation is somewhat less progressive.
Federal tax isn't the only tax on the payroll.
You should always include the FICA tax when making comparisons.
Income: $300,000
Income tax liability: $83,897
% of income: 27.97%
Medicare portion of FICA will be $4,350.00
Social Security portion of FICA will be $6,621.60
Total payroll tax liability: $94,868
% of income: 31.6%
Income: $40,000
Income tax liability: $6,125
% of income: 15.31%
Medicare portion of FICA will be $580.00
Social Security portion of FICA will be $2,480.00
Total payroll tax liability: $9,185
% of income: 23%
Source: http://www.calculatorpro.com/fica-tax-calculator/
That calculation is somewhat less progressive.
