Who Pays Income Tax (check, exam, savings, Minnesota)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2012, both Obama and Romney paid 12%. They both paid a lower rate than my 25 year old daughter.
I am no fan of Obama OR Romney but I really don't believe your 25 year old daughter paid much more than 12%. You have to look at the effective rate, not the marginal rate. Effective rate is the average after all deductions are taken out. Unless your daughter makes over $100k, it is unlikely she is paying much more than 12%.
most do not understand marginal vs effective tax rates . in fact they don't understand the AMT system either which can almost be a flat tax from dollar one with few allowed adjustments once the phase outs are hit .
Eliminating the “cap” of FICA payroll taxes upon an individual’s annual wage not exceeding $132,900.00, doesn’t increase their taxes.For $200,000 in annual wage WITH NO ADDITIONAL NON-WAGE INCOME, there’s effectively slightly more than a half percent of tax increase.
The bolded statement is contradicted by the underlined statement.
The bolded statement is contradicted by the underlined statement.
SuiteLiving, the contention in this case, (considering the survival of the Social Security retirement system and proportional to our entire tax rate), a half percent increase of tax rate upon gross income should not be considered as a material difference of our tax rates). Your post indicates that you’re among those sharing the contrary opinion.
I would suppose you do not agree with my appreciation of Social security retirement system’s contribution to our entire national economy.
Elections and horse races were both created to test differences of opinions.
SuiteLiving, the contention in this case, (considering the survival of the Social Security retirement system and proportional to our entire tax rate), a half percent increase of tax rate upon gross income should not be considered as a material difference of our tax rates). Your post indicates that you’re among those sharing the contrary opinion.
I would suppose you do not agree with my appreciation of Social security retirement system’s contribution to our entire national economy.
Elections and horse races were both created to test differences of opinions.
All I said was the second sentence contradicted the first. Everything else is a figment of your paranoid imagination.
All I said was the second sentence contradicted the first. Everything else is a figment of your paranoid imagination.
SuiteLiving, we do not argue the fact that my second sentence literally contradicted my first (sentence).
Your second sentence. “Everything else is a figment of your paranoid imagination”, is another of your opinions upon which we differ.
SuiteLiving, the contention in this case, (considering the survival of the Social Security retirement system and proportional to our entire tax rate), a half percent increase of tax rate upon gross income should not be considered as a material difference of our tax rates). Your post indicates that you’re among those sharing the contrary opinion.
I would suppose you do not agree with my appreciation of Social security retirement system’s contribution to our entire national economy.
Elections and horse races were both created to test differences of opinions.
When you take my money from me and give it to someone else, I can no longer spend that money, but the recipient of your largesse can spend it. How is this a positive contribution to the national economy?
When you take my money from me and give it to someone else, I can no longer spend that money, but the recipient of your largesse can spend it. How is this a positive contribution to the national economy?
Depends on income level. Those who make a lot save a lot. My wife and I save more a month than I earned my first year out of college. If you doubled our taxes we'd just save less.
Increase taxes on the upper 5% of income earners and you won't effect the economy very much. Increase taxes on the bottom say 75%-80% and you will have an immediate ripple effect.
Fun fact most of the top income earners in the US make their money off of the bottom group. The phrase "pool people don't employ people" isn't really true - they spend 100% of their paycheck and that goes right to employing people, and driving profit to those who own the capital.
Depends on income level. Those who make a lot save a lot. My wife and I save more a month than I earned my first year out of college. If you doubled our taxes we'd just save less.
Increase taxes on the upper 5% of income earners and you won't effect the economy very much. Increase taxes on the bottom say 75%-80% and you will have an immediate ripple effect.
Fun fact most of the top income earners in the US make their money off of the bottom group. The phrase "pool people don't employ people" isn't really true - they spend 100% of their paycheck and that goes right to employing people, and driving profit to those who own the capital.
I can’t tell if you are answering my question or not. If you are, it isn’t clear what point you are making.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
