U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-14-2019, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,282 posts, read 2,217,584 times
Reputation: 9803

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC refugee View Post
2.5% medicare levy? Is that like American medicare, for senior citizens, or national health care for everyone?
Australia, being among the civilized nations, has universal health care; being among the rugged individualist nations, it also has private insurance for those who want it.

It's understandable that someone from the US would be confused about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2019, 05:50 PM
509
 
2,796 posts, read 3,973,421 times
Reputation: 3282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii View Post
The US does have a progressive tax system. In terms of federal income tax, the bottom 44% of wage earners pay nothing.

Any married couple making under $78,750 pays no capital gains tax today.
No...the United States no longer has a progressive tax system. Don't confuse the lower 44% percent paying no taxes with a progressive tax system. They are exempt from paying taxes....that does NOT make it progressive.

The last time it was it was just after the Reagan Tax Reform bill of 1987, which set ordinary income, interest income, capital gains, and dividends at the same rate.

By 2012...both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama paid 12% tax rate. My 23 year old daughter that year....made 80,000 and paid 25%. That is not a progressive tax system!!

My ordinary income tax rate is 22% (down from 28 with the Trump tax cut). My dividend tax rate is 5%. My capital gains tax rate???is 10%???. All in all...on retirement pension, with dividend income and IRA distributions....thanks to the Trump tax cut I finally pay the same as Obama and Romney at 12%....down from 15%.

My daughter, however, makes less money than all three of us and pays 25%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 09:04 PM
 
864 posts, read 646,756 times
Reputation: 1071
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
No...the United States no longer has a progressive tax system. Don't confuse the lower 44% percent paying no taxes with a progressive tax system. They are exempt from paying taxes....that does NOT make it progressive.

The last time it was it was just after the Reagan Tax Reform bill of 1987, which set ordinary income, interest income, capital gains, and dividends at the same rate.

By 2012...both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama paid 12% tax rate. My 23 year old daughter that year....made 80,000 and paid 25%. That is not a progressive tax system!!

My ordinary income tax rate is 22% (down from 28 with the Trump tax cut). My dividend tax rate is 5%. My capital gains tax rate???is 10%???. All in all...on retirement pension, with dividend income and IRA distributions....thanks to the Trump tax cut I finally pay the same as Obama and Romney at 12%....down from 15%.

My daughter, however, makes less money than all three of us and pays 25%.
$80k in income filing single is around $11k in federal tax or 13.8%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 10:09 PM
 
1,295 posts, read 281,502 times
Reputation: 2142
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
No...the United States no longer has a progressive tax system.
Yes, of course, the USA's Federal Income Tax System is a progressive marginal tax system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 10:11 AM
 
1,445 posts, read 465,105 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
No...the United States no longer has a progressive tax system. Don't confuse the lower 44% percent paying no taxes with a progressive tax system. They are exempt from paying taxes....that does NOT make it progressive.

The last time it was it was just after the Reagan Tax Reform bill of 1987, which set ordinary income, interest income, capital gains, and dividends at the same rate.

By 2012...both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama paid 12% tax rate. My 23 year old daughter that year....made 80,000 and paid 25%. That is not a progressive tax system!!

My ordinary income tax rate is 22% (down from 28 with the Trump tax cut). My dividend tax rate is 5%. My capital gains tax rate???is 10%???. All in all...on retirement pension, with dividend income and IRA distributions....thanks to the Trump tax cut I finally pay the same as Obama and Romney at 12%....down from 15%.

My daughter, however, makes less money than all three of us and pays 25%.
Your daughter paid an effective rate of 25%? that's more than double what someone of that income typically pays.

How did your daughter have an effective tax rate equal to a marginal rate? Your daughter paid 25% on income greater than $70,700 in 2012 (so she paid 25% on $9,300, before any deductions, tax credits, etc. were applied).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,044 posts, read 82,365,777 times
Reputation: 40822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl View Post
It's not a crime to write a book and make a lot of money but Bernie the millionaire is a hypocrite.
Last night it was pointed out he and his wife only gave a little over 3% of their income to charity. When asked as long as he feels the rich should pay their fair share has he thought about giving more than his 3plus %. he didn't answer. that was the one he said that really bothered me.
We lice on SS and a very small retirement plus a few investments We are hardly in the middle income bracket and between what to pledge to our church and how much we donate money wise to a few charities we almos give as much as he does. Shame on him!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 12:58 PM
 
864 posts, read 646,756 times
Reputation: 1071
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
Last night it was pointed out he and his wife only gave a little over 3% of their income to charity. When asked as long as he feels the rich should pay their fair share has he thought about giving more than his 3plus %. he didn't answer. that was the one he said that really bothered me.
We lice on SS and a very small retirement plus a few investments We are hardly in the middle income bracket and between what to pledge to our church and how much we donate money wise to a few charities we almos give as much as he does. Shame on him!!!!!!!!
He is Jewish. I have absolutely nothing against Jews, and do not understand the hatred toward them through history, but one trait is they tend to not donate much. That doesn't make them bad people.

His point on wealth and taxes is THREE PEOPLE control more wealth than the bottom HALF of our country. Personally I tend to find that quite shocking.

Also don't take this the wrong way but I am against religions that compel people to donate to a church. It's so sad, they take advantage of people such as yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 01:03 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
76,567 posts, read 68,568,666 times
Reputation: 73919
The US has a graduated tax. But the higher tax rates were eventually eliminated. The highest used to be 90%. The upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.) used to pay around 65%, and the only deductions were for a home mortgage and dependents. They didn't use loopholes; they paid their share. Now the top rate is under 50%. So The Bern may be talking about pushing the top rate over 50%, I don't know. IOW, the system isn't as "graduated" as it used to be, so maybe he's saying there needs to be a happy medium between the highest rates of previous generations, and the current situation, where high earners pay less tax than their own secretarial staff.

So the Bern has 1 mill, big whoop. ANYONE his age, who's had his earning power (as a member of Congress, not the additional income from books) should have well over 1 mill. for retirement. Of course, the Bern will get a nice, generous federal pension, as well as a solid Social Security check, but eldercare costs, for people who can no longer live independently in old age, are exorbitant, and few people are prepared for that. Heck, the stock market could wipe out 1/3 of Bernie's nest egg in one burst of the bubble, or other crisis.

Frankly, I can't believe he only reached 1 mill. due to book contracts and royalties. I think he's hiding something. If he's truly done such a poor job of saving and investing all these years, that at his age, he fell well short of 1 mill (before the book contracts), that's a guy I don't want in charge of any national economy. That's very shabby. What's he been spending his money on, all this time??? Where has it all gone? Now there's something to look into, IMO.


edit/update: Turns out, The Bern has been "Berning" through money, in part by buying homes. He has 3 homes that he bought with his wife (who was a college president, for some years), including a condo in Washington DC.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bern...t-for-575000-9

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 04-16-2019 at 01:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 01:12 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,163 posts, read 60,874,145 times
Reputation: 31525
Quote:
Originally Posted by pipsters View Post
He is Jewish. I have absolutely nothing against Jews,
and do not understand the hatred toward them through history, but one trait is they tend to not donate much.
U.S. Jews give more to charity on average than Americans with other faith traditions.
Catholic $1,142
Jewish $2,526
Protestant $1,749
Other affiliation $1,178

http://theconversation.com/american-...radition-87993
The Conversation, CC-BY-ND
Source: Giving USA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 01:29 PM
 
1,110 posts, read 486,535 times
Reputation: 1182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
The US has a graduated tax. But the higher tax rates were eventually eliminated. The highest used to be 90%. The upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.) used to pay around 65%, and the only deductions were for a home mortgage and dependents. They didn't use loopholes; they paid their share. Now the top rate is under 50%. So The Bern may be talking about pushing the top rate over 50%, I don't know. IOW, the system isn't as "graduated" as it used to be, so maybe he's saying there needs to be a happy medium between the highest rates of previous generations, and the current situation, where high earners pay less tax than their own secretarial staff.

So the Bern has 1 mill, big whoop. ANYONE his age, who's had his earning power (as a member of Congress, not the additional income from books) should have well over 1 mill. for retirement. Of course, the Bern will get a nice, generous federal pension, as well as a solid Social Security check, but eldercare costs, for people who can no longer live independently in old age, are exorbitant, and few people are prepared for that. Heck, the stock market could wipe out 1/3 of Bernie's nest egg in one burst of the bubble, or other crisis.

Frankly, I can't believe he only reached 1 mill. due to book contracts and royalties. I think he's hiding something. If he's truly done such a poor job of saving and investing all these years, that at his age, he fell well short of 1 mill (before the book contracts), that's a guy I don't want in charge of any national economy. That's very shabby. What's he been spending his money on, all this time??? Where has it all gone? Now there's something to look into, IMO.


edit/update: Turns out, The Bern has been "Berning" through money, in part by buying homes. He has 3 homes that he bought with his wife (who was a college president, for some years), including a condo in Washington DC.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bern...t-for-575000-9
when rates were 90% just about everything was deductible, all interest (mortgage, student loan, credit card) , state income and property taxes, charitable contributions, medial, misc itemized deductions (unreimbursed business expenses, investment expenses). Additionally, losses from real estate syndications, equipment leasing, oil & gas deals, ITC and other so called tax shelters were fully deductible.

It was worth taking the risk on those tax shelters since the tax rate was so high, a leveraged tax shelter deal could produce 4 or 5 to 1 (deductions to dollars invested).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top