Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-13-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyanger View Post
If we pretend the secretary makes $139,350.00 annual income - assuming zero deductions - I thought the effective tax rate works out to 19.4%

1st 17000 at .10 = $ 1700
next 52000 at .15 = $ 7800
next 70350 at .25 = $17587
--------------------------
139,350 x ETR = $27087.50
--------------------------
27087.50/139350 = ETR = 0.194

If you plug in $100000 annual income the ETR is just over 17%. And all this is with zero deductions of any kind - which is unlikely.


Has anyone else worked the numbers? What am I missing?
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good news story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2012, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,201,923 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
I think the approach should be to reduce the tax rate of the secretary rather than try to find ways to increase the transfer of wealth to the government from the "rich"
Individuals spend their money so much more wisely than bureaucrats.
You going to "wisely" spend your money repairing the roads out front? You going to buy missiles and bullets for the military???? I'd think it is wiser if we let them buy what they need.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,815,033 times
Reputation: 10789
"The Obamas paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent."

Did the Obamas pay a higher or lower effective income tax rate than the Romneys?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 06:50 PM
 
45,226 posts, read 26,443,162 times
Reputation: 24980
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
You going to "wisely" spend your money repairing the roads out front? You going to buy missiles and bullets for the military???? I'd think it is wiser if we let them buy what they need.
Since "they" have been a failure at spending money wisely and for its intended purpose for so long,I'm going to assume you have just landed here from another planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,201,923 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good news story.
Let's not let wingnut math get in the way of the truth. I'm thinking when you calculate your EFFECTIVE TAX RATE you do so by using the taxpayers' total income or their adjusted gross income. Seeing the obamas' total income was over $1.7 million someone's effective tax rate calculations are WAY OFF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 06:58 PM
 
Location: SARASOTA, FLORIDA
11,486 posts, read 15,306,908 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
"The Obamas paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent."

Did the Obamas pay a higher or lower effective income tax rate than the Romneys?

Another liberal who does not understand how money and taxes work.

Romney paid 35% or more when he was working and earning.

Today he pays 15% on his investments, not earned income from working.

He already paid his fair share and then some when he was working at 35%.

If you want to compare then lets use the 35% Romney paid when he was in the work force to Obamas poor and lowly 20%.

Please learn how taxes and income work.



****

And by the way Obama asked that everyone making over a million pay their fair share of no less then 30%, he has not. Last year he ripped us off by not paying his fair share by paying only 26.5 on earning of over a million.

Sad he ask people to do things he does not himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,201,923 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Since "they" have been a failure at spending money wisely and for its intended purpose for so long,I'm going to assume you have just landed here from another planet.
Sorry, I don't see this failure you refer to. Sure we have a debt, but when I calculate my met worth I count assets against my debts. Seems when you look at things that way American is fine, in spite of you starve the beast wingnuts trying to bankrupt us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:05 PM
 
1,652 posts, read 2,549,838 times
Reputation: 1463
Something is way off with that math, or she has the worst tax prepareer in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:05 PM
 
45,226 posts, read 26,443,162 times
Reputation: 24980
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Sorry, I don't see this failure you refer to. Sure we have a debt, but when I calculate my met worth I count assets against my debts. Seems when you look at things that way American is fine, in spite of you starve the beast wingnuts trying to bankrupt us.
i.e. my master provides for my needs, so life on the plantation is good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2012, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,815,033 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days-in-Florida View Post
Another liberal who does not understand how money and taxes work.

Romney paid 35% or more when he was working and earning.

Today he pays 15% on his investments, not earned income from working.

He already paid his fair share and then some when he was working at 35%.

If you want to compare then lets use the 35% Romney paid when he was in the work force to Obamas poor and lowly 20%.

Please learn how taxes and income work.



****

And by the way Obama asked that everyone making over a million pay their fair share of no less then 30%, he has not. Last year he ripped us off by not paying his fair share by paying only 26.5 on earning of over a million.

Sad he ask people to do things he does not himself.
In other words, Obama paid a higher percent of taxes than Romney did.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top