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.
That is a fair point, which makes it even more important to remind you that we are not following the Venezuela Model. Don't believe everything you read on right-wing media sources. They are biased, just like the far left sources. Do your own research, and the fear will go away, when you realize nobody is talking about being Venezuela 2.0.
I'm not fan of hedge fund managers, but proof that their effective tax rate is less than yours? Other than a left wing opinion article? As it stands, the US has a very socialist/marxist federal income tax system right now. Far more Marxist than Sweden, Norwary, and other northern European countries.
Correct. European countries place their middle class and above in the highest income tax bracket. In the US, one doesn't hit the highest income tax bracket until one earns 9 times the national average. Better to see it in a chart:
It would be quite eye-opening if the US did the same: place the middle class in the top tax bracket. PLUS add a 20% to 25% national VAT on top of that. The lesson learned from that? You get what you pay for. Too many Americans don't want to pay for Euro-style government-provided goodies like national health care, etc., so we don't have them.
What does that have to do with the effective federal income tax rate chart I posted? Absolutely nothing.
I can't tell, are you shocked, or offended, that the people who struggle the most get some help, while the people who make the most, often off of those who make the least, pay their fair share.
By showing percentages, your graph does not really capture that the person who pays -14% is being subsidized slighlty, so they can eat, and maybe get off the streets, which makes things better (and more cost effective) for all of us who do our fair share, while at the same time, the guy paying an effective 25%, is able to have multiple homes, fancy cars, and yachts. Good for them, and they should always be able to do that, but as long as they are, and other people are working for them, and having to get assistance, maybe the problem is not the working people who have limited choices.
One thing that will help, is to continue to invest in education, infrastructure and health. That will help everyone become more wealthy. Shame the Republicans either don't understand this, or maybe they do, and just don't care, as long as they get theirs, who really cares, right?
I can't tell, are you shocked, or offended, that the people who struggle the most get some help, while the people who make the most, often off of those who make the least, pay their fair share.
Define "fair share." Put it into words, and defend it mathematically.
Quote:
By showing percentages, your graph does not really capture that the person who pays -14% is being subsidized slighlty, so they can eat, and maybe get off the streets, which makes things better (and more cost effective) for all of us who do our fair share, while at the same time, the guy paying an effective 25%, is able to have multiple homes, fancy cars, and yachts. Good for them, and they should always be able to do that, but as long as they are, and other people are working for them, and having to get assistance, maybe the problem is not the working people who have limited choices.
So what? The fact is that some have done a horrible job managing their own lives. It is not others' responsibility to make up for that.
Quote:
One thing that will help, is to continue to invest in education, infrastructure and health. That will help everyone become more wealthy. Shame the Republicans either don't understand this, or maybe they do, and just don't care, as long as they get theirs, who really cares, right?
There is a growing interest in disempowering the US public education system, which would be a significant help in allowing more people to become wealthy, or at least self-supporting.
The latest 12th Grade NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) Scores, Percent at Proficient or Above:
Does anyone really wish to assert that Black, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native students are actually that much less intelligent than White students? Or is it far more likely that our country's public K-12 education system is the largest, most wide-spread form of institutional racism there is in the U.S., thanks to Democrats who oppose school vouchers (teachers unions political donations: 94% to Democrats)?
BTW, it isn't a funding issue. Many school districts (e.g., Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, etc.) spend $20,000+ per student per year and still yield abysmal results...
I hate to admit it but we need a massive tax increase, what Biden proposes isn't enough. Of course even more important is reducing spending which they'll never do.
I can't tell, are you shocked, or offended, that the people who struggle the most get some help, while the people who make the most, often off of those who make the least, pay their fair share.
By showing percentages, your graph does not really capture that the person who pays -14% is being subsidized slighlty, so they can eat, and maybe get off the streets, which makes things better (and more cost effective) for all of us who do our fair share, while at the same time, the guy paying an effective 25%, is able to have multiple homes, fancy cars, and yachts. Good for them, and they should always be able to do that, but as long as they are, and other people are working for them, and having to get assistance, maybe the problem is not the working people who have limited choices.
One thing that will help, is to continue to invest in education, infrastructure and health. That will help everyone become more wealthy. Shame the Republicans either don't understand this, or maybe they do, and just don't care, as long as they get theirs, who really cares, right?
Your view of the world is completely detached from reality.
The vast majority of those people, who struggle the most, CHOOSE to be poor. It is entirely their life choice.
If you are talking about fair share, what's the fair share for the 50% who don't pay taxes?
Continuing to invest in education, infrastructure, and health should be done VOLUNTARILY, either by private entities using their own money or by citizens VOLUNTARILY giving money to the government to use.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 03-29-2021 at 08:28 AM..
Can you tell me a business without customers that is hiring?
The economy is 70 percent consumer based last I heard. No business will hire people without a customer base and guess what, there are a lot of low income consumers.
Plenty.
Tesla, SpaceX, etc.... It's a long list. Many companies operate without a customer base for years to decades - Tesla hasn't turned a profit since the inception.
Nope. Read this CRS chart (Figure 2 for those who don't know what they're supposed to be looking at), again. One doesn't hit an effective federal income tax rate even approaching 20% until one's income is $500K. The next lowest income group, $200K - $500K, has an effective federal income tax rate of about 13%. That's significantly below the hedgies' tax rate of 20%. Facts matter.
Lol, you can post whatever charts you like, I know what I pay And no, I'm not going to post my tax return, so don't ask.
But, let's take an imaginary example in the range you listed and do some back of the envelope:
450k married:
450k*0.35-50.4k = 107.1k. (so coincidentally we are already at 23.8% effective).
Now, let's not forget SSA tax (two earners): 2*137.7k*0.0625 = 17.2 k
Medicare tax: 0.0145*450k = 6.5k
Then the additional medicare tax 0.009*(450k-250k)= 1.8k
Lol, you can post whatever charts you like, I know what I pay And no, I'm not going to post my tax return, so don't ask.
Clearly, you don't. To get your effective federal income tax rate, on the 2020 US 1040, divide line 24 by line 15.
Quote:
But, let's take an imaginary example in the range you listed and do some back of the envelope:
450k married:
450k*0.35-50.4k = 107.1k. (so coincidentally we are already at 23.8% effective).
Nope. Try a federal income tax calculator. Even with zero dependents and zero deductions other than the standard deduction (which would not actually happen with a $450,000 income household), the effective federal income tax rate clocks in at less than that. You seem to be confusing marginal tax rate with effective tax rate. They are not the same. What one actually pays is the effective tax rate.
Quote:
Now, let's not forget SSA tax (two earners): 2*137.7k*0.0625 = 17.2 k
Medicare tax: 0.0145*450k = 6.5k
Then the additional medicare tax 0.009*(450k-250k)= 1.8k
So the total federal taxes so far: 132.6k
rate = 132.6/450 = 29.5%
The chart I posted is for federal income tax. SSA tax is not relevant for the purpose of determining one's effective federal income tax rate. Ergo... You're flat out wrong.
.
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.
And no, I'm not going to post my tax return, so don't ask.
To get your effective federal income tax rate, on the 2020 US 1040, divide line 24 by line 15.