Taxes

[chcr]

Keep it as is, but close as close to 100% of the loopholes as possible... including off-shore accounts.

Ahh, take away incentives for spending money. That'll help the economy. Sorry Bish, but some "loopholes" are necessary, even good.

rrfield, I've read in the past that the top 20% of earners in the US pay anywhere from 65% to 75% of the taxes. You want them to pay more? Hell of an incentive to work hard and get ahead, isn't it?

 

[rrfield]

I don't buy it, i.e. the disincentive to get ahead.
if 'you' are making 100k per year (i dont), you are taxed (100k-36k=64k*.17=10.88k). You keep 89.12k of your own money.
Now if you 'get ahead', invent/do something that makes you rich(er) and now make 150k, you are taxed (150k-36k=114k*.17=19.38k). You keep 130.62k of your own money. You still make more money. Where's the disincentive? 'you' know 17% is going to big bro.

 

[Dave]

And that is the fault of whom?

the government, who created the jobs in the first place.

Hey...they keep getting re-elected because of it, so it is the fault of who that this goes on?

i'm all for throwing the bums out and starting fresh.

That's the first thing you've said that makes any kind of dent in such a plan. Here are a couple of good questions for you...

How much time and money does it take to develope a weapons system without Congressional oversight?

How much time and money does it take to develope a weapons system with Congressional oversight?

no idea. i'm not certain if i like the idea of military spending without congressional or some other type of oversight though.

Once again...that idea is firmly in the hands of the voter...

a large number of whom do not have health insurance so unless the current system can get overhauled to accommadate those people, we can expect another overbloated government agency.



http://www.savedarfur.org

 

[MrBishop]

I don't buy it, i.e. the disincentive to get ahead.
if 'you' are making 100k per year (i dont), you are taxed (100k-36k=64k*.17=10.88k). You keep 89.12k of your own money.
Now if you 'get ahead', invent/do something that makes you rich(er) and now make 150k, you are taxed (150k-36k=114k*.17=19.38k). You keep 130.62k of your own money. You still make more money. Where's the disincentive? 'you' know 17% is going to big bro.

Feh...I'd love that kinda tax haven. I'm taxed at around 45% of overall salary
For Quebec
For 2007, the tax rates and income thresholds are as follows:
? 15.5% of taxable income less than or equal to $37,178;
? 22% of taxable income greater than $37,178 and less than or equal to $74,357;
? 26% of taxable income greater than $74,357 and less than or equal to $120,887;

For Canada
first $28,710 - 28.73%
over $28,710 up to $36,378 - 32.72%
over $36,378 up to $57,430 - 38.37%
over $57,430 up to $72,756 - 42.37%
over $72,756 up to $118,285 - 45.71%
over $118,285 - 48.22%

**Add them up and you get the idea of what kind of taxes you'd pay. **
You get bonus points if you do it right. I don't have the time for it right now.

 

[RDX]

The tax system is waaay too complex in the United States. I propose a simple, user friendly equation that everyone can use to determine which tax bracket they are in. The limitation is that this formula only works for annual incomes between $6,000 and $1,000,000.

Tax bracket = ((-1.032*10^-33*(annual income)^6+4.197*10^-27*(annual income)^5-6.754*10^-21*(annual income)^4+5.45*10^-15*(annual income)^3-2.293*10^-9*(annual income)^2+4.669*10^-4*(annual income))*(1000000/(1000000+(annual income)))^2+((annual income)/1000000)^0.5*25)^(1-(LN((number of wives)+1))/50)-(Do you support the war in Iraq?? 1 for yes, 0 for no, 0.5 for undecided)*5+2.253*EXP(Are you a politician? 1 for yes, 0 for no)-1.472965

I guess this means that I should be in the 20.7% tax bracket then.

 

[chcr]

I don't buy it, i.e. the disincentive to get ahead.
if 'you' are making 100k per year (i dont), you are taxed (100k-36k=64k*.17=10.88k). You keep 89.12k of your own money.
Now if you 'get ahead', invent/do something that makes you rich(er) and now make 150k, you are taxed (150k-36k=114k*.17=19.38k). You keep 130.62k of your own money. You still make more money. Where's the disincentive? 'you' know 17% is going to big bro.

It goes like this: I make 150K. I could use a personal assistant. Don't need one, exactly, but it would be nice. Why the heck am I going to hire one if I can't take his or her wages off my tax burden. I agree that wealth can be it's own incentive, but that's an incredibly oversimplified picture of the actuality.

In todays set-up, if I go from 100K to 150K, my tax bracket goes up. I'm rewarded though, for helping keep the economy at a high level. If you install a flat tax, it will depress the economy. It'll be easier for you to do your taxes though. That's the number one priority, is it?

Re the 40K cutoff, I couldn't get by on that. I don't know very many families who can or do.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I don't buy it, i.e. the disincentive to get ahead.
if 'you' are making 100k per year (i dont), you are taxed (100k-36k=64k*.17=10.88k). You keep 89.12k of your own money.
Now if you 'get ahead', invent/do something that makes you rich(er) and now make 150k, you are taxed (150k-36k=114k*.17=19.38k). You keep 130.62k of your own money. You still make more money. Where's the disincentive? 'you' know 17% is going to big bro.

In income tax alone, only one tax paid. Now calculate what they spend in sales tax. You'll see where those other figures come from.

 

[Gato_Solo]

the government, who created the jobs in the first place.

i'm all for throwing the bums out and starting fresh.

At last. Something we can agree on...

no idea. i'm not certain if i like the idea of military spending without congressional or some other type of oversight though.

Try taking a peek at military spending before, during, and after WWII, and then answer the question.

a large number of whom do not have health insurance so unless the current system can get overhauled to accommadate those people, we can expect another overbloated government agency.

The reason the current system is in the shape that it is is precisely due to government oversight...and we all know the horrors of medicaid/medicare...

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Re the 40K cutoff, I couldn't get by on that. I don't know very many families who can or do.

Have recently. It requires a wood burning stove instead of central heat. It requires dishes be washed in the sink by hand rather than a machine. It requires staying home for vacations rather than going to some other locale. It requires eating at home rather than Chili's. It requires raising a garden full of vegetables yourself rather than hitting the Farmer's Market on Saturday mornings. It requires back to school clothes shopping be done at consignment stores rather than the mall. It requires driving an 8 year old vehicle bought used rather than a two year old bought new. It requires making choices on what is truly important rather than discretionary or impulse spending.

Don't read me wrong. I am knocking no one. If someone else makes more money than I, bully for them. If I made more money I'd live differently. Everyone, Warren Buffett on down, lives on a budget. Some have fewer zeroes than others. I don't believe in taxing those with the zeroes more simply because they have the zeroes. It is no more their place to fund the government than it is mine. My only bitch is with depth said government's fist is in my pocket already. I've explained it ad nauseum in other threads, so no repeat forthcoming.

Just wanted to chime in and report on how the other half lives.

 

[Winky]

yeah it requires being 'poor'

ain't it great?

 

[highwayman]

yeah it requires being 'poor'

ain't it great?

Have you taken a look at what they consider the poverty line now days?

 

[catocom]

I get by with less than 30k/yr (household), but there's no going out to eat.

I think the most I ever made in a year was about 35k, but that was about
a decade ago, and was decent money then.

 

[highwayman]

I get by with less than 30k/yr (household), but there's no going out to eat.

I think the most I ever made in a year was about 35k, but that was about
a decade ago, and was decent money then.

About the same here, made 36k about five years ago and had not time off to speek of. I get along fine on my 27-29k a year with a small mortgage and 8 year old car...

 

[Inkara1]

$26K/yr here (pre-tax) in a ludicrously expensive housing market. I have a small two-bedroom front half of a duplex that's $850 a month and is a bit below market rate. My car's six years old (with 104K miles) and paid off. If the flat tax didn't start until $40K/year, I would bring home an additional $250 or so every other week. That would allow me to get a newer car, which would certainly help the economy.

 

[chcr]

yeah it requires being 'poor'

Grew up poor. Churchmouse poor. Not really interested in going back. I understand what SnP says though. I know people who live with less, just not a lot and I'm not interested in doing it any more. I could, but I wouldn't like it.

 

[highwayman]

I'm not interested in doing it any more. I could, but I wouldn't like it.

I am with you on this part, Why bust your ass for a million dollar funural when you are not there to enjoy it...

 

[MrBishop]

**Add them up and you get the idea of what kind of taxes you'd pay. **
You get bonus points if you do it right. I don't have the time for it right now.

Quebec - $100,000 in salary.
For the first 37,178 - $5,762
For the middle bit - $8,179
For the end bit - $6,667
Total: $20,608

Canada - $100,000 in salary
$8,248+2,510+8,077+6,493+12,453=$37,781

$37,781+20,608= $58,389 in taxes ($41,611 in take home)

*Minus tax loopholes = ~$74,995 or more

 

[rrfield]

It goes like this: I make 150K. I could use a personal assistant. Don't need one, exactly, but it would be nice. Why the heck am I going to hire one if I can't take his or her wages off my tax burden. I agree that wealth can be it's own incentive, but that's an incredibly oversimplified picture of the actuality.

In todays set-up, if I go from 100K to 150K, my tax bracket goes up. I'm rewarded though, for helping keep the economy at a high level. If you install a flat tax, it will depress the economy. It'll be easier for you to do your taxes though. That's the number one priority, is it?

Re the 40K cutoff, I couldn't get by on that. I don't know very many families who can or do.

What is the current tax on someone making $150k? Payroll tax alone is 6,000 or so. Income tax would be around 35,000, total tax of 41,000 (all aprox). The Forbes plan calls for no payroll tax, and as stated before the total tax would be a hair under 20,000. There's 20,000 for a personal assistant. Does the current tax code provide the 150k earner a 20k credit or 20k in deductions if s/he hires an assistant? Maybe it does, I don't know (I'm a CCNP, not CPA )

re 40k/yr. I know pleanty of people who 'get by' on less, with kids. My brother I'm pretty sure makes less than that (don't know for sure, none of my business) and he and his wife and two sons seem to be ok. They live within their means. I hope I don't have to do it, since it would mean I f*cked up my career somewhere along the line!

 

[chcr]

I am with you on this part, Why bust your ass for a million dollar funural when you are not there to enjoy it...

Fuck the funeral, I won't live to see it. I bust my ass to eat steak instead of hamburger, drink good beer instead of swill, keep up my guitar habit (which no longer pays it's own way), my motorcycle habit (which never did), etc., etc., etc.

rr, I never said nobody can, just that I don't know many. It's certainly not comfortable.

 

[highwayman]

Fuck the funeral, I won't live to see it. I bust my ass to eat steak instead of hamburger, drink good beer instead of swill, keep up my guitar habit (which no longer pays it's own way), my motorcycle habit (which never did), etc., etc., etc.