I don't know what they are eliuding to, but I agree...
If we are to believe he pays less a percentage than his secretary, I want to see his return so I know he's not blowing some of that liberal hot air.
Not likely that much, but 15% to a 401k would be $7500 of it. If you are older than 50, you can contribute more than 15% also. Interest on mortgages are deductibles, and charities. Health insurance and other things are also deductible.
Some families are better filing with itemized deductions rather than the standard deductions. It can happen, but not typical for the $50k wage earner.
What's eliuding? Or do you mean alluding?
No mention of the article, or its contents, on this page. How far back would I have to go?
So, you want to spend another page or two bickering about how I stepped in and brought the topic back around to the OP or, do you want to talk about the OP?
The Associated Press showed President Obama's speech was fact-challenged (to be kind).
On average, people making over a million dollars, pay 29% of their income in taxes. Everyone else pays from about 15% down to zero.
I'd also like for the administration to define, "fair share." At what point would the "rich" pay their fair share? Also, since when did people making $250,000 and above get lumped into the term millionaire and billionaire?
These are subjects germane to the OP, not whether or not your tax advice is bull . Because, that's where I stepped in and tried to bring the thread back to the OP; and, that's when you went into normal Yoni-flaming.
Depends on the example.
Your 25% bracket is the marginal rate.
A $50k single earner, family of 3, with only the standard deduction and exemptions would have a taxable income of $27,650. The 2010 tax table gives a taxable of $3,314. This is 6.63% tax.
Take it to $80k and a family of 4. Taxable income is $54,000, and only $7,266. The tax rate is 9.08% even though it's at the 25% marginal.
It's called the ing Buffett Rule. I think it's pretty clear Obama is referring to the carried interest loophole when he refers to millionaires (hedge fund managers) paying a lower percentage than their secretaries.
Are you seriously this dense or just completely blinded by your hatred for the POTUS?
You forgot the standard deduction and exemption. Even a single person with the 2010 tax tables would have only a $40,650 taxable. Tax would be $6,338, or 12.68%.
Now riddle me this....
Why should a person be taxed less to have children? Why should the $50k single earner pay $6,338 but if he's married with a child, only pay $3,314?
Really now... Why this en lement mentality?
Apples and Oranges.
Fact remains, people making over a million dollars have 1/3 of their income confiscated while everyone else hands over 1/2 that or less, all the way down to nothing.
Please define "fair share."
When are the 46% that pay nothing going to be hit up for their "fair share?"
I stand corrected...
I have stated at least once, probably several times that English was my worse subject in school.
Incorrect. Not hedge fund managers and others who are privileged enough to take advantage of the carried interest loophole.
WRT fair share and the 46% that pay no income taxes, please refer to ability to pay.
On average, people making more than a million dollars a year have 29% of their income confiscated.
WRT fair share, I have a hard time believing 46% of the public cannot afford to pay something.
I can see having a minimum tax for everyone.
No matter your deductions, everyone pays at least 10% of their gross.
Does that fix this problem liberals see?
We're not talking about millionaires on average. As I mentioned, it's called the Buffett Rule because he's specifically referring to the people who pay less by taking advantage of the carried interest loophole. He's calling to close a specific loophole.
Whether or not you believe 46% cannot afford to pay is irrelevant. It's the current tax code.
I don't particularly care for Obama's proposal, but it is a response to the republicans unwillingness to budge on tax increases. It's now political because the republicans refused to give anything during the debt celing negotiations.
Sure there is. The article makes a proposition, and we're testing it with the current tax rates. Your loss if you didn't follow.
Basically, the article is right and wrong. Depends on the situation. Under certain conditions, the rich are taxed less (percentage wise) than secretaries. The point of contention here is the 15% long-term capital gains tax.
Which IIRC, that's what Buffet was alluding to.
Catch up.
No, I didn't. We're discussing specifically the case where that money is taxable after deductions. You need to catch up to what we were talking about too.
I don't care to whom he is referring.
When a small segment of society is paying twice the rate, in taxes, as their closest compe or and, when that means they're paying a butt load more than everyone else (because 29% of a million is a tad more than 15% of $150K), that's inherently unfair.
Why should the people who fuel the economic engine of this country be forced to pay more to a government that only wastes the money it receives? (See Solyndra)
Not really. Depends on where their income comes from.
You should, yoni. After all, aren't you criticizing him?
No. And the problem has nothing to do with liberals/conservatives.
You keep up.
You said $50k gross, and based the taxable wrong off that.
I know you mean something different, but why do liberals think the poor are en led to pay no taxes?
I'm sorry, but why shouldn't everyone simply pay the same percentage?
I'm not the only one criticizing him. , his own party doesn't give this piece of tax plan a chance. Cutting spending is the only sane thing to do. By the way, what happened to the rational Obama who said, back in 2009, that raising taxes during a recession was stupid?
But, for the sake of argument, let's look at his go to analogy when describing this to the public.
Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher rate in taxes than does Mr. Buffett himself.
That can only mean one thing; he pays her more than $100K because that's the salary he pays himself.
Not a bad gig...neither of them should be ing. And, Mr. B. is free to start writing checks to the U. S. Treasury if he doesn't think he's paying enough to Uncle Sam. But, perhaps, first he could get his company to quit fighting the IRS on back taxes owed for almost a decade.
He's intentionally conflating the two types of taxes with the hope of confusing the public into believe Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than does Warren.
That's not what we're discussing here. I think we've had this conversation on a different thread.
You (should) already know I'm for everyone having at least a modi of skin in the game.
Not really. Different people make different money and have different needs.
You're trying to apply a fairly simplistic solution to a complex problem.
The standard deduction and exemption is not the same as what is called a deductible.
Admit it, you made a simple mistake. To do otherwise proves a hard head, not willing to admit a simple mistake, and makes people assume you were purposely misdirecting people.
Can you say propaganda?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote