Since so many people seem to think rich people don't pay their fair share of federal taxes, how much did you guys pay? When I take my gross pay and divide my federal income tax liability into it for 2011, I paid 13.7%
Anyone else?
since i'm working an entry level job straight out of college i'm just going to put anything over the threshhold into 401k so that i'm taxed at 15%..don't really have any dependents or anything to claim so i'm not sure how i could get it any lower than that tbh
how does my taxes have anything to do with wether rich people pay their fair share or not?
Not to mention "fair" doesn't mean the same to everyone.
So you might end up having zero liability.
Just because you will be in the 15% marginal rate doesn't mean you will pay anything close to 15%.
I got money back, but due to child tax credits. I guess it's fair though that WC paid teh same percentage as Romney in taxes though.
Because most families pay less that the 13% for federal income taxes that they are crying about against Romney.
Did you pay more or less?
It's simple. Just look at your gross from your last paycheck in 2011 and divide your tax liability into it. I made almost $90k last year, single, no dependents, and only paid 13.7%. Most people pay so much less, maybe not even 10%.
My effective federal tax rate was 17%. That does not include FICA contributions.
Mitt made ~68 times what my household income was.
WC, just because someone pays less than 13.7% in taxes doesn't mean they're a hypocrite if they think that millionaires should pay more. I don't think those making less than $50K per year should have high taxes, because they're already spending a great amount of their money on basics. (Not to mention that they have to pay sales tax in most cases, which is a regressive tax.)
After all, toilet paper doesn't start costing more for a millionaire, does it? Of course, you have some millionaires who do try to spend/consume up to their amounts (professional athletes come to mind), but many multi-millionaires tie it up in businesses overseas. (Free traders would argue that brings down prices for those in the states, but it doesn't mean much if you don't have a job to make money to buy those goods in the first place...)
I really see no reason that a man of Romney's income can't be paying 20% on his taxes intead of 13%. What I'd like to know, is how many people are actually paying the top percent of 35%? It seems like there's a curve, where as you make more you come closer to the top percent, but as you being to make even more, you have enough disposable income to invest/hire lawyers/etc etc to bring your tax rate down, down, down...
We have a progressive tax system. A person making much more is supposed to be taxed at a fairly higher percentage. Now wether you agree or not that such system is "fair" is irrelevant. That's how our tax system currently works.
What I paid in taxes is also completely irrelevant as far as what's the "fair share" that rich people should be paying.
But to entertain your question, IIRC, last year I paid ~17%...
business deductions and a monster cpa can save you a butt load.
With zero deductions for anything other than Charitable donations, I paid 35%...and I didn't make anywhere near what Romney made. But my income was not from capital gains. It was mostly deferred comp. and pensions.
Who cares and what does it matter? I think what Romney did was legal.
I just don't think that what he paid or I paid or you paid is relevant to the question of whether or not moving the highest bracket from 35% to 39% is going to make a whit of difference in the employment rate. It might not make much of a difference in the deficit either, but at least it would help by whatever amount it could.
Just assume for a moment that someone made $1M last year, and was taxed at the 35% rate. So he paid $350,000 in taxes. Now assume the tax rate went to 39%. So next year on the same money he pays $390,000 in taxes. You think that $40,000 difference is gonna make him go out and fire somebody? I don't.
Evay, if I may, a quick question for you. Are you at a position where you could throw alot of your money into capital gains etc etc to reduce your tax percentage? If not, why not? If so, why not do so? Just curious, and feel free not to answer.
2009: 18.7%
2010: 20.1%
2011: 21.8%
Theoretically, no one should be paying 35%. That is the top incremental rate, not the top overall rate.
The fact of the matter is that every American pays the same tax rates in this country.
Mitt Romney is subject to the same marginal income tax rate on the first $10,000 of normal income as someone who works at McDonalds.
I'm not sure I'm with you, but I think the answer is no.
My income is current, i.e., it is taxed now because I deferred it at the time I was working and earning, so it is now 'ordinary income', and thus not available for the capital gains or other lower tax rates. Same goes for my pension payments. Of course there are investments and they occasionally have gains or losses ( my tax rate in 2009 - and 2010 was lower because of the losses in the market), but basically it just is what it is.
The notion of deferring compensation is that you get matching employer monies added to it and then invested, to be taken out at a time when you are theoretically earning less than during your working years. Thing is, if you deferred a ton and the investments worked out well, you are still bringing in a fair amount even after retirement.
I don't begrudge the payments (now my spouse seriously begrudges the payments), but I don't for the same reason I don't take Social Security. I don't need it. Why take it when the country is in a bad way? Somebody else needs it more than me.
In short, I don't mind income tax,....but now Inheritance tax? That's another issue. If I have worked all my life and done well and paid my taxes, why should that money get taxed AGAIN if I die? That is just wrong to me.
I'll be one happy primate if I ever duck under 20%.
But getting money back doesn't mean that you didn't pay income taxes. It just means that what was taken out of your paycheck was more than you owed at the end of the year, doesn't it?I got money back, but due to child tax credits. I guess it's fair though that WC paid teh same percentage as Romney in taxes though.
So there is still some percentage that you paid in income taxes. No?
I think a better question is if the Bush tax cuts were to be repealed for everyone how much would your taxes go up?
We all have a responsibility when it comes down to it and the representation/taxation thing should work both ways.
I had no idea someone in this country could pay 35% income tax ?? wtf ?
I'm at 23% federal with two kids and a wife. It is almost 10 pts below what I used to pay in France or in Brazil. If there is one thing you cannot complain about in the US is tax.
Maybe so, maybe no. There's more than zero taxpayers that get a net credit on their returns...that is to say, they get more back than they pay in.
You know, in the end, I don't really care. Let me pay enough to help fill the ing deficit and while we're filling it, can we please stop digging the hole?
In.
I don't think so, but I don't have the numbers on it. I'll probably have to start paying attention now that I've opened up a Roth/IRA. :p
Being an enlisted person in the military, I'm not quite at the level where I have in depth knowledge of higher tax rates and how to avoid them, hence my questions.
Assuming all he has is the standard deduction, he'll probably be paying something unless he's basically working at Wal-Mart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
