Your taxes

[mavs>spurs]

Assuming all he has is the standard deduction, he'll probably be paying something unless he's basically working at Wal-Mart.

bag walmart workers fall into the 10% bracket unless they're like part time kids making less than 8700 per year. 15% goes all the way up to like 35,350, so ill have to put anything over that into 401k i think you can do up to like 5-10k

[Latarian Milton]

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.

truth bomb, maybe a good explanation as to why the US people are the richest of the world while their government has the record high debt & deficit. the problem of US taxation is the richest 1% aren't paying the amount of tax they ought to pay and that's what the rest 99% complain about most. yeah they're being taxed at a higher rate than average but that's still way too low when they have 90%+ of the total wealth

[ploto]

With zero deductions for anything other than Charitable donations, I paid 35%...and I didn't make anywhere near what Romney made.

Not possible. No one pays 35%. First, you have either really high charitable contributions or at least the standard deduction. Then, you have personal exemption(s). Then, the tax rate is incremental. So you would never pay 35% on all of it even if you had nothing deducted.

[EVAY]

Not possible. No one pays 35%. First, you have either really high charitable contributions or at least the standard deduction. Then, you have personal exemption(s). Then, the tax rate is incremental. So you would never pay 35% on all of it even if you had nothing deducted.

I am afraid that it is possible. The standard deductions and personal exemptions for two retirees with income over a certain level is de minimus with respect to the total bill due. We pay a CPA firm and they are actually pretty effective. It may have been 34.678%, but that is close enough to 35% for my purposes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

That is kinda what i was getting at, mang.

[vy65]

Yah, if I paid under 20%, I'd be ing and moaning about those not paying their fair share either.

It's always easy to take issue when it's not your money ...

[scott]

I am afraid that it is possible. The standard deductions and personal exemptions for two retirees with income over a certain level is de minimus with respect to the total bill due. We pay a CPA firm and they are actually pretty effective. It may have been 34.678%, but that is close enough to 35% for my purposes.

Congrats on being a multi-millionaire.

[Wild Cobra]

Not possible. No one pays 35%. First, you have either really high charitable contributions or at least the standard deduction. Then, you have personal exemption(s). Then, the tax rate is incremental. So you would never pay 35% on all of it even if you had nothing deducted.

No .

Those of you who are saying they pay 35% are either lying or ignorant to what you really pay.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll be one happy primate if I ever duck under 20%.

Well, you make some decent money then.

Under the 2011 tax calculations, a single person would have to make $103,538 or more before touching 20% in federal income tax. That's with no deductions other than your standard deduction and personal exemption.

[Wild Cobra]

I am afraid that it is possible. The standard deductions and personal exemptions for two retirees with income over a certain level is de minimus with respect to the total bill due. We pay a CPA firm and they are actually pretty effective. It may have been 34.678%, but that is close enough to 35% for my purposes.

Must be nice making more than $11 million per year.

[Wild Cobra]

bag walmart workers fall into the 10% bracket unless they're like part time kids making less than 8700 per year. 15% goes all the way up to like 35,350, so ill have to put anything over that into 401k i think you can do up to like 5-10k

Unless the rules are changed, from when I last looked, or unless you are 50+... You can only put 15% into a 401k. The maximum for under 50 is now 17,000 for 2012. It was 16,500 for 2011.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

Aren't you going to say "You're Welcome" to those of us how redistributed our wealth to your, through our Uncle Sam?

[Wild Cobra]

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...

Why should anyone need to pay close to 20%?

If everyone paid the same percentage, then Romney is still paying so much more into the pork system than any of us.

Why do people let the democrats play the poor against the rich. Most of it is jealousy. Much of it is ignorance, because people think they are paying more than what they really do, not understanding the tax table marginal rates.

[Wild Cobra]

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%...

Seriously... That's a nice income you and your wife have then. At least $156k with no deductions other than your standard deduction and two personal exemptions. Retirement contributions, etc. will make your income substantially higher if you are paying 17%.

[Wild Cobra]

My effective federal tax rate was 17%. That does not include FICA contributions.

Mitt made ~68 times what my household income was.

And at 13%, he paid about 52 times more in taxes than you did.

[mavs>spurs]

Unless the rules are changed, from when I last looked, or unless you are 50+... You can only put 15% into a 401k. The maximum for under 50 is now 17,000 for 2012. It was 16,500 for 2011.

So like I was saying, If I am only making 41500 I can put 15% of that into 401k and pull my taxable amount below the threshold and avoid the tax hike to 25%.

[Wild Cobra]

So like I was saying, If I am only making 41500 I can put 15% of that into 401k and pull my taxable amount below the threshold and avoid the tax hike to 25%.

Did I misinterpret what you were saying? Sorry for that.

[mavs>spurs]

Did I misinterpret what you were saying? Sorry for that.

Point is I gotta find a way to keep my taxable amount below 35,350 to get the lower tax rate. I can achieve that hopefully by putting as much as possible into 401k for now. I just wasn't sure what the max was but you clarified that for me, thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

So like I was saying, If I am only making 41500 I can put 15% of that into 401k and pull my taxable amount below the threshold and avoid the tax hike to 25%.

If I did a quick calc correctly and assuming single/1, using the 2011 (not '12) tax tables, an income of $41,500 with 15% into a 401k would drop you to 8.3% federal tax.

With a $41,500 income, and SD+Exp of $9,500... $32k taxable stays in the 15% marginal. No 401k contribution would make it 10.5% in federal income tax.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yeah m<s. take accounting advice from dr. napkin math there.

[Wild Cobra]

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 think there should be no inheritance tax. In Scott's case for example, who ever he wills his Brewpub to should he die, they would probably have to sell the place below market to pay the taxes on it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think there should be no inheritance tax. In Scott's case for example, who ever he wills his Brewpub to should he die, they would probably have to sell the place below market to pay the taxes on it.

It's called estate planning which includes life insurance should you die unexpectedly. I know in your fantasy land there would be no taxes and they would kill the poor and minorities but in the real world if you put your inheritors in that position then it's the both of you's fault.

[Wild Cobra]

It's called estate planning which includes life insurance should you die unexpectedly. I know in your fantasy land there would be no taxes and they would kill the poor and minorities but in the real world if you put your inheritors in that position then it's the both of you's fault.

So...

If someone has no dependents to need life insurance for, are you saying they should still pay for it to cover taxes?

What if they are terminally ill? How much will that insurance cost them to give a business to a grandson in a form that he doesn't lose it to taxes?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So...

If someone has no dependents to need life insurance for, are you saying they should still pay for it to cover taxes?

What if they are terminally ill? How much will that insurance cost them to give a business to a grandson in a form that he doesn't lose it to taxes?

God, you are stupid.

If you have no one that you designate heir then you will not give a . If you have someone that is your heir and are not your dependent then you should plan for that.

If you get to the point where you are terminally ill and have not arranged for it before hand then it's your own fault but if you are not dead then there are ways to transfer assets such as to avoid the tax.

What do planning mean?

[Wild Cobra]

God, you are stupid.

If you have no one that you designate heir then you will not give a . If you have someone that is your heir and are not your dependent then you should plan for that.

If you get to the point where you are terminally ill and have not arranged for it before hand then it's your own fault but if you are not dead then there are ways to transfer assets such as to avoid the tax.

What do planning mean?

I see you are one indoctrinated lemming...