Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[sd'sker]

You might end up paying more in taxes but you'll still have more take home. $400,001 in taxable income will still result in more take home pay than $399,999.

This brings up another point, which is that it's hilarious how many people don't know how tax bracket work. Some people legitimately think they're better off earning less so that they don't go up a tax bracket. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS. (not referring to you st paul)

i do not know how this works. if you go up a tax bracket, you would pay a higher percentage in taxes. you are bringing home a lot less if you pay 40% on $400,001 rather than 30% on $399,999. i know of a guy who did bring home less after a raise because of taxes. he may have gotten it back at tax time, but his monthly net was less.

[carlfense]

The REAL American thing to do, StPaul, is to set up an office and run all of your earnings through a P.O box in the Cayman Islands. Boom, now you don't have to pay any taxes whatsoever. #corporatelife

Hmmmm. I think I need to call a board meeting.

If you're like a lot of s-corps that shouldn't take too long.

[carlfense]

You might end up paying more in taxes but you'll still have more take home. $400,001 in taxable income will still result in more take home pay than $399,999.

This brings up another point, which is that it's hilarious how many people don't know how tax bracket work. Some people legitimately think they're better off earning less so that they don't go up a tax bracket. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS. (not referring to you st paul)

i do not know how this works. if you go up a tax bracket, you would pay a higher percentage in taxes. you are bringing home a lot less if you pay 40% on $400,001 rather than 30% on $399,999. i know of a guy who did bring home less after a raise because of taxes. he may have gotten it back at tax time, but his monthly net was less.

You only pay the 40% rate on the $1 earned over $400,000 . . .

[tschu]

You might end up paying more in taxes but you'll still have more take home. $400,001 in taxable income will still result in more take home pay than $399,999.

This brings up another point, which is that it's hilarious how many people don't know how tax bracket work. Some people legitimately think they're better off earning less so that they don't go up a tax bracket. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS. (not referring to you st paul)

i do not know how this works. if you go up a tax bracket, you would pay a higher percentage in taxes. you are bringing home a lot less if you pay 40% on $400,001 rather than 30% on $399,999. i know of a guy who did bring home less after a raise because of taxes. he may have gotten it back at tax time, but his monthly net was less.

what

 

Only your income ABOVE 400,000 is taxed at the top bracket percent (36 or whatever it is). So only $1 in your example would be taxed at 40%. Income 0 through like 10,000 would be taxed at 10%, then your 10,001st dollar through your, say, 35,000th dollar would be taxed at 15%, and so on (whatever the tax brackets are, idk off the top of my head). So no, you don't just multiply 400,001x0.40 to get your tax owed.

[sd'sker]

You only pay the 40% rate on the $1 earned over $400,000 . . .

whoops, i probably did know that. just never put it together.

[sd'sker]

what

look. i never worried about taxes because i never planned on making much money. ok.

 

but you are right, i do not think many people who complain about taxes put that together.

[carlfense]

look. i never worried about taxes because i never planned on making much money. ok.

I just plan on hitting the lottery and worrying about it later.

[BigRedBuster]

Wealthy is a dirty word anymore in America.

 

I don't really agree with that. It's what a lot of people on the right are trying to get everyone to think... Class warfare and all that garbage. But I don't agree that it is true.

 

 

I'm not surprised you don't agree.

 

I don't think people resent "wealthy" individuals. They resent wealthy individuals who continue to accumulate wealth by means of damaging the rest of the citizens. CEO bonuses when companies are going bankrupt and/or cutting jobs, cutting taxes for the rich so they can stash more money in overseas accounts while rolling back the social safety net that has helped the poor for decades, the destruction of campaign finance laws so that the wealthy can exert even more power over politicians and elections, etc. These are the trends people resent, not the fact that some people are richer than the rest of us.

 

 

When I see discussions on politics and taxes, I see comments about "rich people". I don't see comments clarifying which "rich people" are being talked about.

[carlfense]

When I see discussions on politics and taxes, I see comments about "rich people". I don't see comments clarifying which "rich people" are being talked about.

Eh. The rich/wealthy distinction is probably somewhat overblown. For the most part, we're talking about taxing income and not taxing wealth.

 

Increasing taxes on the "rich" would probably involve property taxes or estate taxes. We're generally talking about income taxes . . . a conversation where it doesn't really matter if you have billions of dollars or if you are destitute.

[sd'sker]

i generally think of the greedy when people are talking about taxing the "rich". you know, those guys who make a ton of money from having a ton of money and then avoid tax liability because all of the money they are making is in capital gains.

[carlfense]

i generally think of the greedy when people are talking about taxing the "rich". you know, those guys who make a ton of money from having a ton of money and then avoid tax liability because all of the money they are making is in capital gains.

That's probably a much better direction for the conversation. Capital gains in general (and carried interest in particular) should be taxed no differently than money earned digging ditches.

 

Some would argue that it should be taxed at a higher rate but I'm of the "from whatever source derived" camp.

[BigRedBuster]

But, that distinction isn't made politically.

[carlfense]

But, that distinction isn't made politically.

Of course not. The distinction between the greedy tax evaders and the fabled "job creators" isn't usually made politically, either.

 

 

 

 

Edit: I'm sure that I've blurred that distinction as well.

[BigRedBuster]

I will also say that the fact that most people don't view themselves as "wealthy" or "rich" helps liberals politically also. When liberals talk about greedy rich people....etc., if very few people view themselves in that group then Liberals have a vast majority of Americans more willing to shake their head "yes" to those comments.

[strigori]

Directed at StPaulHusker and other small business guys, are you a proponent of a single payer healthcare system?