Tax plan

[BigRedBuster]

[RedDenver]

Here's an article from a few years ago describing a study of 65 years of tax and economic data. The title summarizes the findings: Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

 

FYI, the first figure in the article is confusing because it's a forward-looking five-year average.

[RedDenver]

I'm not saying and didn't say the middle class shouldn't shoulder some of the burden. Of course they should. As a group they should shoulder most of the burden. And on an individual basis, those in the middle should pay a higher percentage than the poor and a lower percentage than the rich. Problem is, I believe the middle (or possibly upper middle) are currently covering more than should be required.

 

Maybe my situation is unique? Is it reasonable that I should pay an effective rate of 40%. I can hardly be considered rich or ultra wealthy. If the burden requires someone in my financial situation to pay 40%, then the burden is too GD much. If everyone at my income level and above paid in 40%, they wouldn't have to collect one stinking cent from anybody who made less and we'd have revenue surpluses out the wazoo.

 

So don't act like I said the middle shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

It's hard to agree or disagree with you since we don't have all the information (nor do you need to give it to us). But I'm wondering if that 40% effective rate includes payroll taxes, which may be why it seems so high.

[TGHusker]

The economy grew under Reagan for a lot of different reasons, including the faux "war-time" economy he spurred to end the Cold War, in part because he decreased taxes, and in part because he raised taxes.

 

When Reagan took office in 1981 he cut taxes. But he had the largest peace-time tax hike in history in 1982, raised taxes again in 1983, 1984, 1986 & 1987. In addition, a lot of the deductions middle-class Americans used to enjoy were taken away, so while taxes themselves may not have been raised further, the tax burden on the family rose.

 

It is not so easy to say "Reagan fixed the economy by shrinking government & cutting taxes," which is today's Conservative mantra. The economy somewhat fixed itself (like it did under Clinton, although he gets a lot of undue credit for it), and Reagan was never successful in shrinking the government.

All true. One could in some way say that Reagan's 'war time' high spending on the military was not that different than Obama's stimulus spending. While I think Reagan wanted to shrink govt and make it smaller, it wasn't his # one objective. His # 1 objective was to stop the Soviet threat & end the cold war as you mentioned- in so doing he sacrificed balanced budgets and shrinking govt. Again as I mentioned before - there has to be a balance related to the economy at a specific time - a one size fits all 'cut tax' policy won't work. Kansas and now Okla are proving it on the state level.

[commando]

[JJ Husker]

 

I'm not saying and didn't say the middle class shouldn't shoulder some of the burden. Of course they should. As a group they should shoulder most of the burden. And on an individual basis, those in the middle should pay a higher percentage than the poor and a lower percentage than the rich. Problem is, I believe the middle (or possibly upper middle) are currently covering more than should be required.

Maybe my situation is unique? Is it reasonable that I should pay an effective rate of 40%. I can hardly be considered rich or ultra wealthy. If the burden requires someone in my financial situation to pay 40%, then the burden is too GD much. If everyone at my income level and above paid in 40%, they wouldn't have to collect one stinking cent from anybody who made less and we'd have revenue surpluses out the wazoo.

So don't act like I said the middle shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

 

It's hard to agree or disagree with you since we don't have all the information (nor do you need to give it to us). But I'm wondering if that 40% effective rate includes payroll taxes, which may be why it seems so high.

That 40% includes my federal income tax, fica, medicare, and state income tax. The percentage is relative to my taxable income as shown on form 1040. It's 35% to the feds and 5% to the state. I pay my own fica because I am self employed.

 

I don't know what you mean by "seems high". It's 40%, it's high no matter how you look at it. That's almost half....as in one for me and one for you. There's no "seems" about it, it's too f#cking much.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I'm not saying and didn't say the middle class shouldn't shoulder some of the burden. Of course they should. As a group they should shoulder most of the burden. And on an individual basis, those in the middle should pay a higher percentage than the poor and a lower percentage than the rich. Problem is, I believe the middle (or possibly upper middle) are currently covering more than should be required.

Maybe my situation is unique? Is it reasonable that I should pay an effective rate of 40%. I can hardly be considered rich or ultra wealthy. If the burden requires someone in my financial situation to pay 40%, then the burden is too GD much. If everyone at my income level and above paid in 40%, they wouldn't have to collect one stinking cent from anybody who made less and we'd have revenue surpluses out the wazoo.

So don't act like I said the middle shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

It's hard to agree or disagree with you since we don't have all the information (nor do you need to give it to us). But I'm wondering if that 40% effective rate includes payroll taxes, which may be why it seems so high.

That 40% includes my federal income tax, fica, medicare, and state income tax. The percentage is relative to my taxable income as shown on form 1040. It's 35% to the feds and 5% to the state. I pay my own fica because I am self employed.

 

I don't know what you mean by "seems high". It's 40%, it's high no matter how you look at it. That's almost half....as in one for me and one for you. There's no "seems" about it, it's too f#cking much.

 

I kept clicking the place to add a +1 and it stopped at 1.

[huKSer]

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article146986734.html

 

 

Next week, Kansas lawmakers will once again try to figure out how to cover a massive shortfall in the state’s budget.

We hope President Donald Trump will be in the gallery, taking notes.

That’s because the president’s tax plan, unveiled by the White House Wednesday, strongly resembles the disastrous tax plan passed in Kansas in 2012.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article146986734.html#storylink=cpy

 

[ZRod]

 

 

I'm not saying and didn't say the middle class shouldn't shoulder some of the burden. Of course they should. As a group they should shoulder most of the burden. And on an individual basis, those in the middle should pay a higher percentage than the poor and a lower percentage than the rich. Problem is, I believe the middle (or possibly upper middle) are currently covering more than should be required.

Maybe my situation is unique? Is it reasonable that I should pay an effective rate of 40%. I can hardly be considered rich or ultra wealthy. If the burden requires someone in my financial situation to pay 40%, then the burden is too GD much. If everyone at my income level and above paid in 40%, they wouldn't have to collect one stinking cent from anybody who made less and we'd have revenue surpluses out the wazoo.

So don't act like I said the middle shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

It's hard to agree or disagree with you since we don't have all the information (nor do you need to give it to us). But I'm wondering if that 40% effective rate includes payroll taxes, which may be why it seems so high.

That 40% includes my federal income tax, fica, medicare, and state income tax. The percentage is relative to my taxable income as shown on form 1040. It's 35% to the feds and 5% to the state. I pay my own fica because I am self employed.

I don't know what you mean by "seems high". It's 40%, it's high no matter how you look at it. That's almost half....as in one for me and one for you. There's no "seems" about it, it's too f#cking much.

That is crazy! It's 40% after you deduct half the FICA from you income too?

 

Appreciate you sharing that info. It made me look up the code for buisness ownersn because I had no idea about the way you had to pay FICA. I just live in my little 25% total tax world. Which feels high when I see the money go out, but is really pretty reasonable.

[RedDenver]

 

 

I'm not saying and didn't say the middle class shouldn't shoulder some of the burden. Of course they should. As a group they should shoulder most of the burden. And on an individual basis, those in the middle should pay a higher percentage than the poor and a lower percentage than the rich. Problem is, I believe the middle (or possibly upper middle) are currently covering more than should be required.

Maybe my situation is unique? Is it reasonable that I should pay an effective rate of 40%. I can hardly be considered rich or ultra wealthy. If the burden requires someone in my financial situation to pay 40%, then the burden is too GD much. If everyone at my income level and above paid in 40%, they wouldn't have to collect one stinking cent from anybody who made less and we'd have revenue surpluses out the wazoo.

So don't act like I said the middle shouldn't have to pay their fair share.

It's hard to agree or disagree with you since we don't have all the information (nor do you need to give it to us). But I'm wondering if that 40% effective rate includes payroll taxes, which may be why it seems so high.

That 40% includes my federal income tax, fica, medicare, and state income tax. The percentage is relative to my taxable income as shown on form 1040. It's 35% to the feds and 5% to the state. I pay my own fica because I am self employed.

 

I don't know what you mean by "seems high". It's 40%, it's high no matter how you look at it. That's almost half....as in one for me and one for you. There's no "seems" about it, it's too f#cking much.

 

What I mean is that it depends on your actual income. If your after tax income is $100k or more (meaning you made $167k or more before that 40% tax rate), then that's not too much IMO.

[BigRedBuster]

What would be too much?

[zoogs]

Let's put it this way: people who make a pretty above-average figure post-taxes wouldn't be #1 on the priority list for getting federal relief, nor are they in the category of people who we'd say need to be taxed harder to support spending programs.

[RedDenver]

What would be too much?

Depends on how much you brought home after taxes, not the rate IMO. As long as the rate left you with more than the cost of living then it's not making you poor, but I'd want the rate to be less than that so call it somewhere around 1.5 to 2 times the COL. And I'm not tied to those numbers, just the idea that the tax rate isn't the determining factor.

[Moiraine]

Leaving you at "not poor" is not the only thing that matters. If you did the work that got you in a place where you're making $300,000 a year, you should end up with enough more $ after taxes than someone making $250,000 a year that there is incentive for you to keep making more $.

 

One thing I will say is everyone would rather be making $167,000 with $100,000 take home than $100,000 with $70,000 take home.

[RedDenver]

Leaving you at "not poor" is not the only thing that matters. If you did the work that got you in a place where you're making $300,000 a year, you should end up with enough more $ after taxes than someone making $250,000 a year that there is incentive for you to keep making more $.

 

One thing I will say is everyone would rather be making $167,000 with $100,000 take home than $100,000 with $70,000 take home.

I agree. I was answering the question of "too much" or the maximum tax.