Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › How to earn an extra $250K per year
- This topic has 28 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM #19776May 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM #743291
Diego Mamani
ParticipantStep 1 is a necessary condition, but step 2 is neither necessary nor sufficient to earn an extra $250K. We also need:
Step 3: Romney wins in November
🙂
May 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM #743293ucodegen
ParticipantYour math does not work.. 250,000 is 25% of 1mil.
Try some algebra on the following statement(solving for effective tax rate before and after. There are two unknowns and two expressions):
under Romney’s proposal, people with $1 million or more in annual cash income will receive an average tax cut of $250,535. Those in the millionaire category will receive an 11.8 percent increase in after-tax income
To get $250,000 in savings, you have to made a heck of a lot more then 1Mil.
May 8, 2012 at 3:59 PM #743309an
ParticipantI don’t care about other people but I know I’ll be “making” more money if Romney win.
May 8, 2012 at 4:27 PM #743311Anonymous
Guest[quote=ucodegen]Your math does not work.. 250,000 is 25% of 1mil.
Try some algebra on the following statement(solving for effective tax rate before and after. There are two unknowns and two expressions):
under Romney’s proposal, people with $1 million or more in annual cash income will receive an average tax cut of $250,535. Those in the millionaire category will receive an 11.8 percent increase in after-tax income
To get $250,000 in savings, you have to made a heck of a lot more then 1Mil.[/quote]
I think a key word in there is “average.”
I don’t know exactly how they define the millionaire category (lower bound is $1 million, upper bound is unknown.)
But I didn’t post this to provide a math exercise.
May 8, 2012 at 5:31 PM #743314Participant[quote harvey]I think a key word in there is “average.” [/quote]I even tried using the values they provide for the next boundary up.. (I think it was incomes 500k-1m)and its still goofy.
It would also be nice and more honest if they say that for incomes averaging Xmil the average tax cut would be $250,535 instead of choosing to correlate the lower bound of an arbitrary income boundary with the average of an unbounded range. Though note that if you use their income of $2,868,534 getting a tax cut of $725,716.. the numbers still don’t work (725,716 is 25.3% of 2,868534).
It also brings this saying to mind:
http://www.fortunewatch.com/the-obama-tax-system-explained-in-beer/Looking at the cuts, it would be nice to know which ones of Romney’s cuts causes the ‘rich’ to have the greatest gain on their analysis. I suspect it is elimination of AMT. Most of the other changes are income limited.
[quote harvey]But I didn’t post this to provide a math exercise.[/quote]True.. but math often can reveal who is and isn’t ‘wearing clothes’ on their statements… and is in some ways ‘core’ to Piggington.
May 8, 2012 at 8:14 PM #743318mike92104
ParticipantIs it fair to say people would “earn” extra money, or just have less taken from them?
May 9, 2012 at 7:11 AM #743340GuestI agree the numbers and how they arrive at them are a bit odd.
It’s mainly due to the way they are approaching the question, since it’s about verifying Obama’s original claim about millionaires.
My post was also a reference to an old Steve Martin sketch on how to be a millionaire:
“First, get a million dollars …”
May 9, 2012 at 7:25 AM #743342GuestRich – I thought there were no political cheerleading threads allowed here?
May 9, 2012 at 7:31 AM #743344Guest[quote=harvey]I agree the numbers and how they arrive at them are a bit odd.
It’s mainly due to the way they are approaching the question, since it’s about verifying Obama’s original claim about millionaires.
My post was also a reference to an old Steve Martin sketch on how to be a millionaire:
“First, get a million dollars …”[/quote]
I did notice that Ron Paul won 3 more states over the weekend and now has won 8 states. He wants to slash spending, balance the budget and abolish the income tax back to 1913 levels. I think you would save much more voting for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Infact he just tallied about2 enough in a national poll to get into the debates as a 3rd party candidate. He needs 15% and got 13%.
May 9, 2012 at 7:31 AM #743343fat_lazy_union
Participant[quote=gregw9898]Rich – I thought there were no political cheerleading threads allowed here?[/quote]
Hi Markmax, how are you doing? How’s Ron Paul and how’s your Zygna shares doing?
Rich, I’m sure if you look in your server logs, and look at the IP address of gregw9898, you’ll have a match with markmax… In fact, the style is exactly the same… I wouldn’t be surprised if you get a ron paul post soon from him.
May 9, 2012 at 7:32 AM #743345Participant[quote=gregw9898][quote=harvey]I agree the numbers and how they arrive at them are a bit odd.
It’s mainly due to the way they are approaching the question, since it’s about verifying Obama’s original claim about millionaires.
My post was also a reference to an old Steve Martin sketch on how to be a millionaire:
“First, get a million dollars …”[/quote]
I did notice that Ron Paul won 3 more states over the weekend and now has won 8 states. He wants to slash spending, balance the budget and abolish the income tax back to 1913 levels. I think you would save much more voting for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Infact he just tallied about2 enough in a national poll to get into the debates as a 3rd party candidate. He needs 15% and got 13%.[/quote]
Rich, Told ya!
May 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM #743346Participantdeleted
May 9, 2012 at 7:37 AM #743347Guest[quote=gregw9898]Rich – I thought there were no political cheerleading threads allowed here?[/quote]
Which side is this thread “cheerleading” for?
May 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM #743578
Rich ToscanoKeymaster[quote=gregw9898]Rich – I thought there were no political cheerleading threads allowed here?[/quote]
You know, markmax, I was about to re-explain what I had written to you, and to explain why the above quote completely missed the point of what I wrote… but why bother.
BTW I find it hilarious that you thought anyone would be fooled into thinking that gregw9898 was an entirely different person who argued in the same way, about exactly the same stuff, and repeatedly used the word “GOV.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.