What’s the Perfect Budget?

[atr]

I think that the most
Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on April 22, 2008 – 7:47am.

“I think that the most obviously overestimated thing in this calculation is taxes!!!

By my calculations, a renter family of 3 making 100K, contributing to 401K etc. will pay about 18500 USD in total taxes (Fed+CA+FICA+Med). (Not $25400 as suggested in the post.) That is about 7000 USD difference in take home pay which could influence rent/buy decisions.

Why? Because there is standard deduction, exemptions, child tax credit etc. in the tax code; so you almost need to fill out your tax form to find out how much the tax owed is. I have one excel spreadsheet that I optimized for my situation for this purpose.

Does anyone that fits the above situation, share with us if their taxes are closer to 18K or 25K? I wanted to see if there is any error in my spreadsheet.”

I don’t believe that the taxes are being overestimated. We are a renting family of three with a household income around 135K (single income). We were SHOCKED at how much we are paying in taxes now that we are CA residents. Everything included is around 40% out each month. Add in union dues, medical, 401k contribution, and our take home pay gets smaller and smaller! We’ll maybe get $2000 back at tax time as renters. When you don’t own your own business and don’t own a house, taxes are enormous.

We invest 10% of our gross to our IRAs and 401k, plus a fairly substantial percentage to increase our future down payment on a house. We also have funds for vacation and Christmas, and child’s college. Both of our cars are paid off and we have no debt. We are able to live modestly and still have some fun, but I would not feel comfortable buying a house that cost any more than 300K or so. Doing so would make us much tighter than I would wish to be, especially considering that child will be entering college sooner rather than later! Granted, I will return to work in a more full time capacity when kiddo goes off to school.

[dumbrenter]

Lets see what the taxes are for this fictional family of 3 who are grossing 100K and are responsible (i.e. are renters and invest fully in 401K)

100K – 15K (401K) – 2k (medical) – 11k (standard deduction) – 10K (exemptions for 3 people) = 62K of AGI. For 2008 taxes, this means that the federal taxes are $8500. Add $5000 for state taxes and $7650 for social security & medicare and subtract $1000 for child tax credit, then the total taxes add up to $20150.

If my calculations are correct, I would say enron_by_the_sea is correct in the sense that the taxes are overestimated.

[dumbrenter]

Lets see what the taxes are for this fictional family of 3 who are grossing 100K and are responsible (i.e. are renters and invest fully in 401K)

100K – 15K (401K) – 2k (medical) – 11k (standard deduction) – 10K (exemptions for 3 people) = 62K of AGI. For 2008 taxes, this means that the federal taxes are $8500. Add $5000 for state taxes and $7650 for social security & medicare and subtract $1000 for child tax credit, then the total taxes add up to $20150.

If my calculations are correct, I would say enron_by_the_sea is correct in the sense that the taxes are overestimated.

[dumbrenter]

Lets see what the taxes are for this fictional family of 3 who are grossing 100K and are responsible (i.e. are renters and invest fully in 401K)

100K – 15K (401K) – 2k (medical) – 11k (standard deduction) – 10K (exemptions for 3 people) = 62K of AGI. For 2008 taxes, this means that the federal taxes are $8500. Add $5000 for state taxes and $7650 for social security & medicare and subtract $1000 for child tax credit, then the total taxes add up to $20150.

If my calculations are correct, I would say enron_by_the_sea is correct in the sense that the taxes are overestimated.

[dumbrenter]

Lets see what the taxes are for this fictional family of 3 who are grossing 100K and are responsible (i.e. are renters and invest fully in 401K)

100K – 15K (401K) – 2k (medical) – 11k (standard deduction) – 10K (exemptions for 3 people) = 62K of AGI. For 2008 taxes, this means that the federal taxes are $8500. Add $5000 for state taxes and $7650 for social security & medicare and subtract $1000 for child tax credit, then the total taxes add up to $20150.

If my calculations are correct, I would say enron_by_the_sea is correct in the sense that the taxes are overestimated.

[dumbrenter]

Lets see what the taxes are for this fictional family of 3 who are grossing 100K and are responsible (i.e. are renters and invest fully in 401K)

100K – 15K (401K) – 2k (medical) – 11k (standard deduction) – 10K (exemptions for 3 people) = 62K of AGI. For 2008 taxes, this means that the federal taxes are $8500. Add $5000 for state taxes and $7650 for social security & medicare and subtract $1000 for child tax credit, then the total taxes add up to $20150.

If my calculations are correct, I would say enron_by_the_sea is correct in the sense that the taxes are overestimated.

[SD Transplant]

ATR/Enron_by_the_Sea,

Good…I see plenty of good feedback

P.S. I don’t have kids (yet) – so I don’t know the tax implications.

[SD Transplant]

ATR/Enron_by_the_Sea,

Good…I see plenty of good feedback

P.S. I don’t have kids (yet) – so I don’t know the tax implications.

[SD Transplant]

ATR/Enron_by_the_Sea,

Good…I see plenty of good feedback

P.S. I don’t have kids (yet) – so I don’t know the tax implications.

[SD Transplant]

ATR/Enron_by_the_Sea,

Good…I see plenty of good feedback

P.S. I don’t have kids (yet) – so I don’t know the tax implications.

[SD Transplant]

ATR/Enron_by_the_Sea,

Good…I see plenty of good feedback

P.S. I don’t have kids (yet) – so I don’t know the tax implications.

[atr]

If you have a ROTH 401k or IRA like us, no handy dandy reduction of income. Maybe I am also personally seeing higher taxes than the fictional family of three with 100k income because we are above the 110k level.

I copied the below information from another site. . . and this doesn’t take into account CA state taxes, which are 9.3% for everything over 40k.

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 7,000 – 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
( 28,400 – 7,000 ) x .15 : 3,210
( 57,325 – 28,400 ) x .25 : 7,231
( 87,350 – 57,325 ) x .28 : 8,407
( 100,000 – 87,350 ) x .33 : 4,175
Total: $ 23,723

This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.

Just more food for thought!! 🙂

[atr]

If you have a ROTH 401k or IRA like us, no handy dandy reduction of income. Maybe I am also personally seeing higher taxes than the fictional family of three with 100k income because we are above the 110k level.

I copied the below information from another site. . . and this doesn’t take into account CA state taxes, which are 9.3% for everything over 40k.

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 7,000 – 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
( 28,400 – 7,000 ) x .15 : 3,210
( 57,325 – 28,400 ) x .25 : 7,231
( 87,350 – 57,325 ) x .28 : 8,407
( 100,000 – 87,350 ) x .33 : 4,175
Total: $ 23,723

This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.

Just more food for thought!! 🙂

[atr]

If you have a ROTH 401k or IRA like us, no handy dandy reduction of income. Maybe I am also personally seeing higher taxes than the fictional family of three with 100k income because we are above the 110k level.

I copied the below information from another site. . . and this doesn’t take into account CA state taxes, which are 9.3% for everything over 40k.

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 7,000 – 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
( 28,400 – 7,000 ) x .15 : 3,210
( 57,325 – 28,400 ) x .25 : 7,231
( 87,350 – 57,325 ) x .28 : 8,407
( 100,000 – 87,350 ) x .33 : 4,175
Total: $ 23,723

This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.

Just more food for thought!! 🙂

[atr]

If you have a ROTH 401k or IRA like us, no handy dandy reduction of income. Maybe I am also personally seeing higher taxes than the fictional family of three with 100k income because we are above the 110k level.

I copied the below information from another site. . . and this doesn’t take into account CA state taxes, which are 9.3% for everything over 40k.

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 7,000 – 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
( 28,400 – 7,000 ) x .15 : 3,210
( 57,325 – 28,400 ) x .25 : 7,231
( 87,350 – 57,325 ) x .28 : 8,407
( 100,000 – 87,350 ) x .33 : 4,175
Total: $ 23,723

This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.

Just more food for thought!! 🙂

[Author]

Posts