Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
ParticipantThe IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.
ParticipantThe IRS used to publish the full schedule within the 1040 instruction booklet, but now they only post it for over $100,000 in income. It was located at the end of the tax table and would show the split points for the income tax. It is possible to calculate what the split points on the income below $100,000 buy running regressions on the table. This is from a 2005 tax table for single.
0 – 7299 10% marginal rate, 10% total.
7300 – 29699 15% marginal rate (additional dollars over 7300 taxed at 15% on top of the 10% on under 7300)
29700 – 71949 25% marginal rate.
71950 – 150149 28% marginal rate.
150150 – 326449 33% marginal rate
326450+ 35% marginal rate.Add in the fact that deductions start being eliminated for incomes over 146000(single)… so where is it that the rich are getting a break? 35% of your income gone to fed taxes? Add in CA state and you are looking at 44% of your income gone to taxes. Take a look at where the money is being spent. The portion of gov spending for social programs is greater than defense spending.
Participant@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.
The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).
Participant@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.
The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).
Participant@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.
The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).
Participant@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.
The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).
Participant@kewp
Re: Presidential fiscal policy; the only big issue I have with GW is that he started a war while cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leaving the lower classes to shoulder the burden (and the dead).You might want to double check the cutting the taxes on the wealthy. This claim was generally made in response to cutting the capital gains tax. If you look at what happened, you will find that instead of 20%, there was 5%, 10% and 15% LTCG tax points. The 5% and 10% rates are for lower income brackets. Where they once had to pay a higher tax rate than their income tax rate, they now pay a lower. 15% kicked in above that.. but before you say “But it also dropped the LTCG rate on high income from 20% to 15%” realize that AMT was not changed. Any income above $146,000 is subject to a 26% AMT override for single taxpayers (I would need to check the schedule for filing joint/separate). This override makes the reduction to 15% on LTCG moot because AMT forces total tax back up to 26% on fed. LTCG is taxed as income in CA.. so its at full rate.
The only real ‘rich’ gimmie that he gave was on Real Estate (being able to roll out an amount LTCG tax free).
ParticipantWe did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).
Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.
A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)
ParticipantWe did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).
Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.
A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)
ParticipantWe did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).
Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.
A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)
ParticipantWe did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).
Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.
A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)
ParticipantWe did pretty good during the previous Clinton years, I would like to see us go back to that standard (regardless of who is in charge).
Two comments here: It takes about 3 years to see the full and true effect of a president/gov decision.. The economy, like any ‘business’, takes a least 3 years for a change to be felt. I am not defending the current administration. They had things initially right until they allowed credit standards to loosen in 2003. I am surprised that Greenspan did not realize that loosening credit standards were the reason why increasing fed rates were not felt in the economy.
A quote from the article:
In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.Notice a problem here? Any time a ‘one sided’ governmental view is in place; we, the people, are in trouble. Part of Bill Clinton’s success is that he took a ‘centrist’ path (unlike what the present admin has been doing, and what Hillary Clinton plans to do)
ParticipantNotice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.
Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.
If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.
Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.
ParticipantNotice a trend? All the countries that are beating us are much more socialist than we are.
Not all those countries on that list are that socialist. Some of them are. By the way, I am surprised that France is that high considering the unemployment rate for young workers.
If you also notice the numbers, they are not that far apart.
Considering some of the UN’s historical selections, I don’t put much trust in anything they come up with anymore.
-
AuthorPosts
