Soc Sec Tax 6.2% x $106,800 (max tax rate for 2009) = $6621.60
MediCare 1.45% x 250K = $3625.00
(Double soc sec and Medi if self employed)
Total Fed tax bill = $107,746.6
if self employed it's $117,993.20
Leaving you with $142,253.4 - $132,006.80
it's an effective tax rate of 43% - 47% almost half will go to the Fed. govt.. Put another way all your pay checks from January 1st through June 6th (June 22nd if self employed) would go to the Fed govt just for income taxes.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Fed tax rate 39% x $250K = $97,500
Soc Sec Tax 6.2% x $106,800 (max tax rate for 2009) = $6621.60
MediCare 1.45% x 250K = $3625.00
(Double soc sec and Medi if self employed)
Total Fed tax bill = $107,746.6
if self employed it's $117,993.20
Leaving you with $142,253.4 - $132,006.80
it's an effective tax rate of 43% - 47% almost half will go to the Fed. govt.. Put another way all your pay checks from January 1st through June 6th (June 22nd if self employed) would go to the Fed govt just for income taxes.
36% to 39% on over $250K means an extra 3K per 100K. In other words, if you make 350K you would pay an extra $3,000 tax under Obama's plan; $450K would pay an extra $6,000 total. I think if you make 350K, an extra 3K tax is not going to break you.
0
36% to 39% on over $250K means an extra 3K per 100K. In other words, if you make 350K you would pay an extra $3,000 tax under Obama's plan; $450K would pay an extra $6,000 total. I think if you make 350K, an extra 3K tax is not going to break you.
But depeche what is not going to break you doesn't make it right...especially when you look at how the money is spent. Those "senators and congressman" who work 130 days a year get to decide where the revenue goes...whether to earmarks, unwanted wars, inefficient programs etc. It gets kind of troublesome. I have said repeatedly here and to others personally, I am willing to pay more tax if it went anywhere that would better America.
Also, your "not going to break you" phrase is also troublesome. Well, a billion dollars is not going to break Gates. Should he be forced to give it to you or I especially when we are going to spend it on waste. Makes no sense. I am sorry but Obama is wrong to provide welfare checks to people under the guise of a tax credit. Who does this guy think his is fooling? Now some may vote for him on other reasons, but anyone who votes for him because of his tax code, either doesn't pay tax now or pays very little and wants a free ride.
The true trick to solve the wealth issue and the revenue problem is to increase the inheritence tax. If you exempt an individuals primary home and some other assets from the tax, I would be willing to have an onerous inheritence tax and I am the son of a pretty wealthy lawyer.
I believe each person should be successful in their own right because they struggled forward, learned, and accomplished. Furthermore, well-off progeny already receive competitive advantages by going to the best schools and being introduced to the powerbrokers in the society. To give them millions of dollars upon the death of their parents seems to further exaggerate the wealth discrepency.
However, to tax the self-made man into oblivian is to deter the individual citizen from achieving his/her production potential.
JMO
0
But depeche what is not going to break you doesn't make it right...especially when you look at how the money is spent. Those "senators and congressman" who work 130 days a year get to decide where the revenue goes...whether to earmarks, unwanted wars, inefficient programs etc. It gets kind of troublesome. I have said repeatedly here and to others personally, I am willing to pay more tax if it went anywhere that would better America.
Also, your "not going to break you" phrase is also troublesome. Well, a billion dollars is not going to break Gates. Should he be forced to give it to you or I especially when we are going to spend it on waste. Makes no sense. I am sorry but Obama is wrong to provide welfare checks to people under the guise of a tax credit. Who does this guy think his is fooling? Now some may vote for him on other reasons, but anyone who votes for him because of his tax code, either doesn't pay tax now or pays very little and wants a free ride.
The true trick to solve the wealth issue and the revenue problem is to increase the inheritence tax. If you exempt an individuals primary home and some other assets from the tax, I would be willing to have an onerous inheritence tax and I am the son of a pretty wealthy lawyer.
I believe each person should be successful in their own right because they struggled forward, learned, and accomplished. Furthermore, well-off progeny already receive competitive advantages by going to the best schools and being introduced to the powerbrokers in the society. To give them millions of dollars upon the death of their parents seems to further exaggerate the wealth discrepency.
However, to tax the self-made man into oblivian is to deter the individual citizen from achieving his/her production potential.
what is the obama supporter's response to kenny's post, that hard working people who succeed will have more and more money taken from them so the government can waset it as they always do and some of the money can go to programs that stifle motivation?
0
what is the obama supporter's response to kenny's post, that hard working people who succeed will have more and more money taken from them so the government can waset it as they always do and some of the money can go to programs that stifle motivation?
But depeche what is not going to break you doesn't make it right...especially when you look at how the money is spent. Those "senators and congressman" who work 130 days a year get to decide where the revenue goes...whether to earmarks, unwanted wars, inefficient programs etc. It gets kind of troublesome. I have said repeatedly here and to others personally, I am willing to pay more tax if it went anywhere that would better America.
Also, your "not going to break you" phrase is also troublesome. Well, a billion dollars is not going to break Gates. Should he be forced to give it to you or I especially when we are going to spend it on waste. Makes no sense. I am sorry but Obama is wrong to provide welfare checks to people under the guise of a tax credit. Who does this guy think his is fooling? Now some may vote for him on other reasons, but anyone who votes for him because of his tax code, either doesn't pay tax now or pays very little and wants a free ride.
The true trick to solve the wealth issue and the revenue problem is to increase the inheritence tax. If you exempt an individuals primary home and some other assets from the tax, I would be willing to have an onerous inheritence tax and I am the son of a pretty wealthy lawyer.
I believe each person should be successful in their own right because they struggled forward, learned, and accomplished. Furthermore, well-off progeny already receive competitive advantages by going to the best schools and being introduced to the powerbrokers in the society. To give them millions of dollars upon the death of their parents seems to further exaggerate the wealth discrepency.
However, to tax the self-made man into oblivian is to deter the individual citizen from achieving his/her production potential.
JMO
I'm not running for President, don't parse my words. You know I'm not saying anyone should confiscate whatever money won't break you. It was just an expression. The point is that the Republicans are talking nonstop and misleading about a 3% tax increase for those over 250K -- 39% the same top rate as in the 90's under Clinton.
I'm with you on the estate tax. But the Republicans have scared everybody into thinking it applies to everybody.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Kennyvegas:
But depeche what is not going to break you doesn't make it right...especially when you look at how the money is spent. Those "senators and congressman" who work 130 days a year get to decide where the revenue goes...whether to earmarks, unwanted wars, inefficient programs etc. It gets kind of troublesome. I have said repeatedly here and to others personally, I am willing to pay more tax if it went anywhere that would better America.
Also, your "not going to break you" phrase is also troublesome. Well, a billion dollars is not going to break Gates. Should he be forced to give it to you or I especially when we are going to spend it on waste. Makes no sense. I am sorry but Obama is wrong to provide welfare checks to people under the guise of a tax credit. Who does this guy think his is fooling? Now some may vote for him on other reasons, but anyone who votes for him because of his tax code, either doesn't pay tax now or pays very little and wants a free ride.
The true trick to solve the wealth issue and the revenue problem is to increase the inheritence tax. If you exempt an individuals primary home and some other assets from the tax, I would be willing to have an onerous inheritence tax and I am the son of a pretty wealthy lawyer.
I believe each person should be successful in their own right because they struggled forward, learned, and accomplished. Furthermore, well-off progeny already receive competitive advantages by going to the best schools and being introduced to the powerbrokers in the society. To give them millions of dollars upon the death of their parents seems to further exaggerate the wealth discrepency.
However, to tax the self-made man into oblivian is to deter the individual citizen from achieving his/her production potential.
JMO
I'm not running for President, don't parse my words. You know I'm not saying anyone should confiscate whatever money won't break you. It was just an expression. The point is that the Republicans are talking nonstop and misleading about a 3% tax increase for those over 250K -- 39% the same top rate as in the 90's under Clinton.
I'm with you on the estate tax. But the Republicans have scared everybody into thinking it applies to everybody.
Even if not all the ammt was taxed at the 39%, you fellas think it is ok to have almost half your earnings taken from taxes?
Our household makes 6 figures and I know the numbers being discussed here arent far off and I dont make 250k.
Tax those greedy wealthy jerks sounds like a great idea.
Even a 25% bracket means including a 7% state tax you are smack at 50% anyway with SS and medicare being taken out, and I just love how they keep bumping up that max phase out on SS..just lovely.
0
Even if not all the ammt was taxed at the 39%, you fellas think it is ok to have almost half your earnings taken from taxes?
Our household makes 6 figures and I know the numbers being discussed here arent far off and I dont make 250k.
Tax those greedy wealthy jerks sounds like a great idea.
Even a 25% bracket means including a 7% state tax you are smack at 50% anyway with SS and medicare being taken out, and I just love how they keep bumping up that max phase out on SS..just lovely.
redoing the math Fed Tax amount on 250K $68,250.75 about 30K less than I calculated earlier.
Assuming your math is correct, the "effective" tax rate on your numbers would be 27% ...... 68k/250k = 27%
The bad news is that we also have to pay property taxes and sales taxes. Those states with low or zero state income tax typically have higher property taxes.
The good news is that there are deductions...... 401ks, retirement plans, home mortgage interest, certain real estate, etc. and that 27% tax is based on "taxable income" not "gross income"....... Gross income is typically a lot higher than taxable income so the % drops dramatically.
Most high income tax planners aim to get the "effective" tax rate down to 15% or less. Very achievable with an accountant.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SoonerFan54:
Grego - oops my bad, I forgot about the graduated element.
redoing the math Fed Tax amount on 250K $68,250.75 about 30K less than I calculated earlier.
Assuming your math is correct, the "effective" tax rate on your numbers would be 27% ...... 68k/250k = 27%
The bad news is that we also have to pay property taxes and sales taxes. Those states with low or zero state income tax typically have higher property taxes.
The good news is that there are deductions...... 401ks, retirement plans, home mortgage interest, certain real estate, etc. and that 27% tax is based on "taxable income" not "gross income"....... Gross income is typically a lot higher than taxable income so the % drops dramatically.
Most high income tax planners aim to get the "effective" tax rate down to 15% or less. Very achievable with an accountant.
I agree that it is a stupid tax but bear in mind less than 500 people paid that last year. It is very avoidable with tax planning and I bet the 450 who did pay it died unexpectantly.
0
As far as that Estate Tax......
I agree that it is a stupid tax but bear in mind less than 500 people paid that last year. It is very avoidable with tax planning and I bet the 450 who did pay it died unexpectantly.
what is the obama supporter's response to kenny's post, that hard working people who succeed will have more and more money taken from them so the government can waset it as they always do and some of the money can go to programs that stifle motivation?
As far as money, Hard work is not enough. "Smart work" is much more important.
The government is going to spend money whether we like it or not. The key is to at least spend it on something at least semi-useful.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
what is the obama supporter's response to kenny's post, that hard working people who succeed will have more and more money taken from them so the government can waset it as they always do and some of the money can go to programs that stifle motivation?
As far as money, Hard work is not enough. "Smart work" is much more important.
The government is going to spend money whether we like it or not. The key is to at least spend it on something at least semi-useful.
Some deductions get phased out like IRA contributions and even personal exemptions..most FOR AGI deduction levels are also very high..like medical premiums etc.
The so-called "wealthy" get bumped out of deductions pretty quickly.
The wealthy are kicked around in this country tax wise.
0
Shrimp,
Some deductions get phased out like IRA contributions and even personal exemptions..most FOR AGI deduction levels are also very high..like medical premiums etc.
The so-called "wealthy" get bumped out of deductions pretty quickly.
The wealthy are kicked around in this country tax wise.
Some deductions get phased out like IRA contributions and even personal exemptions..most FOR AGI deduction levels are also very high..like medical premiums etc.
The so-called "wealthy" get bumped out of deductions pretty quickly.
The wealthy are kicked around in this country tax wise.
Depends on the definition of wealthy.
There are "high income earners" and "wealthy"....... high income earners (who are not self employed) get hit with taxes but the wealthy does not. Many high income earners are self employed anyway and that opens a whole menu of tax options. Also, the only thing the wealthy really cares about is cap gains. That's how everything gets flushed through a tax return for the wealthy.
Even under Obama's expiration of the cap gains break, top cap gains bracket is still only 28%.
As far as salaried high income earners......... non self employed doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. and YES, they will get hit with more taxes. But a self employed doctor or lawyer may not. Depends on their tax skills.
The bottom line is any couple who makes under $600k a year will have very little differences but two "salaried" doctors will pay more.
The % of "salaried" employees making over $600k is small though.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Shrimp,
Some deductions get phased out like IRA contributions and even personal exemptions..most FOR AGI deduction levels are also very high..like medical premiums etc.
The so-called "wealthy" get bumped out of deductions pretty quickly.
The wealthy are kicked around in this country tax wise.
Depends on the definition of wealthy.
There are "high income earners" and "wealthy"....... high income earners (who are not self employed) get hit with taxes but the wealthy does not. Many high income earners are self employed anyway and that opens a whole menu of tax options. Also, the only thing the wealthy really cares about is cap gains. That's how everything gets flushed through a tax return for the wealthy.
Even under Obama's expiration of the cap gains break, top cap gains bracket is still only 28%.
As far as salaried high income earners......... non self employed doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc. and YES, they will get hit with more taxes. But a self employed doctor or lawyer may not. Depends on their tax skills.
The bottom line is any couple who makes under $600k a year will have very little differences but two "salaried" doctors will pay more.
The % of "salaried" employees making over $600k is small though.
Bear in mind that most "self employed" high income earners only pay themselves a modest salary because of tax reasons.
The rest of the money typically stays in the business or business assets.... like Joe the Plumber decides to purchase his building, deduct it, and create wealth that way. Meanwhile, he may only pull out a $100k salary or something.
0
Bear in mind that most "self employed" high income earners only pay themselves a modest salary because of tax reasons.
The rest of the money typically stays in the business or business assets.... like Joe the Plumber decides to purchase his building, deduct it, and create wealth that way. Meanwhile, he may only pull out a $100k salary or something.
Depeche, Sorry for the misunderstanding. I absolutely agree that the issue has been framed improperly through the media and political parties.
Fried, One...I was not stating the inheritence tax is dumb. I am a supporter of an inheritence tax even though it hurts my future income.
Two... you are absolutely correct that most individuals avoid their tax liability. I actually worked in estate planning and tax for a year and saved uber-rich individuals millions of tax liability through trusts etc. In its defense however it does promote voluntary charitable giving.
Three...I agree in smart work and hard work...but it does stifle motivation to some degree. For instance, if an NBA player didn't make millions then Michael Jordan may head into a different field...like how many potential medical students are taking finance because there is more opportunity to make money. Greed pushes people to achieve.
Fourth...my underlying premise however is that the Government should not continually raise our taxes unless they can sure up the spending of the tax revenue. Would you continually give money to a addicted gambler? No....but that's what our government is...addicted to spending our collective hard earned money on waste. It is unamerican and wrong.
I hope this clarifies where I agree and where I take issue with certain premises.
0
Depeche, Sorry for the misunderstanding. I absolutely agree that the issue has been framed improperly through the media and political parties.
Fried, One...I was not stating the inheritence tax is dumb. I am a supporter of an inheritence tax even though it hurts my future income.
Two... you are absolutely correct that most individuals avoid their tax liability. I actually worked in estate planning and tax for a year and saved uber-rich individuals millions of tax liability through trusts etc. In its defense however it does promote voluntary charitable giving.
Three...I agree in smart work and hard work...but it does stifle motivation to some degree. For instance, if an NBA player didn't make millions then Michael Jordan may head into a different field...like how many potential medical students are taking finance because there is more opportunity to make money. Greed pushes people to achieve.
Fourth...my underlying premise however is that the Government should not continually raise our taxes unless they can sure up the spending of the tax revenue. Would you continually give money to a addicted gambler? No....but that's what our government is...addicted to spending our collective hard earned money on waste. It is unamerican and wrong.
I hope this clarifies where I agree and where I take issue with certain premises.
Do you really believe cap gains should be increased to 28%...like it was before the massive increases in the American economy in Clinton's second term? I do not believe in increasing cap gains. Just want to know why you do..
0
Fried,
Just read your last 2 posts...and must ask.
Do you really believe cap gains should be increased to 28%...like it was before the massive increases in the American economy in Clinton's second term? I do not believe in increasing cap gains. Just want to know why you do..
Do you really believe cap gains should be increased to 28%...like it was before the massive increases in the American economy in Clinton's second term? I do not believe in increasing cap gains. Just want to know why you do..
No, I do not like the cap gains tax going back to previous levels BUT I am more concerned with generating "the gain" first before I split hairs over the tax.
Real estate brokerage & investment..... having a bad year.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Kennyvegas:
Fried,
Just read your last 2 posts...and must ask.
Do you really believe cap gains should be increased to 28%...like it was before the massive increases in the American economy in Clinton's second term? I do not believe in increasing cap gains. Just want to know why you do..
No, I do not like the cap gains tax going back to previous levels BUT I am more concerned with generating "the gain" first before I split hairs over the tax.
Real estate brokerage & investment..... having a bad year.
What extra benefit have the higher earners received for paying double to TRIPLE even higher what the average family pays tax wise, across the board?
Does a high income worker get a servant from the government to clean their toilets?
Penalizing the wealthy makes no sense at all, and the comment about being self employed is borderline crazy and this is why..
Being self employed you pay BOTH sides of the SS tax, or double the rate since there is no contribution from the employer in this case.
Being self employed takes capital and an extreme ammt of risk for the average self employed person.
If you employ people you pay for their benefits in most cases, you pay half their SS and you provide JOBS and a service to the community and economy.
There is a high rate of failure to being self employed, so why do we make it sound like the self employed are living like kings? I know many people who run their own business, and in the past I have run my own business..Not many of them were living high on the hog and I wasnt either.
We should do everything possible to provide incentive to self employed individuals and if others want to make it big like the false assumption of self employed individuals then they need to take the risk and be willing to lose it all and build the business to get there.
Only people who have RUN their own business get it..most of the public have the wrong idea of how wealthy the "wealthy" are and I dont see why we want to penalize and unfairly tax the "wealthy".
0
Fried,
Answer this question for me..
What extra benefit have the higher earners received for paying double to TRIPLE even higher what the average family pays tax wise, across the board?
Does a high income worker get a servant from the government to clean their toilets?
Penalizing the wealthy makes no sense at all, and the comment about being self employed is borderline crazy and this is why..
Being self employed you pay BOTH sides of the SS tax, or double the rate since there is no contribution from the employer in this case.
Being self employed takes capital and an extreme ammt of risk for the average self employed person.
If you employ people you pay for their benefits in most cases, you pay half their SS and you provide JOBS and a service to the community and economy.
There is a high rate of failure to being self employed, so why do we make it sound like the self employed are living like kings? I know many people who run their own business, and in the past I have run my own business..Not many of them were living high on the hog and I wasnt either.
We should do everything possible to provide incentive to self employed individuals and if others want to make it big like the false assumption of self employed individuals then they need to take the risk and be willing to lose it all and build the business to get there.
Only people who have RUN their own business get it..most of the public have the wrong idea of how wealthy the "wealthy" are and I dont see why we want to penalize and unfairly tax the "wealthy".
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
