You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] jamesed 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm sorry that is not how taxes work in the United States. That is generally how taxes work in Europe. On the tax forms in this country your tax is figured on your adjusted gross income. So if you have an adjusted gross income of $500,001 and you pay a 90% tax marginal Tax rate, then you are paying $450,000 in taxes leaving you a disposable income of only $50,000 and small change, or about the same amount as the guy making $100,000.

And as for JOBS. Remember Carter (president in name only) and his 10% surtax on luxury Items. The 10% tax was levied against Automobiles in excess of $30,000, boats in excess of $100,000, aircraft in excess of $250,000, furs and Jewelry in excess of $10,000. The tax was supposed to generate 9 billion dollars for the general fund. Well it was repealed after 2 years, (Luxury car tax lasted until 2005.) There was also the negative impact as the loss of jobs due to the reduced sales of Boats, and Aircraft as well as the equipment that went into the boats and aircraft, you know instruments, radios, radars, auto pilots, engines, safety equipment, also the maintenance personnel needed to maintain the big brutes as well as docking and parking fees cost over 45,000 jobs. These were generally considered good paying jobs with an average tax generation of $3000 for each job. So you you do the math 45,000 times $3000 was over $135,000,000 loss in taxes. We won't even get into the loss of social security, or the state and local taxes that went away. No wonder congress got smart after 2 years and scrapped the whole dammed thing.

Now you know why Socialist countries are generally economic basket cases where you can't even find toilet paper. Or as M.T. (Margret Thacher) said; "Socialism is a very fine form of government, Until you run out of other peoples money."

JD

0
5

[–] TheCompanionCube 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

This post is wrong. Being in a certain tax bracket does not mean your entire income is taxed at that percentage.

http://www.irs.com/articles/income-tax

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

" For example, if you move from the 25% tax bracket to the 28% tax bracket, you may think that all of your income is taxed at that higher rate. However, only the money that you earn within the 28% bracket is taxed at that rate. "

0
0

[–] Entomo ago 

Further evidence you are incorrect. Tax tables for 2014. Note the absence of any jump in "taxes due" which would result in ALL of your AGI suddenly being taxed at a higher rate. Also note on page 88, the actual formulas for people who's AGI is over $100k.

I hope you haven't turned down any overtime because of your belief that earning more would mean you actually got less in take home pay if you passed some threshold in income.

0
0

[–] Racer_the_observer ago 

Growth and prosperity in the USA was highest when taxes on the rich were highest. The rich have now turned things around.

0
0

[–] Fuzzy_Dunlop ago 

That is way oversimplifying it. Growth and prosperity were highest right after WWII when the rest of the industrialized world had been bombed into oblivion and we were the only manufacturing power left. Also, you can't just compare the tax rate on the top tax bracket and assume that reflects the actual tax rate. For one, the top tax bracket was way higher back then. Our current top tax bracket covers the top 1% roughly, if you adjusted the early 1950s top tax bracket for inflation it would only cover less than .1% and obviously a way smaller percentage of the income of the people it actually covered. Another way you know that isn't a fair comparison is that the actual amount of money paid in income tax in the early 50s as percent of GDP was lower than it was last year.

And before you respond, I am not claiming trickle-down economics is true. I am just saying that the inverse is also not true.