Thank you President Trump!

[Deleted User 75]

A little dated, but I like the quote at the end....

The 6.2% Social Security withholding tax only applies to wages up to $118,500. For example, a worker earning $40,000 will pay $2,480 (6.2%) in Social Security tax, but an executive earning $400,000 will pay $7,347 (6.2% of $118,500), for an effective rate of just 1.8%. By contrast, the 1.45% Medicare tax has no upper limit, and in fact high earners pay an extra 0.9%.

All but the top-earning 20% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to a Treasury Department analysis.

Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

Of course, people can and will differ on whether any of this constitutes a “fair” tax system. Depending on their politics and personal situations, some would argue for a more steeply progressive structure, others for a flatter one. Finding the right balance can be challenging to the point of impossibility: As Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minister, is said to have remarked: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

[Geezer]

[Deleted User 75]

70% marginal tax rate is ridiculous for anyone to have to pay. That's insane. Nobody deserves to have the government take that much of their money. Complete insanity. I can't believe people actually want that or think that's fair.

[Geezer]

Higher rates than that worked for a long time.

[TDub]

70 percent is ridiculous. Thats borderline communism/super socialism. Nobody wants that except the people who want something for nothing.

[Geezer]

It's American democracy pre-Reagan.

[twocoach]

70% marginal tax rate is ridiculous for anyone to have to pay. That's insane. Nobody deserves to have the government take that much of their money. Complete insanity. I can't believe people actually want that or think that's fair.

To be accurate, that's only 70% of the money they're not able to shield from taxes through the huge amount of loopholes out there available. Which is a huge amount. Not even close to all of their income would hit that tax bracket.

But my guess is that high number is just a starting point in the negotiations and it wouldn't end up there.

[Deleted User 62]

Exactly my point.
It isn't the rate they are TAXED at...it's what they actually pay.

That is, of course, not accounting for the money that is sitting comfortably off shore and never really existed.

[Deleted User 89]

Higher rates than that worked for a long time.

[Deleted User 89]

It's American democracy pre-Reagan.

and Ike was a republican!

[twocoach]

Exactly my point.
It isn't the rate they are TAXED at...it's what they actually pay.

That is, of course, not accounting for the money that is sitting comfortably off shore and never really existed.

There's a million ways to shield income from higher tax brackets available to the wealthy. Yet Trump increased those still while tightening the few small window available to the average American worker, personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Thanks!

[TDub]

Exactly my point.
It isn't the rate they are TAXED at...it's what they actually pay.

That is, of course, not accounting for the money that is sitting comfortably off shore and never really existed.

If they were taxed more you would sell less boats to illys CEO. Less commision. Youd maybe have to be suzukisidekickinjayhawk

[Deleted User 62]

Exactly my point.
It isn't the rate they are TAXED at...it's what they actually pay.

That is, of course, not accounting for the money that is sitting comfortably off shore and never really existed.

You'd maybe have to be suzukisidekickinjayhawk

LMAO

[ousdahl]

the owner of the business where I work is opening some community center with some high tech nature museum or something. Dropped $2 mil on all these interactive features. Now he's recruiting "volunteers" to staff the place.

so if a rich dude can afford a multi million dollar community center museum, it's not that he can't pay to staff it, it's that he won't, right?

I'm struggling to understand how much this is supposed to benefit the community, or how much it's supposed to just be some kinda tax write-off...

[twocoach]

the owner of the business where I work is opening some community center with some high tech nature museum or something. Dropped $2 mil on all these interactive features. Now he's recruiting "volunteers" to staff the place.

so if a rich dude can afford a multi million dollar community center museum, it's not that he can't pay to staff it, it's that he won't, right?

I'm struggling to understand how much this is supposed to benefit the community, or how much it's supposed to just be some kinda tax write-off...

The tax write off you can take your grandkids to when you retire. Our fabulous Henry Doorly Zoo is chock full of those.

[ousdahl]

let's hear it for job creators!

[Deleted User 89]

the owner of the business where I work is opening some community center with some high tech nature museum or something. Dropped $2 mil on all these interactive features. Now he's recruiting "volunteers" to staff the place.

so if a rich dude can afford a multi million dollar community center museum, it's not that he can't pay to staff it, it's that he won't, right?

I'm struggling to understand how much this is supposed to benefit the community, or how much it's supposed to just be some kinda tax write-off...

lmk if he's actually hiring...lol

[ousdahl]

yeah he's hiring.

just don't expect to get paid.