Devos Confirmed

[Felya]

LOL! When you can explain to me why someone who makes 10 times more than another person has to pay 30 times the taxes (I even welcome common core nonsense), then I will consider myself educated (and it's worse at 100x, it's 450 times).

This makes me think you don't understand how income tax works. Everyone pays the same amount for each bracket of income tax. Those that according to you make 10 times less, pay the same tax on that 1/10 of the income as those paying 30%. The remaining ~33% are applied to the differance. That means those making 1/2 of those contributing 30%, are also not paying explicitly 30%, but only increases within those brackets. What this does, is make it so sums of over something like a million, will pay more in the bracket between 1 million and 10 million, than those who paid brackets below one million.

Once you consider that, the reason why taxes are higher in higher tax bracket, is directly tied to the amounts in those tax brackets.

Sorry if this comes off as pejorative, that is not my intent. But, the tax system is set up in a similar concept, to why you don't try to squeeze water out of rocks. It take a hell of a lot of rocks, to make up a single sponge...

Edit: Holy hell is what I said confusing. Someone paying 10 times versus 30 times, is about 66% less. I swung with 30 times, being 30% just because I didn't want to deal with 66%, when I'm assuming a lot with 33% as it is. Not willing to work out exact math, as the 3 times more is set arbitrarily anyway. The point is to highlight taxation through brackets. Here is a wiki page to try and clear up what I think I made a lot more confusing than it actually is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco..._United_States

[zaphon]

This makes me think you don't understand how income tax works. Everyone pays the same amount for each bracket of income tax. Those that according to you make 10 times less, pay the same tax on that 1/10 of the income as those paying 30%. The remaining ~33% are applied to the differance. That means those making 1/2 of those contributing 30%, are also not paying explicitly 30%, but only increases within those brackets. What this does, is make it so sums of over something like a million, will pay more in the bracket between 1 million and 10 million, than those who paid brackets below one million.

Once you consider that, the reason why taxes are higher in higher tax bracket, is directly tied to the amounts in those tax brackets.

Sorry if this comes off as pejorative, that is not my intent. But, the tax system is set up in a similar concept, to why you don't try to squeeze water out of rocks. It take a hell of a lot of rocks, to make up a single sponge...

I know exactly how the tax brackets work, and that the higher rates are applied only on the money in that bracket. However, at the end of the year, it's very easy to take tax withheld / total salary and come up with an effective tax rate (or blended if you want to call it). Either way, at the end of the day, by the end of the year, a person making $100k pays a much higher percentage of their total income in taxes than a person making 1/10th that. Doesn't change the math.

[Masark]

Either way, at the end of the day, by the end of the year, a person making $100k pays a much higher percentage of their total income in taxes than a person making 1/10th that. Doesn't change the math.

Yes, and they have more money over and above their basic needed with which to afford tax.

[Felya]

I know exactly how the tax brackets work, and that the higher rates are applied only on the money in that bracket. However, at the end of the year, it's very easy to take tax withheld / total salary and come up with an effective tax rate (or blended if you want to call it). Either way, at the end of the day, by the end of the year, a person making $100k pays a much higher percentage of their total income in taxes than a person making 1/10th that. Doesn't change the math.

Uhm... a person making 1/10 of someone making 100k, makes 10k. The percentage more they pay from the bracket containing those making 10k, is 10% more in the bracket from $37,951 – $91,900. Then they pay 3% more on the sum between $91,901 – $191,650. This is for single filers...

You are right, your opinion that they pay much higher will not be changed. But, I'm defining what much higher means objectively.

Edit: By the way... what is a reasonable tax on someone making 10k, when you have to consider they have to live? Do you think that means someone who makes 100k, should be considered as having expanses of 10 individual people who make 10k... or should taxes be based on brackets, so no mater how much you make, you will never make less than you did before due taxes?

[Zan15]

Quote Originally Posted by Chelly View Post
Do tell what you think she'll do to improve your education system.
Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
First explain how you think she'll fuck up.

and after 16 pages....waiting....waiting.....for how she will improve things.

looks like another drive by trump blind support post

lol 30 pages and guess lockedout could not come up with an way she is going to be good for the education system.

[Felya]

Quote Originally Posted by Chelly View Post
Do tell what you think she'll do to improve your education system.
Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
First explain how you think she'll fuck up.

lol 30 pages and guess lockedout could not come up with an way she is going to be good for the education system.

Why? It's much more fun to discuss taxes of income brackets, when the president who put her up for a vote has not paid any federal taxes in decades. While we discuss income brackets and how income tax should be a flat tax, with the base income for consideration being 10k, I'll just smile a little of what we actually have pushing this ideology.

@zaphon I hope you realize the point above. You know who else paid 30 times less for DOE than those making 100k? I'd like to say Trump, but even at 30 times of 0... it's still 0...

[wheresmywoft]

I know exactly how the tax brackets work, and that the higher rates are applied only on the money in that bracket. However, at the end of the year, it's very easy to take tax withheld / total salary and come up with an effective tax rate (or blended if you want to call it). Either way, at the end of the day, by the end of the year, a person making $100k pays a much higher percentage of their total income in taxes than a person making 1/10th that. Doesn't change the math.

But you seem to be struggling with the concept of disposable income.

The ideal of a flat tax cuts into the ability of someone on the lower income end to survive. It releases disposable income of someone on the higher income side of things.

[zaphon]

But you seem to be struggling with the concept of disposable income.

The ideal of a flat tax cuts into the ability of someone on the lower income end to survive. It releases disposable income of someone on the higher income side of things.

I don't struggle with the concept of disposable income. I just prefer to discuss it in percentages not in absolute dollars. A person who pays 10% tax has 90% disposable income while a person who pays 30% tax has 70% disposable income. 90% > 70% is crystal clear to me.

[Masark]

I don't struggle with the concept of disposable income. I just prefer to discuss it in percentages not in absolute dollars. A person who pays 10% tax has 90% disposable income while a person who pays 30% tax has 70% disposable income. 90% > 70% is crystal clear to me.

You just demonstrated that you do in fact struggle with the concept.

Disposable income is the income left over after you have paid for essentials like housing, food, transportation, etc.

The concept of a progressive tax is that you get taxed on the disposable income, rather than having tax cut into the money you need for basic living.

[wheresmywoft]

I don't struggle with the concept of disposable income. I just prefer to discuss it in percentages not in absolute dollars. A person who pays 10% tax has 90% disposable income while a person who pays 30% tax has 70% disposable income. 90% > 70% is crystal clear to me.

I hope that isn't trolling. Because that definitively identifies that you do not understand the concept.

[JohnBrown1917]

I don't struggle with the concept of disposable income. I just prefer to discuss it in percentages not in absolute dollars. A person who pays 10% tax has 90% disposable income while a person who pays 30% tax has 70% disposable income. 90% > 70% is crystal clear to me.

Absolute dollars is way more important when it comes to discussing income.

[Puremallace]

Be careful if you take student loans guys because there is going to be zero protection at the federal level.

[zaphon]

@zaphon I hope you realize the point above. You know who else paid 30 times less for DOE than those making 100k? I'd like to say Trump, but even at 30 times of 0... it's still 0...

You're right, he took a write off of a business loss of $916m (yes almost 1 BILLION dollars), that was perfectly legal. You want to take a guess how much taxes were paid on the billion plus dollars invested into the company that took that loss? How much taxes were paid by the employees who earned wages while they worked there? Payroll taxes? Etc., Etc., Etc. People are so blown away by the MSM's reporting of the loss, that they don't look at the bigger picture (that the MSM likes to leave out).

- - - Updated - - -

You just demonstrated that you do in fact struggle with the concept.

Disposable income is the income left over after you have paid for essentials like housing, food, transportation, etc.

The concept of a progressive tax is that you get taxed on the disposable income, rather than having tax cut into the money you need for basic living.

Disposable Income by dictionary definition - "income remaining after deduction of taxes and other mandatory charges, available to be spent or saved as one wishes."

So unless you're rent, basic living, etc. are MANDATORY charges I think I understand the concept better than you.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/...ableincome.asp

I think you have confused disposable income with discretionary income.

[JohnBrown1917]

You're right, he took a write off of a business loss of $916m (yes almost 1 BILLION dollars), that was perfectly legal. You want to take a guess how much taxes were paid on the billion plus dollars invested into the company that took that loss? How much taxes were paid by the employees who earned wages while they worked there? Payroll taxes? Etc., Etc., Etc. People are so blown away by the MSM's reporting of the loss, that they don't look at the bigger picture (that the MSM likes to leave out).

- - - Updated - - -



Disposable Income by dictionary definition - "income remaining after deduction of taxes and other mandatory charges, available to be spent or saved as one wishes."

So unless you're rent, basic living, etc. are MANDATORY charges I think I understand the concept better than you.

Most people consider them to be mandatory, yes.

[Masark]

So unless you're rent, basic living, etc. are MANDATORY charges I think I understand the concept better than you.

Um, yes? Thing you need to live are pretty mandatory.

- - - Updated - - -

Most people consider them to be mandatory, yes.

What? You mean you can't just choose to not need food, water, and shelter?

[zaphon]

Most people consider them to be mandatory, yes.

But they're not by definition. As I said, DISPOSABLE != DISCRETIONARY. Learn the difference.

[Trifle]

You're right, he took a write off of a business loss of $916m (yes almost 1 BILLION dollars), that was perfectly legal. You want to take a guess how much taxes were paid on the billion plus dollars invested into the company that took that loss? How much taxes were paid by the employees who earned wages while they worked there? Payroll taxes? Etc., Etc., Etc. People are so blown away by the MSM's reporting of the loss, that they don't look at the bigger picture (that the MSM likes to leave out).

Two things here:
a) We can't look at the bigger picture, he refuses to release his tax returns
b) He's allegedly using business losses (ie not his money due to limited liability of companies) to offset his personal taxes. I don't understand how this is even a thing.

So unless you're rent, basic living, etc. are MANDATORY charges I think I understand the concept better than you.

I mean if you use that logic, nothing is MANDATORY.

[Glorious Leader]

Um, yes? Thing you need to live are pretty mandatory.

- - - Updated - - -



What? You mean you can't just choose to not need food, water, and shelter?

If only you could choose.not to work. The upshot isnthat when clowns argue taxation is forced you can argue its not forced!

[Edge-]

So unless you're rent, basic living, etc. are MANDATORY charges I think I understand the concept better than you.

Today I learned that paying for a roof over your head so you don't die of exposure during harsh weather, food so you don't starve to death, water so you don't die of dehydration, and other basic shit like the price of gas/public transportation to your job so you don't get fired and lose all your income are not "mandatory" expenses that people factor into their budgets.

Thanks, internet!

[JohnBrown1917]

But they're not by definition. As I said, DISPOSABLE != DISCRETIONARY. Learn the difference.

I dont think its not our fault you don't know what most people understand under 'disposabl income'.
You're just arguing semantics.