Do you BELIEVE that someone making 100k a year needs to pay at least 50k in taxes?

[Shahad]

250k unnecessary? lol

I guess 250k seems like a lot if you've been turning and burning @ McDonalds for a decade.

I could work 3-4 years at 250k and be able to go into a very comfortable early retirement, to perpetuity. It's a little excessive.

[Mikah]

I really hate when people with no idea of tax start spouting nonsense. And lol at 100k equaling 50k in taxes. Even in Canada where personal taxes are quite high you would be paying around 24k.

No. In Canada, there are tax brackets with different percentages. Something like:

0-14k = 0% taxes
15-25k = 20% taxes
25-35k = 30% taxes
35-50k = 40% taxes
50k and above = 50% taxes

So for someone making 100k, it ends up being around 0 + 5k + 3k + 6k + 25k = 39k. So overall, closer to 40% taxes. Not 24%. My T4 from this year, for a salary in the 6 figures, is a lot more then 24k. For those earning a lot of money (ie millions), taxes end up getting closer to 50%.

But those earning less will pay much less taxes in %, and someone earning below 25k pays pretty much nothing, yet enjoys free healthcare, medicare and all that stuff.

[Manabomb]

Yes, because there is nothing reasonable about a net salary of the magnitude. When people can live off less than 10,000$ a year, 50,000$ a year is simple. Plus you get all the benefits of good infrastructure, great internet, clean water, modern doodads along with everyone else you love!

[Super Kami Dende]

Why does paying back the country that housed your success been turned into propping up poor people? Last I checked, poor people are just like Americans who are rich. While poor people and middle class contribute a far greater percentage of their disposable income to wellbeing of the country. It used to be that paying taxes was an honor, because people were proud to contribute to the country. Now we argue that poor people are mooching? Poor people mooching? Poor... mooching... wtf?

Because just because someone is more successful doesn't mean they should be required to give away much more of their money.

Most people put effort INTO their work life so that they can have the income to buy things they enjoy.

I'll never understand peoples petty reasons of "WOW HE EARNS MORE THAN ME, HE SHOULD PAY MORE TO THE GOVERNMENTS!"

[Karfal]

No one in the US pays 50% of their income in taxes. Another Jaylock troll thread.

What?

Federal 39%
State of California 13%
City and county for say San fransicko? Not sure

That's over 50%

[GodlyBob]

Why should the Richer person be required to prop up the Poor people just because they get paid more for doing a likely more important Job or working Longer hours?

Most of the people I know (or knew) that made less money worked longer hours doing more strenuous labor. Why should the richer person be allowed to make and keep several times what the poor person makes while doing easier work? If we use those utterly arbitrary numbers I put forth earlier and assume an effective tax rate of 5% for the poor person and 50% for the wealthy, that least the rich person with $20,000 of disposable income to the impoverished person's $1,000. So, the wealthy person ends up with 20 times the usable income than the poor person despite being taxed 10 times as much and only earning 5 times as much gross and after spending about twice as much on necessities.

Never mind that these numbers are ludicrous (tax brackets don't work the way you think they do) and will vary dramatically on area, even using the stupidly inflated tax percentage, the wealthy person is still substantially better off.

[TITAN308]

Oh look, it's Titan pretending to be something he's not so he can insult people. So shocking that he's doing that again. /s

Go be poor somewhere else.

[Karfal]

Yup they were very vague no concrete numbers yet but Trump supporters would say they love it regardless of what is in it.

Actually I don't. I'm one of the more conservative people on here and love Trump. But it's hard for anyone to say they like it or not without specific numbers attached to the 10, 25 and 35 percent brackets.


Now I like the business tax at 15%(Paul Ryan says 20%) and removing some loopholes.

But if the 25% for example is set at like 20k it doesn't really help me. But if it's set at 100k meaning everything I earn below that is in the 10% bracket. That would be huge. So I'm in the wait and see crowd, like many issues.

[Klaiden Potugye]

Yes, i agree.

A person that makes 100k a year, doesnt need all that money. It can go in the bank and rot or it can be put to good use. Helping others is a good use of that money.

Why do you believe it isn't? Would it be better beeing used to buy more expensive cars that get used 1 day per year or any other ridiculous exagerated use? You don't live in this earth alone. We are a society without whom making all that money would otherwise be impossible. If you have alot, it shouldn't be a problem to give some to the needy, in this case the state wich represents all in your country.

Back to the USSR...

I earned this money. I didn't steal it. I worked my ass off year round, didn't spend enough time with my kids, with my wife so I will have an opportunity to buy myself a nice car I always wanted, to take my kids to the Disney World and spend a week with my wife in Venice. Not to say upgrading that old kitchen, replacing that old fridge or installing these new shiny environmentally friendly solar panels...

I work, so I can afford all those things for my family and myself. Not for you.
You go and work hard, so you can afford all those things. No free lunch.

[Halicia]

Never mind that these numbers are ludicrous (tax brackets don't work the way you think they do) and will vary dramatically on area, even using the stupidly inflated tax percentage, the wealthy person is still substantially better off.

someone paying 50k in taxes can pay a specialist 5k to find a loophole to avoid paying it entirely. (a la trump)

the person paying 1k in taxes though... well, its not worth paying 5k to save 1k, now is it ?

[Darsithis]

As someone who makes six figures, fuck no. I'm already nearing 40% as it is, that extra amount would really kill it.

Early 6 figures isn't really that much anymore. It's in the 250k+ range that it's more useful.

[Klaiden Potugye]

Most of the people I know (or knew) that made less money worked longer hours doing more strenuous labor. Why should the richer person be allowed to make and keep several times what the poor person makes while doing easier work? If we use those utterly arbitrary numbers I put forth earlier and assume an effective tax rate of 5% for the poor person and 50% for the wealthy, that least the rich person with $20,000 of disposable income to the impoverished person's $1,000. So, the wealthy person ends up with 20 times the usable income than the poor person despite being taxed 10 times as much and only earning 5 times as much gross and after spending about twice as much on necessities.

Never mind that these numbers are ludicrous (tax brackets don't work the way you think they do) and will vary dramatically on area, even using the stupidly inflated tax percentage, the wealthy person is still substantially better off.

Rich person salary, most of the time, should be considered as a return on the investment. Doctors, lawyers, CPA's, actuaries, etc, spent a lot of time and effort (and money) getting where they are now. Working 12 hour shifts at Walmart is a result of an investment of different kind. You reap what you sow.

[Gandrake]

That sounds pretty steep... but there's a problem when there are 5 fucking churches within 3 miles of each other and pastors are living in mansions.

The way I see it, you can't talk about giving back to people when you're living like a goddamn celebrity while we're out here getting our asses kicked and saving every penny we can just to have basic fucking amenities.

[GrinningMan]

Meanwhile businesses laugh at you.

lol.

[Aggrophobic]

Lower taxes are great but it does also depend on how you manage without that income.
How will Trump pay for anything with no money?

[Hiricine]

That's very subjective though. Like for example I don't have kids but I have no problem with some of my tax revenue being used for schools. I consider not being forced to live in a country full of stupid people as a service.

Thats a great point that the services can be indirect, but for 50k someone could send 8 kids to really nice private schools or 5 kids to public school, so at least for that example putting into a tax context doesn't make much sense.

[GodlyBob]

Rich person salary, most of the time, should be considered as a return on the investment. Doctors, lawyers, CPA's, actuaries, etc, spent a lot of time and effort (and money) getting where they are now. Working 12 hour shifts at Walmart is a result of an investment of different kind. You reap what you sow.

The bigger the gap between rich and poor, the less upward mobility you find. Not everybody is able to make the "investment" to become a doctor, laywer, ect. Education has always had an incredibly high opportunity cost. Even if you could hypothetically get the tuition money and book money you need, it can be very hard to invest enough time to adequately study while also working to afford to feed yourself. Yes, you can certainly do it, and many do, but it's not hard to imagine that people benefiting from some degree of nepotism will not only do better in school because of having more free time ,but afterwards in securing a job.

There's also the fact that we will always need people to work the midnight shift and McDonald's or people to make your coffee and stock the shelves at Walmart. Do I think a ditch digger should get paid as much as the CEO of the construction company? Of course not. But to say that the ditch digger could advance if only he had more ambition and blah blah blah bootstraps is silly.

[Devilyaki]

No not at all. My dad makes that in a blue collar job and it be completely stupid if he played that much.

[dwightyo39]

I just want to know where the bracket cutoffs will be.

[Holofernes]

what u "make" is after all taxes; the net income, so if someone makes "a 100k" that would mean hes gross income would be roughly like 250 k. (social insurace, Pension funds, unemployed insurance, income taxes, church tax and so on)