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

[Shiny212]

I don't think any country has had taxes like this since medieval times when peasants paid the king nine out of ten shares of their income.

Ignoring your hyperbolic numbers; yes of course people that make money should pay taxes for that money, and the kind of ridiculous tax evasion Trump's plan involves is disgusting, not to mention unconscionably destructive.

It keeps amazing me how those who are hurt the most by tax relief for the rich, ie the poor, are the ones that fervently support those who advocate for it.

[Spectral]

you can chose to give to charity, or to help dying people. your call. you can be a positive element for our society. so we could live in a better world. having a sane mindset and work toward a better world for everyone. there is hardly real misery in your country because it is civilized, but you're not the only country in the world. you think it's stupid to care about suffering of other human beings by at least trying to contribute ? if so, you're immoral. don't be proud of yourself. what can I say
I know - you probably would not think that way if you happened to be born in a family in a third world country ruled by a corrupt government, and if you were in the process of dying of starvation, under the eyes of your poor mother, knowing large number of people are wasting luxury goods somewhere else

I don't think it's "stupid" to care about people that aren't in my country, but I do subscribe to the principle of concentric loyalties. People on the other side of the world are simply not my problem. I don't know them, I have not wronged them, and I do not intrinsically owe them anything that I earn. I pay my taxes without qualm and some of it does go to foreign aid; I don't care much and it's basically fine, but I don't feel compelled to donate what other people deem "excess" income to charitable causes.

My own family is essentially infinitely more important to me than strangers thousands of miles away. I have no responsibility or bond to people on distant continents. I wish them no ill will, but I will always prioritize the happiness of myself and my family above some squishy sense of well being I'd get by donating to charities that do their work abroad.

- - - Updated - - -

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 ?

I don't know where people get the idea that you can just magically dodge all taxes without committing major fraud. I don't pay quite $50K, more like half of that, but it's like I can just magically make my W-2 income into something else or produce a magic rabbit of deductions.

Business owners have some options, but high wage W-2 employees basically just pay a shitload of taxes.

[Najnaj]

Do you believe that if someone is making over 100k a year, they should be forced to pay 50k of it in taxes to the Govt?

If you believe this way, why?

I certainly do not believe this way. If someone earns 100k a year or more, good for them. They deserve it.

BTW, LOVE the new Trump Tax Plan.

A. You have no idea if they deserve it

B. Who is suggesting 50% tax on a 100k yearly salary?

[Shadowferal]

A. You have no idea if they deserve it

B. Who is suggesting 50% tax on a 100k yearly salary?

That's my question as well...looking for and not seeing it yet.

[Draco-Onis]

I don't know where people get the idea that you can just magically dodge all taxes without committing major fraud. I don't pay quite $50K, more like half of that, but it's like I can just magically make my W-2 income into something else or produce a magic rabbit of deductions.

Business owners have some options, but high wage W-2 employees basically just pay a shitload of taxes.

You can get deductions using your IRA (there are ways around the cap) and other assets especially real estate but you get no arguments from most people that income tax should come down.

[Hammerfest]

You said that no one should have to pay more in tax then they give to the church. So, if i do not give anything to the church it would mean that anything i give to the state as tax would be more then i give to the church.

I also said that I never said taxes shouldn't be paid. Read what I write before commenting.

[Cæli]

I don't think it's "stupid" to care about people that aren't in my country, but I do subscribe to the principle of concentric loyalties. People on the other side of the world are simply not my problem. I don't know them, I have not wronged them, and I do not intrinsically owe them anything that I earn. I pay my taxes without qualm and some of it does go to foreign aid; I don't care much and it's basically fine, but I don't feel compelled to donate what other people deem "excess" income to charitable causes.

My own family is essentially infinitely more important to me than strangers thousands of miles away. I have no responsibility or bond to people on distant continents. I wish them no ill will, but I will always prioritize the happiness of myself and my family above some squishy sense of well being I'd get by donating to charities that do their work abroad.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't know where people get the idea that you can just magically dodge all taxes without committing major fraud. I don't pay quite $50K, more like half of that, but it's like I can just magically make my W-2 income into something else or produce a magic rabbit of deductions.

Business owners have some options, but high wage W-2 employees basically just pay a shitload of taxes.

do you think those people that are in a very poor country are in a bad situation, that they need help to limit their suffering, and that richer countries and some companies are getting benefit from their place but the result is still an enourmous wealth difference ?

if I consume from somewhere I want them to get the price for what they gave and be sure it's respected, give 100 get 100
it's good to care about your family, but your children and their children will have to live in this world, it's a world we live in, not a country, our life would be better if there were no problems everywhere, as opposed to what we have now don't you think ? without working toward that, nothing will change, and the effort from us is so small. it's too late for our generation

[Deleted]

I also said that I never said taxes shouldn't be paid. Read what I write before commenting.

I was about to give you the same advice, your whole notion of "no more then you give to the church" is just stupid.

[Hammerfest]

I was about to give you the same advice, your whole notion of "no more then you give to the church" is just stupid.

And that's all you've really had to say all along... which I'm fine with.

[Deleted]

Yeah I really want my money going to a government that is bloated, inefficient, and corrupt. That is the best use of my money, for sure.

Without State and the society, you would have nothing. Money is just a number, a piece of paper. If society ends tomorrow, all that paper is worth nothing. Think about that. (This all assuming you would be someone who makes that much money)
If you think your governmant has issues, that is a different issue you need to work on.

[Spectral]

do you think those people that are in a very poor country are in a bad situation, that they need help to limit their suffering, and that richer countries and some companies are getting benefit from their place but the result is still an enourmous wealth difference ?

I don't think this is a coherent question.

if I consume from somewhere I want them to get the price for what they gave and be sure it's respected, give 100 get 100
it's good to care about your family, but your children and their children will have to live in this world, it's a world we live in, not a country, our life would be better if there were no problems everywhere, as opposed to what we have now don't you think ? without working toward that, nothing will change, and the effort from us is so small. it's too late for our generation

You do you. If your morality dictates that you give all of your "excess" wealth to Nepalis because their lives kinda suck, I surely won't think you're inherently immoral for doing so. I'm going to pass - Nepal is not my problem. I have no animus towards the average Nepali, but I have no affinity or responsibility for them either.

[Cæli]

I don't think this is a coherent question.

You do you. If your morality dictates that you give all of your "excess" wealth to Nepalis because their lives kinda suck, I surely won't think you're inherently immoral for doing so. I'm going to pass - Nepal is not my problem. I have no animus towards the average Nepali, but I have no affinity or responsibility for them either.

it is a coherent question

what are you trying to defend ? it's good to ignore other people misery and suffering ? you can think that way, but that would mean we disagree, I mean there's nothing more to say, either you're beneficial to a cohesive and better, more optimized world in the process of being built and willing to contribute with a good mindset for it, either you are not

personally I would be ashamed if my children find out that their father said that casually on a forum, same for the girl I love and she would probably think I'm in fact a despicable person, respecting my opinions still, but eh everyone is different and that's good

[Spectral]

it is a coherent question

what are you trying to defend ? it's good to ignore other people misery and suffering ? you can think that way, but that would mean we disagree, I mean there's nothing more to say, either you're beneficial to a cohesive and better, more optimized world in the process of being built and willing to contribute with a good mindset for it, either you are not

personally I would be ashamed if my children find out that their father said that casually on a forum, same for the girl I love and she would probably think I'm in fact a despicable person, respecting my opinions still, but eh everyone is different and that's good

I'm quite confident that I'm a net plus for humanity. I just don't feel any particular need to self-flagellate for being insufficiently charitable to people I'll never meet.

My wife certainly doesn't mind that I'm more inclined to spend my earnings on nice vacations for her and I (or just invest) than malaria bed nets.

[Cæli]

I'm quite confident that I'm a net plus for humanity. I just don't feel any particular need to self-flagellate for being insufficiently charitable to people I'll never meet.

My wife certainly doesn't mind that I'm more inclined to spend my earnings on nice vacations for her and I (or just invest) than malaria bed nets.

from what you say, it does not seem that you care about others person misery, I didn't said everyone or you should give out all your excess wealth, but what's important is having the right mindset that you don't seem to have. you simply don't care about the world outside you and your family. it costs you absolutely nothing to have a positive mindset, for a better future world for our children, why are you trying to fight that ? I know we won't change much, but what's your point in saying all that to me

[Lycanthat]

Now I'm just trying to think what kind of bizarre tax bracket structure could possibly result in someone with 100k income paying a total 50k in taxes

Let's see....
[30k-50k]: 15% = $3,000
[50k-70k]: 40% = $8,000
[70k-90k]: 65% = $13,000
[90k-100k]: 90% = $9,000

Hmm... nope.
Even that structure would only result $33k in taxes.
WTF is the OP even talking about?!

[Deleted]

And that's all you've really had to say all along... which I'm fine with.

It was what i was saying all along, it was just that you where not getting it..

[Hammerfest]

It was what i was saying all along, it was just that you where not getting it..

There was nothing to "get."

[Spectral]

A. You have no idea if they deserve it

B. Who is suggesting 50% tax on a 100k yearly salary?

In total taxes, it's not terribly unlikely for an individual to wind up paying something pretty close to 50% if living in a state like California. The taxes for an individual at ~$100K will be (all numbers approximate) ~20% federal, ~6% state, ~15% payroll tax (including the employer share of SSI - ultimately this tax still falls on the employee, it's not "free"), ~9% sales tax on any goods consumed (7.5% state level, generally higher in most locales, 9.5% in LA for example), and additional taxes paid as property taxes, gas taxes, and various government taxes and fees that vary by personal consumption habits (hotel taxes, airline taxes, etc.).

I don't think anyone's proposing 50% as a baseline national tax rate for someone making $100K/year, but it's pretty easy for someone at $100K to wind up paying $40K in total taxes over the course of a year. A fairly small change in the federal tax rate could push it close to an effective 50% tax rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Now I'm just trying to think what kind of bizarre tax bracket structure could possibly result in someone with 100k income paying a total 50k in taxes

Let's see....
[30k-50k]: 15% = $3,000
[50k-70k]: 40% = $8,000
[70k-90k]: 65% = $13,000
[90k-100k]: 90% = $9,000

Hmm... nope.
Even that structure would only result $33k in taxes.
WTF is the OP even talking about?!

I'm not sure why people think federal income tax is the only relevant tax. Surely you don't think that, right?

[Kujako]

In total taxes, it's not terribly unlikely for an individual to wind up paying something pretty close to 50% if living in a state like California. The taxes for an individual at ~$100K will be (all numbers approximate) ~20% federal, ~6% state, ~15% payroll tax (including the employer share of SSI - ultimately this tax still falls on the employee, it's not "free"), ~9% sales tax on any goods consumed (7.5% state level, generally higher in most locales, 9.5% in LA for example), and additional taxes paid as property taxes, gas taxes, and various government taxes and fees that vary by personal consumption habits (hotel taxes, airline taxes, etc.).

I don't think anyone's proposing 50% as a baseline national tax rate for someone making $100K/year, but it's pretty easy for someone at $100K to wind up paying $40K in total taxes over the course of a year. A fairly small change in the federal tax rate could push it close to an effective 50% tax rate.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not sure why people think federal income tax is the only relevant tax. Surely you don't think that, right?

Nope, still wrong. Even in dreaded California! I only pay around 36% total.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/califor...tor#da288cZ7zK


Of course Trump wants to increase this, but doing things like making the tax I pay in CA no longer be deductible from my Federal taxes.

[Spectral]

Nope, still wrong. Even in dreaded California! I only pay around 36% total.
<snip>
Of course Trump wants to increase this, but doing things like making the tax I pay in CA no longer be deductible from my Federal taxes.

You did not account for the employer share of FICA which effectively doubles it - this is still a net reduction in actual income.

Add this in and you'll be at ~43%. I think you're probably still not getting to 50%, but my point wasn't that you're presently paying 50%, but that people saying "WTF no one thinks people making $100K should pay 50%!" are just wrong. Obviously plenty of people would be fine with bumping your taxes by the couple percent necessary to fund single payer healthcare or free-to-user education and you're pretty much there.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, I'm just irritated by people that insist that people making $100K actually only pay ~20% - they're obviously only considering federal income tax.