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

[Kujako]

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.

Only person I know of advocating for increasing my taxes, is Trump.

[Spectral]

Only person I know of advocating for increasing my taxes, is Trump.

I really don't know what to tell you if you think that the only person in politics that favors increased taxes on the upper-middle class is Trump. OK man.

[Kujako]

I really don't know what to tell you if you think that the only person in politics that favors increased taxes on the upper-middle class is Trump. OK man.

Point to another. You keep claiming they're everywhere, yet have offered no examples.

[Spectral]

Point to another. You keep claiming they're everywhere, yet have offered no examples.

The Sanders plan is a significant across the board tax increase with a majority coming via payroll tax.

[Kujako]

The Sanders plan is a significant across the board tax increase with a majority coming via payroll tax.

Nowhere near the 50% mark, and hate to have to tell you this, but Sanders didn't win... and is thus irrelevant. I hadn't though we were including irrelevant people's opinions, in that case I admit there are some crazy ideas out there. The guy asking for change at the stop light has some interesting ideas on the alternative minimum tax.

[Spectral]

Nowhere near the 50% mark, and hate to have to tell you this, but Sanders didn't win... and is thus irrelevant. I hadn't though we were including irrelevant people's opinions, in that case I admit there are some crazy ideas out there. The guy asking for change at the stop light has some interesting ideas on the alternative minimum tax.

As we just covered, you're at ~43%. His ~10% bump would clear the 50% total mark.

It's pretty funny you went from "the only politician is Trump" to "well, Sanders didn't count, he didn't win". OK, cool, if the guy that came in second for the D nomination and is still a senator doesn't count, I guess you're right. Literally only the President counts, so I guess Trump is then literally the only one that wants to raise your taxes.

Whatever, keep moving those goalposts.

[Deleted]

Nowhere near the 50% mark, and hate to have to tell you this, but Sanders didn't win... and is thus irrelevant. I hadn't though we were including irrelevant people's opinions, in that case I admit there are some crazy ideas out there. The guy asking for change at the stop light has some interesting ideas on the alternative minimum tax.

It's ok to admit you were wrong you know. And like Spectral said, Sanders is still a senator, which means he gets to vote on the tax plan, so yes, it makes him relevant. As much as you'll hate to hear this, Trump is actually NOT a dictator, and he doesn't get to change everything on a whim. Crazy right?

[Kujako]

It's ok to admit you were wrong you know. And like Spectral said, Sanders is still a senator, which means he gets to vote on the tax plan, so yes, it makes him relevant. As much as you'll hate to hear this, Trump is actually NOT a dictator, and he doesn't get to change everything on a whim. Crazy right?

I did admit I was wrong, since you were including irrelevant and crazy peoples opinions. Sanders has about as much chance of getting his tax plan voted on as the aforementioned traffic island hobo.

[Deleted]

I wonder what is causing the deficit......

Companies like Facebook and Apple paying thousands in taxes rather than millions or billions. Rich people getting tax benefits so they pay less than the average American. Postfirm companies.

Hell you could bring it down to how money is created. From debt. Debt has interest. Aka: there is more debt in the world than there is money to pay it off. Add marketing to this to tell people they need shit they actually dont need and voila: a system of enslavement. Brilliant engineering by the true puppet masters.

[Rasulis]

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.

If you click on the advanced button, you can add your deduction. A single person making 100k should be able to max out his 401k. That's 18k. Additional deduction include mortgage interest, car registration, HSA, etc. I would estimate 10k. If you rerun the calculator using those numbers, your tax burden went down to 25k.