Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Fairweather

Libtards on Parade: Alcoholism, Corruption, Murder

Recommended Posts

 

Dig out a copy of the 1040 instructions for 2008 or 2009 and compare it to those for 2014. Near the end are tax tables, and after them charts for the higher marginal rates.

 

maybe I am missing something but I did as you requested. for comparison I used a $71K AGI and the tax tables from the 1040

2008 taxes paid for single - about $14K

taxes paid for married file jointly about $10.4K

2014 taxes paid for single $13.6K

taxes paid for single $9.7K

 

Looks to me like your taxes went down during our socialist muslim prez term!

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think KKK said he makes more than 218K, so his taxes may have gone up. I think high income earners are still paying a lot less than under Reagan though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his claim was that middle class taxes went up

 

Taxes went up - a lot for middle to upper class folks. Tax, and spend (or at least don't cut spending) (Barry)

 

while the definition of middle class is vague and varies, I think that income of excess of $200K/yr puts you well beyond the middle class for all of US except NYC and San Fran. I think $70K/yr is a bit beyond most people's def of middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cause this is real "phun"I ran the tax due numbers for $200K both 2008 and 2014

 

2008 $200K

single $51,767 tax due

married file jointly $44,830

 

2014

single $49,860

married file jointly $43,250

 

same result. less taxes under Obama's watch. those damn socialists!

 

now my simple analysis does not take into account any kind of tax relief via credits or deductions that may have expired or removed. Or maybe KKK doesn't do his own taxes and his CPA is screwing him over.

But I am sure that Fox news is telling me that my taxes are going up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think $70K/yr is a bit beyond most people's def of middle class.

 

??

 

My mistake. Middle class starts around $30K but the end point is varied. Yes $70K is solid middle class. maybe the start of upper middle class. not really sure and I think there is no definitive def for that.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cause this is real "phun"I ran the tax due numbers for $200K both 2008 and 2014

 

2008 $200K

single $51,767 tax due

married file jointly $44,830

 

2014

single $49,860

married file jointly $43,250

 

same result. less taxes under Obama's watch. those damn socialists!

 

now my simple analysis does not take into account any kind of tax relief via credits or deductions that may have expired or removed. Or maybe KKK doesn't do his own taxes and his CPA is screwing him over.

But I am sure that Fox news is telling me that my taxes are going up.

 

Capital gains?

 

In any event, I don;t hear too many folks complain about federal taxes. State and local, however, are a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
his claim was that middle class taxes went up

 

Taxes went up - a lot for middle to upper class folks. Tax, and spend (or at least don't cut spending) (Barry)

 

while the definition of middle class is vague and varies, I think that income of excess of $200K/yr puts you well beyond the middle class for all of US except NYC and San Fran. I think $70K/yr is a bit beyond most people's def of middle class.

 

I meant to say middle class, on the upper side of middle class, and yes it is vague.

 

Look, we live in an expensive area here. If you live in a decent neighborhood in Seattle, N Seattle or the East side, it's not too hard to spend 600K on a home (or more), cost of living is expensive, taxes are higher ('cos your home is worth more) - all for something that is the same quality, square footage, etc as a home elsewhere but at twice or three times the price tag. A middle class salary of 60K might work just fine elsewhere and require making 120K or more here. It's apples to oranges. We're not quite SF or NY but we're not exactly an average place to live in terms of cost of living.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree w/ kk, which feels wierd - libturds are pretty out in the open about tax n' spend - conservatives by contrast preach a good game, but invariably end up spending as much on something else while strangling the revenue stream to boot :)

 

I always thought tax and spend was better than borrow and spend anyway.

 

And I always thought spending within your means was the best. You shouldn't have to raise taxes to do it. That should be the exception not the rule, and a very rarely exercised exception that gets reversed eventually.

 

Neither R's or D's have spent within their means. R's typically just run deficits. D's run deficits and raise taxes. I'd prefer we just don't run deficits.

 

I could fully respect a national debate on the role of government and how big it should be, then allow the administration that wins over the voters to slice that relatively fixed-size pie how they see fit. An R administration could spend more money on the military and whatever else they spend it on. A D administration could spend it on social programs and whatever else they spend it on. But the pie is fixed, and not burdensome. Yeah, wish in one hand, shit in the other...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Capital gains?

 

In any event, I don;t hear too many folks complain about federal taxes. State and local, however, are a joke.

 

capital gains is weird. but from their chart it looks like the rate is anywhere from 0% to 28% which is still less than the reg tax rate. I think dividend rate is 15%.

 

 

Table 16-1. What Is Your Maximum Capital Gain Rate?

 

IF your net capital gain is from ... THEN your

maximum capital

gain rate is ...

collectibles gain 28%

eligible gain on qualified small business stock minus the section 1202 exclusion 28%

unrecaptured section 1250 gain 25%

other gain1 and the regular tax rate that would apply is 39.6% 20%

other gain1 and the regular tax rate that would apply is 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% 15%

other gain1 and the regular tax rate that would apply is 10% or 15% 0%

 

this chart didn't copy and paste exactly but the last % for each line is the max rate for that line item.

 

 

 

1“Other gain” means any gain that is not collectibles gain, gain on small business stock, or

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In any event, I don;t hear too many folks complain about federal taxes. State and local, however, are a joke.

 

you may have a point when it comes to hidden taxes like gas tax. But our biggest state tax source (sales and property) may not be as big as one thinks.

 

sales tax is around 8% but only on things you buy in state and non groceries. sales tax is also tax deductible so one can lop off about 20% from the 8% tax rate due to federal tax refund. I didn't keep track of everything spent but there is a estimator in the fed tax code. don't remember the exact numbers but I recollect that the amount spent on sales tax was not that great, maybe around $1,000. And of course I got back 1/5th of that so I gave about $800 to sales tax.

 

property tax was around $4000 but once again I got back 1/5th of that so I paid about $3,200 to property tax

 

total is about $4000 to the state for those two sources of revenue. (after fed tax deductions accounted for) this is about 3% tax on income. not that much but I live outside of the city so my property tax is much lower than some. maybe you should move?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In any event, I don;t hear too many folks complain about federal taxes. State and local, however, are a joke.

 

you may have a point when it comes to hidden taxes like gas tax. But our biggest state tax source (sales and property) may not be as big as one thinks.

 

sales tax is around 8% but only on things you buy in state and non groceries. sales tax is also tax deductible so one can lop off about 20% from the 8% tax rate due to federal tax refund. I didn't keep track of everything spent but there is a estimator in the fed tax code. don't remember the exact numbers but I recollect that the amount spent on sales tax was not that great, maybe around $1,000. And of course I got back 1/5th of that so I gave about $800 to sales tax.

 

property tax was around $4000 but once again I got back 1/5th of that so I paid about $3,200 to property tax

 

total is about $4000 to the state for those two sources of revenue. (after fed tax deductions accounted for) this is about 3% tax on income. not that much but I live outside of the city so my property tax is much lower than some. maybe you should move?

 

FW is right - it all adds up.

 

It could be worse, so I'm not agro about this. I do think most higher-wage earners pay a fair share already. There are ultra-rich and large corporations that work loopholes to pay way too little, and that's BS. Personally I'd just like to see some kind of upper limit on taxes - a flat upper limit for all taxes combined, and it should not exceed 25-30% of your income no matter how much you make. I want a government that lives within its means. And yes, expensive wars are living outside our means! (I'd support a special war-tax)

 

Gene, one thing about capital gains - if you try to exercise stock options of the ISO variety, you will have to buy and hold those shares, and pay up to 28% on AMT for them. If you make a lot of money on such options its a matter of risk-taking, luck and timing because that 28% would come out of the difference between the strike price and the market value on the day exercised. The cap gains would be taxed against the delta from the exercise price and market value when you sell - and by waiting a year, you do take a risk! Imgaine you have options with a strike price of $5 per share, and the company goes public and they are worth $20. You exercise 5000 shares and hold them (ISOs). That means you have 75000 dollars of AMT income and you could pay up to 28% of that in taxes and have to cover that with other funds! Then you wait a whole year and the price is now $25/share, ok, now you get cap gains on 25K of income - and that is a lower rate. But don't think you just get that 10 or 15% tax on everything. And if by holding those shares a year, the value goes down... well your risk did not pan out, and although you might get some of the tax back, well, there's no guarantees in this game.

 

If you don't want to take that risk or you have NQSO stock options, then you do a cashless exercise and you are taxed on the proceeds as if it were normal income. So, if you are in the 25% tax bracket, then you are taxed at 25% up until you hit the next bracket - for those funds. 28%? 33%? Same story. There's no escaping this for a normal person with this kind of income.

 

As for investments. I made the mistake of simply rebalancing funds in a personal investment account and got hit with some short term gain taxes. All I did was frigging rebalance - I did not cash out. But because I "sold" shares, that sale got taxed. I then had to sell funds to cover that gain. Kind of lame. That money is being put away to pay for retirement, take care of emergencies, or pay for kids' college. It used to be in a low-interest savings account but the interest rate dropped so low I moved them out maybe 6 years ago. It's not like I'm using that money to buy Louis XIV and light cigars with 100 dollar bills.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you gotta watch those trades. I thought that the brokerage would have sold the oldest shares first to avoid that short term gain rate. How come we don't have a system set up when a trade is made, taxes due on the profits is not automatically paid to taxes? (like sales tax) I got hit as well when I pulled out of the market expecting a down turn.

 

at least you made money on the trade. or else no tax was due.

 

You must have retirement accounts outside of the usual IRA and 401K.

 

a overall cap on taxes would be hard to figure out. I would imagine that someone could say that the price of things I buy has a tax element inside. (from the tax due to corporations, employees and many other avenues) that would need to be added to the known taxes we pay. this could propegate so far that my tax burden would be huge wihtout me paying a dime via the usual tax channels. Only the very rich could use this trick and prolly not pay anything. tax lawyer magic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank god I don't have any stock options. that sounds crazy and something that turbo tax could not handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have retirement accounts outside of the usual IRA and 401K.

 

Like I said - it was an emergency funds account. 6 months salary savings.

 

I can't contribute to a Roth IRA - if you make too much, you are disallowed. 401k has a cap too, and that cap is affected by how much your fellow employees contribute. Last year I max'd out but then got 3K back because others did not participate enough. I then got taxed on that check back as normal income the next year. I don't think you can contribute to a Rollover IRA (where you move 401k funds if you leave a company), but I could be wrong on that. I learn the minimum I have to about this stuff, as I am not interested in it that much. I put he money in and mostly forget about it, rebalancing every 12-18 months.

 

Here's the info for Roth limits in 2014 if you are single:

Single $114,000 or less $5,5002

$114,001 to $129,000 Begin to phase out

Greater than $129,000 Ineligible for a Roth IRA

 

In other words, if you make $129K a year and are single, sorry, you can't take advantage of this program as you try to save for your future. Hope you have a 401k in this case. The limit is higher for married filing jointly, but the cutoff is still under 200K

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, I made assumptions of your financial situation. you are obviously in a much better place (income wise) than the norm. Good job!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In any event, I don;t hear too many folks complain about federal taxes. State and local, however, are a joke.

 

you may have a point when it comes to hidden taxes like gas tax. But our biggest state tax source (sales and property) may not be as big as one thinks.

 

sales tax is around 8% but only on things you buy in state and non groceries. sales tax is also tax deductible so one can lop off about 20% from the 8% tax rate due to federal tax refund. I didn't keep track of everything spent but there is a estimator in the fed tax code. don't remember the exact numbers but I recollect that the amount spent on sales tax was not that great, maybe around $1,000. And of course I got back 1/5th of that so I gave about $800 to sales tax.

 

property tax was around $4000 but once again I got back 1/5th of that so I paid about $3,200 to property tax

 

total is about $4000 to the state for those two sources of revenue. (after fed tax deductions accounted for) this is about 3% tax on income. not that much but I live outside of the city so my property tax is much lower than some. maybe you should move?

 

I don't want to move. And neither do a lot of older people who have not realized one penny of capital gain from the home they've lived in for decades--and yet are paying oppressive property taxes. My mother pays close to $12,000 annually on a fixed income. She doesn't want to just move. This is outrageous. And this rather flippant liberal attitude of "just move," as it related to property taxes, really epitomizes the larger sectionalism that is developing between two visions of America. It reveals differing attitudes about the very notion of private property as well, IMO. I have no problem with the concept of taxing income--wages, profits, rents--at reasonable, limited rates. But taxing property and/or "wealth" is bullshit.

 

As for capital gains on securities, etc., well even Obama understands that raising to 20% on top earners--as he and the 111th Congress did--was not about providing revenue. His own words, it was about "fairness."

 

Finally, KK hits on a great point re the AMT. It is beginning to creep well into the middle income brackets. Needs to be addressed.

 

[video:youtube]gJimLZRC9N8

 

 

Edited by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want to move. And neither do a lot of older people who have not realized one penny of capital gain from the home they've lived in for decades--and yet are paying oppressive property taxes. My mother pays close to $12,000 annually on a fixed income. She doesn't want to just move. This is outrageous. And this rather flippant liberal attitude of "just move," as it related to property taxes, really epitomizes the larger sectionalism that is developing between two visions of America. It reveals differing attitudes about the very notion of private property as well, IMO. I have no problem with the concept of taxing income--wages, profits, rents--at reasonable, limited rates. But taxing property and/or "wealth" is bullshit.

with the exception of property tax, where is a wealth tax? Seems like it is all income tax of various kinds.

 

If you are so unhappy teaching, why not quit? Seriously. Take your skills where you feel they will be respected and or adequately compensated.

 

so suggesting that someone move to pay less taxes is offensive while suggesting that teachers get another job cause the compensation is not adequate is not offensive? I would put career choices above objects in importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry, I made assumptions of your financial situation. you are obviously in a much better place (income wise) than the norm. Good job!

 

 

Well, it appeared you didn't know about some of these tax implications. Making more money doesn't just mean your marginal rate goes up for the additional income, it means you can save less (interest free, with a tax advantage), take less on child tax credit, claim less deductions (mortgage, real estate taxes, etc). A lot of this surprised me over the years as I thought the big hit for the better-off was just a higher marginal rate. I even wondered if a rich person could just buy a multi-million dollar mansion and take the real estate tax on that as a deduction (could be tens of thousands in taxes on huge estates) - nope. But if you listen to the media (and D talking points) they make it sound like people with more money somehow escape paying taxes. "they don't pay a fair share" is the mantra. Well I don't see it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so suggesting that someone move to pay less taxes is offensive while suggesting that teachers get another job cause the compensation is not adequate is not offensive? I would put career choices above objects in importance.

 

The ownership of private property is a cornerstone of modernism. If a growth-addicted bureaucracy can, for all intents and purposes, charge you rent to live on your own land--then take it away or even put you in prison if you don't pay--well, do you really own it at all? Similarly, the right to sell one's skills and labor to the highest bidder represents economic freedom. No, Gene, respectfully, there is a distinct difference. Again, this is all part of the divide that American liberals are creating. A so-called "progressive" movement that wants to take us all backward to feudalistic or neo-Confucianistic place circa 1400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are misunderstanding what the progressive movement is all about.

 

teachers do their job because they have a passion for it. it is not a job they do for money alone. IMO, they deserve at least a small amount of respect for the service they do for society.

If it is rude to suggest that someone move to pay less taxes (assuming there is some kind of passion for their property and desire to not move), then it would follow to be rude to suggest that teachers leave the profession for reasons of pay alone. If we are talking about being polite, then what is the difference between the source of the passion?

But I suppose this is getting off topic, if there ever was one. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ownership of private property is a cornerstone of A so-called "progressive" movement that wants to take us all backward to feudalistic or neo-Confucianistic place circa 1400.

 

I think this actually is in the Democrat's platform this year, so you are correct!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×