i was under the impression that you pay your tax rate on 100% of your income, not the income in that tax bracket.
like my example of making 20,000 per year. you would only pay 15% on the 5,000 over 15,000.
ignore deductions
That's called progressive taxation and is basically what we have in place now. You mainly removed exemptions and aren't taxing capital gains at a lower rate. That's what most liberals support and is probably the only really effective and fair taxation formula.
I don't doubt that he really did work his way up. We all started with mcjobs and minimum wage. We eventually moved up from there.Can you explain more about your anecdotal experience? Where were you (city/region) when this was your life?
You pay the tax rate for the income in that tax bracket. Let's say you make 100k per year and the tax brackets are:i was under the impression that you pay your tax rate on 100% of your income, not the income in that tax bracket.
like my example of making 20,000 per year. you would only pay 15% on the 5,000 over 15,000.
i was under the impression that you pay your tax rate on 100% of your income, not the income in that tax bracket.
like my example of making 20,000 per year. you would only pay 15% on the 5,000 over 15,000.
ignore deductions
I don't doubt that he really did work his way up. We all started with mcjobs and minimum wage. We eventually moved up from there.
The big obstacle is kids. If you have kids, you're screwed. You can't go off and work 14 hours days unless you completely ditch your kids..
i was under the impression that you pay your tax rate on 100% of your income, not the income in that tax bracket.
like my example of making 20,000 per year. you would only pay 15% on the 5,000 over 15,000.
ignore deductions
I don't doubt that he really did work his way up. We all started with mcjobs and minimum wage. We eventually moved up from there.
The big obstacle is kids. If you have kids, you're screwed. You can't go off and work 14 hours days unless you completely ditch your kids. I genuinely feel sorry for single mothers to some extent. I also feel bad for sick people. One of my friends has Crohn's Disease and that crap is a life long curse. She works, but there are some serious restrictions on what she can do. Adding giant flat tax on top of her medical problems and medical bills would not help.
You pay the tax rate for the income in that tax bracket. Let's say you make 100k per year and the tax brackets are:
0% for the first 10k
10% between 10k and 30k
20% between 30k and 50k
30% for 50k to 100k
Your taxes would be:
(0*10k) + (10%*20k) + (20%*20k) + (30%*50k)
0 + 2k + 4k + 15k = 21k total taxes
You can calculator your taxes here:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
If you made 500k with today's tax rates, you would pay $155,764. You're not paying 40% of your total income. You're paying 31.15% of total income even though your highest bracket is 39.6%
15% on the first $43,561 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $43,562 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $43,561 up to $87,123), +
26% on the next $47,931 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $87,123 up to $135,054), +
29% of taxable income over $135,054.
Self employment taxes are MUCH lower if you do it right. I'm not sure exactly how this works but I know there's a lot of fuckery involved.edit: btw, Im 1099 and is there a calculator like that that shows self employment tax as well?
Self employment taxes are MUCH lower if you do it right. I'm not sure exactly how this works but I know there's a lot of fuckery involved.
My brother has a numbered company and he's doing something similar to what I think Mitt Romney was doing. Remember how Mitt Romney's 401k is somehow worth millions of dollars? Here's how that works:
You start a numbered company. My brother has a permanent job, but he's listed as a contracted company, and his company is the one getting paid. Your 401k owns the numbered company. You pay yourself a regular salary like 50k/year or something like that and you pay regular income tax on that money. The company in your 401k ends up sitting on piles of cash. Maybe you paid yourself 50k so you could live comfortably, but the company's income after taxes was 200k. Instead of contributing a small percentage of your income to your 401k, your 401k is actually growthing at a rate higher than 100% of your income.
Another thing you can do is own the company outside of your 401k. You pay yourself almost nothing then the rest of your income is in the form of dividends. That way you end up paying 15% tax instead of 40% tax. Romney only paid 13% tax, so basically that's another thing he was doing.
It sounds crooked as hell, but it's really not. Imagine you have a 401k and used it to buy penny shares of Microsoft when it was 5 greasy nerds in a basement. 20 years later, those shares are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in your 401k. Did you break the rules? No. You inveted in a startup company and it became a huge company. Why not use the 401k to invest in your own start up company? It won't be worth hundreds of millions, but it will grow extremely fast and you can retire like a prince.
Correct.Under this scenario both the $50K salary and the company's income are subject to income taxes.
My brother's friend is a welder with a number company and his setup sounds sketchy as hell. He technically pays himself something silly like 5k per year and the rest of his income is dividends from the company. He has an accountant and everything, but I swear there's no way this is legal simply because that doesn't even meet minimum wage. He's the only employee, he works lots because welders typically work a lot of hours, yet he only makes 5k regulate wage per year? It might not get auto flagged by the audit system since some people really do make only 5k per year, but him and his company will be in huge trouble if he ever gets randomly audited.tax rules that try to prevent minimization of employment taxes by paying a lower than FMV salary
-snip-
My brother's friend is a welder with a number company and his setup sounds sketchy as hell. He technically pays himself something silly like 5k per year and the rest of his income is dividends from the company. He has an accountant and everything, but I swear there's no way this is legal simply because that doesn't even meet minimum wage. He's the only employee, he works lots because welders typically work a lot of hours, yet he only makes 5k regulate wage per year? It might not get auto flagged by the audit system since some people really do make only 5k per year, but him and his company will be in huge trouble if he ever gets randomly audited.
Romney definitely worked hard, but he also definitely had investment opportunities far beyond what average Joe from the street could get access to.The most mysterious of the unexplained mysteries about Mitt Romney’s considerable wealth is how he was able to amass between $21 million and $102 million in his individual retirement account during the 15 years he was at Bain Capital LLC.
How did he do it, given the relatively small amounts that the law permits to be contributed to such a plan on an annual basis? Romney has not explained this conundrum, and seeing as he wants to become president, he would be wise to start talking -- if for no other reason than there might be many Americans who would like to emulate what he did.
During Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital -- from 1984 to 1999, although a recent Boston Globe article uncovered Romney having a role at Bain until 2002 -- the firm used a so-called SEP-IRA, which is like a 401(k) retirement plan but is funded entirely by the employer and has a much higher maximum contribution: about $30,000 annually during the period Romney was at Bain. Assuming Romney maxed out these tax-deferred contributions, he would have invested roughly $450,000 in his SEP-IRA during his years at Bain.
...
If you are the Warren Buffett of IRA investors, it is conceivable that you could turn $450,000 into as much as $102 million -- an increase of 227 times -- but not very likely, especially as in the last decade or so, the stock market has been a roller coaster. Mere investing mortals would be lucky to still have $450,000 in the account.
...
So how did Romney do it? Of course, we don’t know, but there have been several theories propagated to fill the considerable gap in knowledge left by Romney’s ongoing silence. Mark Maremont, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the Wall Street Journal (and a former classmate of mine at journalism school), has suggested that -- perfectly legally -- Romney contributed to his IRA using the low-basis, low-value stock he received as a partner at Bain Capital in the various buyouts the firm did while Romney was there.
For instance, after Bain bought Domino’s Pizza in 1998 for $1.1 billion, Bain partners (and the limited partners who went in on the deal) were able to get a slice of the equity of the company. Given the high leverage put into the pizza maker to finance its purchase, it’s a safe bet there was very little equity value at the start, meaning that shares with little book value could be contributed to the IRA.
If Romney put $30,000 worth of Domino’s Pizza stock into his 1998 SEP-IRA, it is conceivable that it would be worth many times that amount when Domino’s went public in 2004. If Romney did the same thing over and over again during the 15 years he was at Bain doing leveraged buyouts, it is conceivable that the $450,000 would increase greatly in value.
...
that would still leave another $11 million to $92 million of unexplained value sitting in the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee’s IRA.
...
The other possibility, Kleinbard suggested, was not dissimilar to what Maremont theorized: that Romney contributed limited-partnership interests in Bain’s buyouts to his IRA. What was “quite troubling” to Kleinbard is that he suspected Romney may have contributed these interests to his IRA at a fraction of their market value -- “pennies on the dollar” -- and well below what he might have charged you or me. When the buyouts became successful, Kleinbard proposed, the pennies on the dollar were suddenly worth real dollars.
A flat tax is much better than the current system but because the rich aren't punished don't expect the idiot liberals and progressives to support it.
Are you capable of arguing your point with facts and data that support your claim or are we just to take your word for it?
You should be asking that of yourself.
You should be asking that of yourself.
Is this your first post on any political forum ever? :biggrin:Would you like to try again or is this the extent of your debate skills?
Is this your first post on any political forum ever? :biggrin:
It's cheaper to house homeless people than to have them check into the ER constantly.
No it isn't!
Here's a study saying it is.
The study is wrong!
Here's 3 more studies.
Those are all wrong too!
Hell, anyone remember the attempts to discuss the holocaust with Juror? I've never seen anyone else on this forum so blatantly ignore proof while providing none in response. Incorruptible tries to catch up, but Juror was on his own level with that crap.
You should be asking that of yourself.
So you concede his points since you failed to provide anything?
No I don't.