"Other major revenue-raisers include allowing George W. Bush's tax cuts to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year, which would raise the highest rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent."
So is a family who together earns $250k per year wealthy?
They certainly aren't hurting. But does this level of income start what is considered rich? After giving up almost 40% of their income to taxes it certainly makes you think about it.
That's $100,000 to taxes.
So I start to think 250k isn't where the definition of wealthy should start. In the world today and what the standard of living has become it would seem that level of income feels more like middle/upper middle class.
I wonder what the tax rate is for those who make a combined 225k per year is? Would you get to a point where a person who makes less actually has more take home pay? Would people turn down raises to avoid giving up more of their hard earned income?
The hard part of trying to define wealth is I would say an individual who earns 250k per year on their own might be where wealthy starts, but not if it's two incomes brought in by both a husband and wife.
While the household incomes would be the same in both cases the single income family could in theory have fewer expenses because one of them gets to stay home. They may not need two cars, or to pay for daycare. Sure in reality I would guess that if a person earns that much they would have two cars but you get my point.
So where does the definition of wealthy begin?
Above is the tax bracket based on income level.
[learn some here]
Posts
5 comments:
This tax thing is ridiculous. If you are married, and make that much together, you should just get divorced to avoid the penalty for working hard.
100k in taxes is absolutely absurd.
Lets make people that bust ass and work hard for their money pay more tax, while the government bails out all these twats on wall street who got big bonuses and couldn't stay true to what capitalism is all about.
risk = reward or risk = fail.
but when they fail, we bail them out? that takes away the risk.
taxes make me a cranky old man with how unfair they are.
I am not an accountant, but I do believe that you are taxed at certain rates based on income. So if you make 250 a year, you don't get taxed 39% on all of it. There are salary milestones and you are taxed on the percentage above those milestones at the higher rate. Again, I am unsure of the details here.
People getting divorced could be a reality to avoid the tax.
I would still prefer a flat tax. Even if it was a high percentage, at least you knew that everyone was giving up the same.
Taxing is all relative...250K in NYC isn't the same as 250K in Tupelo.
A flat tax that kicks in after say, 12-15K lets low income workers user their money while everyone else pays their share across the board.
Being worried about 100K in taxes is also relative...I'm sure Bill Gates is spending WAY more than that in taxes.
I also got divorced...but not for taxes...;-)
Very true, wealth is very relative to location.
I am for a flat tax. Old boy John Mccain was for that. I even heard Jay Leno talking on his show about why not a Flat Tax.
If as an individual citizen, you use the same resources and public utility as everyone else, why does that high income earner get penalized?
And to your earlier point, if 250k was more like 450k, I think it would be different. The location argument is very valid. Would it make more sense to have State Tax be more prominent and Federal Income Tax be more of a flat tax. States would tax according to standards of living in that area?
Post a Comment