new progressive income tax

[JakeStarkey]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

Uh, that's not how it works.

Not at all, SD. HJ is correct. Please restudy the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

Uh, that's not how it works.

Not at all, SD. HJ is correct. Please restudy the issue.

How did you know my nick name was hand job?

EDIT: Oh...never mind.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think superdouche needs a math problem.

Let's say Sarah Palin's taxable income was $100,000. We'll make it simple, no deductions, nothing, here are the tax brackets:

1-10,000 - 0%
10,001 - 50,000 - 10%
50,001 - 75,000 - 20%
75,001 - 95,000 - 30%
95,000 - and up - 100%

How much taxes would she pay, superdouche?

 

[Nyvin]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

So why isn't this true in reverse? What about the guy who's income goes down from one year to another and he goes from your 8% bracket to the 10% bracket by one dollar?

Why do you only care about the people getting richer?

 

[Skylar]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

Uh, that's not how it works.

Not at all, SD. HJ is correct. Please restudy the issue.

I'm pretty sure you're taxed at the higher rate on the money that's over the limit. So your first 8k would be at one rate, everything from from say 8k to 21k is taxed at another rate, etc.

So if you over by 'even a dollar', then that dollar would be taxed at the higher rate.

 

[auditor0007]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

Wow, please go back to school and get a damn education, because you have no flippin clue what you are talking about. This is the kind of nonsense we get from so many on the right. It's damn scary I tell you.

 

[auditor0007]

I think superdouche needs a math problem.

Let's say Sarah Palin's taxable income was $100,000. We'll make it simple, no deductions, nothing, here are the tax brackets:

1-10,000 - 0%
10,001 - 50,000 - 10%
50,001 - 75,000 - 20%
75,001 - 95,000 - 30%
95,000 - and up - 100%

How much taxes would she pay, superdouche?

She'd have to pay all of her income in taxes, doncha know?

 

[The Professor]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

That's not how it works. You cannot go from one tax table to another by $1.00 and loose money. The new rate does not apply to all your earnings; instead, you are taxed at a certain rate up to a dollar amount and only those dollars in excess of that are taxed at a higher rate. Here is a chart from Forbe's which simplifies things:

IRS Announces 2014 Tax Brackets Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes
From the chart, you can see that if your taxable income is no more than $9,075 the tax rate is 10%. This means that the most you could pay in taxes is $907.5

If your taxable income is more than $9,075 but no more than $36.900 you pay $907.50 (10% of the first $9,075) plus 15 percent of income in excess of $9,075.

If your taxable is more than $36,900 but no more than $89,350. Your taxes are $5081.25 plus 25% of all income over $36,900. That $5081.25 is calculated as follows: $907.50 (10% of the first $9,076) plus $4,173.75 (15% of the next $27,825, which is $36,900 minus $9,075).

As you go from one tax rate to another, only that income which is in excess of that which qualifies for the lower rate is taxed at the higher rate. I hope that explains things. I worked for the IRS some time ago and I know how the tax code works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the massive investment in businesses in the 90's? So massive that it eventually got deemed excessive?

That was in the wake of President Clinton's budget balancing tax INCREASES.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

That's not how it works. You cannot go from one tax table to another by $1.00 and loose money. The new rate does not apply to all your earnings; instead, you are taxed at a certain rate up to a dollar amount and only those dollars in excess of that are taxed at a higher rate. Here is a chart from Forbe's which simplifies things:

IRS Announces 2014 Tax Brackets Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes
From the chart, you can see that if your taxable income is no more than $9,075 the tax rate is 10%. This means that the most you could pay in taxes is $907.5

If your taxable income is more than $9,075 but no more than $36.900 you pay $907.50 (10% of the first $9,075) plus 15 percent of income in excess of $9,075.

If your taxable is more than $36,900 but no more than $89,350. Your taxes are $5081.25 plus 25% of all income over $36,900. That $5081.25 is calculated as follows: $907.50 (10% of the first $9,076) plus $4,173.75 (15% of the next $27,825, which is $36,900 minus $9,075).

As you go from one tax rate to another, only that income which is in excess of that which qualifies for the lower rate is taxed at the higher rate. I hope that explains things. I worked for the IRS some time ago and I know how the tax code works.

Very true. It's also worth noting that the rates apply to your TAXABLE income, not your gross income. Once you've taken all your exemptions, deductions, and credits, you are only taxed on what's left.

A large portion of the income you earned is tax-free income.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think superdouche needs a math problem.

Let's say Sarah Palin's taxable income was $100,000. We'll make it simple, no deductions, nothing, here are the tax brackets:

1-10,000 - 0%
10,001 - 50,000 - 10%
50,001 - 75,000 - 20%
75,001 - 95,000 - 30%
95,000 - and up - 100%

How much taxes would she pay, superdouche?

Speaking of douche...does your husband do that for you?

How much taxes does Sarah Palin pay in the above scenario assuming no other tax breaks or deductions exist?

I'm pretty sure you're the dumbest poster on this forum. If not, then this should be relatively easy.

 

[auditor0007]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

That's not how it works. You cannot go from one tax table to another by $1.00 and loose money. The new rate does not apply to all your earnings; instead, you are taxed at a certain rate up to a dollar amount and only those dollars in excess of that are taxed at a higher rate. Here is a chart from Forbe's which simplifies things:

IRS Announces 2014 Tax Brackets Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes
From the chart, you can see that if your taxable income is no more than $9,075 the tax rate is 10%. This means that the most you could pay in taxes is $907.5

If your taxable income is more than $9,075 but no more than $36.900 you pay $907.50 (10% of the first $9,075) plus 15 percent of income in excess of $9,075.

If your taxable is more than $36,900 but no more than $89,350. Your taxes are $5081.25 plus 25% of all income over $36,900. That $5081.25 is calculated as follows: $907.50 (10% of the first $9,076) plus $4,173.75 (15% of the next $27,825, which is $36,900 minus $9,075).

As you go from one tax rate to another, only that income which is in excess of that which qualifies for the lower rate is taxed at the higher rate. I hope that explains things. I worked for the IRS some time ago and I know how the tax code works.

Did you just make that up?

Seriously? Are you a 25 year old high school dropout living in your Mommy's basement? Until you re-educate yourself, please quit posting in this forum, because nothing you say can be taken seriously if you do not even understand how our progressive tax system works. There is no argument to be made with you because your premise is completely wrong to begin with. It's not even a question of differing opinions; you just flat out have no clue what you are talking about. While I think most cons lack much sense, at least most of their arguments have some sort of basis that is actually within the realm of reality. You on the other hand, ..........

 

[JakeStarkey]

Auditor, lefties like SD exist as well.

 

[The Professor]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

That's not how it works. You cannot go from one tax table to another by $1.00 and loose money. The new rate does not apply to all your earnings; instead, you are taxed at a certain rate up to a dollar amount and only those dollars in excess of that are taxed at a higher rate. Here is a chart from Forbe's which simplifies things:

IRS Announces 2014 Tax Brackets Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes
From the chart, you can see that if your taxable income is no more than $9,075 the tax rate is 10%. This means that the most you could pay in taxes is $907.5

If your taxable income is more than $9,075 but no more than $36.900 you pay $907.50 (10% of the first $9,075) plus 15 percent of income in excess of $9,075.

If your taxable is more than $36,900 but no more than $89,350. Your taxes are $5081.25 plus 25% of all income over $36,900. That $5081.25 is calculated as follows: $907.50 (10% of the first $9,076) plus $4,173.75 (15% of the next $27,825, which is $36,900 minus $9,075).

As you go from one tax rate to another, only that income which is in excess of that which qualifies for the lower rate is taxed at the higher rate. I hope that explains things. I worked for the IRS some time ago and I know how the tax code works.

Did you just make that up?

Say what?

Are you serious? Just what is it you're accusing me of making up, the math I used? The link I gave you?

I have always acknowledged that I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Sometimes I feel like a 90-watt bulb in a 100-watt world; however, you, my mentally diminutive friend, have the intellectual luminosity of a birthday candle.

Nonetheless, in answer to your question, I knew that what you said was inaccurate and I looked for a reputable site that explained the tax code in a way that most people would understand. I then took the time to go into a little more detail regarding the computations used to calculate tax obligations at the various rates of taxation. When I posted the link, I thought I had enlightened you but sadly I failed. At least it wasn't a waste of my time because others understood the message. You may be the only one who did not.

You have the last word. I am done with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SuperDemocrat is throwing away a real opportunity to learn something when he discover his OP is wrong.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The suggestion is to establish a Regressive not progressive tax rate. Making more money is incitement enough.

The problem with a progressive income tax that increases is this. When a person makes more revenue they are not paying the same rate on old revenue. They are paying the new higher rate on revenue they were previously paying a lower rate. Let's say the increments are 10, 30, 70. Once a person crosses from 10 to 30 they now pay 30% on revenue they were only paying 10% on. So if you are only one dollar into the higher tax bracket you end upmoaying that rate on every other dollar before it which ends up being a huge tax increase.

That's not how it works. You cannot go from one tax table to another by $1.00 and loose money. The new rate does not apply to all your earnings; instead, you are taxed at a certain rate up to a dollar amount and only those dollars in excess of that are taxed at a higher rate. Here is a chart from Forbe's which simplifies things:

IRS Announces 2014 Tax Brackets Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes
From the chart, you can see that if your taxable income is no more than $9,075 the tax rate is 10%. This means that the most you could pay in taxes is $907.5

If your taxable income is more than $9,075 but no more than $36.900 you pay $907.50 (10% of the first $9,075) plus 15 percent of income in excess of $9,075.

If your taxable is more than $36,900 but no more than $89,350. Your taxes are $5081.25 plus 25% of all income over $36,900. That $5081.25 is calculated as follows: $907.50 (10% of the first $9,076) plus $4,173.75 (15% of the next $27,825, which is $36,900 minus $9,075).

As you go from one tax rate to another, only that income which is in excess of that which qualifies for the lower rate is taxed at the higher rate. I hope that explains things. I worked for the IRS some time ago and I know how the tax code works.

Did you just make that up?

Say what?

Are you serious? Just what is it you're accusing me of making up, the math I used? The link I gave you?

I have always acknowledged that I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Sometimes I feel like a 90-watt bulb in a 100-watt world; however, you, my mentally diminutive friend, have the intellectual luminosity of a birthday candle.

Nonetheless, in answer to your question, I knew that what you said was inaccurate and I looked for a reputable site that explained the tax code in a way that most people would understand. I then took the time to go into a little more detail regarding the computations used to calculate tax obligations at the various rates of taxation. When I posted the link, I thought I had enlightened you but sadly I failed. At least it wasn't a waste of my time because others understood the message. You may be the only one who did not.

You have the last word. I am done with you.

I'm not an tax accountant and the website yiu provided seemed to be informative but until I see it done with my own taxes I have to suspicious of any website that says otherwise.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

SuperDemocrat is throwing away a real opportunity to learn something when he discover his OP is wrong.

My op wasn't wrong. It couldn't be wrong or right. I was just saying that this should be the new progressive tax rate. That in itself is a fact. The fact is the fact that I made that staement. Are yiu saying I did not make that statement? Whether or not someone disagree or agrees with it is a different story all together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SD, run the formula if you made 50,000, then 75,000, and then 100,000. You will learn.

SD, no one is doubting you made an erroneous statement with wrong definitions of the terms.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

SD, run the formula if you made 50,000, then 75,000, and then 100,000. You will learn.

I'm not really in a position to disagree with what you are saying because I am not an accountant but it really doesn't have anything to do with my original post. In th original post I just said a declining progressive income tax would be better. That is an opinion and opinions can't be wrong. It is like saying the color blue is the best. It can't be wrong (why do I have similar conversations with first graders?) it can't be right because it is just an opinion. Now if I said a declining progressive income tax would be better because you avoid being taxed in the way I described in a reply then you can say that is wrong because people don't get taxed that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SD, run the formula if you made 50,000, then 75,000, and then 100,000. You will learn.

I'm not really in a position to disagree with what you are saying because I am not an accountant but it really doesn't have anything to do with my original post. In th original post I just said a declining progressive income tax would be better. That is an opinion and opinions can't be wrong. It is like saying the color blue is the best. It can't be wrong (why do I have similar conversations with first graders?) it can't be right because it is just an opinion. Now if I said a declining progressive income tax would be better because you avoid being taxed in the way I described in a reply then you can say that is wrong because people don't get taxed that way.

This is what SD left out above: SD, run the formula if you made 50,000, then 75,000, and then 100,000. You will learn.

SD, no one is doubting you made an erroneous statement with wrong definitions of the terms.

SD, your opinion is predicated about wrong definitions and terms. Thus your statement is wrong. Yes, opinion at times are not not value neutral.

Let me make it very clear: your proposition is wrong because your term and definitions are false.