Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Why would you? It would make the effective rate a meaningless number. The IRS doesn't care how much you donated, it treats that money as if you never had it.
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Doesn't donating that substantial of an amount give you some pretty large tax brakes?
I suppose the term I'm look for here is tax "breaks" not "brakes"
Wait, so what's the tax reason to donate?
(I'm too poor to know this)
(also a bad person)
There is no personal advantage to donating money. All you effectively "gain" is a rebate from the IRS equal to your marginal tax rate multiplied by the donation.
If you make 70k and you donate 2k to charity at the end of the year you will pay 2k * 25% = $500 less in taxes because you are only taxed on having earned 68k.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Why would you? It would make the effective rate a meaningless number. The IRS doesn't care how much you donated, it treats that money as if you never had it.
Because it would show you the amount of taxes paid based on your gross taxable income before deductions? If it was after deductions, his effective tax rate should be more like 30%, right?
You don't pay you entire income at the highest rate
only the amount over that highest backet
Right. But a substantial amount of his income is in the 35% bracket, and almost all of it is in the 25+% brackets. Assuming they did Married Filing Jointly, the 25% bracket starts at $67K.
You don't pay you entire income at the highest rate
only the amount over that highest backet
Right. But a substantial amount of his income is in the 35% bracket, and almost all of it is in the 25+% brackets. Assuming they did Married Filing Jointly, the 25% bracket starts at $67K.
yeah, for the Obama's purposes, that $170k in donations is gonna come off the top, saving them at the maximum rate. so it saves them about $60k in taxes.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Why would you? It would make the effective rate a meaningless number. The IRS doesn't care how much you donated, it treats that money as if you never had it.
Because it would show you the amount of taxes paid based on your gross taxable income before deductions? If it was after deductions, his effective tax rate should be more like 30%, right?
Well OK maybe @tyranus or someone else can give us the textbook definition of effective tax rate. I've always calculated it as tax paid over taxable income, which discounts things like charitable donations, 401k contributions, employer portion of payroll tax, health insurance etc.
If you calc it on gross income you can get situations where a guy making $6 million donates $5 million and pays a very reasonable $300k tax. I see that as a 30% effective tax rate, not a 5% one but that's just my layman's understanding.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Why would you? It would make the effective rate a meaningless number. The IRS doesn't care how much you donated, it treats that money as if you never had it.
Because it would show you the amount of taxes paid based on your gross taxable income before deductions? If it was after deductions, his effective tax rate should be more like 30%, right?
Well OK maybe @tyranus or someone else can give us the textbook definition of effective tax rate. I've always calculated it as tax paid over taxable income, which discounts things like charitable donations, 401k contributions, employer portion of payroll tax, health insurance etc.
If you calc it on gross income you can get situations where a guy making $6 million donates $5 million and pays a very reasonable $300k tax. I see that as a 30% effective tax rate, not a 5% one but that's just my layman's understanding.
effective tax rate is based on total income, not taxable income.
You don't pay you entire income at the highest rate
only the amount over that highest backet
Right. But a substantial amount of his income is in the 35% bracket, and almost all of it is in the 25+% brackets. Assuming they did Married Filing Jointly, the 25% bracket starts at $67K.
yeah, for the Obama's purposes, that $170k in donations is gonna come off the top, saving them at the maximum rate. so it saves them about $60k in taxes.
Right. I understand how income taxes work. We're just arguing about how the effective tax rate is defined.
For what it's worth, the WSJ editor that wrote that headline used my method.
Why would you? It would make the effective rate a meaningless number. The IRS doesn't care how much you donated, it treats that money as if you never had it.
Because it would show you the amount of taxes paid based on your gross taxable income before deductions? If it was after deductions, his effective tax rate should be more like 30%, right?
Yeah you definitely do compare taxes paid / total taxable income, not income-deductions. You could argue about whether it should be AGI I guess, but post-deduction seems like it doesn't really resemble an effective tax rate any more (just a statutory tax rate). It'd be more like 26% if you used that calculation.
"The NRA case study supports the Democratic story. Here is an example of a single-issue lobby that has gotten 100 percent of what it wanted, yet has remained implacably hostile."
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Doesn't donating that substantial of an amount give you some pretty large tax brakes?
I suppose the term I'm look for here is tax "breaks" not "brakes"
Wait, so what's the tax reason to donate?
(I'm too poor to know this)
(also a bad person)
There is no personal advantage to donating money. All you effectively "gain" is a rebate from the IRS equal to your marginal tax rate multiplied by the donation.
If you make 70k and you donate 2k to charity at the end of the year you will pay 2k * 25% = $500 less in taxes because you are only taxed on having earned 68k.
Unless you do it like the smart (rich) folks do it, and donate to a charity run by your wife, who then draws it as a salary at a lower tax rate.
From the election thread. Obama killed an American Citizen in a drone strike who was operating with terrorists against the US.
Pick your stance
A) We shouldn't kill anyone without evidence and due process regardless of citizenship the AUMF (Edit: and possibly parts of the fifth amendment) give us the right to kill enemy combatants including American Citizens
C) It is totally OK to kill non-Americans enemy combatants with drone strikes but because of the constitution we should not kill enemy combatants that have American Citizenship.
D) Other.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My stance is B.) though I'm not particularly happy about that fact.
I will say that if there was a reasonable way, with no allied casualties, to capture him, it would be better. But since he was effectively outside the reach of that type of engagement, you had to boil down to two choices. Kill or ignore.
Was he the type of threat to ignore? I say no, he decided to join a group that has engaged and plan to engage further in hostile actions against the US and our allies.
At that point I consider him the same as an armed man threatening the police. He cannot be safely captured and presents a threat.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
From the election thread. Obama killed an American Citizen in a drone strike who was operating with terrorists against the US.
Pick your stance
A) We shouldn't kill anyone without evidence and due process regardless of citizenship the AUMF (Edit: and possibly parts of the fifth amendment) give us the right to kill enemy combatants including American Citizens
C) It is totally OK to kill non-Americans enemy combatants with drone strikes but because of the constitution we should not kill enemy combatants that have American Citizenship.
D) Other.
A)
With the obvious exception of a clear & present existential threat (Example: Imperial Japanese planes destroying a harbour in Hawaii)
I'll ask you the same questioned the state should not be engaged in murder, are you a pacifist?
No, I'm not, which is why I cited the exception. The rule of law needs to be suspended when an imperialist and/or fascist enemy state literally comes charging at the gates.
In regards to the killing of US citizens who are openly aligned themselves with terrorist groups and take an active role in trying to do harm, while being outside of US territory.
Not going to get too involved with this since I'm sure people can find my view on it several pages back.
Anyways my view is mostly but I wouldn't mind seeing Congress codify it. What we have now works great when people actually acknowledge that we're at war with a group that a traitor decides to join as an enemy combatant. The problem is we're really at war with al-Quaeda but technically we're not because Congress doesn't want to really call it that and things get further complicated when one realizes that al-Quaeda is a non-state actor that operates globally (caveat being they're more active in some parts of the world than others).
Yes, it would be nice to put the fuckers on trial and give them a fitting sentence to punish them for being human pieces of shit, but realistically that isn't going to happen. There's also the other issue where it's fucking stupid to let them run around and continue to do harm because we don't have the means to catch them, nor are we willing to use deadly force. It's not pretty but using deadly force is our best option that does less harm in the long run, since they cease to continue being a threat and terrorist groups won't get the bright idea of just having an American Citizen involved in all their cells to prevent us from whacking them in foreign countries, where deadly force is the only option.
That said, I'd prefer some sort of legal frame work that the commander and chief needs to go through before deadly force can be used. Otherwise we run the risk of getting a real shit head in office that may opt to approve the drone strike right off the bat instead wading through all the intel on a potential traitor to make sure that such a response is warranted.
He was named by at least two men involved in either completed or attempted terrorist actions.
He was a propagandist and facilitator for Al Qaeda and was actively encouraging muslims in the US to commit terrorist attacks.
The man killed with him was the editor and publisher of an Al Qaeda magazine instructing muslims in the US on how to conduct terrorist attacks.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
So, do you also think that this is the appropriate approach for any other criminal? For example, if you have arrested a rapist, do you think the appropriate punishment is to have him or her raped by the state? If you catch a thief, is the appropriate response for the state to rob them in turn?
What bother me about this particular case is that the administration's response, when pressed on it, amounted to a dollar figure: it was cheaper to fly in a drone and fire a missile than it would've been to fly in a helicopter and arrest him (or make the attempt).
Does it have to be a state? It can't be an organized group of militants sworn to your destruction that have common dogma instead of place of origin?
No, because a group of militants do not have the capabilities of a state. Al Qaeda does not have factories or columns of tanks or fleets of submarines or aircraft carriers that pose a real threat to the U.S. - they have a pile of old munitions and perhaps a few thousands teenagers full of hate & anger.
Posts
I suppose the term I'm look for here is tax "breaks" not "brakes"
Wait, so what's the tax reason to donate?
(I'm too poor to know this)
(also a bad person)
yeah, effective tax rate is taxes paid/total income. so $120k/790k=15.1%
(120 + 172) / 790 = 37%. That's a patriotic amount of taxes!
There is no personal advantage to donating money. All you effectively "gain" is a rebate from the IRS equal to your marginal tax rate multiplied by the donation.
If you make 70k and you donate 2k to charity at the end of the year you will pay 2k * 25% = $500 less in taxes because you are only taxed on having earned 68k.
Because it would show you the amount of taxes paid based on your gross taxable income before deductions? If it was after deductions, his effective tax rate should be more like 30%, right?
only the amount over that highest backet
Right. But a substantial amount of his income is in the 35% bracket, and almost all of it is in the 25+% brackets. Assuming they did Married Filing Jointly, the 25% bracket starts at $67K.
yeah, for the Obama's purposes, that $170k in donations is gonna come off the top, saving them at the maximum rate. so it saves them about $60k in taxes.
Well OK maybe @tyranus or someone else can give us the textbook definition of effective tax rate. I've always calculated it as tax paid over taxable income, which discounts things like charitable donations, 401k contributions, employer portion of payroll tax, health insurance etc.
If you calc it on gross income you can get situations where a guy making $6 million donates $5 million and pays a very reasonable $300k tax. I see that as a 30% effective tax rate, not a 5% one but that's just my layman's understanding.
effective tax rate is based on total income, not taxable income.
Right. I understand how income taxes work. We're just arguing about how the effective tax rate is defined.
For what it's worth, the WSJ editor that wrote that headline used my method.
Yeah you definitely do compare taxes paid / total taxable income, not income-deductions. You could argue about whether it should be AGI I guess, but post-deduction seems like it doesn't really resemble an effective tax rate any more (just a statutory tax rate). It'd be more like 26% if you used that calculation.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/why-did-obamas-bipartisanship-fail.html
"The NRA case study supports the Democratic story. Here is an example of a single-issue lobby that has gotten 100 percent of what it wanted, yet has remained implacably hostile."
Kill, baby, kill.
It's only a government shutdown if a Democrat does it.
Tell that to Newt.
Jerk.
That would be the bus Rosa Parks refused to move in.
Fucking good.
Congress wants to abandon its responsibilities? Let them see what that fucking means.
If Obama had been like this last year, we wouldn't be where we are now.
Is it bad that the first thing I though was "I wonder how long it'll take him to realize it's not going to take him anywhere?"
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Forever Alone
Unless you do it like the smart (rich) folks do it, and donate to a charity run by your wife, who then draws it as a salary at a lower tax rate.
Pick your stance
A) We shouldn't kill anyone without evidence and due process regardless of citizenship
C) It is totally OK to kill non-Americans enemy combatants with drone strikes but because of the constitution we should not kill enemy combatants that have American Citizenship.
D) Other.
I will say that if there was a reasonable way, with no allied casualties, to capture him, it would be better. But since he was effectively outside the reach of that type of engagement, you had to boil down to two choices. Kill or ignore.
Was he the type of threat to ignore? I say no, he decided to join a group that has engaged and plan to engage further in hostile actions against the US and our allies.
At that point I consider him the same as an armed man threatening the police. He cannot be safely captured and presents a threat.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
A)
With the obvious exception of a clear & present existential threat (Example: Imperial Japanese planes destroying a harbour in Hawaii)
EDIT: ...Wait, no.
D): The state should not be engaged in murder.
He was named by at least two men involved in either completed or attempted terrorist actions.
He was a propagandist and facilitator for Al Qaeda and was actively encouraging muslims in the US to commit terrorist attacks.
The man killed with him was the editor and publisher of an Al Qaeda magazine instructing muslims in the US on how to conduct terrorist attacks.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
No, I'm not, which is why I cited the exception. The rule of law needs to be suspended when an imperialist and/or fascist enemy state literally comes charging at the gates.
Not going to get too involved with this since I'm sure people can find my view on it several pages back.
Anyways my view is mostly
Yes, it would be nice to put the fuckers on trial and give them a fitting sentence to punish them for being human pieces of shit, but realistically that isn't going to happen. There's also the other issue where it's fucking stupid to let them run around and continue to do harm because we don't have the means to catch them, nor are we willing to use deadly force. It's not pretty but using deadly force is our best option that does less harm in the long run, since they cease to continue being a threat and terrorist groups won't get the bright idea of just having an American Citizen involved in all their cells to prevent us from whacking them in foreign countries, where deadly force is the only option.
That said, I'd prefer some sort of legal frame work that the commander and chief needs to go through before deadly force can be used. Otherwise we run the risk of getting a real shit head in office that may opt to approve the drone strike right off the bat instead wading through all the intel on a potential traitor to make sure that such a response is warranted.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So, do you also think that this is the appropriate approach for any other criminal? For example, if you have arrested a rapist, do you think the appropriate punishment is to have him or her raped by the state? If you catch a thief, is the appropriate response for the state to rob them in turn?
What bother me about this particular case is that the administration's response, when pressed on it, amounted to a dollar figure: it was cheaper to fly in a drone and fire a missile than it would've been to fly in a helicopter and arrest him (or make the attempt).
No, because a group of militants do not have the capabilities of a state. Al Qaeda does not have factories or columns of tanks or fleets of submarines or aircraft carriers that pose a real threat to the U.S. - they have a pile of old munitions and perhaps a few thousands teenagers full of hate & anger.