No, that was his effective federal rate. He would obviously be in the top marginal bracket (35% or 38% or whatever the hell it is). His effective rate is shockingly high to me, but then I don't even make half of what he does (I came in at ~11% for this year). Maybe he needs a better accountant, but he's not an idiot so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular number.
I think what gets me most about it is that even if he is high on the actual estimate, it should not be this difficult to figure out how much of your money is actually going to taxes. This is an argument for simplifying and/or condensing taxes.
Seriously, he's selling you a load of gooseshit. The only federal taxes are income and payroll for most people. And if you are making $250,000, then a good deal of that is shielded from payroll taxes.
Angel, I'm not sure what you think I'm claiming because most of what you are saying is completely irrelevant to what I actually stated. Taxes are taxes. It doesn't matter what level they come from (federal, state, local), it's still money you have to pay. I also didn't state anything about people in lower tax brackets and how much or little they are getting shafted. The only thing I stated was that the...semi-rich let's call them... are paying more than I thought they were and that it's very hard to figure out how much of your money each year actually goes into taxes.
I'm doing some napkin math on his estimates now, and unless I'm forgetting something obvious, it's probably more like 45-50% of his income. That still seems like a lot, and is good to keep in mind when we are talking about taxes and where they need to be raised.
edit: @Sir Landshark that 28% isn't out of wack with historical averages for the top 10% (the most recent I could find showed the average effective rate at 26.something% in 2007). Presumably most people in that bracket have families, houses, cars, the whole shebang.
The point is that the total effective tax rate, factoring in all forms of taxation, tends to be flat across all the income quintiles. Which is part of the reasons that HENRYs need to drink their cup of STFU.
I have no fucking clue what a HENRY is, but it was fun talking past each other.
No, that was his effective federal rate. He would obviously be in the top marginal bracket (35% or 38% or whatever the hell it is). His effective rate is shockingly high to me, but then I don't even make half of what he does (I came in at ~11% for this year). Maybe he needs a better accountant, but he's not an idiot so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular number.
I think what gets me most about it is that even if he is high on the actual estimate, it should not be this difficult to figure out how much of your money is actually going to taxes. This is an argument for simplifying and/or condensing taxes.
Seriously, he's selling you a load of gooseshit. The only federal taxes are income and payroll for most people. And if you are making $250,000, then a good deal of that is shielded from payroll taxes.
Angel, I'm not sure what you think I'm claiming because most of what you are saying is completely irrelevant to what I actually stated. Taxes are taxes. It doesn't matter what level they come from (federal, state, local), it's still money you have to pay. I also didn't state anything about people in lower tax brackets and how much or little they are getting shafted. The only thing I stated was that the...semi-rich let's call them... are paying more than I thought they were and that it's very hard to figure out how much of your money each year actually goes into taxes.
I'm doing some napkin math on his estimates now, and unless I'm forgetting something obvious, it's probably more like 45-50% of his income. That still seems like a lot, and is good to keep in mind when we are talking about taxes and where they need to be raised.
edit: @Sir Landshark that 28% isn't out of wack with historical averages for the top 10% (the most recent I could find showed the average effective rate at 26.something% in 2007). Presumably most people in that bracket have families, houses, cars, the whole shebang.
The point is that the total effective tax rate, factoring in all forms of taxation, tends to be flat across all the income quintiles. Which is part of the reasons that HENRYs need to drink their cup of STFU.
I have no fucking clue what a HENRY is, but it was fun talking past each other.
Let's do it again sometime.
High Earners, Not Rich Yet. The New York Times is fascinated by them.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Mostly healthcare related so I posted it over in the ACA thread, but man. Obama is struggling with this understanding the Constitution thing.
What's his problem with unelected judges and judicial review all of a sudden?
Well, since you brought it up in both threads I'll post the obvious response to the in both threads. In the quote you're referring to, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with a moderate handle on the grammar of the English language that he was describing what the Right has been doing for years. He wasn't complaining about unelected judges, he was just pointing out that conservatives have been complaining about unelected activist judges for decades.
I thought he was talking about severability, especially the justices whining about having to actually read the law they're ruling on.
No, that was his effective federal rate. He would obviously be in the top marginal bracket (35% or 38% or whatever the hell it is). His effective rate is shockingly high to me, but then I don't even make half of what he does (I came in at ~11% for this year). Maybe he needs a better accountant, but he's not an idiot so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular number.
I think what gets me most about it is that even if he is high on the actual estimate, it should not be this difficult to figure out how much of your money is actually going to taxes. This is an argument for simplifying and/or condensing taxes.
Seriously, he's selling you a load of gooseshit. The only federal taxes are income and payroll for most people. And if you are making $250,000, then a good deal of that is shielded from payroll taxes.
Angel, I'm not sure what you think I'm claiming because most of what you are saying is completely irrelevant to what I actually stated. Taxes are taxes. It doesn't matter what level they come from (federal, state, local), it's still money you have to pay. I also didn't state anything about people in lower tax brackets and how much or little they are getting shafted. The only thing I stated was that the...semi-rich let's call them... are paying more than I thought they were and that it's very hard to figure out how much of your money each year actually goes into taxes.
I'm doing some napkin math on his estimates now, and unless I'm forgetting something obvious, it's probably more like 45-50% of his income. That still seems like a lot, and is good to keep in mind when we are talking about taxes and where they need to be raised.
edit: @Sir Landshark that 28% isn't out of wack with historical averages for the top 10% (the most recent I could find showed the average effective rate at 26.something% in 2007). Presumably most people in that bracket have families, houses, cars, the whole shebang.
The point is that the total effective tax rate, factoring in all forms of taxation, tends to be flat across all the income quintiles. Which is part of the reasons that HENRYs need to drink their cup of STFU.
Citation please? This would shock me. Are you doing this net of EITC?
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will sign the JOBS Act into law Thursday, clinching a rare and hard-fought bipartisan victory for his presidency. But to secure the legislative win, he had to pick sides in a simmering feud between interest groups aligned with the Democratic Party. One side of the fight -- the tech industry and venture capital allies -- is all smiles. But the other side -- organized labor -- is seething.
The flashpoint for this Democratic Party conflict -- the JOBS Act -- is the brainchild of Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a 27-member group that the president stacked with 19 corporate chairmen and CEOs in an effort, say labor leaders and others, to curry favor with America’s executive class.
But for all of the maneuvering, the JOBS Act is unlikely to deliver much in the way of job growth, according to economists and consumer advocates, who warn that the bill opens the door to a new wave of conflicts of interest and possible financial fraud on Wall Street.
But in deciding to back the JOBS Act, Democrats were forced to choose between two allies -- labor and the tech industry. Democrats stuck with Silicon Valley, secure in the belief that union loyalty isn't going anywhere. It's yet another political battle pitting nominal allies against one another because large sums of money are at stake.
Meanwhile, the White House and congressional Republicans tout the JOBS Act as a shot in the arm for small companies that have bright prospects. Fast-growing start-ups are engines of job growth and the bill is intended to make it easier for these companies to raise capital.
In practice, however, the bill will be a greater boon for venture capitalists, large tech companies and Wall Street banks. This cadre quickly got the president’s backing for the JOBS Act, despite vocal opposition from consumer advocates, federal regulators and the largest U.S. coalition of labor unions, who warned of increased risk of financial fraud.
"I am concerned that we lack a clear understanding of the impact the legislation ... will have on investor protection," Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote in a March 13 letter to the Senate Banking Committee, saying the bill could cause "real and significant damage."
Even some of the bill's supporters say it goes too far.
"It wasn't worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but we don't honestly know where this will lead," McGeary says.
...Aaand milquetoast Obama is back. A shame his balls didn't last until after the election. Oh well, not surprised. Still gonna vote for him. Still far, far better than the alternative. Until the Republicans are dealt with, we can't do anything about stuff like this. It's a Black and Gray World, folks.
Gigazombie Cybermage on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yes, how dare politicians involve politics in their jobs!
What does he think this will get him? I'm aware of how the clueless general public would probably react at his vetoing anything called "JOBS Bill" but the problem is that yet again unions are thrown under the bus. It runs the risk of him depressing his more liberal base. Not that they're all that reliable in the first place.
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
You know in some countries unions actually make politicians regret crossing them.
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
What does he think this will get him? I'm aware of how the clueless general public would probably react at his vetoing anything called "JOBS Bill" but the problem is that yet again unions are thrown under the bus. It runs the risk of him depressing his more liberal base. Not that they're all that reliable in the first place.
It's a vicious cycle though. It's bad enough unions are less trusted than banks. Look, I've complained about finicky liberals before, but throwing them under the bus isn't the solution, it only leads to a country that continues a disatrous death march rightward off a cliff.
It's a vicious cycle though. It's bad enough unions are less trusted than banks. Look, I've complained about finicky liberals before, but throwing them under the bus isn't the solution, it only leads to a country that continues a disatrous death march rightward off a cliff.
Agreed on that.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It's a vicious cycle though. It's bad enough unions are less trusted than banks. Look, I've complained about finicky liberals before, but throwing them under the bus isn't the solution, it only leads to a country that continues a disatrous death march rightward off a cliff.
Other countries tend to have healthier attitudes towards unions because corporations don't treat them as being the antithesis of profitability.
It's a vicious cycle though. It's bad enough unions are less trusted than banks. Look, I've complained about finicky liberals before, but throwing them under the bus isn't the solution, it only leads to a country that continues a disatrous death march rightward off a cliff.
Other countries tend to have healthier attitudes towards unions because corporations don't treat them as being the antithesis of profitability.
also they haven't had right-wing media shitting on the concept of unions for 90 years. Sure, some of them were down on unions for a while, but they got over it... we never did because of COMMUNISM
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.
In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.
You know in some countries unions actually make politicians regret crossing them.
He can kind of afford to do this, basically because the GOP seems to be dead-set on dry-humping them out of existence.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
I hate the term "job creator." We've been taking care of "job creators" since my childhood and Reagan was president, and what's happened? We seem to have fewer jobs, and fewer decent jobs, to go around than ever before.
I hate the term "job creator." We've been taking care of "job creators" since my childhood and Reagan was president, and what's happened? We seem to have fewer jobs, and fewer decent jobs, to go around than ever before.
It's bollocks all right. Job creators are not a special class of elite people. They could be anyone. A person who sets up a small business and hires two people is just as much a job creator as a billionaire with thousands of employees. But it's the latter that the Republicans are licking the boots of.
If you own a business, it is in your interests to get costs as low as possible. Business owners will not hire unless they absolutely need those people. They are not charities, and it is confused thinking to assume that because a business does well, then they will hire more people. If they can get the same results cheaper by buying machines or outsourcing, they will. It's common sense.
I always thought the "job creator" nonsense was a Republican attempt to try and avoid flat out calling people rich. Didn't Colbert have a bit where he called his cake "job creator and moist" or something like that?
Yeah that government spending on healthcare is only a part of the total spent on healthcare in this country. $8k per person annually is some kind of crazyness, for that kind of money we should be damn near immortal.
Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.
Well, in the UK people in the labor unions realized that if they ever wanted to change things for the better they'd have to get elected, so they formed a political party.
In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.
Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.
What portion, exactly?
Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.
You know in some countries unions actually make politicians regret crossing them.
He can kind of afford to do this, basically because the GOP seems to be dead-set on dry-humping them out of existence.
Only in the short term. In the long term he's alienating unions from the party. Isn't it generally a good thing not to throw your allies under the bus when politically convenient?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.
What portion, exactly?
Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.
Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.
What portion, exactly?
Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.
Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.
What portion, exactly?
Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.
Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
How long ago was that? Because I'm pretty sure that was made really illegal about 5 or 6 years ago.
Keep in mind that a decent chunk of that "healthcare spending" is actually research money. The US funds an incredible portion of global health research.
What portion, exactly?
Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.
Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
How long ago was that? Because I'm pretty sure that was made really illegal about 5 or 6 years ago.
They're not buying it FOR the doctors in exchange for anything, they just happened to leave a buffet outside by accident.
Posts
I have no fucking clue what a HENRY is, but it was fun talking past each other.
Let's do it again sometime.
High Earners, Not Rich Yet. The New York Times is fascinated by them.
if you take the standard deduction, you probably don't have any tax preparation expenses
I thought he was talking about severability, especially the justices whining about having to actually read the law they're ruling on.
I don't understand why Obama is mad about this. It's just money.
It's all about image.
Citation please? This would shock me. Are you doing this net of EITC?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt
...Aaand milquetoast Obama is back. A shame his balls didn't last until after the election. Oh well, not surprised. Still gonna vote for him. Still far, far better than the alternative. Until the Republicans are dealt with, we can't do anything about stuff like this. It's a Black and Gray World, folks.
I heard that Obama is not a king and that only Congress can pass laws!
Those subjects may be related.
Agreed on that.
Other countries tend to have healthier attitudes towards unions because corporations don't treat them as being the antithesis of profitability.
also they haven't had right-wing media shitting on the concept of unions for 90 years. Sure, some of them were down on unions for a while, but they got over it... we never did because of COMMUNISM
In the US when people want to change things they sit in parks and talk about awareness.
There might be a connection there. Maybe.
He can kind of afford to do this, basically because the GOP seems to be dead-set on dry-humping them out of existence.
It's bollocks all right. Job creators are not a special class of elite people. They could be anyone. A person who sets up a small business and hires two people is just as much a job creator as a billionaire with thousands of employees. But it's the latter that the Republicans are licking the boots of.
If you own a business, it is in your interests to get costs as low as possible. Business owners will not hire unless they absolutely need those people. They are not charities, and it is confused thinking to assume that because a business does well, then they will hire more people. If they can get the same results cheaper by buying machines or outsourcing, they will. It's common sense.
It's fascinating to me to compare that to this: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_pie_ukgs.php
Apparently the US Federal government spends 23.7% of their budget on healthcare, while the UK spends 18%.
I don't even...
dose socialist ineffectual systems bra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
True.
What portion, exactly?
Bear in mind that pharma agitprop explaining why they need to charge 400% more for the same drug in the US then they do in Canada or Germany may not be a reliable source. As in, they were actually including the money they spent on marketing drugs in the US as "development" spending.
Only in the short term. In the long term he's alienating unions from the party. Isn't it generally a good thing not to throw your allies under the bus when politically convenient?
Having worked in a small but very successful oncology clinic where every meal was catered by one pharma company or another (to the tune of thousands of dollars a week), I am pretty sure there is a lot of waseful spending going on to make sure doctors keep prescribing the procrit/avastin at marked up rates.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
How long ago was that? Because I'm pretty sure that was made really illegal about 5 or 6 years ago.
They're not buying it FOR the doctors in exchange for anything, they just happened to leave a buffet outside by accident.
These things happen.
Isolated incident.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube