Quick question about tax rates

[KnicksorBust]

I was talking with some coworkers about the tax rates of 50-60-70 years ago and how the rate was up to 90 percent. One of them said this meant if you made a million dollars then the gov took 900K and you kept 100K. Is that right? I was under the impression that we all start at the same percent but once you hit certain thresholds of earnings (like 250K), THEN every dollar after would apply to the much higher rate. If anyone could clarify this for me I'd appreciate it.

[Nymfan87]

I was talking with some coworkers about the tax rates of 50-60-70 years ago and how the rate was up to 90 percent. One of them said this meant if you made a million dollars then the gov took 900K and you kept 100K. Is that right? I was under the impression that we all start at the same percent but once you hit certain thresholds of earnings (like 250K), THEN every dollar after would apply to the much higher rate. If anyone could clarify this for me I'd appreciate it.

You're right, the coworker was wrong. For an example, let's say last year you made 30,000. Income up to 8,700 is taxed at 10%, and income above that but below 35,350 is 15%. So you pay $870 (10% of 8,700) plus 15% of 21,300 (30000-8700).

[dbroncos78087]

Your coworker is wrong, you do not simply pay the percent of the highest bracket that you fall into. Everyone pays the 10% rate, then the 15% rate, then the 25% rate, and so on until you get to the top of 35%.

I made an excel document for a class a few years ago that you put in your salary and it tells you how much you would pay in income tax under the current rates, under the Clinton rates and the difference in the two as well as your effective tax rate. Someone who just reaches the top bracket (around $370K if I remember correctly) would not pay 35% of their income in taxes. Their effective tax rate (according to my document) would be around 29%. This would be ignoring deductions and other affects on their rate.

[stephkyle7]

the important thing to note regarding those higher tax rates for the wealthy is that by putting less of the burden to achieve our revenue goals on the poor and middle class,it frees up more money for them to spend in the economy which stimulates more growth.

The notion that we dont WANT to tax "job Creators" is absolute nonsense, people dont make hireing decisions based on an effective tax rate(lol) the hire when people buy their products or services...we could tax them at 60 % and if there was a huge demand for what they were selling they would hire as many people as neccessary to meet demand.
That is another Lie the RT. likes to tell.
Just be honest, just say you dont think its fair...dont make sh up to trick people....

[Sota4Ever]

Haha you never seize to amaze me.

[Angry Norwegian]

I always seize to amaze.

[stephkyle7]

right?(lol)

The sad part is that he actually belives what he thinks...

[Sota4Ever]

Ha my bad cease..

[stephkyle7]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...4b8asZTrphqeJw

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://j...dIED4VhMfEFpRg

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...0MM-BSkvHxSWmw

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...WTimpHQlO4oPjQ


do you EVER look into a thought you have?

[Sota4Ever]

I wasn't talking about your answer at all. I was talking about how so off base the answer was and how you still found a way to blame the rt wing. It is just comical at this point.

If the question was would raising tax rates effect economic growth, then hey your answer is perfect for what you think and many others think.

[stephkyle7]

Blame the RT. wing?

Show me where I blamed the RT. wing pal.
I simply pointed out that one of thier most relied upon talking points ia an absolute unequivical lie.

Then I suggested they might garner more support and respect for their goals if the were honest instead of trying to intimidate and threaten people into voting for them.

If you dont vote for us, youll all be unemployed and homeless by years end ,isnt a positive message(lol).

The op interest in the effective tax rate of the 50-70s led me to assume a deeper context to the conversation he was having then he implied,so if anything, I made an assumption as to a debate regarding perspective ,rather then a simple yes or no...If I overstepped your interest KoB, I apologize.

You seem to be bothered by the truth Sota, Im afraid Icant help you there, it is what it is.

[valade16]

I don't understand why there is this belief that the Uber Rich have to hoard money and decrease investments if their taxes are raised.

It's almost like the philosophy is "I have to be a money making jerk, it's in my nature, if you tax me more I'm just going to be a bigger jerk, because it is not an option for me to make less money".

Why is that not an option? Are they going to go broke? Bankrupt? Heck, the earning potential (and spending power) of the Middle Class has dropped drastically since 2000. So the over-arching message is "The Uber Rich shouldn't have to make less money but it's Ok if you do".

Does anyone else feel this way?

[stephkyle7]

^clearly....
If your poor, the reason is your lazy and the solution is to increase your burden, make you work harder, deny you any "help".

If your wealthy, then the reason is you work hard, and if we want "MORE" results from You then the solution is to give you MORE help, lower taxes, less regulations etc.

Poor=harder
Rich= easier
It makes perfect sense.....

[GasMan]

I was talking with some coworkers about the tax rates of 50-60-70 years ago and how the rate was up to 90 percent. One of them said this meant if you made a million dollars then the gov took 900K and you kept 100K. Is that right? I was under the impression that we all start at the same percent but once you hit certain thresholds of earnings (like 250K), THEN every dollar after would apply to the much higher rate. If anyone could clarify this for me I'd appreciate it.

While the marginal tax rate was very high at its peak, the income bracket was at a much higher level then now so a very small number of people even qualified.

[KnicksorBust]

Blame the RT. wing?

Show me where I blamed the RT. wing pal.
I simply pointed out that one of thier most relied upon talking points ia an absolute unequivical lie.

Then I suggested they might garner more support and respect for their goals if the were honest instead of trying to intimidate and threaten people into voting for them.

If you dont vote for us, youll all be unemployed and homeless by years end ,isnt a positive message(lol).

The op interest in the effective tax rate of the 50-70s led me to assume a deeper context to the conversation he was having then he implied,so if anything, I made an assumption as to a debate regarding perspective ,rather then a simple yes or no...If I overstepped your interest KoB, I apologize.

You seem to be bothered by the truth Sota, Im afraid Icant help you there, it is what it is.

No worries. Once the question was answered there was only one place that it could go after that anyway.