$249,999.00 Is the Goal

[Jon]

there would be no benefit to pair their business down....the op is utterly ridiculous and i have to wonder if these people mouthing this crap even do their own taxes or understand how the tax structures works?

Sounds to me like they are cluless, absolutely clueless...

let's say your taxable income is $280k instead of the 249.9k, the only extra taxes they would pay in income taxes is the difference between 35% in taxes and 28% in taxes ON THE 30K over the 250k only.

so in this case, for making $30,000 MORE, they will have to pay about $2100 more in taxes than they did under their previous tax structure.

So, for $30k more in taxable income they will pay $10,500 in taxes verses $8400 that they would be paying if the tax break of their bracket did not expire in 2011.

Bringing home almost $20k out of that $30k with the new tax structure....

are you saying that this woman in the article would really keep her own income down to avoid paying a 7% increase on her taxable income over and above the $250k....and she would turn down the $20k extra she could add NET to her yearly earnings?

Bulloneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Care

There are more than monetary factors to take into account. If someone could work less and take a small cut in pay, they will. Taxes are not supposed to change the way taxpayers behave, but they do. Yes, there are some people who work LESS and EARN less because their realized value of that time is less profitable.

Your example assumes a taxpayer forgoes $19,500 in after tax dollars to work less. You tell me. If you make $250,000 a year, would you forgo $19,500 to spend more time with your family and friends and have more leisure time? I sure as hell would.

 

[xsited1]

Just saw this bumper sticker:

"HONK if you're paying my mortgage!"

 

[xsited1]

I bet she's lying.

of course she is.... the wack jobs always lie.

And these idiots, who demand "proof" of Obama's place of birth, (no matter what the supreme court says) believe some unnamed person ....

see how they feel about unnamed sources when it means they have to believe the current administration.

I wouldn't believe these loonies if their tongues were notarized.

And our friend, Annie, is going to LOVE the stimulus bill when it means she has a job next term.

Touched a nerve I see. ABC going out of their way to harm Obama? Nope. You know there's problems here and they weren't of your or my making.

Jillian and Ravi remind me of George W. Bush supporters.

 

[Annie]

of course she is.... the wack jobs always lie.

And these idiots, who demand "proof" of Obama's place of birth, (no matter what the supreme court says) believe some unnamed person ....

see how they feel about unnamed sources when it means they have to believe the current administration.

I wouldn't believe these loonies if their tongues were notarized.

And our friend, Annie, is going to LOVE the stimulus bill when it means she has a job next term.

Touched a nerve I see. ABC going out of their way to harm Obama? Nope. You know there's problems here and they weren't of your or my making.

Jillian and Ravi remind me of George W. Bush supporters.

What do we call the inverse of 'neo-cons'?

 

[xsited1]

Touched a nerve I see. ABC going out of their way to harm Obama? Nope. You know there's problems here and they weren't of your or my making.

Jillian and Ravi remind me of George W. Bush supporters.

What do we call the inverse of 'neo-cons'?

Libtards.

Urban Dictionary: libtard

 

[manu1959]

just saw this bumper sticker:

"honk if you're paying my mortgage!"

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep....

 

[user_name_guest]

I bet if you commit tax fraud, you could have a seat on Obama's cabinet.

Or if you were under the age of 15, you'll have to hide from rayboyusmc's sight. You don't know what that offender is thinking.

 

[Care4all]

Just saw this bumper sticker:

"HONK if you're paying my mortgage!"

well since we own our home out right i guess that would be a loud HONKkkkkkkkkk.....

But we might as well HONK TWICE if you are paying banks to give multi million dollar bonuses

HONK THREE TIMES if you are paying AIG to exist....

and so on and so forth....

 

[Annie]

Just saw this bumper sticker:

"HONK if you're paying my mortgage!"

well since we own our home out right i guess that would be a loud HONKkkkkkkkkk.....

But we might as well HONK TWICE if you are paying banks to give multi million dollar bonuses

HONK THREE TIMES if you are paying AIG to exist....

and so on and so forth....

I wouldn't have bought AIG two years ago, but now I've part stakes in over 80%, against my will.

 

[Valerie]

there would be no benefit to pair their business down....the op is utterly ridiculous and i have to wonder if these people mouthing this crap even do their own taxes or understand how the tax structures works?

Sounds to me like they are cluless, absolutely clueless...

let's say your taxable income is $280k instead of the 249.9k, the only extra taxes they would pay in income taxes is the difference between 35% in taxes and 28% in taxes ON THE 30K over the 250k only.

so in this case, for making $30,000 MORE, they will have to pay about $2100 more in taxes than they did under their previous tax structure.

So, for $30k more in taxable income they will pay $10,500 in taxes verses $8400 that they would be paying if the tax break of their bracket did not expire in 2011.

Bringing home almost $20k out of that $30k with the new tax structure....

are you saying that this woman in the article would really keep her own income down to avoid paying a 7% increase on her taxable income over and above the $250k....and she would turn down the $20k extra she could add NET to her yearly earnings?

Bulloneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Care

Care, I wholeheartedly agree with your take on this.

 

[Annie]

there would be no benefit to pair their business down....the op is utterly ridiculous and i have to wonder if these people mouthing this crap even do their own taxes or understand how the tax structures works?

Sounds to me like they are cluless, absolutely clueless...

let's say your taxable income is $280k instead of the 249.9k, the only extra taxes they would pay in income taxes is the difference between 35% in taxes and 28% in taxes ON THE 30K over the 250k only.

so in this case, for making $30,000 MORE, they will have to pay about $2100 more in taxes than they did under their previous tax structure.

So, for $30k more in taxable income they will pay $10,500 in taxes verses $8400 that they would be paying if the tax break of their bracket did not expire in 2011.

Bringing home almost $20k out of that $30k with the new tax structure....

are you saying that this woman in the article would really keep her own income down to avoid paying a 7% increase on her taxable income over and above the $250k....and she would turn down the $20k extra she could add NET to her yearly earnings?

Bulloneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Care

It's the principle, the disincentives. Guess what? One can be comfortable on 249,999 and by avoiding the crossover, have more leisure time. Why not? Europeans see it in just such a light, and they've been dealing with the disincentives since the 60's. Works well.

 

[Valerie]

there would be no benefit to pair their business down....the op is utterly ridiculous and i have to wonder if these people mouthing this crap even do their own taxes or understand how the tax structures works?

Sounds to me like they are cluless, absolutely clueless...

let's say your taxable income is $280k instead of the 249.9k, the only extra taxes they would pay in income taxes is the difference between 35% in taxes and 28% in taxes ON THE 30K over the 250k only.

so in this case, for making $30,000 MORE, they will have to pay about $2100 more in taxes than they did under their previous tax structure.

So, for $30k more in taxable income they will pay $10,500 in taxes verses $8400 that they would be paying if the tax break of their bracket did not expire in 2011.

Bringing home almost $20k out of that $30k with the new tax structure....

are you saying that this woman in the article would really keep her own income down to avoid paying a 7% increase on her taxable income over and above the $250k....and she would turn down the $20k extra she could add NET to her yearly earnings?

Bulloneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Care

It's the principle, the disincentives. Guess what? One can be comfortable on 249,999 and by avoiding the crossover, have more leisure time. Why not? Europeans see it in just such a light, and they've been dealing with the disincentives since the 60's. Works well.

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

 

[Annie]

there would be no benefit to pair their business down....the op is utterly ridiculous and i have to wonder if these people mouthing this crap even do their own taxes or understand how the tax structures works?

Sounds to me like they are cluless, absolutely clueless...

let's say your taxable income is $280k instead of the 249.9k, the only extra taxes they would pay in income taxes is the difference between 35% in taxes and 28% in taxes ON THE 30K over the 250k only.

so in this case, for making $30,000 MORE, they will have to pay about $2100 more in taxes than they did under their previous tax structure.

So, for $30k more in taxable income they will pay $10,500 in taxes verses $8400 that they would be paying if the tax break of their bracket did not expire in 2011.

Bringing home almost $20k out of that $30k with the new tax structure....

are you saying that this woman in the article would really keep her own income down to avoid paying a 7% increase on her taxable income over and above the $250k....and she would turn down the $20k extra she could add NET to her yearly earnings?

Bulloneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Care

It's the principle, the disincentives. Guess what? One can be comfortable on 249,999 and by avoiding the crossover, have more leisure time. Why not? Europeans see it in just such a light, and they've been dealing with the disincentives since the 60's. Works well.

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

The difference after the taxes between 249k and 350k, wouldn't be enough incentive to give up family time or whatever suits one's fancy. The disincentives come from the idea that the more one earns beyond a certain point, in this case $250k, the more the state will burden one with. Thus, stop. Just stop.

 

[Care4all]

there would be no benefit to pair their business down....the op is utterly ridiculous and i have to wonder if these people mouthing this crap even do their own taxes or understand how the tax structures works?

Sounds to me like they are cluless, absolutely clueless...

let's say your taxable income is $280k instead of the 249.9k, the only extra taxes they would pay in income taxes is the difference between 35% in taxes and 28% in taxes ON THE 30K over the 250k only.

so in this case, for making $30,000 MORE, they will have to pay about $2100 more in taxes than they did under their previous tax structure.

So, for $30k more in taxable income they will pay $10,500 in taxes verses $8400 that they would be paying if the tax break of their bracket did not expire in 2011.

Bringing home almost $20k out of that $30k with the new tax structure....

are you saying that this woman in the article would really keep her own income down to avoid paying a 7% increase on her taxable income over and above the $250k....and she would turn down the $20k extra she could add NET to her yearly earnings?

Bulloneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Care

It's the principle, the disincentives. Guess what? One can be comfortable on 249,999 and by avoiding the crossover, have more leisure time. Why not? Europeans see it in just such a light, and they've been dealing with the disincentives since the 60's. Works well.

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

Well said, I could not have put it better! And this is how i see it as well...especially with the business investment part. which i left out.

Care

 

[dilloduck]

Jesus warned us about loving money.

 

[WillowTree]

FYI,, I heard on Cavuto today that many of the states are contemplating following the Feds by increasing taxes on the rich which may well put their taxes at 50% or more..



I think they should stop working just under 250 grand.. yep!!!

 

[Valerie]

It's the principle, the disincentives. Guess what? One can be comfortable on 249,999 and by avoiding the crossover, have more leisure time. Why not? Europeans see it in just such a light, and they've been dealing with the disincentives since the 60's. Works well.

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

The difference after the taxes between 249k and 350k, wouldn't be enough incentive to give up family time or whatever suits one's fancy. The disincentives come from the idea that the more one earns beyond a certain point, in this case $250k, the more the state will burden one with. Thus, stop. Just stop.

Well, at the very least if so many who earn that much do choose to work less, that will mean more work available for others to endeavor to perform at that level.

FWIW, I would love to see everyone taxed less once we get through this.

 

[WillowTree]

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

The difference after the taxes between 249k and 350k, wouldn't be enough incentive to give up family time or whatever suits one's fancy. The disincentives come from the idea that the more one earns beyond a certain point, in this case $250k, the more the state will burden one with. Thus, stop. Just stop.

Well, at the very least if so many who earn that much do choose to work less, that will mean more work available for others to endeavor to perform at that level.

FWIW, I would love to see everyone taxed less once we get through this.[/QUOTE]




you must be an optimist!

 

[Care4all]

It's the principle, the disincentives. Guess what? One can be comfortable on 249,999 and by avoiding the crossover, have more leisure time. Why not? Europeans see it in just such a light, and they've been dealing with the disincentives since the 60's. Works well.

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

The difference after the taxes between 249k and 350k, wouldn't be enough incentive to give up family time or whatever suits one's fancy. The disincentives come from the idea that the more one earns beyond a certain point, in this case $250k, the more the state will burden one with. Thus, stop. Just stop.

$700 dollars more out of every $10,000 more in taxable income Annie? $700 bucks....more, than if this tax break is not extended....out of every 10k in extra taxable income....

I'm sorry but there is no way that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back....

Maybe this woman just doesn't want to spend her own time trying to make more than $250k and she is comfortable in what she earns now with the time now spent on it, this is possible...

but the $700 dollars more in income tax for every extra $10k earned is NOT the reason to stick to the $249,999....unless she is loony imo....and honestly, she probably should not have her own business to run, IF she has one and if she really believes such....from my own business experience, she doesn't seem cut out for it....it takes a nothing ventured nothing gained attitude... not a complacent, give up, attitude= to succeed in business imo.

Granted i do not know all the circumstances with this woman, but i do know that $700 bucks extra in taxes for every 10k extra earned would not be a sound or logical reason to stop working when you hit the $250k mark.

care

 

[Annie]

I don't believe that individuals who have taxable income exceeding $250k would necessarily have a disincentive to work, for reasons stated by Care, as well as the existence of other incentives intrinsic to these circumstances, such as finding ways to shelter that extra income by either employing more people or increasing existing employee salaries and benefits, or upgrading business equipment, etc.

The difference after the taxes between 249k and 350k, wouldn't be enough incentive to give up family time or whatever suits one's fancy. The disincentives come from the idea that the more one earns beyond a certain point, in this case $250k, the more the state will burden one with. Thus, stop. Just stop.

$700 dollars more out of every $10,000 more in taxable income Annie? $700 bucks....more, than if this tax break is not extended....out of every 10k in extra taxable income....

I'm sorry but there is no way that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back....

Maybe this woman just doesn't want to spend her own time trying to make more than $250k and she is comfortable in what she earns now with the time now spent on it, this is possible...

but the $700 dollars more in income tax for every extra $10k earned is NOT the reason to stick to the $249,999....unless she is loony imo....and honestly, she probably should not have her own business to run, IF she has one and if she really believes such....from my own business experience, she doesn't seem cut out for it....it takes a nothing ventured nothing gained attitude... not a complacent, give up, attitude= to succeed in business imo.

Granted i do not know all the circumstances with this woman, but i do know that $700 bucks extra in taxes for every 10k extra earned would not be a sound or logical reason to stop working when you hit the $250k mark.

care

You are missing the point. The increase in income takes lots of effort, the rewards in standard of living, not worth it regarding the difference. Not like it will buy you enough to change things at this level.