Take the income tax quiz!!!

[Immanuel]

100,001*.3-100,000*.15=Answer A.

Point being?

I know you are joking. At least I hope you are joking.

Under the U.S. Tax Code the answer would be .30

Taxpayer A taxes would equal 15,000 = 100,000 * .15

Taxpayer B taxes would equal 15,000.30 = (100,000 * .15) + (1*.30)

Of course that is assuming that the 100,000 and 100,001 are taxable wages and not gross or adjusted gross wages.

Under your tax theory one would be deeply penalized for making one extra dollar.

Immie

This is a hypothetical situation. The reality is that with the massive amount of tax deductions, credits, loop holes, and shelters available the only person to blame for the $100,001 dollar tax payer paying so much more is... himself. If he wrote a check to a church, he could dip under that level easily.

If you're on the cusp of the bracket, and you end up in the higher bracket, that's your own poor planning. Period.

This reminds of the students that come begging for an "A" when they have an 89%. At some point you have to accept that your own poor planning put you in this mess.

The OP is trying to show that a progressive tax system is unfair... and he may have a case if it weren't for the enormous opportunities out there to encourage people to invest, give, etc, and end up in a lower bracket.

Except that SpidermanTuba was asking what the difference in income taxes would be for taxpayer A and B. Under our system there are tax brackets. Under the hypothetical in the OP taxpayer B would only pay $15,000.30.

My impression of what the OP was trying to show was how many people understood how the current tax system worked. I may be wrong on that, but if so, he did not give enough information.

Immie

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Are people seriously this stupid?

YES they ARE!!!!!


O.K. peeps here is what SOME of you don't get. When you enter a higher tax bracket the higher tax rate is applied ONLY to the amount of earnings ABOVE that $ amount of the higher tax bracket. DO YOU GET IT!!!??? DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!??? In the above example taxpayer B is taxed at 30% on the ONE DOLLAR above 100K NOTHING MORE!!!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I know you are joking. At least I hope you are joking.

Under the U.S. Tax Code the answer would be .30

Taxpayer A taxes would equal 15,000 = 100,000 * .15

Taxpayer B taxes would equal 15,000.30 = (100,000 * .15) + (1*.30)

Of course that is assuming that the 100,000 and 100,001 are taxable wages and not gross or adjusted gross wages.

Under your tax theory one would be deeply penalized for making one extra dollar.

Immie

This is a hypothetical situation. The reality is that with the massive amount of tax deductions, credits, loop holes, and shelters available the only person to blame for the $100,001 dollar tax payer paying so much more is... himself. If he wrote a check to a church, he could dip under that level easily.

If you're on the cusp of the bracket, and you end up in the higher bracket, that's your own poor planning. Period.

This reminds of the students that come begging for an "A" when they have an 89%. At some point you have to accept that your own poor planning put you in this mess.

The OP is trying to show that a progressive tax system is unfair... and he may have a case if it weren't for the enormous opportunities out there to encourage people to invest, give, etc, and end up in a lower bracket.

So you answered 'A'?

You probably think you can increase your total take home pay by making cash donations to churches. If so - continue to donate to charity, that's great - but please don't vote.

As you laid it out, the answer is a.

If you wanted a different answer you should have said this:

Let your income be "X"

Your tax burden is:

Bracket 1: 0.15X if X is less than or equal to $100,000
Bracket 2: 15,000+0.30(X-100,000) if X > 100,000.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I know you are joking. At least I hope you are joking.

Under the U.S. Tax Code the answer would be .30

Taxpayer A taxes would equal 15,000 = 100,000 * .15

Taxpayer B taxes would equal 15,000.30 = (100,000 * .15) + (1*.30)

Of course that is assuming that the 100,000 and 100,001 are taxable wages and not gross or adjusted gross wages.

Under your tax theory one would be deeply penalized for making one extra dollar.

Immie

This is a hypothetical situation. The reality is that with the massive amount of tax deductions, credits, loop holes, and shelters available the only person to blame for the $100,001 dollar tax payer paying so much more is... himself. If he wrote a check to a church, he could dip under that level easily.

If you're on the cusp of the bracket, and you end up in the higher bracket, that's your own poor planning. Period.

This reminds of the students that come begging for an "A" when they have an 89%. At some point you have to accept that your own poor planning put you in this mess.

The OP is trying to show that a progressive tax system is unfair... and he may have a case if it weren't for the enormous opportunities out there to encourage people to invest, give, etc, and end up in a lower bracket.

Except that SpidermanTuba was asking what the difference in income taxes would be for taxpayer A and B. Under our system there are tax brackets. Under the hypothetical in the OP taxpayer B would only pay $15,000.30.

My impression of what the OP was trying to show was how many people understood how the current tax system worked. I may be wrong on that, but if so, he did not give enough information.

Immie

I'm not sure what his point is. As he worded it, the answer is A. If he wanted to better approximate reality, he needed to work harder on his wording.

 

[Immanuel]

100,001*.3-100,000*.15=Answer A.

Point being?

I know you are joking. At least I hope you are joking.

Under the U.S. Tax Code the answer would be .30

Taxpayer A taxes would equal 15,000 = 100,000 * .15

Taxpayer B taxes would equal 15,000.30 = (100,000 * .15) + (1*.30)

Of course that is assuming that the 100,000 and 100,001 are taxable wages and not gross or adjusted gross wages.

Under your tax theory one would be deeply penalized for making one extra dollar.

Immie

Re-read your comment. The way he's laid it out, the answer is a. You are correct, under the US tax code, which is a wonderful example of a piecewise defined function, the answer is $0.30.

I'm just curious what the point of the OP is. The hypothetical situation laid out in no way describes reality, so what is the point of getting worked up by it?

See post #21 as to how I read the OP.

It is, of course possible that the OP was actually intending to throw the wrench in there that he really meant was that taxable income over 100,000 would be fully taxed at 30%, but I do not believe that is what he was attempting to do.

Immie

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The way he's laid it out, the answer is a.

Wrong

You are correct, under the US tax code, which is a wonderful example of a piecewise defined function, the answer is $0.30.

The IRS describes tax brackets in the exact same manner as I have.

 

[Immanuel]

The way he's laid it out, the answer is a.

Wrong

You are correct, under the US tax code, which is a wonderful example of a piecewise defined function, the answer is $0.30.

The IRS describes tax brackets in the exact same manner as I have.

Do they now?

I've understood the bracket system for a long time, so I don't remember how they describe it, but if it is exactly like you did, I wonder if they are not deliberately attempting to trick us.

Immie

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This is a hypothetical situation. The reality is that with the massive amount of tax deductions, credits, loop holes, and shelters available the only person to blame for the $100,001 dollar tax payer paying so much more is... himself. If he wrote a check to a church, he could dip under that level easily.

If you're on the cusp of the bracket, and you end up in the higher bracket, that's your own poor planning. Period.

This reminds of the students that come begging for an "A" when they have an 89%. At some point you have to accept that your own poor planning put you in this mess.

The OP is trying to show that a progressive tax system is unfair... and he may have a case if it weren't for the enormous opportunities out there to encourage people to invest, give, etc, and end up in a lower bracket.

So you answered 'A'?

You probably think you can increase your total take home pay by making cash donations to churches. If so - continue to donate to charity, that's great - but please don't vote.

As you laid it out, the answer is a.

If you wanted a different answer you should have said this:

Let your income be "X"

Your tax burden is:

Bracket 1: 0.15X if X is less than or equal to $100,000
Bracket 2: 15,000+0.30(X-100,000) if X > 100,000.

I said they were tax brackets. All you had to do is apply the definition of a tax bracket.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So you answered 'A'?

You probably think you can increase your total take home pay by making cash donations to churches. If so - continue to donate to charity, that's great - but please don't vote.

As you laid it out, the answer is a.

If you wanted a different answer you should have said this:

Let your income be "X"

Your tax burden is:

Bracket 1: 0.15X if X is less than or equal to $100,000
Bracket 2: 15,000+0.30(X-100,000) if X > 100,000.

I said they were tax brackets. All you had to do is apply the definition of a tax bracket.

Tax Bracket

Definition
The level of income tax of a given individual, as indicated by the amount of taxes he/she pays on his/her final dollar of taxable income. also called marginal tax bracket or tax rate.

Nothing I see there implies your formula.

 

[Oldandtired]

So you answered 'A'?

You probably think you can increase your total take home pay by making cash donations to churches. If so - continue to donate to charity, that's great - but please don't vote.

As you laid it out, the answer is a.

If you wanted a different answer you should have said this:

Let your income be "X"

Your tax burden is:

Bracket 1: 0.15X if X is less than or equal to $100,000
Bracket 2: 15,000+0.30(X-100,000) if X > 100,000.

I said they were tax brackets. All you had to do is apply the definition of a tax bracket.

On the Northway as I type this.

We are fucked as a country...a bunch of lazy fat idiots.

 

[Immanuel]

So you answered 'A'?

You probably think you can increase your total take home pay by making cash donations to churches. If so - continue to donate to charity, that's great - but please don't vote.

As you laid it out, the answer is a.

If you wanted a different answer you should have said this:

Let your income be "X"

Your tax burden is:

Bracket 1: 0.15X if X is less than or equal to $100,000
Bracket 2: 15,000+0.30(X-100,000) if X > 100,000.

I said they were tax brackets. All you had to do is apply the definition of a tax bracket.

I had to go back and look at the OP, to make sure I had not simply assumed you implied there were brackets. Sure enough, you did say brackets.

Immie

PS Sorry, if I spoiled your fun by giving away the answer.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The way he's laid it out, the answer is a.

Wrong

You are correct, under the US tax code, which is a wonderful example of a piecewise defined function, the answer is $0.30.

The IRS describes tax brackets in the exact same manner as I have.

Do they now?

I've understood the bracket system for a long time, so I don't remember how they describe it, but if it is exactly like you did, I wonder if they are not deliberately attempting to trick us.

Immie

There's a reason there are so many tax accountants. The Federal Income Tax is not set up to be user friendly in the least.

 

[Immanuel]

Wrong


The IRS describes tax brackets in the exact same manner as I have.

Do they now?

I've understood the bracket system for a long time, so I don't remember how they describe it, but if it is exactly like you did, I wonder if they are not deliberately attempting to trick us.

Immie

There's a reason there are so many tax accountants. The Federal Income Tax is not set up to be user friendly in the least.

And that is why I say:

"Support the Fair Tax!"

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Immie

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Do they now?

I've understood the bracket system for a long time, so I don't remember how they describe it, but if it is exactly like you did, I wonder if they are not deliberately attempting to trick us.

Immie

There's a reason there are so many tax accountants. The Federal Income Tax is not set up to be user friendly in the least.

And that is why I say:

"Support the Fair Tax!"

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Immie

I'm all for that as long as you eliminate (nearly all) the deductions, credits, and loop holes. If you leave all the gimmicks that are in place now, the only thing a flat tax does is push the tax burden down.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As you laid it out, the answer is a.

If you wanted a different answer you should have said this:

Let your income be "X"

Your tax burden is:

Bracket 1: 0.15X if X is less than or equal to $100,000
Bracket 2: 15,000+0.30(X-100,000) if X > 100,000.

I said they were tax brackets. All you had to do is apply the definition of a tax bracket.

I had to go back and look at the OP, to make sure I had not simply assumed you implied there were brackets. Sure enough, you did say brackets.

Immie

PS Sorry, if I spoiled your fun by giving away the answer.

For crying out loud it doesn't take rocket appliances.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Do they now?

I've understood the bracket system for a long time, so I don't remember how they describe it, but if it is exactly like you did, I wonder if they are not deliberately attempting to trick us.

Immie

There's a reason there are so many tax accountants. The Federal Income Tax is not set up to be user friendly in the least.

And that is why I say:

"Support the Fair Tax!"

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Immie

The tax we have now is "fair" Let me explain why.

A few hundred years ago some people called the "Founding Fathers" decided it would be "fair" to have a democratic-republican form of government. So, in fairness, they put together a Constitution which, in fairness, all the states at the time agreed on. That fairly written Constitution had a fairly written clause in it which allowed for amendment with a 2/3 vote of Congress and a 3/4 vote of the states. So early 20th century the Congress fairly passed the 16th amendment and the states fairly ratified it. This amendment fairly gave the fair Congress fair Constitutional authority to levy tax on income, which they fairly did, and have fairly done so ever since - but only because they were fairly elected by the fair People.

The People put Congress in power. Congress has the authority to tax income. Stop your bitching.

 

[Immanuel]

There's a reason there are so many tax accountants. The Federal Income Tax is not set up to be user friendly in the least.

And that is why I say:

"Support the Fair Tax!"

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Immie

I'm all for that as long as you eliminate (nearly all) the deductions, credits, and loop holes. If you leave all the gimmicks that are in place now, the only thing a flat tax does is push the tax burden down.

Pssst! I said Fair Tax not Flat Tax. The flat tax wouldn't work although it would be better than the convoluted bullshit we have today. The flat tax would not work, because you would still have people that worked under the table and didn't claim income.

Immie

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And that is why I say:

"Support the Fair Tax!"

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Immie

I'm all for that as long as you eliminate (nearly all) the deductions, credits, and loop holes. If you leave all the gimmicks that are in place now, the only thing a flat tax does is push the tax burden down.

Pssst! I said Fair Tax not Flat Tax. The flat tax wouldn't work although it would be better than the convoluted bullshit we have today. The flat tax would not work, because you would still have people that worked under the table and didn't claim income.

Immie

Right, and with the fair tax no one would take cash for goods and not pay the sales tax. Sure.

 

[Immanuel]

There's a reason there are so many tax accountants. The Federal Income Tax is not set up to be user friendly in the least.

And that is why I say:

"Support the Fair Tax!"

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Immie

The tax we have now is "fair" Let me explain why.

A few hundred years ago some people called the "Founding Fathers" decided it would be "fair" to have a democratic-republican form of government. So, in fairness, they put together a Constitution which, in fairness, all the states at the time agreed on. That fairly written Constitution had a fairly written clause in it which allowed for amendment with a 2/3 vote of Congress and a 3/4 vote of the states. So early 20th century the Congress fairly passed the 16th amendment and the states fairly ratified it. This amendment fairly gave the fair Congress fair Constitutional authority to levy tax on income, which they fairly did, and have fairly done so ever since - but only because they were fairly elected by the fair People.

The People put Congress in power. Congress has the authority to tax income. Stop your bitching.

Man, you are fairly off your rocker.

Granted an income tax could be "fair". Our income tax is not fair. It is set up to benefit the rich, and those in political favor, which is okay by me although I am not rich... it gives me something to strive for.

However, I feel that the Fair Tax would be better for those in need, which I am not and hopefully never will be.

Immie

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Our income tax is not fair. It is set up to benefit the rich, which is okay by me although I am not rich... it gives me something to strive for.

However, I feel that the Fair Tax would be better for those in need, which I am not and hopefully never will be.

Immie

Please tell me you are joking.