The Glade 4.0

Because I have this bad habit of expecting posters to read and remember threads in which they post ...

_________________

So, in case I were to follow the advice in this thread, which advice, specifically, is "some seriously bad advice"?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The tax brackets confuse a lot of people. Here's a better way of looking at it.

http://www.hilliard.com/marketing/Brochures/950_Tax_Tables_CurrentYr.pdf

Good link Arathain.

Edit:
Just so I've got it right, someone making 55k/yr and filing single would owe $9,875? Prior to any other adjustments, that is.

Double Edit:
So you're basically **** if you're making 34k and get a raise lower than like 38k?

Well, that doesn't help him very much.

Specifically, he's CLEARLY misunderstanding the tax brackets and how they work. Any advice that centers on reducing his taxable income without correcting his misunderstandings isn't doing him much of a favor, IMO. Some of this would likely even reinforce his misunderstanding.

If you don't consider that bad advice, that's fine. It's certainly not answering his question.

If single.

It seems this is pretty true with the [incorrect] tax tables I linked in addition to the pdf Arathain linked.


Unless I'm missing something?

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

I'll be honest, I didn't even seriously consider the idea that he didn't understand that taxes only increased on income above the limit. I most definitely don't consider any advice that lowers his tax burden "seriously bad advice" I could have used some when I was his age.


Seems like it answered his question to me:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, not at all. According to the link, if you make 34k, you're paying $850+15% of everything over $8500. That's $850+0.15*($34000-$8500)=$4675. After tax income is $34,000-$4,675=$29,325.

If you get a $1,000 raise, and you are now making $35,000, you're paying $4,750+25% of everything over $34,500. That's $4,750+0.25*($35,000-$34,500)=$4,875. So your taxes go up (of course), but your take home is now $35,000-$4,875=$30,125.

So yes, you pay more in taxes, but you bring more home in the end.

Thanks Arathain that clears it up. So it appears I have nothing to worry about as far as getting shafted for being at the bottom of the bracket. I'll have to do some more math later...

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

And... You've near entirely missed the point...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

And... it's improper to start a sentence beginning with the word "and"...





But... I will seek professional advice.


Because your nerves will be calmed by the action of myself seeking professional advice.


Don't worry, I only use forums to spark ideas, not as 100% guaranteed reliable financial advice, so you can now rest easy.


Clearly there are different opinions in the thread that could be equally believable, so I'll have to talk to someone who gets paid to know what they're talking about. Apparently that's the only way to get real help without attitude and vague replies starting with the word "and". I don't blame them, though; that's why I'm here. Money.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Like I said, the only thing that can hurt you is mostly nominal and related to credits or other tax shift policies that work on top of the progressive brackets.

_________________

You're still losing money if you don't contribute to a tax deferred retirement account.

Lots.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I already contribute to a 401k for max company match.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

Good. 30 years from now you'll look back on this as being one of the best decisions you've ever made. The internet is a lousy place to go searching for financial advice, as you're likely to find constant contradiction. Additionally, for those of us actually qualified to give you direct advice, it is likely a breach of our contracts to do so, and in some cases would even be illegal.

I wish you the best, and will be available to answer and general questions you may run into about selecting an advisor to work with, as I'm sure will Vindi and several others.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That's not true at all.

By all means, feel free to do what the internet tells you. It's your money to lose.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Just curious, what is required to be "actually qualified" to give financial advise?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Depends on the type of advice.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Financial advise of the type you're qualified to give.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The reason I ask is 'cause of this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45221933/ns ... his-house/

Some people appear to be highly qualified to give advise, but I wonder what is REALLY required. I found this guy's rationalizations just as disturbing as his financial decisions.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I would start with a degree in either economics or finance. Series 6, 63, 65 and 7 licences minimally, and I'd say atleast having LUCTF and CFP designations. Add to that, state specific licencing, registration with both FINRA and the SEC, association with a registered principle, and a BCI check coupled with malpractice insurance.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20