The Glade 4.0

That's a common misconception. That's not how it works.

You pay 0% on your first X1 dollars.
Then you pay Y1% on your next X2 dollars.
Then you pay Y2% on your next X3 dollars.

And so on with each bracket. If you pop over the bottom of the next higher bracket, it doesn't hurt you. You only pay a higher % on the amount over the lower limit of that bracket.

Otherwise, it would be **** and people would ask their employers for payroll cuts.

I think he understands that. His post seems to be worded to show how much of the $30k only is being taxed.

But the way Xeq has tried to conclude this little charade is misleading. All the state income, SS, Medicare, local taxes and sales taxes also apply to the first $70k as well, in addition to however the federal tax schedule applies to $70k. I'd guess it's around a composite of 18-20%.

So, effectively, the first $70k is taxed, not at only 18-20%, but to be fair to your 52% number, about 42-44%, which compares more favorably to the 52%.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It still amazes me that you guys pay almost as much taxes as we do, yet get none of the benifits...

That the public outcry over health care is at least as much about fears drummed up (and then repeated) by people who didn't (and still dont) understand whats being proposed to begin with.

(then again, I don't think the supporters understand it much better) But when someone doesn't understand something its FAR easier to scare them away from it than encourage them to take it.

See, and this is the problem the Democrats have that some of us keep talking about: they (and apparently you) seem to have this belief that ire over the healthcare overhaul proposal stems only from ignorance, misconceptions, or having been deceived.

Let me tell you: this perception is wrong.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The issue is you're really not paying federal income taxes on the first $70k and are probably paying much less state income tax because that has tax brackets just like federal tax. That chart shows there's a significant amount of people in the 50k-100k bracket that do not pay federal income taxes. The way you can make $70k and not pay federal income taxes is deductions. Deductions are a flat amount subtracted, they don't scale with your income. So if your income goes up, deductions stop applying and you get hit with the full tax burden on the extra income. The issue is a person making $30k alone would be in a very low federal tax bracket and could probably get it all back anyway, and they'd be in a very low state income tax bracket. They're really only paying the SS/medicare tax. But the spouse of someone already making $70k gets hit with the full amount of everything, making it rather pointless for them to bother working at all.

The whole point is there's a huge difference between "70k income, pay no federal income tax" and "30k income, pay no federal income tax."

I don't see why it's any more of a problem that some parts of the public have failed to educate themselves on this issue than on any other. I also don't see why it's bad that people who don't understand something would reject it. The people who don't understand ti generally do understand something: government programs are complex, obtuse, and contain a lot of hidden language.

Even if you don't understand what's being proposed, it's pretty easy to grasp that the people voting on it don't either becuse it's this unweildy codex of convoluted legislation. That's a good reason to reject it in and of itself - don't you get suspicious if someone tells you "just sign here" on something you haven't read, or have read but don't understand?

Yes, people are afraid of this healthcare legislation they don't understand- with good reason. They don't trust the government not to sneak in major new background taxes or other requirements in disguise. They don't have to understand what's being proposed to understand that what is being proposed is suspicious, or to demand that something understandable be presented o them.

The fact that the supporters don't understand it better speaks volumes. Supporters who don't understand it are acting blindly, demand action of any kind, thinking it just has to be better because they've already decided that public healthcare is necessarily better.

Just because people are acting out of fear doesn't mean they are acting foolishly. It's quite reasonable to fear that the promises are bunk and that hidden costs and consequences will make this a bad deal.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I dont think Ire stems only from ignorance. But you seem to be of the opinion that someone cannot understand the bill and vote for it, so you're in the same boat.

but its a great deal easier to scare someone who doesn't understand something than it is to energize them about it.

if we assume that there are a similar number of educated people out there who support some version of the bill as oppose it. (not an entirely unreasonable assumption, the house and senate is filled with highly educated people) then what it comes down to is both sides ability to sway an uneducated public opinion.

No, now the issue is you apparently cannot do math, can't be bothered to do math, or are just purposefully being misleading. The first $70k would have you paying $9,875, or about 14.1% ... hardly "really not paying". Particularly when you consider that the $30k beyond that pays exactly 25% (the 25% bracket on a 2009 Federal Income Tax Schedule is $67,900, in case you are too lazy to look that up, too) on that $30k, and a composite rate of 17.37% on that total $100,000. I find it pretty dishonest to say that's "not paying federal income taxes" when the two numbers compare favorably.

Additionally, some states have tax schedules are flat, and some are effectively flat, because the second tier (or third tier in the case of a 0% tier existing) doesn't effect 99% of people working for a living.



Except I didn't contest any of that to not be the case at all. You simply compared the Federal income tax applicable to the first $70k (14.1%) to the total tax burden of the additional $30k which includes state income taxes, sales taxes, local taxes which amount to over 50%. That is grossly misleading. It's also grossly poor reasoning to say that the "deductions stop applying". You just now have additional taxable income which may or may not be subject to a higher bracket.

And deductions are deductions: anyone can use them, and it is reasonable to say that most of the working class take advantage of the same deductions, write-offs and write-downs, and they compare reasonably well in terms of magnitude. What you are trying to articulate is that the "marginal revenue" of additional income dencrease sharply beyond the point where deductions nullify taxable income. But that statement has in several built in assumptions: one, that people deduct enough of their taxable income to be the case; I find this unbelivable, I don't know a single person who comes even close. Two, that an output unit of an hour of labor, is equal between jobs. I'd wager that they aren't. Three, marginal cost analysis has nothing to do with PPF (production potential/possibility frontier). You are basically advocating underutilization, or saying that the working class advocates underutilization to optimize the marginal cost/revenue aspect.

Guess what? Yea people are lazy, but they have bills to pay, a shrinking and increasingly marginalized salary due to inflation and more and more, society feels entitled to more gadgets and creature comforts. I reject your entire argument.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

What are you talking about?



As it should be.



And?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

TheRiov:

Have you seen the text of the bill? What do you know about the contents of the Senate or the House Bill that passed? I'll note that coming by the full text of the latter, which should be a matter of public record, seems nearly, if not entirely, impossible. If our legislature is intent on passing legislation that the public cannot review, why are they doing so? What does the legislature have to gain from keeping legislation from public review?

I'll note that the only reason I need to oppose any legislation is failure of Congressional disclosure.

_________________

a) I'm not coming out on one side or the other of the healthcare debate. I have not voiced an opinion on the pros and cons of the proposed bill
b) I am mearly stating that loss in mass. has more to do with a successful PR campaign than any public outcry over the actual text of the health care package

That's a huge cauldron of bullshit. The entire health care bill, TARP, Emergency Stabilization Act, PATRIOT, etc. where all pushed through on the basis of fear. Fear of the result of inaction. Basically, all you want to say is that disingenous and dishonest tactics are being used to push through things some things, and others have not employed such tactics to gain acceptance.

You're right to say that the public outcry over health care has much to do about drummed up fears - it has to do with drummed up fears by people who blindly support it for fear of inaction. If you purport that anyone in Congress or anywhere else could possibly understand the entire far-reaching and perverse effects this bill will have, then I find that laughably naive.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

In his face!

_________________
The Dude abides.

I disagree with a lot, if not most, of President Obama's positions and the direction he thinks this country to proceed, and keeping in mind he is a politician, but does have a tendency to say exactly the right things for the situation and presents himself to have an understanding that his way is not the only way... I respect the position he portrayed, real or not, when he said:

It has nothing to do with math. The source stated that 16% of households with 50-100k in income pay zero federal income tax. It doesn't say 70k specifically, no, but it's not unreasonable to assume that some at that income level are included given that info. That means the 70k household is not paying $9,875, they are paying zero, unless the chart is wrong. Whatever their "composite rate" is is irrelevant because they're not paying federal income tax at all due to deductions. My whole point is that as soon as the flat-amount deductions run out, they immediately hit the 25% bracket or higher on all subsequent income because, like you said, it applies to all income over $67,900.



I'm aware that different states have different state taxes. That's why I said California specifically, they have a progressive state tax just like the federal system. The $70k household that is stated to pay no federal income tax has a total state income tax burden of about 5% on that 70k. The total taxes actually paid on the first $70k considering everything I listed there is between 19 and 20 percent. The only assumption I made that could be considered misleading to come up with 52% for the subsequent $30k is that the deductions run out at exactly $70k of income. That's a fairly big one, yes, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that at this income point you've deducted almost everything you can to stay at zero federal income tax liability.

No, unequivocably, no. Tax deductions reduce your tax liability through decreasing your taxable income. If someone manages to deduct $70k, then the next $30 isn't considered $70k-$100k. The $70k was deducted.

Moreover, you are arguing that the marginal revenues decrease to the point where it's not worth ones time to work. But this is based purely on deductions. Deductions are changed all the time and the tax schedules as well. Like I previously stated, you are arguing that underutilization is worth optimizing the marginal cost/revenues optimization point to the working class in terms of their time and labor. I find that to be a load of ****.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

To be fair, tax credits, instead of deductions, do cause break points in which it would be economically advantageous to get paid slightly less.

However, the break points are not recognized by the majority of people, and trying to plan your salary/income around meeting the wide range of those credits would be agonizing and stupid.

True, credits reduce tax liability, but not through reduction of taxable income.

But he specifically said deductions.

However, regardless of break points with credits or deductions, you will always keep some % of what you earn, so getting paid more always means you net more income.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Then your perception of my position is flawed.

I don't believe that people who understand the bill and desire to follow the Constitution could vote for it.



1) The Congress is indeed full of highly educated, ideologically motivated, willfully ignorant people, yes.

2) Again, you're assuming the public are uneducated as to the bill's contents. This is incorrect.



Look, the people (as an aggragate) have little-to-no understanding of the complexities of healthcare. So much so that I often have trouble holding conversations about the topic with them, because I'm an impatient ***. What they do understand about the bill though, is both correct and the only things they really need to understand: 1) it isn't Constitutional, 2) it won't improve access or quality, 3) it will increase cost, 4) it will come with punitive taxation, and 5) it will create greater inequity through class warfare.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

On your view

No, those are factual statements, most of which have been put out by multiple independent agencies.

There is no opinion involved in what I stated.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Lol.



Horseshit.



You don't know. Experts that know a hell of a lot more about this industry than you have said other wise.


Horseshit. The CBO projected massive savings over the course of a decade for the House and Senate bill (more for the house, less for the senate)



Horseshit spin. It's not punitive taxation. It's a requirement to be covered by a future date, and a fine if you don't carry insurance. You can *call* that a tax if you want to, but you're not really correct.




Ideological claptrap horseshit. Stop stating your own opinions as objective facts, DFK.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Nice handwaving.

I trust DFK on healthcare more than you.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I don't know. Monte probably knows first aid; he is a fencing instructor after all, and in all physical activities, injury is a risk.

I'd say they're close to equal.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones