if i put 1mil in the bank and i get 70k a year how much tax do i pay on that 70k

Powered by

A poster at real clear politics said this: "president obama’s arguments for the tax hike are unpersuasive. he says an extension would add to the deficit, wouldn’t be fair, and wouldn’t help the economy. the deficit argument is laughable. the cost of extending tax rates for the poor and middle class dwarfs the cost of extending them for the rich. a president serious about fiscal austerity would want all of the tax cuts to expire, or propose offsets in spending." i'm curious about whether this is correct? austin goolesby said the other day that extending the bush tax cuts for earners over 200k/year would cost about $700 billion. so that's $700 billion distributed among how many people? and what is the cost of letting the folks under $200k/year keep the bush tax rates? and that's distributed among how many people? and where is there a greater multiplier effect and a greater velocity of money, among the rich, or among the not so rich? who spends new marginal revenue faster the rich or the poor? so giving which group the taxbreak is likely to create more demand in a demand starved economy? [editorial note: you can't solve demand side problems with supply side (trickle down) solutions. in 1980 the usa faced a supply-side problem, and reagan rightly solved it with a supply side solution (laffer curve based). but not all problems can be solved with the same solution. let's make the world as simple as possible .... but not simpler ..... doh!]

If you consider letting people keep more of their own money and not taking it for tax as a "cost", then since the total "cost" is around 4 trillion, and $700 billion of that is for the people over the $200K limit, the "cost" of letting those below that keep the cuts is a little over 3 trillion

Powered by

So that those making under $200k can pay less, the gop calls that class warfare?... but if the gop says they want those making more than $200k per year to pay less taxes and raise them on those earning less than $200k, the gop says that is not class warfare?

They're just being typical politicians. They'll say whatever garbage they need to to try and convince the public that they are representing their interests rather than those of the rich who bankroll them. They can't make working people pay for the mistakes of the super-rich forever. Sooner or later there will be a backlash, like there was in Wisconsin.

Powered by

Yes. The average person making $40-$60k a year pays about 35%-40% of their income in combining Fed, State and Local taxes. Now, for the past 25 years, take that to the $125k range, and these folks, because of increased entrance to tax deductions, can afford to only pay 20% to 30% of their income. Put that up to the folks over $200k and the number decrases to between 3% and 11%. This is again, because they are financially able to hide their income in vehicles that provide a tax deduction, tax loss, or write-off. While the rates might be higher for those over $200k, the realities are starkly different.

Powered by

The queen gets 40 million a year,obama gets 200k a year.c'mon obama the queen is a ruthless dictator she dosen't do anything but demands tribute. lets go over there and liberate those people shes in leauge wth kadife and hussein

yeah, and those buck toothed tea swillers have the audacity to look down on us.. haha.. pasty faced twits..

Powered by

How much does it cost to let earners below 200k/year pay taxes at the bush taxcuts rates? a poster at real clear politics said this: "president obama’s arguments for the tax hike are unpersuasive. he says an extension would add to the deficit, wouldn’t be fair, and wouldn’t help the economy. the deficit argument is laughable. the cost of extending tax rates for the poor and middle class dwarfs the cost of extending them for the rich. a president serious about fiscal austerity would want all of the tax cuts to expire, or propose offsets in spending." i'm curious about whether this is correct? austin goolesby said the other day that extending the bush tax cuts for earners over 200k/year would cost about $700 billion. so that's $700 billion distributed among how many people? and what is the cost of letting the folks under $200k/year keep the bush tax rates? and that's distributed among how many people? and where is there a greater multiplier effect and a greater velocity of money, among the rich, or among the not so rich? who spends new marginal revenue faster the rich or the poor? so giving which group the taxbreak is likely to create more demand in a demand starved economy? [editorial note: you can't solve demand side problems with supply side (trickle down) solutions. in 1980 the usa faced a supply-side problem, and reagan rightly solved it with a supply side solution (laffer curve based). but not all problems can be solved with the same solution. let's make the world as simple as possible .... but not simpler ..... doh!]

The $700 bilion is the amount that would be added to the budget deficit over a 10 year period which was the length of time for the Bush tax cuts. No one has publicly mentioned the cost of retaining the lower tax rates for lower income people under $250K but I think it would be neglible. The tax difference is 3.8%. If you earn $500 a week, it is a little bit different. The difference in tax rate reductions is spent by the lower income people quickly. But that does not help the whole demand for items because those are low priced items. I think the deficit is very serious. The added tax is 3.8% for dividends, capital gains, and personal tax on that portion of income exceeding $250K or $500K for couples. It is a return to the 1999 tax rates. Reverting to a previous tax rate is not the same as a tax increase even though for a small percent of people they will pay more tax.

Powered by

How much does it cost to let earners below 200k/year pay taxes at the bush taxcuts rates? a poster at real clear politics said this: "president obama’s arguments for the tax hike are unpersuasive. he says an extension would add to the deficit, wouldn’t be fair, and wouldn’t help the economy. the deficit argument is laughable. the cost of extending tax rates for the poor and middle class dwarfs the cost of extending them for the rich. a president serious about fiscal austerity would want all of the tax cuts to expire, or propose offsets in spending." i'm curious about whether this is correct? austin goolesby said the other day that extending the bush tax cuts for earners over 200k/year would cost about $700 billion. so that's $700 billion distributed among how many people? and what is the cost of letting the folks under $200k/year keep the bush tax rates? and that's distributed among how many people? and where is there a greater multiplier effect and a greater velocity of money, among the rich, or among the not so rich? who spends new marginal revenue faster the rich or the poor? so giving which group the taxbreak is likely to create more demand in a demand starved economy? [editorial note: you can't solve demand side problems with supply side (trickle down) solutions. in 1980 the usa faced a supply-side problem, and reagan rightly solved it with a supply side solution (laffer curve based). but not all problems can be solved with the same solution. let's make the world as simple as possible .... but not simpler ..... doh!]

The tax cuts that cost 700 Billion are for the top 3%, so assuming america has 300 million people, 3% is 9,000,000. The rest of the tax cuts, affecting most of the rest of the country, totals more than 1 trillion. That seems better able to stimulate demand. If we give people more money, they will blow it on crap. However, American jobs are needed to create the crap so it will work!

Powered by

Based on that why should i pay a higher percentage as well?

The $20,000 person loses more disposable income percentage, than the $200,000 person. That's why the graduated income tax exists.

Powered by

If i made 250k this year and saved 200k for a house, and i plan to buy a house early next year for 200k but if i pay self-employed fed & state tax i won't have enough money to buy it for cash. should i buy the house and file an extension to pay it a few months later?

An extension only gives you more time to prepare your return and file. It doesn't give you an extension on time to pay what you owe - that's still due on the original 4/15 date.

Powered by

I have 8k in ira and my company does not have a 401k plan and they do not intend to have one in teh future. i rent and do not plan to own a home for some specific reasons

u need to open another ira

Powered by

Health care?

My duty is to support my family. Any charity should be voluntary, not compulsory. Charity is NOT the job of the government.