There was a discussion in one of my other groups and someone said a
couple making $100k was paying 20% income tax. I knew that was BS,
even taking the standard deduction and nothing else. It ends up being
around 8%. (I was paying more like 11% before the tax cut on 100k)
To get to 20%, you need to make over $350,000
From the work sheet at the end of the 2018 tax tables.
minus $24,000 standard deduction
Times .32 tax rate
Minus $36.621 Adjustment for money in lower brackets
That is still only 19.34% of $350k
I think most people would think $360k a year is righteous bucks.
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 1:56:16 AM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
What exactly is an "adjustment for money in lower brackets"?
I looked at it, for $350K you can't use the tables, there is a very
simple sheet there at the end of the tables to figure it out,
you wind up paying $98,190 in tax, which is a rate of 28%, not 19%.
That form you used is for some special circumstances that are stated
at the beginning, not for someone with ordinary income.
On Sun, 26 May 2019 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Look right below the tables and you will see a worksheet that looks
exactly like what I posted. The "adjustment" is because you pay taxes
at the lower rates until you cross each bracket amount and they do
that math for you. You compute at the highest bracket you hit and they
give you the deduction for the money earned at the lower amounts to
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:53:35 AM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Agreed. So, $350K x .35 = 122,500 - 24,310 = 98,190 tax for single
For married, $350K x .32 = 112,000 - 36621 = 75,379
I used single, so it's taxed at an effective 28%. For married, it's 21.5%
IDK where your 19.4% came from, but the biggest difference is that I
calculated it for a single filer and you did it for married. I agree
that especially for a family, ~20% rate is lower than what most people
would think people are paying. Also, if some of that $350K was from
long term capital gains, then it's going to be even lower. I said
all along that Trump's tax cuts were wrong. With those rates plus
greatly increased spending, you get a $1 tril deficit.
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 2:45:34 PM UTC-4, email@example.com wrote:
Oh OK, good point. I didn't follow the whole form, just looked at the
end part, so you're right. Do you agree that someone earning $350K
should be paying more in taxes than 19% when we have a $1 tril deficit?
On Sun, 26 May 2019 12:47:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
I have already said everyone should pay more. (Zero to Jeff and Mrs
I am really just pointing out that 1% really does pay the lions share
of the taxes.
The top 1% pays 30-40% of the taxes and the 5% pays 60% etc.
The bottom 50% pays about 2-3%
Trader, your numbers are for Single. Gfretwell's are for MFJ.
The "adjustment for money in lower brackets" in Column D of the
worksheets are the IRS's new way of adjusting for "first dollar" income
in the lower brackets of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%
The Line 11 worksheet is for any "Taxable Income", after all deductions
and adjustments, over $100,000.
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 12:03:52 PM UTC-4, "\" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yes, that mostly explains it. But still, for a married couple, by
my math it's an effective rate of 21.5%, not 19.4% but whatever, it's
about 20%. It shows people aren't being taxed as much as most people
would think. Which is part of why we now have a $1 tril deficit again.
But up here in Canada, we're not paying an *additional* $1k a month for
health insurance out of our after-tax disposable income.
And in many cases, our property tax / school taxes are way lower than in
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 11:33:00 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
And that's if you're subsidized and with probably a $6K deductible.
I've posted here many times that a friend who runs a small business,
has a family of three, no big health issues and the business is paying
$35K a year for their insurance and it's a decent plan, but not the
best that's offered by the carrier either. And that's for a business group
plan! If you tried to buy it without being in a group, it would be
I'm sure they are lower than they are in NJ. I'm paying $12K on a 3200
sq ft, 3 bedroom house.
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:42:53 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
Are your property taxes based on sq. feet or bedrooms ?
... doesn't market value make more sense ?
In olden days frontage was a factor - because municipal
services ran across the front of the property - 100 ft. frontage
meant 100 ft. of water, sewer, road, sidewalk, etc and should cost
more than 50 ft. frontage.
Down here water and sewer is mostly based on usage with a base
The only time you have to pay "front foot" is if they are putting in
new lines where they didn't have them before. You are basically paying
so much per foot for the pipe in front of your house. Sometimes that
is front foot and sometimes it is just a flat rate hook up fee but it
is always a 5 figure number.
On Sun, 26 May 2019 18:16:22 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
That just shows up on your water bill here as far as I know. I have my
own water. I looked at my neighbors tax bill where the have city water
and I do not see any front foot tax.
Just to make Trader cry. His bill is a little over$12,000 on a 2.1
million dollar 5400 sq ft house. (riverfront on an acre)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.