|
-
-
faztcobra
- Addicted Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 11:50a
Me and DW...AGI of $115k...tax rate 11.52% per TurboTax. We normally fall in the 8% range, but DW didn't contribute to 401K last year so we could finish paying off her car. I'd like to get lower, but 8-11% is fair. Oh...1 kid and a house. No student loans. No state taxes (TX). |
-
-
michal1980
- Senior Member - 5K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:08p
dolmar said:michal1980 said: But I geuss someone has to pay america's bills. All those freeloaders.
LOL small % of a big number is still a big number. So not sure how you can call people freeloaders. I paid well over $20k in taxes and more than likely paid more taxes than everyone who has posted so far except Scott. I receive $0 benefits as I did not qualify for low interest student loans from government when I went to college, I make too much to get a rebate check, I never get any benefits at all for my taxes and because I do not pay FICA I can not contribute to IRA or collect SS either.
But I guess with comments like that you consider people paying millions in taxes who effective tax rate is low freeloaders even tho pay more taxes than almost everyone. all your assumptions about me and my post would be false. I know that the 'rich' pay most of the taxes in the country, and get no brakes. And just like I dont think its fair that people pay no taxes/ get money from the feds. I dont think its fair that your precent should decrease even if you pay a large total amount. IMHO, Over a certain floor. I see no problems with everyone paying a fixed percentage. |
-
-
EricGo07
- Senior Member - 1K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:12p
I know that the 'rich' pay most of the taxes in the country, and get no brakes.bedder getta outer there way. Canna STOP !! |
-
-
BrlDsguise
- Frivolous Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:12p
TurboTax backs your 401-K and 125 Plan out of your income when it calculates the effective tax rate. So while mine shows on the cover page of my federal return as 13.61% it is actually about 11% since I contributed $15K to my 401-K plan in 2007 and had $1,300 in 125 plan deductions. |
-
-
dolmar
- Senior Member - 4K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:27p
dsru said:Dolmar, you said "Then I added up all the income shown on K-1+1099I and 1099B that is what I called Gross income."...for the 1099B I hope you don't mean you just used the figure on the 1099B (as opposed to the gain/loss from the sales reported on schedule D). If your using the 1099B number for gross income that is likely very misleading...unless you are subtracting your cost basis My 1099-B shows my gains and interest income from bonds only. As I bought the securities with Citigroup and sold them with Citigroup so they only reported the gain on my 1099-B. |
-
-
dolmar
- Senior Member - 4K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:29p
lorcha said:dolmar said:I paid well over $20k in taxes and more than likely paid more taxes than everyone who has posted so far except Scott.This is definitely false.
54k in taxes 36k in taxes Also, my tax liability will be way over 20k, but I have no idea what it is yet because I only just got all my stuff to my CPA on 3/31 (the deadline to get taxes filed by 4/15). Again not giving the amount of my tax bill out so people can figure out my gross income. I did not catch the person with $54k in taxes. He beat me too. But I was above $36k and under $54k lets say. Like I said a small % of a big number is still a big number. |
-
-
mhesidence
- Cranky Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:37p
Turbox tax sez 10.97% effective tax rate. That's married with three kids, mortgage, property taxes, Flex Health and Childcare accounts, and 401K. I guess the only way to get those really low tax rates is with business deductions. |
-
-
chuzzlewit
- Senior Member - 1K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:55p
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you kind of ignored that pesky AMT worksheet? The case you describe is exactly why they created the Alternative Minimum Tax, so that people can't come up with all sorts of deductions to completely offset all income. InterestedOnlooker said:Gross Income: $80K
Tax: $0
Effective Tax Rate: 0%
Yes, seriously. We had completely legitimate deductions coming out of our ears. The computer program showed when we reached zero & so DH stopped entering anymore of our deductions. We had more to put in but were already at zero. I was stunned.
It was a completely weird year. New baby with health issues meant our family shelled out nearly $10K in out-of-pocket medical expenses (even with decent, not good, but decent insurance). Big charitable contributions. Mortgage interest deduction because we are in a house that is too big for us that we can barely afford. Student loan interest deduction. And the list goes on.
The refund was nice. We try to get as close as possible to zero...not owing or getting a refund. But, DH is already claiming 14 exemptions at work. We're reluctant to stick out like a sore thumb by claiming more. |
-
-
geo123
- Senior Member - 5K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:58p
-
-
Wilco
- Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:59p
21% effective tax rate per TurboTax 3 children + high property tax + mortgage + student loans + long term capital gains ...but income of 290k, and no business deductions, so AMT of 4k. |
-
-
RS4Rings
- Senior Member - 7K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 12:59p
chuzzlewit said:I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you kind of ignored that pesky AMT worksheet? The case you describe is exactly why they created the Alternative Minimum Tax, so that people can't come up with all sorts of deductions to completely offset all income. My deduction total was only $25,171 but still got hit with $5,549 in AMT |
-
-
lorcha
- Cranky Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 1:03p
chuzzlewit said:I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you kind of ignored that pesky AMT worksheet? The case you describe is exactly why they created the Alternative Minimum Tax, so that people can't come up with all sorts of deductions to completely offset all income.InterestedOnlooker already said that he had big charitable contributions and mortgage interest--both of which are allowed under AMT. But don't let that stop you from making your smug commentaries. |
-
-
Shandril
- Frivolous Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 1:31p
Outside of investment income but including home business income, 9.3% Fed rate +3.3% OH rate. Joint filers with 2 kids. It got worse this past year since we switched from 403(b) to Roth 403(b) maxed contributions. Oh well tax savings for later I'm hoping. |
-
-
jameswes
- Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 1:33p
I paid just about 3500 in taxes on income of 70000 for a rate of 5%. Would have done significantly better if my daughter was born 8 days earlier  |
-
-
michal1980
- Senior Member - 5K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 1:40p
dolmar said: Like I said a small % of a big number is still a big number. most people around here agree with you and understand. A bigger % of a big number would be an even bigger number.
I'm part of the club that the percent matters. I dont belive people should be paying 0%. Just as much as I dont believe people should be paying 35+%. Why should some pay tax rates of >~20% on their income, even if the total bill is low. While others can pay <<~20% on their incomve, even if the payment is greater. 10k in taxes to someone making 50k is a greater burden, then 15k in taxes to someone making 100k. |
-
-
dolmar
- Senior Member - 4K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 2:54p
michal1980 said:10k in taxes to someone making 50k is a greater burden, then 15k in taxes to someone making 100k. But the person paying $10k on $50k of income is more than likely getting some benefits while the person paying $15k on $100k is getting no benefits at all. Did you ever think of that? People paying large amounts of taxes are subsidizing the other people. Regardless of the % of there income that tax burden is. If you want to make it fair then make it a flat tax. Everyone pays 20% of there income no matter if you make $10k or $10 million. Everyone gets the same benefits ie rebate check, subsidized student loans, home loans, child care, etc. The fact 1 person works harder and makes more money does not mean it is ok for that person to subsidize other people or should pay a higher % of his income because he can afford. |
-
-
lorcha
- Cranky Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 3:16p
dolmar said:But the person paying $10k on $50k of income is more than likely getting some benefits while the person paying $15k on $100k is getting no benefits at all. Did you ever think of that? People paying large amounts of taxes are subsidizing the other people. First of all, even if you make $100k/yr, you still get plenty of benefits: the highways, the military (you may not like what they're doing in Iraq, but it's their job to protect the homeland as well), the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, the National Parks Service, and many, many, many more. Way too many to list. Regarding progressive taxation vs. flat taxation, I think I still have to come down on the side of progressive. I'm not sure what my '07 effective tax rate will be yet, but let's estimate 20%. There's just no getting around the fact that paying 20% of my income in taxes hurts me a lot less than it would hurt someone who was trying to raise a family of 4 on $45k/yr. |
-
-
michal1980
- Senior Member - 5K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 3:25p
dolmar said:michal1980 said:10k in taxes to someone making 50k is a greater burden, then 15k in taxes to someone making 100k.
But the person paying $10k on $50k of income is more than likely getting some benefits while the person paying $15k on $100k is getting no benefits at all. Did you ever think of that? People paying large amounts of taxes are subsidizing the other people. Regardless of the % of there income that tax burden is. If you want to make it fair then make it a flat tax. Everyone pays 20% of there income no matter if you make $10k or $10 million. Everyone gets the same benefits ie rebate check, subsidized student loans, home loans, child care, etc. The fact 1 person works harder and makes more money does not mean it is ok for that person to subsidize other people or should pay a higher % of his income because he can afford. I do agree with just about everything you said there. And I did think about the fact that someone that makes less gets more from the goverment... But I also thought it wrong that only some people get this new take pre-bate thats coming in a month. |
-
-
dsru
- Senior Member
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 3:28p
dolmar said:dsru said:Dolmar, you said "Then I added up all the income shown on K-1+1099I and 1099B that is what I called Gross income."...for the 1099B I hope you don't mean you just used the figure on the 1099B (as opposed to the gain/loss from the sales reported on schedule D). If your using the 1099B number for gross income that is likely very misleading...unless you are subtracting your cost basis
My 1099-B shows my gains and interest income from bonds only. As I bought the securities with Citigroup and sold them with Citigroup so they only reported the gain on my 1099-B. I don't think that is accurate. the 1099B doesn't report the gain...just the proceeds from sale (doesn't matter whether you bought and sold with the same broker). Citi may have given you a gain/loss summary, but the the gain is not on the 1099B, just the sale; and the interest is on the 1099INT. This may explain why your definition of "gross income" is only a small fraction of your AGI. I understand you get a lot of tax exempt income..but that still seems off...obviously I could be wrong..and you know your income better  but extrapoloating your numbers...your tax was somewhere around 40k (low end from earlier post)...divided by .057 = gross income around 700k....x.138 = AGI around 100k....so you had (based on these very rough numbers) about 600k in tax exempt income...which would imply at least a $12MM+ muni portfolio and/or a lot of partnership income that wasn't taxable....all of which is possible of course, and I'm certainly not doubting it...just curious if you are calculating the "gross income" from your 1099B accurately., and if you are forgeting to subtract your basis when arriving at the "gross income" number. |
-
-
RS4Rings
- Senior Member - 7K
posted: Apr. 2, 2008 @ 3:29p
lorcha said: First of all, even if you make $100k/yr, you still get plenty of benefits: the highways, the military (you may not like what they're doing in Iraq, but it's their job to protect the homeland as well), the FBI, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, the National Parks Service, and many, many, many more. Way too many to list. Then I think I should get better benefits since Between Fed and State I paid about $107k, Do I use any more services than someone who paid $20k? No, I just get to lose a lot of the benefits that the person paying less gets. Rebate check? NO, Child tax credit? NO, Use the Hope/Lifetime deduction for College? NO, I just get to pay 100% of bill with no loans or subsidies. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, Problem is I am paying way more than my fair share. |
Close
|
|
 |
 |
Not Already A Member?
Sign Up Now!
|
|
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
|
|