What is a realistic income tax % deducted from pay
I am trying to create a budget and I was wanting to calculate an estimated "net" income to work with my epxenses. I am trying to figure out an estimated percentage for taxes and insurance deducted from pay. I currently have numbers set up for 25%, 23.5%, 21% & 19%.
Does anyone know what a realistic tax percentage with a little added for insurance is? Figure single person, no dependents, and only claiming myself. My tax rate is currently approximately 3.0% as a student working summer/part-time jobs and being claimed by my parents.
Does anyone know what a realistic tax percentage with a little added for insurance is? Figure single person, no dependents, and only claiming myself. My tax rate is currently approximately 3.0% as a student working summer/part-time jobs and being claimed by my parents.
0
-
Nevermind, I just found it on the IRS website. 0 -
What is it? We have been working on our budget for next year too. We were guessing around 35 to 40 % for our income bracket. Thats state and federal combined. 0 -
Well I will tell you what isn't, the cry of "fair" taxation by an across the board percentage, say 10% for everyone. A lot of people seem to think this is a fair way to tax and it seems so on the surface. When you look into it further 10% greatly differs in the way it effects net expendable income. For instance a guy makes 20K a year he pays 10% or 2K That is a lot of money to a fellow making 20K. On the other hand a guy who makes 100K a year will pay 10K much less impact on his ability to eat. The rich will point out that they not only pay a higher dollar amount but a higher percentage of overall income. This new "fair" method will effectively lower their tax rate and as seen in the example above the "fair" across the board tax rate for all will still maintain the burden of taxation on the backs of the middle class. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
Well I will tell you what isn't, the cry of "fair" taxation by an across the board percentage, say 10% for everyone. A lot of people seem to think this is a fair way to tax and it seems so on the surface. When you look into it further 10% greatly differs in the way it effects net expendable income. For instance a guy makes 20K a year he pays 10% or 2K That is a lot of money to a fellow making 20K. On the other hand a guy who makes 100K a year will pay 10K much less impact on his ability to eat. The rich will point out that they not only pay a higher dollar amount but a higher percentage of overall income. This new "fair" method will effectively lower their tax rate and as seen in the example above the "fair" across the board tax rate for all will still maintain the burden of taxation on the backs of the middle class.
You never see upper income people upset with the idea of a "flat tax" for the simple reason that they are very well aware that it is both popular with the public and a reduction in rate for themselves. That's the best of both worlds for them, but since most folks actually believe that upper income people do not pay much in taxes, ideas like this just keep coming back again and again.[:)]0 -
...thank God I retired and sold my business. Mine (with a CPA, AND tax attorney) was a little over 40%...now with the way my money from the business sell is set up,...it's, well...a LOT less...just as dlrjj's sig line says...[^] 
0 -
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
Well I will tell you what isn't, the cry of "fair" taxation by an across the board percentage, say 10% for everyone. A lot of people seem to think this is a fair way to tax and it seems so on the surface. When you look into it further 10% greatly differs in the way it effects net expendable income. For instance a guy makes 20K a year he pays 10% or 2K That is a lot of money to a fellow making 20K. On the other hand a guy who makes 100K a year will pay 10K much less impact on his ability to eat. The rich will point out that they not only pay a higher dollar amount but a higher percentage of overall income. This new "fair" method will effectively lower their tax rate and as seen in the example above the "fair" across the board tax rate for all will still maintain the burden of taxation on the backs of the middle class.
You are right, however, the way the tax system is set up now, the individual that makes $20,000/year does not pay any taxes at all (what they do pay in they end up getting back) and could end up getting more back than they pay in. The individual who makes $100,000/year will end up paying around $15,000 in taxes. So, how is this system "fair"?0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandgunHTR52
quote:Originally posted by mogley98
Well I will tell you what isn't, the cry of "fair" taxation by an across the board percentage, say 10% for everyone. A lot of people seem to think this is a fair way to tax and it seems so on the surface. When you look into it further 10% greatly differs in the way it effects net expendable income. For instance a guy makes 20K a year he pays 10% or 2K That is a lot of money to a fellow making 20K. On the other hand a guy who makes 100K a year will pay 10K much less impact on his ability to eat. The rich will point out that they not only pay a higher dollar amount but a higher percentage of overall income. This new "fair" method will effectively lower their tax rate and as seen in the example above the "fair" across the board tax rate for all will still maintain the burden of taxation on the backs of the middle class.
You are right, however, the way the tax system is set up now, the individual that makes $20,000/year does not pay any taxes at all (what they do pay in they end up getting back) and could end up getting more back than they pay in. The individual who makes $100,000/year will end up paying around $15,000 in taxes. So, how is this system "fair"?
First let me say that I don't think I pay too much in taxes.
Then let me ask where you're getting your numbers? I don't make $20K and I most certainly do pay taxes. Not a lot, but I pay them.
Edit: and I don't get anything back except for the normal government services we all pay for. I do happen technically to be a state employee and my fringe benefits bring my total income to over $20K but I'm not required to report those fringes on my tax returns.
Someone's bound to ask so: I get free graduate school tuition and (crappy) healthcare benefits because I'm a teaching assistant at a state university.0 -
quote:Originally posted by shoff14
What is it? We have been working on our budget for next year too. We were guessing around 35 to 40 % for our income bracket. Thats state and federal combined.
Try this website. It has all of the rates/%'s for each category.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html0 -
We already have flat taxes on Social Security & Medicare & just to make them more unfair they are only on wages & they have upper limits. So much for the "poor" rich people paying their fair share.
We also have a flat tax called a sales tax.0 -
Since there is a cap on the benefits that can be received from Social Security, it is only reasonable that there should be a cap on the taxes paid for it. It is not supposed to be an auxiliary income tax, and thus placed on the entirety of your earnings.
Sales taxes are state taxes, not Federal.0 -
You are way off. The word is that 50% is the minimum. If you don't believe this you leave yourself open for the usual Gun Broker "treatment".
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2333930 -
I like the idea of a flat tax rate, some things just make more since than others. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments