patrick.net

mell says

pudil says

I paid 100K in income taxes this year. For a bunch of wars and social programs I never agreed to. I’m not rich. It’s criminal.

Totally agree

Disagree completely. That's $800k+ of W-2 income minimum. Low tax long term capital gains or stock sales that's $1.5M easy.

I fucking hate taxes, but paying $100k in federal and crying poor is ridiculous. Or you're not doing your taxes right. I know my numbers. $100k is $800k of W-2 income roughly.

Where I agree is the use of said tax money. We don't need wars. The lefty in me kind of agrees with "some" social programs. There's a lot out there people don't know about. Our society would devolve without them. If you're not rich with that income you're doing something 1,000% completely wrong. Not trying to be a dick. 50% of people are paying nothing. I do and you do pudil. Most others here do as well.

My point is you are very rich if you're paying $100k in taxes federally. Or you're doing your taxes wrong.

WookieMan says

Disagree completely. That's $800k+ of W-2 income minimum. Low tax long term capital gains or stock sales that's $1.5M easy.

I fucking hate taxes, but paying $100k in federal and crying poor is ridiculous. Or you're not doing your taxes right. I know my numbers. $100k is $800k of W-2 income roughly.

Where I agree is the use of said tax money. We don't need wars. The lefty in me kind of agrees with "some" social programs. There's a lot out there people don't know about. Our society would devolve without them. If you're not rich with that income you're doing something 1,000% completely wrong. Not trying to be a dick. 50% of people are paying nothing. I do and you do pudil. Most others here do as well.

My point is you are very rich if you're paying $100k in taxes federally. Or you're doing your taxes wrong.

It's probably state and federal taxes which go to the same corrupt bs. You are close to paying 100k in taxes (federal + state) in CA on 250K yearly salary. Sure other states have less income tax, but doesn't make you rich. It's upper middle class, maybe just entry level upper class. Not wealthy by any means, you will need to keep working, but def comfortable living. Also depends on if you have a family to feed or not. It's still theft.

mell says

It's probably state and federal taxes which go to the same corrupt bs. You are close to paying 100k in taxes (federal + state) in CA on 250K yearly salary. Sure other states have less income tax, but doesn't make you rich. It's upper middle class, maybe just entry level upper class. Not wealthy by any means, you will need to keep working, but def comfortable living. Also depends on if you have a family to feed or not. It's still theft.

Doing your taxes wrong if you're paying $100k on $250k of income. Like legit retard level. Just because the cap is 13% state income in CA doesn't mean that's the gross state income tax. It's progressive. $250k federal is around $25k in federal taxes, give or take if we're talking standard income. Again, it sucks.

As much as we all hate taxes, you're walking with $500-700K after tax money if you're paying $100k in taxes. That's the definition of rich. Not upper middle class. That's boats, $100k cars, large houses, etc.

Also that amount has to include property taxes or something. $100k federal income taxes is $8.3k/month. Including state and federal you marginal income tax is 20-25% outside of million dollar a year earners. Can't cry poor making that much.

I guess I'm calling bull shit or poor accounting and tax planning. The small slice of lefty in me says just fucking pay it. You're not in a bad spot. Control the money is all I'll say. Be a part of the government. Control what you're giving away. This is the biggest problem with Libertarians and Conservatives. They're passive as fuck and just bitch and whine and don't do anything about it. They get stomped by soy boys.

I could not find any graph of income tax rates by dollar of income for CA and Fed combined, but did find this:

https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594?ref_src=patrick.net

So say that our man @pudil is in the 90th percentile. Then if he paid $100K in taxes, at 30% that implies an income of $333K.

That's not marginal, that's total taxes paid, according to the video above. Play it to the end.

Ah, found a decent federal graph of brackets:



So yes, he could get hit with 30% tax on his whole income, even just from federal income tax. Then there's CA.

I calculated my actual tax rate at a bit over 10%.
Most of my income is long term capital gains and qualified dividends.
I don't pay California state income tax, I left.
Income from a job would be taxed at a higher rate.
Edit: the curve in a graph as above would be flatter if it's income from qualified dividends and long term capital gains.

My problem is all of my income is salary. So I get whacked hard both by the feds and by NY state. Not to mention the taxes and fees on whatever is left. I do have a small LLC, since I consult on the side, but it's only about 2% of my total HH income.

Patrick says

Ah, found a decent federal graph of brackets:



So yes, he could get hit with 30% tax on his whole income, even just from federal income tax. Then there's CA.

Needs to include "net investment tax of 3.8%, plus extra .9 Medicare tax that I assume most people here also pay.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/questions-and-answers-on-the-net-investment-income-tax

Patrick says

Ah, found a decent federal graph of brackets:



So yes, he could get hit with 30% tax on his whole income, even just from federal income tax. Then there's CA.

$350k x .28= $98k. There's a shit ton to factor in here. Standard deduction or itemized? Just standard deduction brings that down to $75k. Home owner? Generally you're 10 years or less on a loan if you own. So you're paying large amounts of interest on the front, which in CA (if that's where he's from) is likely itemized based on the likely income. Kids. Charity. All these things could bring it down to $50k easily.

I don't know the source of the graph and if deductions are accounted for. If you're paying $100k on $350k your net is still wealthy unless you decided to live in a high cost of living area and your expenses are $100k+. Again, I don't like taxes, but if you're bitching making $250k net, you're probably feeling poor because of other bad decisions. At 25% debt to income ratio based on the net income after tax that a $1M house.

I get CA is expensive, but if it's an industry that ONLY exists in CA then I guess stay and pay. You can get paid the same elsewhere and pay substantially less taxes and cost of living. We wanted to move out there about 12 or so years ago. Had job opportunities. The math made zero sense. Same with CO. When IL makes more sense to stay, that's saying something.

I'll also admit that I don't understand the AMT. So that could raise the taxes of course. For some reason that's never hit us even though we've been consistently over $200k for the last 5 years at least. I've done my own taxes since I could and have never had an audit or letter sent to me. But I think the max we've paid federally is $40k on just under $300k. Including state taxes. Standard deduction. I'd have to make $600k to pay $100k, but with that cash I'd probably end up itemizing and knocking that down.

Remember I'm not bashing anyone, but if you're paying $100k in taxes, as sick as it sounds, you have a pretty damn good life unless you made other bad financial decisions. That's $300-500k net income unless you had short term cap gains. Basically your in the 1% of the US and in the 0.0001% of the world. You're extremely fortunate.

If you're concerned about where the money goes I agree. You have to be willing to get involved. If not, you're just paying the taxes.

I think it's criminal how much we are taxed.
I know too many people getting free money and none of them deserve it.
I believe unless you are 1. blind 2. crippled 3. mentally incapable you deserve nothing from other people.
I believe in sink or swim.

It's not criminal, it's slavery.

Nothing is ever free. "Social services" are used to monitor people, keep them in fear of bettering their lives, and dependent on government for their survival. What about that sounds like freedom to you?

clambo says

I believe unless you are 1. blind 2. crippled 3. mentally incapable you deserve nothing from other people.

Even so, at the cab company I used to work for we had 3 blind call takers entering data (listened to callers in one ear and an advance Windows Narrator type program in the other ear) and a paralyzed from the waist down manager who used to drive a cab. Also, a deaf mechanic.

To expand on Nuttboxer above.
Females are designed to depend on others, it's in their DNA.
Father, boyfriend, sugar daddy, simp friend, older brother. husband and Uncle Sam comprise the list of those who are asked to "help" a female throughout her life.

clambo says

Father, boyfriend, sugar daddy, simp friend, older brother. husband and Uncle Sam comprise the list of those who are asked to "help" a female throughout her life.

Yep, if you are the dad of a single 20 something daughter, you will be called on for car and house fixes and maybe even taxes. The son of a widowed mom will do those tasks as well. Even single female neighbors borrow next door husbands to assemble a grill or carry something heavy. I recently had a neighbor lady call my wife to borrow me to put a new battery in her car, as her battery had died suddenly and stranded her. Her own mom had brought her a new battery to her from AutoZone, but the AutoZone guy obviously would not travel to install it. Also, the guy next store and I fixed a single girl's mailbox lamp post (the mailboxes in this neighborhood are uniform 8 foot tall fluted metal poles with a large carriage lamp on top).

WookieMan says

$350k x .28= $98k. There's a shit ton to factor in here. Standard deduction or itemized? Just standard deduction brings that down to $75k.

Huh?
The standard deduction, for a married couple, is about $23k. However, that $23k is not a tax credit, it merely reduces the income that you are taxed on. So your taxes went from $350k x 0.28 = $98k to instead being ($350k - $23k) x 0.28 = $91.6k

WookieMan says

$250k federal is around $25k in federal taxes

Here are the 2021 federal tax brackets. https://taxfoundation.org/2021-tax-brackets/

Let's assume the person is married filing jointly and the $250k is combined income. Standard deduction is $25k, so the person is taxed on $225k of income.

10% on the first $20k = $2k
12% on the next $61k = $7k
22% on the next $91k = $20k
24% on the last $53k = $13k
That's $42k for married filing jointly.

For single, the standard deduction is half and the brackets creep up twice as quickly...
10% on the first $10k = $1k
12% on the next $30k = $4k
22% on the next $46k = $10k
24% on the next $79k = $19k
32% on the next $45k = $14k
35% on the last $16k = $5k
Thats $51k for single.

Working out the math for a $100k tax bill, the married couple would need to make $432k and the single filer would need $357k.

WookieMan says

I'll also admit that I don't understand the AMT

AMT got a lot better with the "Trump tax cut." The personal deduction for AMT, a whopping $40k or something, now gets phased out more slowly. Net result is that before Trump I had $60k to $80k of itemized deductions (thanks California!), but would get to use exactly 0 of it. By about $400k income you pay 26% AMT with no deductions at all (I don't have a home mortgage). So, that's $100k right there.

Also, as others have noted, there's Medicare tax and Obamacare tax. Don't forget the nearly 15% social security tax.

WookieMan says

max we've paid federally is $40k on just under $300k. Including state taxes. Standard deduction.

If you're using the standard deduction, then you aren't writing off a huge home mortgage (which is also limited, by the way). Assuming that $300k is wage income — not long term capital gains — That $40k seems a tad low not even counting state taxes.

SunnyvaleCA says

WookieMan says

max we've paid federally is $40k on just under $300k. Including state taxes. Standard deduction.

If you're using the standard deduction, then you aren't writing off a huge home mortgage (which is also limited, by the way). Assuming that $300k is wage income — not long term capital gains — That $40k seems a tad low not even counting state taxes.

$300,000 less MFJ standard deduction
Less $7,300 HSA
Less 41,000 401k contributions $20,500 each
Less Cafeteria plan dependent child care $5,000

Brings total Taxable income to $220,800. Tax on that from the applicable brackets: $2,055 + $7,560 + $20,812 + $10,236 = $40,663.

The OASI (Social Security trust fund) is expected to run out of money by 2033 or 2034. When it does, the program will be solely funded by payroll taxes, which currently cover only 77% of benefits.

It proposes to repeal federal taxes on Social Security benefits and delay the looming insolvency of the program’s Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund by two decades to 2054

The proposed legislation would keep the trust fund solvent by expanding Social Security payroll taxes to wages above $250,000. In 2024, taxes are imposed only on income up to $168,600. Under the Craig-Caraveo bill, the cap would continue to rise until it hits $250,000 and beyond.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-win-win-bill-123006868.html

.

The Bazillionaires like it better than an extra tax on capital gains.

Talking about taxes, this pitcher either has a good CPA, tax attorney, or a savvy agent.



https://x.com/travis_in_flint/status/1753845076449480824?s=46&t=5lEEPaezr6Ic-W4Z6huZ5Q

If you have income derived in California, California will tax you.
Deferring the tax might not avoid it.

clambo says

If you have income derived in California, California will tax you.
Deferring the tax might not avoid it.

California tried that with military retirement pay. California had a tax claim on any retirement pay that was "earned" in California. That is, if a military member was stationed in California for 10 years out of a 30 year career, California wanted to tax 1/3 of the retirement pay. The DoD did not cooperate with this scheme, however, and did not remit payments to California. It seems that if California could tax any income derived from California regardless of residency, then California should tax any state pensioner that move out of CA. I remember such a discussion earlier on this blog and someone pointed out that a judge ruled against it.

Never understood why any professional athlete would play in CA with the amounts they get paid. Technically you're paid in the state you play. So away games are paid in that state. But still half your games are played in your home state. That's a shit load of state taxes that could be avoided in FL or TX.

I get they make fuck you money most the time, but I like the strategy of deferment. It likely won't work though as his place of employment was CA. I suppose the Dodgers could create an LLC in Texas or Florida and he moves and gets paid there. Then pay the remaining contract in an income tax free state.

Baseball contracts are guaranteed. But if he dies and has a family they won't get that money unless he built that in. Also his agent is likely flaming pissed off about it. Has to wait 10 years to get his real pay day. It's risky, but living off $2M/yr should be a cake walk when the team pays for everything. My BIL is a professional athlete, so no, I'm not talking out my ass.

The_Deplorable says

Rain water does not go into sewers. And if she is talking storm drains, only paved property has runoff. One's grassy one acre lot has no runoff any more than someone else's 1/2 acre lot. If one has a bigger lot, then one is using more gravity and sunshine as well. In that case, I want a carbon credit for all the CO2 my lawn took out of the air.

HeadSet says

The_Deplorable says

Rain water does not go into sewers. And if she is talking storm drains, only paved property has runoff. One's grassy one acre lot has no runoff any more than someone else's 1/2 acre lot. If one has a bigger lot, then one is using more gravity and sunshine as well. In that case, I want a carbon credit for all the CO2 my lawn took out of the air.

Greentards are gonna tard.

HeadSet says

"Rain water does not go into sewers."

Yes it does. That is the problem with most water treatment plants in Toronto and the US.

The_Deplorable says

HeadSet says

"Rain water does not go into sewers."

Yes it does. That is the problem with most water treatment plants in Toronto and the US.

Not legally. There are separate storm sewers. They're not shit and piss sewers. Yes people illegally tap into them, but you're 1,000% wrong on this.

The bigger problems for sewer systems is "flushable" wipes. And people illegally draining rain water into them. I know my shit in this realm, pun intended. Heatset is correct. The base standard municipal ordinances do not allow you to pump rainwater or gutters into the actual sewers.

WookieMan says

"Not legally. There are separate storm sewers."

No, we do not have separate storm sewers. That is why the entire East Coast of the
United States (for the most part) has Flesh-Eating Bacteria that can kill in less than
24 hours. Stay away.

The_Deplorable says

WookieMan says
"Not legally. There are separate storm sewers."

No, we do not have separate storm sewers. That is why the entire East Coast of the
United States (for the most part) has Flesh-Eating Bacteria that can kill in less than
24 hours. Stay away.

Yes, you do have separate storm sewers. Let me know where you're at on the east coast. I can set up a conference phone call most likely with a public works engineer in your area if Patrick can trade info. You're hung up on the word sewer. Install both and get back to me. I did it for my parents subdivision. You're out of your element.

The water on the street does not go into the shit and piss system. Too much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I guess? Sure storm sewers are gross, but they're not the same. Shit is processed. Storm sewers run off into lakes, rivers, streams and retention ponds. Rain run off. Not diarrhea and piss. That goes to a sewage facility to get cleaned up.