patrick.net

I would say show me your 1040. It's possible. If you trip AMT it's 26% then 28%. With a state tax like CA top rate of 12%, plus 15.3% FICA for self employed added in It's possible. But it would take a really bad accountant to actually pay 50 or 60%. Anyone smart enough to earn that kind of money should certainly be smart enough to minimize their taxes.

How can someone have a couple of jobs and a sole proprietorship and be in a very high tax bracket?

That's what I'm saying too. They claimed 2-3 jobs and small biz, but if they were in that high of a wage, their % on FICA would be very low, as it is regressive.

I suspect most add in their top marginal rate as what they think they pay.

Aside from AMT, it seems nearly impossible. Do we know how many taxpayers pay over 50% in total taxes?

Thanks!

I'd say they need to find some tax shelters, LOL.

When I was working in the bay area I was paying 40% easily.

Put somebody at the FICA cap $118,500:

They're grossing nearly $10,000/mo but paying:

20% federal income tax ($2000)
7% state income tax ($670)
12% SSA ($1200 -- employer pays half but it all comes out of the workers' checks)
3% Medicare ($300, ditto)

There a 40% marginal rate right there before the effects of 401ks and IRAs kick in.

Somebody with a $400,000 house, if such a thing existed in the bay area any more, would be paying another 3% ($300/mo) on the 1.2% property tax (27% MID taken).

California sales tax is 8% so they'd need to spend their entire gross on taxable stuff to get to 50% marginal rate tho.

Sole proprietors making six figures really need to max out all the retirement savings accounts they can.

Bellingham Bill says

Put somebody at the FICA cap $118,500:

They're grossing nearly $10,000/mo but paying:

20% federal income tax ($2000)

7% state income tax ($670)

12% SSA ($1200 -- employer pays half but it all comes out of the workers' checks)

3% Medicare ($300, ditto)

There a 40% marginal rate right there before the effects of 401ks and IRAs kick in.

At 118k you are well below amt so state income tax, interest on mortgage, and property taxes are deductible against federal taxes.

yeah my above is garbled a bit. I discounted the 1.2% property tax by the 27% marginal rate -- that's not the MID.

MID on a $400,000 loan at 3.5% would be another 3% ($300/mo) deduction.

The state income tax deduction is just a 20% rate reduction essentially, knocking it from 7% to 5.6%

So . . . 20% Fed + 5.6% State + 15% FICA + 3% property tax - 3% MID = 38% tax rate.

High-tax arguers are certainly better off leaving real property ownership out of the discussion since real estate is a great tax shelter.

bob2356 says

At 118k you are well below amt so state income tax, interest on mortgage, and property taxes are deductible against federal taxes.

That's what I was thinking too. And don't most taxpayers pay far less than 20% FIT? Thought the effective rate was closer to 10%?

And can't you deduct sales tax, if it exceeds your other deductions and have receipts?

By the way, these people I'm confident aren't wealthy, and live in Indiana.

Pretty sure no one pays close to 50% taxes. Worst I think is s single individual in CA making $120-150kish and hasn't bought a house.

In LA that means you are paying a lot in federal and state tax, Max in SS, and have few deductions.

In reality I think most of these individuals are maxing retirement accounts thereby reducing taxable income.

Figure a single filer at $250,000, not filing schedule A, just taking standard deduction and exemptions, with no above-the-line exemptions (moving, HSA contributions, etc). I would bet that fewer than 5% of those earning this much are in this situation - it might be fewer than a dozen. But we'll punish this person as much as possible through these assumptions.

Take $6300 (standard deduction) + $4000 (exemption) = $10,400 of income which won't be taxed.

Taxable income is $250,000 - $10,400 = $239,600.

From a table of current tax brackets:

* 10% up to $9275 = $927.50
* 15% from $9276 to $37,650 = $4256.25
* 25% from $37,651 to $91,150 = $13,375
* 28% from $91,151 to $190,150 = $27,720
* 33% from $190,151 to $239,600 = $16,318.50

Total tax = $62,597.25

Percentage of income paid as federal tax = 25%

Adding in state an local income taxes, even assuming this earner lives in NJ or CA, and it's hard to see how anyone earning $250,000 could pay more than 35% of income in taxes.

Beyond $250,000, income tends to come from non-wage sources, which means either capital gains or all sorts of deductions due to depreciation, etc. You'd have to be a professional athlete or movie star with no investment income and wretched accountants to pay more than 40% of your income in income taxes.

Sales and property taxes are deductible, which means that you can cut down your income taxes by 33% of what you pay for those other taxes. If you have property taxes that are more than 15% of your income, either you were dropped on your head so many times in childhood that you are a ward of the state anyway, or that property is making you tons of passive income, with attending deductions for depreciation and maintenance.

If they're not carrying health insurance, don't they also incur another 2.5% penalty tax on the entire household income?

errc says

If they're not carrying health insurance, don't they also incur another 2.5% penalty tax on the entire household income?

But you'd pay out of pocket for major surgeries, such as hernia or getting a lot of bones set after a major car wreck - statistically, these happen to you no matter your diet - and you'd be able to take some juicy deductions for $25,000 spent here, $70,000 spent there, once every 15-20 years. This would erase or significantly reduce your overall tax liability for not carrying insurance.

I'm not joking: if you look at how often people require non-lifestyle-related surgeries which run into the middle five figures, and you pay for these yourself, you can deduct beaucoup for the year in which the surgery occurs, which would erase most or all of your accumulated annual penalties over the previous decade or two.

People making six figures can afford the ~$400/mo catastrophic insurance.

High-deductible insurance was designed for rich people.

I would also suppose that if these people had 2 wages and SB income to the extent they were taxed that heavily, you'd just go with the most lucrative of the 3 and devote your time to that.

errc says

If they're not carrying health insurance, don't they also incur another 2.5% penalty tax on the entire household income?

That or a head tax, whichever is greater: median household income is around $40k, and a family of 4 at that level would pay more than 5% Obamneycare tax/penalty.

Add Social Security (both halves), Medicare, workers' comp, business operating tax, and licensing, which total probably around 20%. Property tax might be $2k/year, i.e. around 5% of median income. If they sacrifice their standard deduction, then they may deduct the property tax and either the state income tax (7%) OR sales tax (maybe around the same), but not both. If they have paid for their house already then they have no MID; even if they are paying mortgage interest, then deducting it would require sacrificing the standard deduction, and at their applicable marginal rate, it doesn't make a huge difference in their overall tax burden.

CL says

I would also suppose that if these people had 2 wages and SB income to the extent they were taxed that heavily, you'd just go with the most lucrative of the 3 and devote your time to that.

It's funny how when you suppose you begin to sound like a Republican economist or a dot-con-artist.

Most businesses and independent contractor jobs have limited growth potential. If they're plowing driveways, they'll be limited by weather and geographic range. If they're cutting hair or lawns, they'll be limited by local growth and competing against DIY. Likewise if they're driving people to the airport, and they may face higher mandatory insurance or vehicle tax. They can't necessarily put all their eggs in one basket, and attempting to do so might make them more vulnerable to a downturn in one sector.

BTW, they may also face licensing requirements and mandatory continuing education, a plague of many fields; CA is even considering requiring bartenders to pay for ongoing classes to recognize what a drunk person looks like. Mandatory continuing education requirements go over really well with the lobbying and Obamneycare crowd, because they're so revenue-intensive and superficial. Let me translate it into codespeak for you: if you're a Linux consultant, mandatory continuing education would require you to pay Microsoft so you can maintain Microsoft developer certification, and pay Apple to be listed as an iTunes store developer, because education is a wonderful thing and should be mandatory according to the lobbyists who sell it. Whether you count those costs as a tax is a matter of semantics, but somebody pays; in medicine, you can get your mandatory continuing "education" comped if you skew your prescribing patterns in a profitable direction for the drug companies.

Anyhoo, as they say in the midwest, here's a possible approximation:

20% FICA/Social Security/Medicare/licensing/workers' comp etc.
10% federal income tax (allowing for deductions etc.)
10% combined state income & sales tax, only half of which would be deductible
5% Obamneycare tax penalty
5% property tax
The total can exceed 50% depending on location and what they bought during the year. For example, if they had to replace a vehicle, that might generate $2k in sales and registration and property tax, which would be another 5% of income, plus the mandatory car insurance, which they might count as a tax because government requires them to pay it. Also gasoline and telephone service are taxed at higher rates than ordinary sales.

So, before you call them ignorant liars, ask politely about the numbers.

HydroCabron says

I'm not joking:

If you're having that many injurious car wrecks, you should really lay off the psychotropic prescriptions, and/or quit driving. When the warning labels say not to operate heavy machinery, that includes cars, SUVs, etc.

curious2 says

So, before you call them ignorant liars, ask politely about the numbers.

I agree with Aspergers, although I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't actually called the guy a liar. The three income sources might also be all in a related field. I've done that myself. Or he might just like two fields and want to do both.

While it is useful to go over the various ways someone could end up with a high effective tax, it's pointless to try to figure out how this particular person's tax calculation got so high. Ask, and let us know.

But you'd pay out of pocket for major surgeries, such as hernia or getting a lot of bones set after a major car wreck

-------------

Why wouldn't their bodily injury portion of their automobile insurance cover that?

I wasn't looking to argue the merits of carrying health insurance. I was trying to answer OP question as to how could someone claim to pay so much in taxes

curious2 says

HydroCabron says

I'm not joking:

If you're having that many injurious car wrecks, you should really lay off the psychotropic prescriptions, and/or quit driving. When the warning labels say not to operate heavy machinery, that includes cars, SUVs, etc.

I'd agree with that. I hardly know anybody that had to have surgery or major costs due to a car accident or any accident for that matter, most of the costly surgeries and drugs come from chronic conditions of which many can be prevented or at least mitigated with lifestyle changes.

Bellingham Bill says

People making six figures can afford the ~$400/mo catastrophic insurance.

High-deductible insurance was designed for rich people.

That may be true if you look at who is using those, but it doesn't change the fact that a "poor" or middle-income person still pays more for the other plan over time. Most people who don't get their premiums subsidized would financially benefit from high-deductible insurance. The precondition is that you don't raid your savings for consumerism. I will say though that due to the incredible price-gouging and non-transparency in the medical sector it is possible to be surprised with a ultra-high phony bill after an unplanned hospital stay (like a $70K antidote that costs $700 on the free market or a room stay for $30K/day). One more reason not to depend on credit and never go into (large) debt so that when you get ripped off in the unlikely event of an emergency to simply not pay the bill (or negotiate it down significantly).

mell says

can be prevented or at least mitigated with lifestyle changes.

There is a long list of conditions and injuries which either cannot be eliminated by lifestyle changes, or cannot be reduced in likelihood by lifestyle choices.

Better shoes will keep you from falling down stairs. They won't prevent it from happening entirely.

People who eat every conceivable sort of diet - including all the diets I have seen here, still can get colon cancer.

YesYNot says

I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't actually called the guy a liar.

Thanks but it looks like you didn't read very carefully. Here is the OP question:

CL says

What would you say to disabuse them of this notion, since I'm quite certain its [sic] fantasy, or bad math at least?

Then there was this comment:

CL says

someone who claims to pay...ostensibly because....

The OP followed those with two more (similarly skeptical) comments, suggesting that the taxpayers were either ignorant or lying or both. Also, the OP referred to more than one person, but didn't specify male or female; even if the OP has not called anybody a liar in person, the OP is calling them ignorant and/or liars online. In reality, as I showed, the claimed numbers are possible based on correct math.

BTW, my 50% scenario presented a reasonably likely household near median income, but even 60% is also possible. Many households have experienced downward changes in income due to a job loss or income reduction, e.g. Uber drivers say Uber pays them less now for the same amount of work, and some of these ppl bought or leased cars to drive for Uber. If a household had $80k/yr income and bought a $400k house, and if income fell subsequently to $40k/yr, then they might still owe more than $4k/year in property tax, which by itself would exceed 10% of their new income; if they downsize, then they incur real estate transfer taxes and recording fees.

Also, if they submit to Obamneycare and buy mandatory insurance instead of paying the penalty, then (a) they would pay more and (b) they would run into Obamneycare's circular reference, which would require them to iterate, which would probably require them to buy tax software or hire an accountant, and the cost of either of those could reasonably be called tax preparation expenses, i.e. spent on taxes. Note that these costs of tax preparation result directly from lobbying, just like Obamneycare itself.

HydroCabron says

still can get colon cancer.

The biggest risk factors for that are (a) age over 65 and (b) smoking. Eating red meat, exercising too little, and sitting too much are also risk factors. Past 65, you're excluded from Obamneycare, though that may change if Ryancare gets enacted. In any event, insurance monetizes the problem without really solving it: if you're a smoker over age 65 and you've already got colon cancer, even infinite spending cannot enable you to live forever.

YesYNot says

I agree with Aspergers, although I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't actually called the guy a liar

I haven't, at least not explicitly (meaning, only in my head). Although these scenarios might turn into a high rate, from experience I see most people think they pay the rate of the last dollar, which they view as a badge of honor (or at least a way to imply they have a rich man's burden). They likely are adding their top marginal rate, property, FICA and whatnot.

curious2 says

It's funny how when you suppose you begin to sound like a Republican economist

Perhaps, but if the 1099 type work is being hit by high taxes, they don't seem to be handling deductions very well. Even if it's hair cutting or snow plowing, they should have tools, mileage, or gear to deduct. Truth is, aside from a few extreme situations it doesn't seem plausible. I guess to slice it another way, what percent of the US population pays more than 50% in taxes?

CL says

I guess to slice it another way, what percent of the US population pays more than 50% in taxes?

That's a different question, and since you fail to appreciate any of my comments (after you realized I haven't joined the cult of Obamneycare), and you've mischaracterized them in the past (again, after realizing that I'm not a cult member), I'll let you do your own homework rather than trying to find an answer for you. I was mainly replying to errc, whom I like, and then my SIWOTI caused me to reply to HydroHypochondriac. On a related point, outside the dot-con sector, some (maybe most) people count "income" as the difference between gross receipts and the costs of doing business, e.g. cost of goods sold, but in SFBA's dot-con world they don't always think of that, because they're burning speculators' money without earning any income but getting rich because there's a sucker born every minute. I can imagine Bernie Madoff felt himself superior, as you do, compared to the little people paying taxes and working for a living.

curious2 says

Thanks but it looks like you didn't read very carefully. Here is the OP question:

OK, for Aspergers, insinuating that an unidentified person is wrong in an anonymous forum is calling them a liar. It being a victim-less accusation is no matter. It's still an accusation. My mistake.

YesYNot says

OK, for Aspergers

Douché! :)

I don't get the aspergers reference?

errc says

I don't get the aspergers reference?

From brainbalancecenters.com, some clues:

- Intense obsession with one or two specific, narrow subjects
- Engages in one-sided, long-winded conversations
- Poor capacity for small talk
- Memorizes information and facts easily, especially related to cherished interests
- Violent outbursts, tantrums, or meltdowns
- Difficulty making friends among peers
- Poor understanding of humor
- Does not empathize or read others well; lack of a theory of mind; may see others as cardboard cutouts
- May be extremely literal or have difficulty understanding the nuances of language, despite having a good vocabulary

HydroCabron says

mell says

can be prevented or at least mitigated with lifestyle changes.

There is a long list of conditions and injuries which either cannot be eliminated by lifestyle changes, or cannot be reduced in likelihood by lifestyle choices.

Better shoes will keep you from falling down stairs. They won't prevent it from happening entirely.

People who eat every conceivable sort of diet - including all the diets I have seen here, still can get colon cancer.

Of course nobody can eliminate all the risk, but the odds are much more favorable than you quoted, the "good shoes" don't just help they skew the odds very much in favor of you not developing a chronic condition. There are two main parts contributing to health-care inflation, one is the inherent cronyism (price gouging, pill/procedure pushing often making things worse, lack of transparency, multitude of competition barriers), the other one is out lifestyle. Obesity is a national epidemic and you can increase your changes dramatically simply by losing weight and eating healthy. 90% of the patients with high blood sugar or high cholesterol/blood pressure could simply reverse it by losing weight, eliminating carbs from their diet and exercising.

mell says

Obesity is a national epidemic and you can increase your changes dramatically simply by losing weight and eating healthy. 90% of the patients with high blood sugar or high cholesterol/blood pressure could simply reverse it by losing weight, eliminating carbs from their diet and exercising.

I don't believe 90%. That seems ridiculously high. Any research to back that up? Maybe 90% of obese people. There are lots of people with normal weights running around with high blood sugar/cholesterol/blood pressure. The new standards for cholesterol are ridiculous anyway. If you are over 55 you would have to be an ultra marathoner with 0% body fat to avoid being on cholesterol lowering meds.

You missed some the the biggest factors in health care inflation, profits tacked onto every single thing and the huge cost of running insurance.

bob2356 says

You missed some the the biggest factors in health care inflation, profits tacked onto every single thing and the huge cost of running insurance.

Agreed, I included the insurance part under cronyism. Profits tacked onto every single thing yes, but with usury-style margins, and a lot of those things are unnecessary in the first place.

bob2356 says

I don't believe 90%. That seems ridiculously high. Any research to back that up? Maybe 90% of obese people. There are lots of people with normal weights running around with high blood sugar/cholesterol/blood pressure. The new standards for cholesterol are ridiculous anyway. If you are over 55 you would have to be an ultra marathoner with 0% body fat to avoid being on cholesterol lowering meds.

Agreed on cholesterol, but it doesn't cause heart disease anyways. The oxidized form does contribute, but the largest part is simply a byproduct of inflammatory processes which cause heart disease (not the cholesterol itself). Wrt the diabetes math, while there is presumably some genetic predisposition it does not cause diabetes by itself. So those who don't seem to be living an unhealthy lifestyle and are not overweight and have blood sugar issues are the ones who need to do even more, e.g. eliminate carbs from their diet, and possibly tread even lighter weight-wise. Very few viruses may play a role as well, but all in all you don't even arrive at 10% of people that MUST get diabetes due to genetic/environmental/viral factors combined regardless of their lifestyle. I have seen recoveries from relatively severe Type-2 diabetes (where the MD said medication is necessary by any means) from changing eating habits (avoiding carbs) and weight-loss alone. This is anecdotal, but the MD was proven wrong in all of those cases and ended up supporting the natural therapy. In any case there are no hard numbers as these are difficult to establish, but there aren't any on the drug-advocating side either.

People often don't count all the taxes they actually pay or that are baked into the services and products. There are employer taxes, there are fees and taxes baked into sales (and no it's not just the sales tax, sales tax comes in after). The numbers are high, and if you have no way to write a lot of it off, you are going to pay a lot too.

And it's a shame, because in CA and NY money doesn't go very far. In Indiana if you make 60,000 you live like a king, in many cities in CA with that same income you live on a verge of poverty after taxes. Because the tax system is crooked, designed to take as much as possible from the middle class. And it needs to change. Middle class can't avoid taxes by getting paid via Caiman Islands or something else like that, that's for the wealthy. Little guy does it, and you go to jail next day, government can squeeze the little guy pretty fast.

mell says

but all in all you don't even arrive at 10% of people that MUST get diabetes due to genetic/environmental/viral factors combined regardless of their lifestyle

That's not what i've read. Here is some contradictory research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515001 The number here is 1 in 3 or 33% who are normal bmi with diabetes. They do respond to weight loss also, the current theory is there is a fat threshold that when crossed triggers diabetes which is independent of bmi. There was a big article about this a couple years ago, but I can't find it right now.

errc says

I don't get the aspergers reference?

What hydrocabron posted fits with curious2 posts to some degree. If the shoe fits..

.bob2356 says

The number here is 1 in 3 or 33% who are normal bmi with diabetes.

The personal fat thresholds vary. Also, it is more the visceral fat (around organs) that makes a difference. That's why waste circumference (pants size) is important more so than how much you can pinch.

errc says

I don't get the aspergers reference?

They're flattering me by diagnosing me with Asperger's Syndrome, the currently most fashionable way to increase autism diagnoses. As Obamneycare cult members, they'd have me hopped up on at least four prescriptions if they could. They're so excited about the prospect that HydroHypochondriac has even taken me off Ignore for the occasion. Here are the diagnostic criteria he posted:

HydroCabron says

***

From brainbalancecenters.com, some clues:

- Intense obsession with one or two specific, narrow subjects
- Engages in one-sided, long-winded conversations
- Poor capacity for small talk
- Memorizes information and facts easily, especially related to cherished interests
- Violent outbursts, tantrums, or meltdowns
- Difficulty making friends among peers
- Poor understanding of humor
- Does not empathize or read others well; lack of a theory of mind; may see others as cardboard cutouts
- May be extremely literal or have difficulty understanding the nuances of language, despite having a good vocabulary

I'll think about these, but meanwhile I'll respond to two.

First, I do not experience "Violent outbursts, tantrums, or meltdowns." To the contrary, when people say something really obnoxious, I simply quote them, and let their own words defile them.

Last, looking at my PatNet posts and comments, I found at least five different broad subjects, plus many narrow subjects that were each the topics of only single posts. HydroHypochondriac can only remember the one he cherishes (Obamneycare), and it drives him to Ignore me. In reality, 80% of my posts and most of my comments are about other interests.

Still, I never deny being an idiot, and I am flattered by the "savant" part of my new Interwebs diagnosis. The diagnosis originated with YesYNot, who is a lying troll, and was echoed by tatupu70, who is an ordinary troll. YesYNot tried to pretend that his lies were jokes, but they weren't, and most of them were not even close to the line, as anybody who reads them can see. Even a broken clock is right twice a day though, and I will add Aspergers to my long list of topics to read more about, so thanks for that.

Regarding taxes for businesses, another way to get a high tax percentage is have a low profit margin business where sales tax is paid.

Let's say you buy $80 in goods + $6 in tax and have $100 in revenue.
Then, you are paying $6 in tax on $14 in profit (income). Then, pay normal taxes on that income.

hat hydrocabron posted fits with curious2 posts to some degree. If the shoe fits..

-------------

Oh, now it makes sense. Curious is always making valid points about how crappy ppaca is, and you democrat fan boys don't know how to defend it, nor why you'd defend Heritage Foundation's most damaging work that they've thrusted upon the populace. So you resort to calling him a retard. That's pathetic, but hey, high five one another all you'd like. It's what people like you do

Douche' !!!

P.S. Against my better judgment, I decided to reply to one more criterion of my new diagnosis, only because it presents an opportunity to remember some truly wonderful people who have made life better for many of us.

curious2 says

- Poor understanding of humor

I love George Carlin, Rodney Dangerfield, Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers, Johnny Carson, Abbott&Costello, and many more whom PatNetters have never heard of and who should be remembered more often. I love John Candy, John Belushi, and Chris Farley, and I wish they could all have lived longer, though I understand why they couldn't. I love comedy, and believe truly that laughter is often the best medicine. That drives the Obamneycare crowd even more nuts than they were already. Have a laugh at yourself: others are going to laugh at you anyway, so be the first.

errc says

Oh, now it makes sense. Curious is always making valid points about how crappy ppaca is

We'd welcome a discussion of ACA with someone more rhetorically sophisticated than a 1960s Berkeley leftist (or the modern equivalent, an angry campus SJW) repeatedly spluttering his insider insult jargon (“Obamneycare," "Running Dog Imperialist," “PharmaTroll," "KMT Fascist"), but instead we get Lil' Aspy, and his tone-deaf nitpicking. There are some who feel superior based on past vindications of their analysis or ideology. Aspy begins with an unshakeable belief in his own superiority, which is why his flabby posts always stray from the topic into a gurgling flume of stray insults, caviling and irrelevant venom.

The difference between you and Aspy is that you're honest: You basically think that mainstream medicine is snake oil, that government dietary guidelines are garbage; you might occasionally speculate out of frustration that your adversaries are on drugs - an understandable occasional result of the frustration of Internet arguments. You treat other people as having the same rights and dignity which you possess.

Aspy, by contrast, seeks the arguments because he believes he is superior, and repeatedly states that anyone other than him is on drugs, because he can't conceive of other human beings as real.

www.youtube.com/embed/KgzQuE1pR1w

errc says

Curious is always making valid points about

He makes some good points and I've never called him stupid, but the conversation goes off the rails when he mis interprets things. He doesn't take people at their word, and doesn't get sarcasm. Appreciating George Carlin doesn't mean that you don't have sub par perception of humor and personal skills.

YesYNot says

the conversation goes off the rails when he mis interprets things. He doesn't take people at their word, and doesn't get sarcasm. Appreciating George Carlin doesn't mean that you don't have sub par perception of humor and personal skills.

Though YesYNot insists on getting the last word, and usually I let him, I will compromise this time by linking to what he said before. I don't take obvious liars at their word, because that would be stupid. I looked again at his comment that first persuaded me he's a lying troll, and I still don't get the sarcasm or humor. Whether that reflects subpar perception on my part, I will leave for others to judge. As for personal skills, I do have a very low opinion of lying, especially where it risks getting other people killed, so I have been less friendly towards YesYNot since then. He is obsessive though, and lies about having lied, so I won't be surprised if he insists on getting the last word again, even though I will link again to ensure the last words are already his.

Oh aspy, I was impressed at your restraint so far on this thread. Exercise that restraint some more, and move forward.

bob2356 says

mell says

but all in all you don't even arrive at 10% of people that MUST get diabetes due to genetic/environmental/viral factors combined regardless of their lifestyle

That's not what i've read. Here is some contradictory research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515001 The number here is 1 in 3 or 33% who are normal bmi with diabetes. They do respond to weight loss also, the current theory is there is a fat threshold that when crossed triggers diabetes which is independent of bmi. There was a big article about this a couple years ago, but I can't find it right now.

I am not discounting the fat threshold and it may play a bigger role than the BMI itself as you can have a relatively high BMI with all muscles and no fat. Still the majority of people with high BMI also have high fat, and in the abstract it says that the median BMI was "just" 28. 28 is freaking high unless you're a strength athlete. We have definitely evolved to a society where overweight is the new normal. My BMI is between 24-25 and likely a bit skewed as I am very tall with a muscular build, however I would like it to be lower - or - pack more muscle and less fat for the same weight. Yet I have had people telling me that I look or may look "too skinny" if I lose any (more) weight. That is crazy. Same goes for women, if you look at what was supposed to be model size and a reasonable clothing size in general and how the sizes have blown up now (aka "normalized") you know people in most western countries are overweight. In fact, there is no contradiction that those with "normal" BMI respond as well as like I mentioned those with a predisposition to develop it easier likely need to maintain even less weight / body fat than the others. And the fastest way to lose weight that is mostly compromised of fat is to go very low carb into a continuous or repeated state of mild ketosis.