2013 Itemized deductions and HHI, why is my effective so high, what are we doing wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in exactly the same boat paying a out 33% on our $300k income.

Are you talking about your tax bracket or effective tax rate. Because even with no deductions at all, effective tax rate for 300K income is 25% and not 33%

HUH
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

Effective tax rate is your total tax paid divided by your total income. The 33% tax bracket is only on income above 183K and effective tax rate would be much lower

Depends on your deductions. If you have no mortgage, it's not "much lower."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

Um, ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? At what point is the stress and extra costs of being a dual WOHP family worth the incremental income (and increased taxes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate being in the 300-400k range. It's just high enough for gov't to treat you like you're rich but not high enough to even be close to rich especially in HCOL areas. After all the taxes, ss, medicare etc, you're getting half of your income back to spend.

And that's still three times my gross. Cry me a river.

You don't believe in capitalism, where people whose jobs are worth more get paid more?

Not PP - but I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is people bitching about making 300-400k HHI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

the "most difficult income level". HAHAHAHAHA. you should try my income level (75k gross) and see how difficult things are....

At 75K, you don't try to save any money. You'll retire on social security only, and your kids will get a full ride to college. That'll save you a few million right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

Um, ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? At what point is the stress and extra costs of being a dual WOHP family worth the incremental income (and increased taxes).

So the people who are complaining are free to move elsewhere and take less pay. Hell I'm considering it and I don't make nearly what they do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

the "most difficult income level". HAHAHAHAHA. you should try my income level (75k gross) and see how difficult things are....

At 75K, you don't try to save any money. You'll retire on social security only, and your kids will get a full ride to college. That'll save you a few million right there.

A - If social security even exists
B - I am not banking on getting a free ride for the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate being in the 300-400k range. It's just high enough for gov't to treat you like you're rich but not high enough to even be close to rich especially in HCOL areas. After all the taxes, ss, medicare etc, you're getting half of your income back to spend.

And that's still three times my gross. Cry me a river.

You don't believe in capitalism, where people whose jobs are worth more get paid more?

Not PP - but I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is people bitching about making 300-400k HHI

We're bitching about paying a higher tax rate than people making $150K, not bitching about making $300 -$500 K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That graphic doesn't make any sense to me. If you earn less than $30k your taxable rate is negative? No-one writes you a check if your income is less than $30k, how can it possibly be negative.

Well our nanny gets back more than she puts in because she has two kids...

It's called the Earned Income Tax credit. Be thankful that you make enough to not know what it is. I learned about it listening to Marketplace on NPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

Um, ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? At what point is the stress and extra costs of being a dual WOHP family worth the incremental income (and increased taxes).

So the people who are complaining are free to move elsewhere and take less pay. Hell I'm considering it and I don't make nearly what they do

It's incredibly stupid for a society that values the work professionals do to tax a lawyer and a doctor who are married to each other so highly that it's more beneficial for one of them to give up their profession, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

the "most difficult income level". HAHAHAHAHA. you should try my income level (75k gross) and see how difficult things are....

At 75K, you don't try to save any money. You'll retire on social security only, and your kids will get a full ride to college. That'll save you a few million right there.

A - If social security even exists
B - I am not banking on getting a free ride for the kid.

So do you have a plan to start earning $300K or are you just SOL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in exactly the same boat paying a out 33% on our $300k income.

Are you talking about your tax bracket or effective tax rate. Because even with no deductions at all, effective tax rate for 300K income is 25% and not 33%

HUH
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

Effective tax rate is your total tax paid divided by your total income. The 33% tax bracket is only on income above 183K and effective tax rate would be much lower

Depends on your deductions. If you have no mortgage, it's not "much lower."

It is much lower even without deductions, since the majority of the income is being taxed at a lower rate. For example, even with a deduction of only 15K (which could probably be met by state income tax deduction only), effective rate would be down to 23%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

Um, ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? At what point is the stress and extra costs of being a dual WOHP family worth the incremental income (and increased taxes).

So the people who are complaining are free to move elsewhere and take less pay. Hell I'm considering it and I don't make nearly what they do

It's incredibly stupid for a society that values the work professionals do to tax a lawyer and a doctor who are married to each other so highly that it's more beneficial for one of them to give up their profession, don't you think?

I'm not talking about what is valued. I'm talking about a less stressed life elsewhere per your post above. And I very much disagree that doctors and lawyers are not valued (well maybe lawyers sometimes - Lol). Based on pay alone - doctors and lawyers are valued. its people like teachers who aren't valued and that is pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

the "most difficult income level". HAHAHAHAHA. you should try my income level (75k gross) and see how difficult things are....

At 75K, you don't try to save any money. You'll retire on social security only, and your kids will get a full ride to college. That'll save you a few million right there.

A - If social security even exists
B - I am not banking on getting a free ride for the kid.

So do you have a plan to start earning $300K or are you just SOL?

you are trying to tell me I'll be just fine on 75k while you have it hard at 300k? What the hell???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:300 to 500 is the must difficult income level. No benefits of the rich or the middle class. It's sometimes easier to just give up and go lower.

So really, you'd rather take a lower paying job so you don't have to pay higher taxes? That is ridiculous. There is no situation I can work out where you are still not ending up ahead where you are now. More of the myth of "taxes discourage hard work." So stupid.

the "most difficult income level". HAHAHAHAHA. you should try my income level (75k gross) and see how difficult things are....

At 75K, you don't try to save any money. You'll retire on social security only, and your kids will get a full ride to college. That'll save you a few million right there.

A - If social security even exists
B - I am not banking on getting a free ride for the kid.

So do you have a plan to start earning $300K or are you just SOL?

you are trying to tell me I'll be just fine on 75k while you have it hard at 300k? What the hell???

like i chose to make 75k so my kid could "get a free ride" ha

[Anonymous]

I think that a flat tax around 18-20% across the board would be fair for everyone. No confusing deductions or credits etc... If you still need welfare or social services you can still get them.