21–30 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(In case you're wondering -- you're likely being downvoted for calling the parent 'Broseph' -- it's a bit of a pejorative, which is uncalled for in HN's mostly civil discourse)
I thought it was funny. Why do people get upset so easily.
>highest-in-the-nation 13.3% income tax rate That sounds very comfortable and affordable
That's state tax, which is paid in addition to federal (nationwide) tax. Some states, like Texas, have no state income tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(In case you're wondering -- you're likely being downvoted for calling the parent 'Broseph' -- it's a bit of a pejorative, which is uncalled for in HN's mostly civil discourse)
I thought it was funny. Why do people get upset so easily.
Once tax day has come and the full force of the capped SALT deduction is felt, things may change. A high-earning couple with $500k in combined income (roughly $45k in state taxes) and a $2m home (roughly $20k in local taxes) will go from a $65k deduction to a $10k deduction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was funny. Why do people get upset so easily.
Yea i don't get it either, I have heard broseph used in a friendly way between mostly lower-middle class people in Australia.
Once tax day has come and the full force of the capped SALT deduction is felt, things may change. A high-earning couple with $500k in combined income (roughly $45k in state taxes) and a $2m home (roughly $20k in local taxes) will go from a $65k deduction to a $10k deduction.
And with the near-elimination of AMT, it may end up being a wash for many people in this situation.
It defines rich as 125k. That definitely isn't rich in california. It also says there's a net migration outwards and that the middle class and poor are fleeing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain the charity portion, isn’t that the net same as not having the money? Sincere question
Maybe if the charity is called "$YOUR_FAMILY_NAME Foundation" then you can save on taxes and still get to do things you enjoy, like flying your private jet to fight malaria or travel to your country club to play some golf (for charity).
Honestly, this thread just sounds like something pulled from someone busted on NBC's "Greed" show. Not that I am opposed to reducing one's tax burden, mind you. It's just that this doesn't sound like a feasible way of doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wealthy != high income. A high-earning couple might make $500K spread across 2 W-2 salaries, and then pay those $45K in state and ~$200K in federal taxes. A wealthy couple owns a network of business, reinvests all profits of those businesses in capital improvements to make more money in the future, pulls out only enough in salary to meet their expenses, makes an equivalent donation to charity to offset all their "inc…
Can you explain the charity portion, isn’t that the net same as not having the money? Sincere question
For most people, their values are an extension of their identity. (This, BTW, is why we get values voters on both sides of the aisle who vote against their own economic self-interest for a party that supports the kind of world they want to live in.) If you're making 2x+ times what you actually need to live the personal lifestyle you want, the rest is going to shape the world around you anyway. If you give to 501(c)3 organizations whose values happen to line up with yours (or better yet, control your own family foundation so you can set the agenda entirely), you get to write that influence off against the money that you spend on personal expenses.
I've often heard of the dividing line between upper middle class and wealthy as "Upper middle class people think income. Wealthy people think control." The vast majority of a wealthy person's wealth is held in various legal fictions anyway - a network of corporations, trusts, funds, and foundations that are each separate legal entities, but are all controlled by members of their family. Who cares if the money is in your name if it's the name of an entity that you can sign for?