All your lives are belong to us

So, with another 15% now on track to be forcibly seized from taxpayers, I thought it would be interesting to see what a rich family earning $100,000 will have left at the end of each year. Uh oh, looks like  our government! They’re running a deficit!

Soc. Sec.                15%

Ct. Income tax:      6%

Fed. Tax:                20%

ObamaKare:          15%

Total taxes 56%

Housing:               36% ($3,000 monthly rental)

Food, clothing :   15%

Transportation:    6%

Fed. suicide guidance: Free


Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “All your lives are belong to us

  1. Just the facts

    An aide to Obama pointed out on CNBC Friday that our math is a little off. Remember the State tax is deducted from the Federal tax…i.e. CT Tax of 6% is deducted from the Federal which brings our effective tax rate to 50% rather than 56%. Like it makes a difference. Welcome to the revolution! What I would like is an in-depth return on investment calculation to understand what we’re actually getting for the privilege to pay the gov’t 50% of our hard work.

  2. Anonymous

    Shrinking the tax arb btwn CT and NYC will either prompt hedgies to stay in Midtown Manhattan (and reside on UES or CPW) or move to Dallas….why do half-assed moves for tiny (and shrinking) arbs?

    In a Blkberry/Net world, value of location (aside from tax implics) is ability to conveniently do bkfst or drinks/dinner w/visiting financiers, techies, energy guys, industrialists, etc from all over globe, stuff for which Greenwich is worthless vs Midtown

  3. Philm

    Chris, now how on earth are you young enough and hip enough to know that video game reference??

  4. No Spin Zone

    To “Just the facts”,
    State tax is a deduction item not “tax credit”. It can be used to offset your taxable income but not your tax. Therefore, one saves 50% of 6% which is 3% in your example. Time to send Omaba’s aid to grade school.

  5. whatacountry

    it is clear after the 23rd congressional election that people still don’t get it or they do get it and they like not paying for stuff

    the other elections (state) where GOP won is meaningless and pointless.

  6. anon 2

    Your numbers are very flawed. The social security tax rate for individuals is 6.2% up to $106,800 (for 2009) and is capped after that. Medicare of 2.9% is then added on, but is uncapped. The 15% you refer to must include the additional self-employment tax of 6.2% that you pay as a self-employed RE agent, but many don’t pay this because they are employees of corporations. I won’t bother to address the other flaws in your numbers.

    But the real comparison you need to make is a family making $100K (and using real tax numbers, not the incorrect ones you’ve made up) and then they get hit with medical bills of $40,000 or $100K, or more.

    If the Republicans had put forth a viable alternative plan, that would be worth discussing. But no one is because what they offered was garbage — no coverage for pre-existing conditions for example. More of the same status quo they have been defending for years. They are simply in the pockets of the insurance industry. How can ANYONE defend not covering pre-existing conditions? Shameless.

    • christopherfountain

      Yes I’m calculating the 15% I pay as a self employed contractor but you pay the same rate, you silly person- your employer doesn’t pay that out of his pocket, he pays you less. The fact that you don’t understand that disqualifies you from any discussion of taxes.

  7. pulled up in OG

    I still see fuzzy math here. Highest tax bracket is 35%, so you are only saving ~1/4 – 1/3 of that 6%.
    Pay a buck to the state and save 30 cents w/the feds.

  8. Cos Cobber

    The feds were oh so clever when they devised employment taxes when back when…

    For those not self-employed you get to participate in the myth of “my employer pays those taxes and insurances.”

    I run shoot-from-the-hip budgets all the time under my line of work. We always tack on another 20-30% for health insurance and employer paid wage taxes when planning labor costs. Thats absolutely money that could be going to the employee, but instead their compensation is adjusted down for these mandatory “overhead” costs. Its pure genius on the part of Uncle Sam. The masses don’t see that Uncle Sam already took one bit of the apple before he took a second bite as disclosed on your paycheck.

  9. anon 2

    So I guess when someone points out that you are wrong, they’re a “silly person”. I understand the numbers quite well Chris. You’re the confused one. If you want to use a 15% rate for FICA+Medicare, then you need to gross up your $100K example to $106K for the family. But if you really want to factor in all costs, then you need to start with a company’s fully-loaded cost for employees including their healthcare premiums, 401K match, pension plan, etc., in which case you should start with more like $120-130K out of pocket to the company. But you wrote that you were describing a “family earning” $100K, which silly me, I thought you actually meant. Does your lack of knowledge and comparing apples to oranges (wages to the employee vs. fully-loaded cost to employer) disqualify you from any discussion of taxes? Your example is wrong and proves nothing.

  10. HG

    The very lack of transparency illustrated by CF / anon 2 disagreement is a problem of bad government. Anyone want to toss in the impact of phase-out of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid? Our $100k family is probably one raise away from seeing some phase out and a resulting stealth tax increase.

  11. Arouet

    And don’t forget AMT.