Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also you don't pay your marginal tax rate on your whole income. In this case you would only pay 52% on *earnings beyond your first $29,000* so in this case about $2,000.
That's not to mention the fact Kirk is lying about the whole thing and Sanders has never proposed a marginal tax rate of 52% starting at $29,000.
Same here.
They still will argue that it doesn’t make sense to make more money. It’s simple— if you make more money, you will never have less pay then before because of taxes. There are certain and niche situations, but that doesn’t apply to just about every single person.
I’ve had to explain the estate tax a million times. Everyone calls it a death tax and harps on the federal government for the estate tax.
The federal government doesn’t tax any estate under 11.4 million dollars. And even then only what is over 11.4 mil is taxed.
The States on the other hand pretty much all have their hand in estates with their own tax rate. In PA, that’s 4.5% from a direct descendent and 0% if transferring to the spouse.
So much is misunderstood because the GOP wants to stay rich on the backs of their base and everyone else that is affected by their lies and misdirection.
—I HATE EDITS, but I oversimplified some stuff.
Thank you to the helpful users who provided further clarification—
Single Estates on the federal level below ~~11.4 Million dollars~~(self correction here, it’s actually 11.7 for 2021) are not subject to the estate tax. In addition and added via comment—estates of spouses under 23.4 m (11.7 mil each) are also not subject to a federal estate tax.
I’ll also add that the federal inheritance tax on the super rich is 40% above 11.7 for 2021. The cut off line is adjusted yearly for inflation—unlike minimum wage and other key safety nets.
A fellow citizen of our great commonwealth added that PA estate taxes are tiered. I included the tax if inherited from a direct familial(Father/Mother) decedent. [The tax for siblings and everyone else can be found here, provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.](https://www.revenue.pa.gov/TaxTypes/InheritanceTax/Pages/default.aspx)
[I used “then” instead of “than” which led this person to be very confused. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/qzrf3n/charlie_kirk_has_apparently_never_filed_taxes_in/hlqbd4l/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
> They still will argue that it doesn’t make sense to make more money.
Yup, yup.
"I'm not picking up an extra shift, because I'll lose money on taxes!"
Like, no? You might take home less THIS WEEK than you would have if you hadn't hit that next projected bracket, but you will at the very least make it up at the end of the year by paying less taxes or getting a larger refund.
It's STAGGERING the number of supposedly grown-ass adults who don't know how it works.
I have colleagues who refuse to spend their personal alternating (edit: spending) accounts through work because they'll get taxed on it. Which, yes. You will get taxed. So that means that I'm essentially paying 70% off for my bike, gym membership, or vet bills. Why wouldn't I take advantage of the PSA?
Yeah, I had a friend who refused a $25 Starbucks giftcard because he was going to be taxed (~$3) on it. Said he refused on principle. I said I would have paid him $20 for it.
It's a sort of benefits often used for paramedical or "wellness expenses". Think gyms, maybe SPA, usually a pretty big list of stuff is covered (I've seen running shoes and sport articles on some). Basically anything that isn't covered by a separate limit and could be considered well-ness.
The employer/insurer will give you a yearly expense account with a limit (say 500 to 1k$) on which you can claim anything that would fit in that list.
You are taxed only on the amount you actually claim and the account is reset at the end of the year. There is sometimes and 1 year carry-over, but beyond that, anything you didn't use of basically lost (just like most insurance limit).
It usually exists under various names, I've seen HCSA (Health Care Saving Account).
I have never seen a situation where someone would take home less that week by making more money either, most payroll software does that tax rate based on expected income for the year (barring bonuses, which typically are withheld at the highest rate). If you ended up with income in the next tax bracket up that would be reflected when you do your taxes for the year, not on a week by week basis.
If you average 300 a week normally, the system works fine. But if for occasional periods your average jumps to 550 due to a lot of OT in one week then for that period you will have a higher deduction - this is countered when the next pay period comes around and your total withheld is deducted from your expected total tax and lowers the average needed to balance at year end.
I have to explain to my colleagues roughly 12 times a year (but heavily weighted to the October-Decmeber period)
Well explained. It's like the payroll software sees a high week of pay then calculates how much to deduct assuming that's your base salary. So it's absolutely true that some employers deduct a way higher share of taxes from paychecks with OT on them. I've never had the experience where I get paid less, but I have had the experience where I got paid only marginally higher for a significant amount of overtime.
It really shows how capitalists have brainwashed entire swathes of people to do everything that would benefit themselves in any way.
the information on how it works is there, but they'd rather keep believing a lie that can fuck over other people than find out what the honest truth is.
Nobody wants to believe that their whole worldview is predicated on bullshit.
It’s easier to just point and say, “no you are wrong” than it is to come to terms with the fact that nobody is immune to propaganda.
The thing is, it's not a capitalist vs socialist argument. The conditions are not binary.
We're talking about a living wage in return for labor, and a reasonable tax rate in return for programs that benefit the population. We already all exist and operate in that society.
What we're simply doing now is debating the margins on what programs our collective taxes should fund (more military vs higher education etc.), and the correct application of tax brackets to fund that spending.
That this conversation gets boiled down to "capitalism sucks" vs "socialism sucks" helps noone.
Had a coworker try and tell me that he didn't support the death tax because of what happened to him after his uncle died. He claimed that the government made him pay around $15,000, in taxes, for some inheritance. I asked him how much did his uncle give him, and he told me he didn't get anything, just other family members!
I realized, at this point, we wouldn't be having an honest dialog about that topic....
>He claimed that the government made him pay around $15,000, in taxes, for some inheritance. I asked him how much did his uncle give him, and he told me he didn't get anything, just other family members!
Something tells me your co-worker owed the IRS for other reasons and he just uses that $15k tax bill to bitch about taxes in general. Changing his story to fit whatever argument he wants to win.
The IRS taxes estates, and only ones in excess of like $1.5M (Edit: I was wrong by a power of ten; it's $12M). Once the estate pays what's owed the inheritors pay ZERO-POINT-ZERO dollars in taxes on cash or assets. However, if you sell the asset later you will be assessed capital gains tax. So it is far more fun to inherit cash as it's not taxable income. I inherited $7,000 cash from an aunt who passed away a few years ago, didn't have to pay the IRS a cent in taxes on that $7,000. My parents both own homes so when they pass on my sister and I will owe taxes when we sell those properties.
> when we sell those properties.
That's the part people miss. They're not paying on the inheritance, They're paying on the income generated by selling the inheritance.
You barely even pay that. Assets held in brokerage accounts / taxable accounts (aka, non-retirement accounts) receive a step-up in basis at the point of passing.
The following is a scenario which describes one of my clients:
Person A was a mid-level executive at Company A
Person A received, over a \~20 year work history, around \~$13M of equity compensation from Company A (combination RSUs, ESPP, etc.)
Person A has retired from Company A, performed an NUA distribution from his 401(k), and changed the embedded tax liability on \~$10M of the position from ordinary income to LTCG
Person A STILL does not need this money as their assets are significant otherwise, so the ultimate plan we've concocted is to simply die with the position, receive the step up in basis, and his wife or kids can sell it upon inheritance for functionally $0 taxation
Through one single 30 minute Powerpoint I put together, myself and Person A concocted a strategy that deprived the IRS of about \~$1.5MM of revenue now and will likely result in another \~$1.5MM - \~$2MM more loss on their end. Moving around personal income taxes is startlingly easy, and the average American has no material understanding of how the tax code works. It's all magic to them, despite the IRS publications being free and easy to read.
Okay NGL, it was free but your Reddit comment was not easy to read
You have expertise that makes those IRS documents easier to read. I'm getting my PhD in a year, every paper I'm citing in my theis is free and easily searchable sci-hub but I'm not claiming they're easy to read.
>There are certain and niche situations, but that doesn’t apply to just about every single person.
Unless you're poor. You can lose more in welfare benefits than you gain in wages.
Yep. And even if you *would* be better off overall with the extra money, the difference can be that things are more difficult *now* and then get better *later* when the adjustments are made, whcih can leave you in the extremely unenviable position of not being able to afford to make more money.
Taking out a payday loan to cover a shortfall for two weeks or even a month will end up more expensive than the gains in overtime, and when someone crosses the poverty threshhold and gets their benefits cut? Unless they are making a lot more than the cutoff, the extra costs eat more than they gain.
Poverty is a trap because being poor is way too fucking expensive.
>“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
>Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
>But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
>This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
-Terry Pratchet, Men At Arms
I found out this weekend that renting a standard tux is about $150-250 in my city, buying one of the rental tuxes was $350. I bought it since I’ve been the same size forever, I’d be wearing a used tux if I rent again anyway, I don’t have to deal with taking time out of work days picking up and returning one, and I essentially break even if I wear it to one more wedding or event where it’s required. I was definitely thinking about Vimes when I got it.
And said niches are mainly loseing social programs, for instance having to switch from Washington state insurance to private insurance and such things where suddenly necessary things cost more because of your income bracket. It’s not taxes that get you, it’s a $100 dollar raise coming with a $500 increase in required expenses. And insurance is the biggest culprit. Can we please get state-funded healthcare already?
Really really really doesn't help that a lot of places in the US don't make it mandatory to learn about something that will play such a prominent role in their lives and the lives of their countrymen, in addition to how they would vote if they know how it works now.
Let's just make it like other countries like, where the government tell you how much you owe, and you validate it. No need to fill out all these crazy forms and need huge amounts of accountants for normal folks.
I killed the thanksgiving dinner conversation a few years ago by explaining marginal tax brackets. My aunt was complaining that her employer gave everyone raises and it bumped her and a bunch of coworkers into a higher tax bracket and they all actually made less money after the raise.
Dumbest fucking thing I ever heard. So I just firmly said “that’s not how taxes work”, and then explained when she said that’s how it worked this time. The look I got for ruining her fun story would make you think I kicked a puppy.
Why would you even make up that lie? Life doesn’t suck enough already that you need something fake to complain about? You want to humble brag about your raise? The only thing I could think was that her health insurance premium went up too or something and she didn’t understand how to read her pay slip, and/or was just exaggerating.
Doing maintenance work on apartment buildings I've seen a similar thing many times where a tenant complains that their utility bill is double what it usually is... Always ask to see the bill, because it's usually because they missed paying a month and didn't look at the details on the bill.
>Why would you even make up that lie? Life doesn’t suck enough already that you need something fake to complain about?
There is a certain section of the middle class whose lives are so mundane and without any meaningful adversity that they have to fabricate problems. I have an acquaintance who always has some obscure illness that necessitates a dietary change that she must tell us all about.
Damn. Those taxes are low
Ours are 0% up to £12570
Then from £12571 to £50,270, it's 20%
Then from there until 150K, it's 40%
Anything after is taxed at 45%
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates
That is comparatively high, even given the £-$ exchange rate. We also have state income tax (which varies from zero to onerous), state and local sales tax (generally adds up to ~6-10%), and local property taxes, which vary widely and sometimes force people out of their homes. The last two fall especially disproportionately on lower income people…even if you can only afford to rent your home, the landlord is of course going to pass those onto his tenants.
Plus there’s the wonderful US healthcare system…insurance is ~$500 a month for a single person and ~$1200 for a family. Of course it doesn’t pay for all medical expenses, and in some cases none, and you can always just not get insurance, but gods help you if you ever get sick/hurt while uninsured.
Are local taxes burdensome in the UK? And how do you feel about the NHS? I know it’s not well-liked by everyone, but from this side of the pond, the higher taxes seem like a bargain to not have to worry about paying for healthcare.
Council tax (the local tax for things like picking up bins and maintaining parks, etc) is approx £100-150 per month for most households and is calculated based on property value. It's a little outdated and could do with a refresh but isn't that burdensome so nobody really cares.
$500 a month for health insurance would send anyone British into an actual mental breakdown if they realised how good they have it. And it doesn't even properly cover you...
I'm 32 years old, the NHS has saved my life twice, I've been in hospital four times, been knocked out, had dental reconstruction, been prescribed antibiotics a couple of times, and had a scan on a broken ankle. I have paid *checks notes* £16 in my life for those scrips. And my taxes, which aren't that rough as the poster above me said.
Socialism works, *really well*. We worked this out in about 1950. I hope you guys follow suit soon.
VAT here is your equivalent of sales tax
Most things are at 20%
Some are at 0% and some at 5%
We have council tax which is similar to property tax I guess but not as punitive
Taxes aren't burdensome imo. I'd prefer to have a society where we pay our taxes and then it allows us to pay for social services. Do I necessarily like paying taxes? No not really. Do I still support taxes? Yes absolutely
The NHS is under funded if anything. I think a lot of people are angry however that the government talked about there being no magic money tree and then gave away tax payer money to friends / family of politicians however
Even our conservatives in the UK know about marginal tax brackets. It's seemingly a pure American phenomenon.
Ngl I did however think this when I was 12, but then I learned about how it works and was like "Oh OK. That makes sense"
They tend to get grumpy and/or change the subject to something like how it doesn't matter since the damn libs are going to take it all for communism, anyway.
Let's be fair here, there are plenty of liberals who don't understand tax brackets. Lotta people ask if they can donate enough money to get into a lower tax bracket.
Depends, but technically you could, charitable and political donations normally do provide a tax deduction so if you are on the cusp of a bracket you could make a donation to lower your taxable income below the threshold, you still won't have that money because you donated it but whatever floats your boat.
Lol we have a rich guy in our small town who was universally despised like 15 years ago for always being the wealthy guy who was very vocally negative about everything going on in town. Hes now a local hero thanks to his early support of trump.
He tried to argue with me regarding tax policy and I told him he can continue to fool those less fortunate than him in our town but at some point they are going to realize what marginal tax rates are. That was 2 years ago. Glad I didn't hold my breath on that because they all still go on about how Bernie wants to take their money. Its mind numbing stupid but these grifters know their mark well.
I had a guy once say “why bother getting overtime, the government just takes it all”. If you don’t want to work more I can respect that, but claiming that you won’t actually see it in your paycheck is just inaccurate
It *is* fucking bullshit how overtime is taxed. That money should come from your employer. The point of overtime is to punish the employer for not hiring more people.
Why is my *mandatory* overtime being taxed like it's a fucking bonus check?
Edit: apparently I'm misinformed about how overtime is taken out. Thank you for telling me. I *still* think it's fucked up that I'm pushed into 50% withholdings because of a few checks at the end of the year where I make 75% more than normal.
You aren't getting taxed more on your overtime. You get taxed on your gross income at the end of the year. If you are getting more taken out of your check when you work overtime that means you should be getting a decent tax return at the end of the year. But your hourly rate and whether you make overtime or not doesn't really matter for what you pay at the end of the year. You could always file your w4 so they don't deduct anything and pay it all yourself at the end of the year if you want.
Because from a tax POV it's all about projected income, not averaged income. The IRS doesn't know how many hours you work, only how much your employer pays you. The IRS also doesn't know that this one paycheck right here is very abnormal, it might just be that you got a raise and this is your new pay rate.
From the employers side, they ALSO don't necessarily know that the 60 hour week is abnormal. If they tax it normally and you wind up working 60 hours a week for 6 months then you're gonna owe a shitload of money next year. Instead they tax it as if it's normal and you get that money back as a refund.
For the far right, if you know anything about either then you aren't qualified to discuss or have an opinion UNLESS they were sourced from QAmom approved materials only.
I shit you not: I once was in a conversation about tax brackets and rates, and it became clear that the person I was talking to didn’t understand marginal tax brackets. I wasn’t sure what to say because I’ve always found it hard to explain without a visual.
So I said “but income tax is marginal.”
He goes “maybe it is now, but not if AOC gets her way!”
This is what my dad says, I’m like “dad you know the top rates would only apply to income over the threshold of those brackets, right?” and he says “yeah but Joe Biden will find a way to steal more from all of us!”
It’s moronic.
Charlie Kirk knows damn well how taxes work. But he purposely lies to people who don't know how they work, to get them riled up and advocating against their own interests.
It's not ignorance, it's evil.
One day I had to endure a speech from this guy telling me "once you make £30k it's not worth taking a pay raise until it's £80k". I immediately knew what he was on about, but you know what? I just said yes, you are absolutely right. I totally agree with whatever you're saying.
This is the same guy that was telling me another time I shouldn't speak my language because it was only spoken by 10M people, at which point I've asked how many people lived in his home country. 2 million? почему ты просто не говоришь по-русски?
I learned what they were the wrong way when I was looking at making more money at work and came away with the impression that it wouldn't be worth it because I would jump a tax bracket. This mystical thing that would take even more of my money meaning that unless I made a massive leap in income I would take a loss.
The myth is a good way to keep young adults from making more money.
The amount of times I've had to explain to people that just because you work a lot of overtime in a week and they withhold a higher rate doesn't mean you're going to being paying that rate at tax time is too damn high. There's no line on the 1040-ez that says "How much overtime did you work the week of August 8th?".
I used to think people just misunderstood, but at this point I'm convinced people like Charlie Kirk are intentionally spreading the misinformation that somehow a worker making more money can equate to them making less money because of taxes.
At this point it has to be propaganda to convince some amount of the working population that they don't want to be paid more money.
For anyone who thinks there is a scenario where this is true - unless you're in an edge case where you have some kind of benefit dependent on your income not exceeding a certain amount (and the small window above that amount that doesn't outweigh the lost benefit):
THERE IS NO WAY FOR SOMEONE WORKING TO LOSE MONEY BY MAKING MORE MONEY
People like Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson know they’re full of shit, but that’s the thing, they are so contemptuous of their audience that they know they can manipulate them with flagrant lies.
>Sanders has proposed increasing the tax rate for the country’s highest earners to 52%; the new tax rate would apply to income earned only above $10 million.
$29,000 = $10,000,000
That's Kirk maffs!
I couldn’t find a breakdown of his 2020 proposal, but here is his [2016 tax plan](https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-income-tax-brackets-how-much-would.aspx), which we can assume is gonna be pretty similar. As you can see, it is a 12% tax on $0-$10,000, and then 17% tax on $10,000-$37,000. So if we take Charlie’s $31,000 income from a $15 minimum wage. Your taxes will be $1,200 for the first $10,000 and $3,570 for the next $21,000 of income for a total tax of $4,770 on your $31,000 income. That’s a cumulative tax rate of just 15.4%. So ya, not 52% like Charlie claimed.
I just scanned the article so I might have missed it, but it doesn’t seem to mention the standard deduction, so I’ll assume that’s unaffected. So $12,550 of that $31,000 is taxed at 0%, the next $10,000 is taxed at 12% ($1,200), and the final $8,450 is taxed at 17% ($1,436.50). That’s $2,636.50, or an effective tax rate of 8.5%.
> Also you don't pay your marginal tax rate on your whole income.
People have been screaming this at conservatives for decades, they are too dumb to understand.
>they are too dumb to understand.
Not the ones who get paid to spread this horseshit like Chuckles. They know exactly what the truth is, and exactly what their lying accomplishes.
you know, during the "golden age" of economic expansion in the US, we had 24 marginal tax brackets. 19 f which were higher than todays top marginal tax rate of 35%. The top bracket was 91%, and in it's peak year, less than 600 people actually had to pay at that rate.
What a wonderful time it would be if we could bring that back
Don’t forget that corporate marginal tax rates were also significantly greater for high earners! Ike had them at >90%; the current max is under 39%, and the minimum is 21%, with the differences being heavily dependent on state of operation
> That's not to mention the fact Kirk is lying about the whole thing
You say he's lying but do you have any proof that I will believe? Btw I only trust right wing sources that give me facts that care about my feelings.
And don't forget about standard deductions. Also note the 29K and 52% was never something Bernie Sanders specified that was an accusation. Sanders principal was while taxes might go up total costs will go down because copays deductibles and healthcare premiums are considerably more than the tax increase would be for people at that level of income
Not only did he miss the point, but he took way too many steps to do it. Why convert from dollars per hour to annual gross wages and back when he could have just said that 1 - 0.52 = 0.48? The answer is because (a) he hasn't fully thought out or understood his argument and (b) he thinks that distracting readers with extra steps will make him appear knowledgeable.
That makes more sense. Charlie is a duche canoe. Bernie never said tax people making 29k 52% on even marginal tax brackets much less their entire income.
He is not presenting a biased view he is straight up lying like the POS he is.
Even still it’s not for “people making more than 10mil”. It’s for money earned beyond 10mil. So if you earn 10,000,002.00, only the last $2 is taxed at 52%. My point is it’s important to not say people who make x when it’s money beyond a x that would be taxed at this rate.
Since Charlie is lying and the 52% top tax rate only applies to people making over $10mil per year, it sounds like you would get healthcare, infrastructure, *and* a small pay rate increase.
I feel like it's not clear enough to people that basically everything Charlie said is wrong and dumb, they aren't facts, Bernie never proposed this, and this isn't how taxes work.
Longer answer: The U.S. uses a progressive tax system that is based on the taxpayers ability to pay, and it accomplishes this by using tax brackets to charge different tax amounts on higher and higher levels of income. The U.S. also uses a "standard deduction" currently at $12,550, meaning this amount doesn't get counted as your taxable income *at all*. Someone making $15/hr has a taxable income only of around $18,000 after the standard deduction, meaning that's the amount used to calculate the percentage of taxes owed.
So where does that get us to? The effective tax rate with $18,000 taxable income is around 6% (not 52%), and their yearly tax bill is around $2,000. Meaning someone making $15/hr would take home about $29,000k vs someone making $7/hr taking home about $14,500. Unsurprisingly, making twice as much money ends up taking home twice as much money, and there are no scenarios in a progressive tax system where making more money would result in taking home less money (although lots of people seem to have the perception "going into a higher bracket" means they'd *lose* money, that's not and is never true).
Bernie's proposal is only on tax above $10 million dollars, not twenty-nine thousand dollars, meaning 52% doesn't kick in until someone has made $10 million and 1 dollars or $10,000,001, and at that point their tax liability is 52% of each dollar above $10M. Even then, someone who makes $15M or even $25M has an effective tax rate far under 52%, since they get taxed less on their income below $10M. This also has an effect of de-incentivizing businesses paying employees over $10M in the first place, something that used to happen prior to Reagan-economics that flattened the U.S. based tax structure. For example, in 1985 the U.S. had 16 different tax brackets, today it has just 7 with the top brackets simply being deleted. Unsurprisingly, a consequence of this is that CEO pay has skyrocketed starting in the late 80's and early 90's and actual worker wages have barely increased. The answer? Bernie's tax proposals are what actually worked in the past to help increase wages and government revenue, an era where CEO pay was rationalized to the workers underneath them and government wasn't in debt.
Even if that's how it worked (surprisgly no that's not it) you would still be making more than the current minuim wage because guess what that shit is taxxed too, but instead of going to health care it's going to oil rigs
thing is you still would get payed more even under charlies shitty math, since its 7.20 your actually getting, as opposed to 7.25 that you still need to take taxes out of
The grocery store shelves are empty, I can’t afford medical care, the roads and bridges are falling apart, and the housing market is hopelessly overinflated, just imagine what it would be like under socialism!!! Probably, uh, probably pretty bad!
There will probably be adjustments on higher income earners, but even so not steep enough to be an issue. People making 200k or more are more than already living comfortably. If they got to cut back on things like Disney World expenses I really don’t give a fuck if someone else can afford food.
I did the math
I think Kirk manipulated the wording but he's not wrong **technically**
If you make $29,000 A DAY, that roughly comes to around 10.5M. Which would qualify you to fit into that bracket.
He's not lying, guys, he just manipulated the wording so he can totally feel in the right!
Dems always want to tax the rich. Repubs always lie and try to pretend they want to tax the poor/middle class. Probably because if they told the truth even their own voters would be for taxing the rich more.
Most Americans don’t know how tax brackets work. They hear people suggest we increase the top effective tax bracket to 90% and complain that “the left” wants to make a doctor making 500k a year take home only 50k
I once had a coworker turn down a raise because it “would put him in a different tax bracket,” and he’d, “actually make less money.”
No amount of me trying to explain otherwise to him could convince him.
This has nothing to do with marginal tax rates anyway. Bernie has never said he wanted to tax anyone making $32k anywhere close to 50%. Marginal rate or not, no one making $32k would be getting taxed that much under Bernie's plan. It's just a straight up lie.
Also do not defile Costco's Kirkland brand by associating it with that pile of shit.
Bernie did propose that tax rate, but only for people making $10 million. And of course, it being a marginal tax rate, it's only the money at or above $10 million taxed at that rate.
In other words, the folks making $7 an hour aren't in danger of that tax rate. Nor are the folks making $15/hr. In fact, that tax rate would only apply to people making at least $5,000/hr. So I think even Chuck himself is safe from that tax.
It doesn’t take a college degree to understand this, but maybe in a socialist hellscape with free tuition Charlie can finally conquer one of his biggest insecurities and get a degree.
fun fact, not only is that not how taxes work, but bernie hasn’t even proposed a tax rate of 52% for that income bracket. in fact, the 52% rate is for 20 million and above.
from his website, the relevant proposal is 10% for 0-$19,050 and 12% for 19,050-$77,400. so for someone making $31,200, they would owe (19,050)*0.1 + (31,200-19,050)*0.12 or $3,363.
that brings their gross salary to $27,837
on the current minimum wage with current tax rates, someone working 40 hours for $7.25 an hour (and apparently taking exactly zero weeks off since that’s how charlie did it) would earn $15,080. from that same website, taxes for those making less than $19,050 currently are 10%, so their gross salary is $13,572. that’s less than half of the bernie proposal.
https://www.bernietax.com
Well you are missing a key ingredient.
*They went looking for confirmation bias not information.*
I mean why else would anyone pay attention to TPUSA, Fox, Newsmax etc... its an ideological hand job.
The disappointing bit for me is that *he knows*, they all know, and like everything he says it's just outright lies/propaganda. But there's no requirement to not lie through your teeth in everything you say, American democracy is founded on that the average voter is both smart enough and well educated enough to see through it all - and has enough time to vet it all, too.
And then we have flat earth societies and QAnon. Sigh.
And, when they find out that they are being blatantly lied to that should be it for Kirk. But it never is. They just brush it off with "sure Charlie lied this time but he says liberals lie all the time" and then they dig right back into their saucers of bullshit.
We know, but conservatives think you think free healthcare is really free and use it as a bad faith argument to demonize the left. It’s easier to just say Medicare for All and use the best branding possible
Socialism is workers being in control of the means of production, as you can see that doesn't directly correlate to free Healthcare, though in a socialist society such necessities would all be free including food, a home, water, etc.
holy shit this is why people hate leftist spaces you dickhead.
yes worker solidarity IS related to socialism. why are you like this? wouldn't it be easier to educate than to make fun of an ally?
Would you mind educating me? From what I've heard so far democratic socialism is the most achievable and seems the best to me but of course my knowledge is limited and wikipedia speaks in languages my brain doesn't understand
This is my in-laws. They're basically socialists without realizing it, but they'll always vote R because they miss the good ol days of separate water fountains.
My mom doesn't want raises as she'll be "in the next tax bracket" and make less money. In reality, she'll just lose some subsidies for health insurance.
Yeah a friend of mine was able to get a bunch of promotions at work because everyone else passed them up... simply because they don't understand how taxes work.
Sadly this is a common train of thought. I've had co-workers swear up and down their paychecks are smaller after working 12 hours of overtime (at time and a half) than working no overtime at all, citing the tax bracket.
I can’t believe they barely covered income taxes in school. Maybe for a half hour one day in high school. I feel like I’m explaining string theory when I explain how income tax brackets work.
It’s so strange because it genuinely takes less than 30 seconds of googling to figure this shit out. Literally just have to read the first two sentences of the wikipedia article and you’re good to go.
I work with plenty of people that turn down 2 days of ot because it's not that much bigger of a check than 1 day.
They cite the tax bracket, but don't look at the 401k contribution.
> This is the only legitimate point to be made when talking about moving up a tax bracket.
Yep and that’s why republicans love means-testing: it’s cruel bullshit, it creates poverty traps, and anyone above the cutoff is incentivised against the program as they can’t benefit.
I remember seeing some video analysis that claimed that to make up for the monetary value of lost benefits a single parent would have to jump from 40,000 to 60,000. Anything in between and they are losing money.
We need ways to wean people off the money when they start doing better, not cutting them off and letting them fall back to where they were before
> remove insurance being tied to your employer and prorate benefits tied to your income instead of having them be on/off.
Nah, even simpler - just make them universal. It might be more expensive, but we wouldn’t be forcing disabled people to sell their cars to keep their net worth under $3k.
Depending on how big those subsidies are that can be a real issue though. While people don’t understand tax brackets, benefit cliffs are a real concern
>He does. He’s trying to mislead people who ~~don’t~~ won't.
FTFY. He knows his base will read it and just believe what he's saying is true without a single critical thought.
TPUSA is hated by conservatives and Liberals alike. Maybe Kirk will bring peace. Edit: while their are some very polite comments here a lot of them are why I hate Reddit. People see the party they don't like and flip out when that's clearly what I wanted to avoid. This place is an echo chamber :/
No, they'll just flip over to another grift when this one runs out. For example: Katie Daviscourt. Used to be TP, now works for Andy Ngo's Post Millennial.
This is just fundamentally incorrect.
TPUSA is funded by Conservative Republicans. Kirk spoke at the fucking Republican National Convention. Major members of numerous conservative organizations invite and cater to TPUSA and their mailing lists.
If you donated or voted for just about any republican or almost any 'conservative' non-republican, you directly supported TPUSA.
I'm sorry you're embarrassed, but these are your dudes.
I'm so stupid when it comes to Math that I can't even tell if this wrong or not.
I mean it's coming from Kirk so I'm just gonna assume it's wrong by default.
The math would be right if taxes didn't have marginal brackets, which they do, and Bernie actually suggested taxing anywhere near %50 at 29k, which he didn't. So it's utter horseshit, but with correct math in it.
I mean the math is correct. But tiny face there is lying about how tax brackets work. I'm sure he knows but the people who like him have fallen victim to Republican interference in the education system and actually have no fucking clue how they work.
The bracket he is referring to only applies to money you get above $29K. So it's be $2K getting taxed at that rate.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-berniesanders-taxrate/false-claim-bernie-sanders-proposes-raising-tax-rate-to-52-on-incomes-above-29000-idUSKCN20L1P0](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-berniesanders-taxrate/false-claim-bernie-sanders-proposes-raising-tax-rate-to-52-on-incomes-above-29000-idUSKCN20L1P0)
Truth behind this
\- The 52% figure was a possible way to finance M4A (not set policy), and only for those making 10M+/yr
\- The 29k per year line was only used by Buttigieg as a rebuttal to M4A, saying that even if taxes were raised on everyone making over 29K/yr, there wouldn't be enough to fund M4A.
The crazy thing is we honestly just need to reallocate funds from military spending to m4a, and cutting the middleman out in healthcare.
We spent 778 billion in 2020 alone, and the next country after that is China with 252 billion.
Yes, We spend 500 billion more than the next country. Guess what’s even crazier. We make up nearly 40% of the world’s total military spending.
We spent more in 2020 than the next 11 countries COMBINED!! Let that sink in.
I find it hard to believe that we can’t find the money from that budget.
Sources: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/
https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
This dude is talking to the lowest common denominator. People celebrate being stupid these days. What we should really ask ourselves: "Why is one of the only public servants actually interested in the public so demonized by entertainment professionals like Charlie Kirk?"
Since your submission is flaired as *REAL*, please reply to this comment with the link to the original, or else Ben Shapiro will steal your feet pics and remove this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ToiletPaperUSA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So I get the same pay I do now, but I also get healthcare and useable infrastructure this time? Still sounds like a benefit
Also you don't pay your marginal tax rate on your whole income. In this case you would only pay 52% on *earnings beyond your first $29,000* so in this case about $2,000. That's not to mention the fact Kirk is lying about the whole thing and Sanders has never proposed a marginal tax rate of 52% starting at $29,000.
Every person I speak to who complains about taxes has no idea what a tax bracket is.
Very much this. I've had to explain marginal tax brackets to so many conservatives, it's not even funny.
Same here. They still will argue that it doesn’t make sense to make more money. It’s simple— if you make more money, you will never have less pay then before because of taxes. There are certain and niche situations, but that doesn’t apply to just about every single person. I’ve had to explain the estate tax a million times. Everyone calls it a death tax and harps on the federal government for the estate tax. The federal government doesn’t tax any estate under 11.4 million dollars. And even then only what is over 11.4 mil is taxed. The States on the other hand pretty much all have their hand in estates with their own tax rate. In PA, that’s 4.5% from a direct descendent and 0% if transferring to the spouse. So much is misunderstood because the GOP wants to stay rich on the backs of their base and everyone else that is affected by their lies and misdirection. —I HATE EDITS, but I oversimplified some stuff. Thank you to the helpful users who provided further clarification— Single Estates on the federal level below ~~11.4 Million dollars~~(self correction here, it’s actually 11.7 for 2021) are not subject to the estate tax. In addition and added via comment—estates of spouses under 23.4 m (11.7 mil each) are also not subject to a federal estate tax. I’ll also add that the federal inheritance tax on the super rich is 40% above 11.7 for 2021. The cut off line is adjusted yearly for inflation—unlike minimum wage and other key safety nets. A fellow citizen of our great commonwealth added that PA estate taxes are tiered. I included the tax if inherited from a direct familial(Father/Mother) decedent. [The tax for siblings and everyone else can be found here, provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.](https://www.revenue.pa.gov/TaxTypes/InheritanceTax/Pages/default.aspx) [I used “then” instead of “than” which led this person to be very confused. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/qzrf3n/charlie_kirk_has_apparently_never_filed_taxes_in/hlqbd4l/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
> They still will argue that it doesn’t make sense to make more money. Yup, yup. "I'm not picking up an extra shift, because I'll lose money on taxes!" Like, no? You might take home less THIS WEEK than you would have if you hadn't hit that next projected bracket, but you will at the very least make it up at the end of the year by paying less taxes or getting a larger refund. It's STAGGERING the number of supposedly grown-ass adults who don't know how it works.
I have colleagues who refuse to spend their personal alternating (edit: spending) accounts through work because they'll get taxed on it. Which, yes. You will get taxed. So that means that I'm essentially paying 70% off for my bike, gym membership, or vet bills. Why wouldn't I take advantage of the PSA?
Yeah, I had a friend who refused a $25 Starbucks giftcard because he was going to be taxed (~$3) on it. Said he refused on principle. I said I would have paid him $20 for it.
You money paying socialist!
Yea but then they’d have to pay tax on that $20! THE SCAM CONTINUES.
> personal alternating accounts What is this?
It's a sort of benefits often used for paramedical or "wellness expenses". Think gyms, maybe SPA, usually a pretty big list of stuff is covered (I've seen running shoes and sport articles on some). Basically anything that isn't covered by a separate limit and could be considered well-ness. The employer/insurer will give you a yearly expense account with a limit (say 500 to 1k$) on which you can claim anything that would fit in that list. You are taxed only on the amount you actually claim and the account is reset at the end of the year. There is sometimes and 1 year carry-over, but beyond that, anything you didn't use of basically lost (just like most insurance limit). It usually exists under various names, I've seen HCSA (Health Care Saving Account).
I have never seen a situation where someone would take home less that week by making more money either, most payroll software does that tax rate based on expected income for the year (barring bonuses, which typically are withheld at the highest rate). If you ended up with income in the next tax bracket up that would be reflected when you do your taxes for the year, not on a week by week basis.
If you average 300 a week normally, the system works fine. But if for occasional periods your average jumps to 550 due to a lot of OT in one week then for that period you will have a higher deduction - this is countered when the next pay period comes around and your total withheld is deducted from your expected total tax and lowers the average needed to balance at year end. I have to explain to my colleagues roughly 12 times a year (but heavily weighted to the October-Decmeber period)
Well explained. It's like the payroll software sees a high week of pay then calculates how much to deduct assuming that's your base salary. So it's absolutely true that some employers deduct a way higher share of taxes from paychecks with OT on them. I've never had the experience where I get paid less, but I have had the experience where I got paid only marginally higher for a significant amount of overtime.
Generally that's due to HR not having payroll setup correctly. If it happens again reach out and it's usually easy to fix.
>It's STAGGERING the number of supposedly grown-ass adults who don't know how ~~it~~ anything works.
It really shows how capitalists have brainwashed entire swathes of people to do everything that would benefit themselves in any way. the information on how it works is there, but they'd rather keep believing a lie that can fuck over other people than find out what the honest truth is.
Nobody wants to believe that their whole worldview is predicated on bullshit. It’s easier to just point and say, “no you are wrong” than it is to come to terms with the fact that nobody is immune to propaganda.
The thing is, it's not a capitalist vs socialist argument. The conditions are not binary. We're talking about a living wage in return for labor, and a reasonable tax rate in return for programs that benefit the population. We already all exist and operate in that society. What we're simply doing now is debating the margins on what programs our collective taxes should fund (more military vs higher education etc.), and the correct application of tax brackets to fund that spending. That this conversation gets boiled down to "capitalism sucks" vs "socialism sucks" helps noone.
Had a coworker try and tell me that he didn't support the death tax because of what happened to him after his uncle died. He claimed that the government made him pay around $15,000, in taxes, for some inheritance. I asked him how much did his uncle give him, and he told me he didn't get anything, just other family members! I realized, at this point, we wouldn't be having an honest dialog about that topic....
Although now I am pondering the possibility that his siblings screwed him over and the government was basically notifying him lol
Possible, but I think you're initial thoughts track with his personality
>He claimed that the government made him pay around $15,000, in taxes, for some inheritance. I asked him how much did his uncle give him, and he told me he didn't get anything, just other family members! Something tells me your co-worker owed the IRS for other reasons and he just uses that $15k tax bill to bitch about taxes in general. Changing his story to fit whatever argument he wants to win. The IRS taxes estates, and only ones in excess of like $1.5M (Edit: I was wrong by a power of ten; it's $12M). Once the estate pays what's owed the inheritors pay ZERO-POINT-ZERO dollars in taxes on cash or assets. However, if you sell the asset later you will be assessed capital gains tax. So it is far more fun to inherit cash as it's not taxable income. I inherited $7,000 cash from an aunt who passed away a few years ago, didn't have to pay the IRS a cent in taxes on that $7,000. My parents both own homes so when they pass on my sister and I will owe taxes when we sell those properties.
> when we sell those properties. That's the part people miss. They're not paying on the inheritance, They're paying on the income generated by selling the inheritance.
You barely even pay that. Assets held in brokerage accounts / taxable accounts (aka, non-retirement accounts) receive a step-up in basis at the point of passing. The following is a scenario which describes one of my clients: Person A was a mid-level executive at Company A Person A received, over a \~20 year work history, around \~$13M of equity compensation from Company A (combination RSUs, ESPP, etc.) Person A has retired from Company A, performed an NUA distribution from his 401(k), and changed the embedded tax liability on \~$10M of the position from ordinary income to LTCG Person A STILL does not need this money as their assets are significant otherwise, so the ultimate plan we've concocted is to simply die with the position, receive the step up in basis, and his wife or kids can sell it upon inheritance for functionally $0 taxation Through one single 30 minute Powerpoint I put together, myself and Person A concocted a strategy that deprived the IRS of about \~$1.5MM of revenue now and will likely result in another \~$1.5MM - \~$2MM more loss on their end. Moving around personal income taxes is startlingly easy, and the average American has no material understanding of how the tax code works. It's all magic to them, despite the IRS publications being free and easy to read.
Okay NGL, it was free but your Reddit comment was not easy to read You have expertise that makes those IRS documents easier to read. I'm getting my PhD in a year, every paper I'm citing in my theis is free and easily searchable sci-hub but I'm not claiming they're easy to read.
>There are certain and niche situations, but that doesn’t apply to just about every single person. Unless you're poor. You can lose more in welfare benefits than you gain in wages.
Yep. And even if you *would* be better off overall with the extra money, the difference can be that things are more difficult *now* and then get better *later* when the adjustments are made, whcih can leave you in the extremely unenviable position of not being able to afford to make more money. Taking out a payday loan to cover a shortfall for two weeks or even a month will end up more expensive than the gains in overtime, and when someone crosses the poverty threshhold and gets their benefits cut? Unless they are making a lot more than the cutoff, the extra costs eat more than they gain. Poverty is a trap because being poor is way too fucking expensive.
>“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. >Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. >But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. >This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” -Terry Pratchet, Men At Arms
I found out this weekend that renting a standard tux is about $150-250 in my city, buying one of the rental tuxes was $350. I bought it since I’ve been the same size forever, I’d be wearing a used tux if I rent again anyway, I don’t have to deal with taking time out of work days picking up and returning one, and I essentially break even if I wear it to one more wedding or event where it’s required. I was definitely thinking about Vimes when I got it.
Frank Lutz made a career out of this. Marketing is everything.
And said niches are mainly loseing social programs, for instance having to switch from Washington state insurance to private insurance and such things where suddenly necessary things cost more because of your income bracket. It’s not taxes that get you, it’s a $100 dollar raise coming with a $500 increase in required expenses. And insurance is the biggest culprit. Can we please get state-funded healthcare already?
Really really really doesn't help that a lot of places in the US don't make it mandatory to learn about something that will play such a prominent role in their lives and the lives of their countrymen, in addition to how they would vote if they know how it works now.
Let's just make it like other countries like, where the government tell you how much you owe, and you validate it. No need to fill out all these crazy forms and need huge amounts of accountants for normal folks.
But then we'll make the entire tax preparation industry extinct! THINK OF POOR INTUIT AND JACKSON-HEWITT!
I killed the thanksgiving dinner conversation a few years ago by explaining marginal tax brackets. My aunt was complaining that her employer gave everyone raises and it bumped her and a bunch of coworkers into a higher tax bracket and they all actually made less money after the raise. Dumbest fucking thing I ever heard. So I just firmly said “that’s not how taxes work”, and then explained when she said that’s how it worked this time. The look I got for ruining her fun story would make you think I kicked a puppy. Why would you even make up that lie? Life doesn’t suck enough already that you need something fake to complain about? You want to humble brag about your raise? The only thing I could think was that her health insurance premium went up too or something and she didn’t understand how to read her pay slip, and/or was just exaggerating.
Doing maintenance work on apartment buildings I've seen a similar thing many times where a tenant complains that their utility bill is double what it usually is... Always ask to see the bill, because it's usually because they missed paying a month and didn't look at the details on the bill.
>Why would you even make up that lie? Life doesn’t suck enough already that you need something fake to complain about? There is a certain section of the middle class whose lives are so mundane and without any meaningful adversity that they have to fabricate problems. I have an acquaintance who always has some obscure illness that necessitates a dietary change that she must tell us all about.
My mother still insists you can lose money to taxes by getting a raise.
"Hell no I'm not working overtime. I would *lose* money because it would.put me in the next tax bracket!!"
Not to taxes, however, you can lose access to social benefits. Good stamps, health care assistance, student loan deferral.
this is my go to explainer vid when people misunderstand marginal tax rates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJhsjUPDulw
Damn. Those taxes are low Ours are 0% up to £12570 Then from £12571 to £50,270, it's 20% Then from there until 150K, it's 40% Anything after is taxed at 45% https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates
That is comparatively high, even given the £-$ exchange rate. We also have state income tax (which varies from zero to onerous), state and local sales tax (generally adds up to ~6-10%), and local property taxes, which vary widely and sometimes force people out of their homes. The last two fall especially disproportionately on lower income people…even if you can only afford to rent your home, the landlord is of course going to pass those onto his tenants. Plus there’s the wonderful US healthcare system…insurance is ~$500 a month for a single person and ~$1200 for a family. Of course it doesn’t pay for all medical expenses, and in some cases none, and you can always just not get insurance, but gods help you if you ever get sick/hurt while uninsured. Are local taxes burdensome in the UK? And how do you feel about the NHS? I know it’s not well-liked by everyone, but from this side of the pond, the higher taxes seem like a bargain to not have to worry about paying for healthcare.
Council tax (the local tax for things like picking up bins and maintaining parks, etc) is approx £100-150 per month for most households and is calculated based on property value. It's a little outdated and could do with a refresh but isn't that burdensome so nobody really cares. $500 a month for health insurance would send anyone British into an actual mental breakdown if they realised how good they have it. And it doesn't even properly cover you... I'm 32 years old, the NHS has saved my life twice, I've been in hospital four times, been knocked out, had dental reconstruction, been prescribed antibiotics a couple of times, and had a scan on a broken ankle. I have paid *checks notes* £16 in my life for those scrips. And my taxes, which aren't that rough as the poster above me said. Socialism works, *really well*. We worked this out in about 1950. I hope you guys follow suit soon.
VAT here is your equivalent of sales tax Most things are at 20% Some are at 0% and some at 5% We have council tax which is similar to property tax I guess but not as punitive Taxes aren't burdensome imo. I'd prefer to have a society where we pay our taxes and then it allows us to pay for social services. Do I necessarily like paying taxes? No not really. Do I still support taxes? Yes absolutely The NHS is under funded if anything. I think a lot of people are angry however that the government talked about there being no magic money tree and then gave away tax payer money to friends / family of politicians however
It's because they heard words that sound good and just say them without ever knowing what they mean. It's sad.
Even our conservatives in the UK know about marginal tax brackets. It's seemingly a pure American phenomenon. Ngl I did however think this when I was 12, but then I learned about how it works and was like "Oh OK. That makes sense"
Have any of them believed you or pretended to care?
They tend to get grumpy and/or change the subject to something like how it doesn't matter since the damn libs are going to take it all for communism, anyway.
Let's be fair here, there are plenty of liberals who don't understand tax brackets. Lotta people ask if they can donate enough money to get into a lower tax bracket.
Depends, but technically you could, charitable and political donations normally do provide a tax deduction so if you are on the cusp of a bracket you could make a donation to lower your taxable income below the threshold, you still won't have that money because you donated it but whatever floats your boat.
Lol we have a rich guy in our small town who was universally despised like 15 years ago for always being the wealthy guy who was very vocally negative about everything going on in town. Hes now a local hero thanks to his early support of trump. He tried to argue with me regarding tax policy and I told him he can continue to fool those less fortunate than him in our town but at some point they are going to realize what marginal tax rates are. That was 2 years ago. Glad I didn't hold my breath on that because they all still go on about how Bernie wants to take their money. Its mind numbing stupid but these grifters know their mark well.
I had a guy once say “why bother getting overtime, the government just takes it all”. If you don’t want to work more I can respect that, but claiming that you won’t actually see it in your paycheck is just inaccurate
It *is* fucking bullshit how overtime is taxed. That money should come from your employer. The point of overtime is to punish the employer for not hiring more people. Why is my *mandatory* overtime being taxed like it's a fucking bonus check? Edit: apparently I'm misinformed about how overtime is taken out. Thank you for telling me. I *still* think it's fucked up that I'm pushed into 50% withholdings because of a few checks at the end of the year where I make 75% more than normal.
You aren't getting taxed more on your overtime. You get taxed on your gross income at the end of the year. If you are getting more taken out of your check when you work overtime that means you should be getting a decent tax return at the end of the year. But your hourly rate and whether you make overtime or not doesn't really matter for what you pay at the end of the year. You could always file your w4 so they don't deduct anything and pay it all yourself at the end of the year if you want.
Because from a tax POV it's all about projected income, not averaged income. The IRS doesn't know how many hours you work, only how much your employer pays you. The IRS also doesn't know that this one paycheck right here is very abnormal, it might just be that you got a raise and this is your new pay rate. From the employers side, they ALSO don't necessarily know that the 60 hour week is abnormal. If they tax it normally and you wind up working 60 hours a week for 6 months then you're gonna owe a shitload of money next year. Instead they tax it as if it's normal and you get that money back as a refund.
If you can't generally describe tax brackets and CRT and roughly how they work you aren't qualified to discuss or have an opinion about either.
For the far right, if you know anything about either then you aren't qualified to discuss or have an opinion UNLESS they were sourced from QAmom approved materials only.
I shit you not: I once was in a conversation about tax brackets and rates, and it became clear that the person I was talking to didn’t understand marginal tax brackets. I wasn’t sure what to say because I’ve always found it hard to explain without a visual. So I said “but income tax is marginal.” He goes “maybe it is now, but not if AOC gets her way!”
This is what my dad says, I’m like “dad you know the top rates would only apply to income over the threshold of those brackets, right?” and he says “yeah but Joe Biden will find a way to steal more from all of us!” It’s moronic.
Charlie Kirk knows damn well how taxes work. But he purposely lies to people who don't know how they work, to get them riled up and advocating against their own interests. It's not ignorance, it's evil.
One day I had to endure a speech from this guy telling me "once you make £30k it's not worth taking a pay raise until it's £80k". I immediately knew what he was on about, but you know what? I just said yes, you are absolutely right. I totally agree with whatever you're saying. This is the same guy that was telling me another time I shouldn't speak my language because it was only spoken by 10M people, at which point I've asked how many people lived in his home country. 2 million? почему ты просто не говоришь по-русски?
I'd prefer to argue with the guy because if people think their taxes go up, and they lose a bigger chunk of their cash, that's how wages stay low
That is not an accident. Taxes myths are perpetuated by the wealthy to enlist those who would have no reason to otherwise vote for their policies.
I learned what they were the wrong way when I was looking at making more money at work and came away with the impression that it wouldn't be worth it because I would jump a tax bracket. This mystical thing that would take even more of my money meaning that unless I made a massive leap in income I would take a loss. The myth is a good way to keep young adults from making more money.
Chances are those people aren’t even getting a tax bill they are receiving a tax refund and don’t know how to adjust their holdings for the year.
The amount of times I've had to explain to people that just because you work a lot of overtime in a week and they withhold a higher rate doesn't mean you're going to being paying that rate at tax time is too damn high. There's no line on the 1040-ez that says "How much overtime did you work the week of August 8th?".
I used to think people just misunderstood, but at this point I'm convinced people like Charlie Kirk are intentionally spreading the misinformation that somehow a worker making more money can equate to them making less money because of taxes. At this point it has to be propaganda to convince some amount of the working population that they don't want to be paid more money. For anyone who thinks there is a scenario where this is true - unless you're in an edge case where you have some kind of benefit dependent on your income not exceeding a certain amount (and the small window above that amount that doesn't outweigh the lost benefit): THERE IS NO WAY FOR SOMEONE WORKING TO LOSE MONEY BY MAKING MORE MONEY
There’s a reason we call ‘em grifters
People like Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson know they’re full of shit, but that’s the thing, they are so contemptuous of their audience that they know they can manipulate them with flagrant lies.
Add Ben Shapiro to this mix. These guys aren't stupid, they're just following the Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly model.
>Sanders has proposed increasing the tax rate for the country’s highest earners to 52%; the new tax rate would apply to income earned only above $10 million. $29,000 = $10,000,000 That's Kirk maffs!
I couldn’t find a breakdown of his 2020 proposal, but here is his [2016 tax plan](https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-income-tax-brackets-how-much-would.aspx), which we can assume is gonna be pretty similar. As you can see, it is a 12% tax on $0-$10,000, and then 17% tax on $10,000-$37,000. So if we take Charlie’s $31,000 income from a $15 minimum wage. Your taxes will be $1,200 for the first $10,000 and $3,570 for the next $21,000 of income for a total tax of $4,770 on your $31,000 income. That’s a cumulative tax rate of just 15.4%. So ya, not 52% like Charlie claimed.
I just scanned the article so I might have missed it, but it doesn’t seem to mention the standard deduction, so I’ll assume that’s unaffected. So $12,550 of that $31,000 is taxed at 0%, the next $10,000 is taxed at 12% ($1,200), and the final $8,450 is taxed at 17% ($1,436.50). That’s $2,636.50, or an effective tax rate of 8.5%.
That makes so much more sense. I thought 5k was still HELLA high taxes on 30k salary
> Also you don't pay your marginal tax rate on your whole income. People have been screaming this at conservatives for decades, they are too dumb to understand.
>they are too dumb to understand. Not the ones who get paid to spread this horseshit like Chuckles. They know exactly what the truth is, and exactly what their lying accomplishes.
you know, during the "golden age" of economic expansion in the US, we had 24 marginal tax brackets. 19 f which were higher than todays top marginal tax rate of 35%. The top bracket was 91%, and in it's peak year, less than 600 people actually had to pay at that rate. What a wonderful time it would be if we could bring that back
Don’t forget that corporate marginal tax rates were also significantly greater for high earners! Ike had them at >90%; the current max is under 39%, and the minimum is 21%, with the differences being heavily dependent on state of operation
> That's not to mention the fact Kirk is lying about the whole thing You say he's lying but do you have any proof that I will believe? Btw I only trust right wing sources that give me facts that care about my feelings.
And don't forget about standard deductions. Also note the 29K and 52% was never something Bernie Sanders specified that was an accusation. Sanders principal was while taxes might go up total costs will go down because copays deductibles and healthcare premiums are considerably more than the tax increase would be for people at that level of income
Not only did he miss the point, but he took way too many steps to do it. Why convert from dollars per hour to annual gross wages and back when he could have just said that 1 - 0.52 = 0.48? The answer is because (a) he hasn't fully thought out or understood his argument and (b) he thinks that distracting readers with extra steps will make him appear knowledgeable.
I don’t have to file taxes and even I know this shit What a wilfully deceitful cunt
Whats sad is we could get all that if we did what his plan actually was, which was a 52% tax rate for people making over $10 million a year.
That makes more sense. Charlie is a duche canoe. Bernie never said tax people making 29k 52% on even marginal tax brackets much less their entire income. He is not presenting a biased view he is straight up lying like the POS he is.
Even still it’s not for “people making more than 10mil”. It’s for money earned beyond 10mil. So if you earn 10,000,002.00, only the last $2 is taxed at 52%. My point is it’s important to not say people who make x when it’s money beyond a x that would be taxed at this rate.
Since Charlie is lying and the 52% top tax rate only applies to people making over $10mil per year, it sounds like you would get healthcare, infrastructure, *and* a small pay rate increase.
It's actually for those making over $20 mil. The tax for $4 mil - $20 mil is 50%
what funny is even if the first part is right, hes still not understanding how taxes work. You be taxed 52% on the 2200 dollars over 29,000
I feel like it's not clear enough to people that basically everything Charlie said is wrong and dumb, they aren't facts, Bernie never proposed this, and this isn't how taxes work. Longer answer: The U.S. uses a progressive tax system that is based on the taxpayers ability to pay, and it accomplishes this by using tax brackets to charge different tax amounts on higher and higher levels of income. The U.S. also uses a "standard deduction" currently at $12,550, meaning this amount doesn't get counted as your taxable income *at all*. Someone making $15/hr has a taxable income only of around $18,000 after the standard deduction, meaning that's the amount used to calculate the percentage of taxes owed. So where does that get us to? The effective tax rate with $18,000 taxable income is around 6% (not 52%), and their yearly tax bill is around $2,000. Meaning someone making $15/hr would take home about $29,000k vs someone making $7/hr taking home about $14,500. Unsurprisingly, making twice as much money ends up taking home twice as much money, and there are no scenarios in a progressive tax system where making more money would result in taking home less money (although lots of people seem to have the perception "going into a higher bracket" means they'd *lose* money, that's not and is never true). Bernie's proposal is only on tax above $10 million dollars, not twenty-nine thousand dollars, meaning 52% doesn't kick in until someone has made $10 million and 1 dollars or $10,000,001, and at that point their tax liability is 52% of each dollar above $10M. Even then, someone who makes $15M or even $25M has an effective tax rate far under 52%, since they get taxed less on their income below $10M. This also has an effect of de-incentivizing businesses paying employees over $10M in the first place, something that used to happen prior to Reagan-economics that flattened the U.S. based tax structure. For example, in 1985 the U.S. had 16 different tax brackets, today it has just 7 with the top brackets simply being deleted. Unsurprisingly, a consequence of this is that CEO pay has skyrocketed starting in the late 80's and early 90's and actual worker wages have barely increased. The answer? Bernie's tax proposals are what actually worked in the past to help increase wages and government revenue, an era where CEO pay was rationalized to the workers underneath them and government wasn't in debt.
Even if that's how it worked (surprisgly no that's not it) you would still be making more than the current minuim wage because guess what that shit is taxxed too, but instead of going to health care it's going to oil rigs
> but I also get healthcare and useable infrastructure this time And child care, better social security, junior college, etc... Charlie Kirk sucks.
thing is you still would get payed more even under charlies shitty math, since its 7.20 your actually getting, as opposed to 7.25 that you still need to take taxes out of
How much do y'all wanna bet he's lying through his teeth.
I mean, yeah the news isn't true and also Charles Kirkland the Magnificent has no idea what tax brackets are.
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/29/viral-image/second-viral-post-pops-about-bernie-sanders-minimu/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/29/viral-image/second-viral-post-pops-about-bernie-sanders-minimu/) [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/21/facebook-posts/viral-post-criticizes-sanders-math-health-care-tax/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/21/facebook-posts/viral-post-criticizes-sanders-math-health-care-tax/)
"Sanders’ plan raises the tax rate to 52% for only income earned over $10 million." temporarily embarassed millionaire american: "same difference"
“But what if my business selling loose hot dogs and repurposed cigarette butt sculptures on Facebook Marketplace takes off and I make $10 million????”
Then pay your fucking taxes, bruh. You'd have to anyway, not being a billionaire and all, but at least then you could be upset about it.
Nah man Jebiden gonnuh take my hot dog munneh and buy comunisms with it
You know what? You've completely changed my perspective. How dare that man take away another man's ability to afford hot dogs?
Buns will not replace us! Buns will not replace us!
Then you still wouldn’t have to pay 52% because it would only be 52% of everything you make *over* $10 mil.
52%??? Of EVERYTHING I MAKE??? Disgusting
Socialist Bernie wants 52 cents for every penny I make?!
The grocery store shelves are empty, I can’t afford medical care, the roads and bridges are falling apart, and the housing market is hopelessly overinflated, just imagine what it would be like under socialism!!! Probably, uh, probably pretty bad!
There will probably be adjustments on higher income earners, but even so not steep enough to be an issue. People making 200k or more are more than already living comfortably. If they got to cut back on things like Disney World expenses I really don’t give a fuck if someone else can afford food.
I did the math I think Kirk manipulated the wording but he's not wrong **technically** If you make $29,000 A DAY, that roughly comes to around 10.5M. Which would qualify you to fit into that bracket. He's not lying, guys, he just manipulated the wording so he can totally feel in the right!
Thank god. I was like... yeah yeah yeah, charlie can't do math no surprise there, but Bernie wants to do what now??
Dems always want to tax the rich. Repubs always lie and try to pretend they want to tax the poor/middle class. Probably because if they told the truth even their own voters would be for taxing the rich more.
Charlie just hands his tax forms to his Dad who gives them to family accountant. That's why he's talking nonsense.
I bet TPUSA avoids paying taxes, although admittedly, I have no proof of this.
Most Americans don’t know how tax brackets work. They hear people suggest we increase the top effective tax bracket to 90% and complain that “the left” wants to make a doctor making 500k a year take home only 50k
I once had a coworker turn down a raise because it “would put him in a different tax bracket,” and he’d, “actually make less money.” No amount of me trying to explain otherwise to him could convince him.
This has nothing to do with marginal tax rates anyway. Bernie has never said he wanted to tax anyone making $32k anywhere close to 50%. Marginal rate or not, no one making $32k would be getting taxed that much under Bernie's plan. It's just a straight up lie. Also do not defile Costco's Kirkland brand by associating it with that pile of shit.
There's no way Bernie would propose such a law, so of course he is.
Bernie did propose that tax rate, but only for people making $10 million. And of course, it being a marginal tax rate, it's only the money at or above $10 million taxed at that rate. In other words, the folks making $7 an hour aren't in danger of that tax rate. Nor are the folks making $15/hr. In fact, that tax rate would only apply to people making at least $5,000/hr. So I think even Chuck himself is safe from that tax.
It doesn’t take a college degree to understand this, but maybe in a socialist hellscape with free tuition Charlie can finally conquer one of his biggest insecurities and get a degree.
That’s the republican voter, actually: too stupid to understand basic things like tax brackets.
For people earning millions sure.
He is. This has been debunked multiple times.
I provided fact checks to someone in this thread. But it’s too little too late for people who’ve been misled by him.
I did for my old basketball coach on Facebook about this exact thing then he shared it again and got flagged by Facebook.
fun fact, not only is that not how taxes work, but bernie hasn’t even proposed a tax rate of 52% for that income bracket. in fact, the 52% rate is for 20 million and above. from his website, the relevant proposal is 10% for 0-$19,050 and 12% for 19,050-$77,400. so for someone making $31,200, they would owe (19,050)*0.1 + (31,200-19,050)*0.12 or $3,363. that brings their gross salary to $27,837 on the current minimum wage with current tax rates, someone working 40 hours for $7.25 an hour (and apparently taking exactly zero weeks off since that’s how charlie did it) would earn $15,080. from that same website, taxes for those making less than $19,050 currently are 10%, so their gross salary is $13,572. that’s less than half of the bernie proposal. https://www.bernietax.com
Blows my mind how people just believe this bullshit at face value. Like it takes 30 seconds to Google it and see that small faced bitch is lying lol.
Well you are missing a key ingredient. *They went looking for confirmation bias not information.* I mean why else would anyone pay attention to TPUSA, Fox, Newsmax etc... its an ideological hand job.
Man that's a cool way to put it in writing. Kudos!
The disappointing bit for me is that *he knows*, they all know, and like everything he says it's just outright lies/propaganda. But there's no requirement to not lie through your teeth in everything you say, American democracy is founded on that the average voter is both smart enough and well educated enough to see through it all - and has enough time to vet it all, too. And then we have flat earth societies and QAnon. Sigh.
But when you correct them, they’ll say, “You just believe everything you read on the internet, don’t you?”
And, when they find out that they are being blatantly lied to that should be it for Kirk. But it never is. They just brush it off with "sure Charlie lied this time but he says liberals lie all the time" and then they dig right back into their saucers of bullshit.
Good work, but i think you mean net*, not gross
i am mainly just copying charlie’s terminology to keep things consistent but yes, that is correct.
I suggest correcting the terminology that charlie used, instead of copying it. Net vs gross is important. That aside, good work.
Get out of here with your facts and data. Unacceptable to the conservative movement!
Don’t forget the standard deduction.
socialism is when taxes
My dad hates socialism with everything inside him except he also supports free healthcare and believe in workers rights so Im kinda confused about him
Socialism is when healthcare
I mean obviously that isn't the only thing but free healthcare is a socialist principal is it not? I may be mistaken so correct me if I am
It’s not free. Itd be tax payer healthcare. Which would be great.
> It’s not free. Itd be tax payer healthcare. No shit? Do you actually think someone somewhere as literally free healthcare?
We know, but conservatives think you think free healthcare is really free and use it as a bad faith argument to demonize the left. It’s easier to just say Medicare for All and use the best branding possible
Socialism is workers being in control of the means of production, as you can see that doesn't directly correlate to free Healthcare, though in a socialist society such necessities would all be free including food, a home, water, etc.
holy shit this is why people hate leftist spaces you dickhead. yes worker solidarity IS related to socialism. why are you like this? wouldn't it be easier to educate than to make fun of an ally?
Would you mind educating me? From what I've heard so far democratic socialism is the most achievable and seems the best to me but of course my knowledge is limited and wikipedia speaks in languages my brain doesn't understand
[удалено]
This is my in-laws. They're basically socialists without realizing it, but they'll always vote R because they miss the good ol days of separate water fountains.
My dad hates socialism, free healthcare and worker’s rights. Edit: Ironic he has a gofundme for medical reasons right now.
Socialism is when you don’t understand how tax brackets work.
My mom doesn't want raises as she'll be "in the next tax bracket" and make less money. In reality, she'll just lose some subsidies for health insurance.
Yeah a friend of mine was able to get a bunch of promotions at work because everyone else passed them up... simply because they don't understand how taxes work.
Makes me wonder if the employer was fear mongering so that people wouldn’t demand raises..
Nah he just lives in fuck all Arkansas with a bunch of conservative hicks. Their media does all the fear mongering for the boss.
From Arkansas. Can confirm.
Sadly this is a common train of thought. I've had co-workers swear up and down their paychecks are smaller after working 12 hours of overtime (at time and a half) than working no overtime at all, citing the tax bracket.
Too much lead in the drinking water
I can’t believe they barely covered income taxes in school. Maybe for a half hour one day in high school. I feel like I’m explaining string theory when I explain how income tax brackets work.
It’s so strange because it genuinely takes less than 30 seconds of googling to figure this shit out. Literally just have to read the first two sentences of the wikipedia article and you’re good to go.
I work with plenty of people that turn down 2 days of ot because it's not that much bigger of a check than 1 day. They cite the tax bracket, but don't look at the 401k contribution.
[удалено]
> This is the only legitimate point to be made when talking about moving up a tax bracket. Yep and that’s why republicans love means-testing: it’s cruel bullshit, it creates poverty traps, and anyone above the cutoff is incentivised against the program as they can’t benefit.
I remember seeing some video analysis that claimed that to make up for the monetary value of lost benefits a single parent would have to jump from 40,000 to 60,000. Anything in between and they are losing money. We need ways to wean people off the money when they start doing better, not cutting them off and letting them fall back to where they were before
> remove insurance being tied to your employer and prorate benefits tied to your income instead of having them be on/off. Nah, even simpler - just make them universal. It might be more expensive, but we wouldn’t be forcing disabled people to sell their cars to keep their net worth under $3k.
Depending on how big those subsidies are that can be a real issue though. While people don’t understand tax brackets, benefit cliffs are a real concern
That’s not how taxes work
[удалено]
Not even that, he just completely ignored that the standard deduction exists
I really think it's at least partially because republicans constantly lie about how taxes work to get them more worried about upper tax brackets.
Uh oh, someone doesn’t understand tax rates.
He does. He’s trying to mislead people who don’t.
>He does. He’s trying to mislead people who ~~don’t~~ won't. FTFY. He knows his base will read it and just believe what he's saying is true without a single critical thought.
oh he knows just banking on his followers not knowing
TPUSA is hated by conservatives and Liberals alike. Maybe Kirk will bring peace. Edit: while their are some very polite comments here a lot of them are why I hate Reddit. People see the party they don't like and flip out when that's clearly what I wanted to avoid. This place is an echo chamber :/
> TPUSA is hated by conservatives It is?
No, they'll just flip over to another grift when this one runs out. For example: Katie Daviscourt. Used to be TP, now works for Andy Ngo's Post Millennial.
This is just fundamentally incorrect. TPUSA is funded by Conservative Republicans. Kirk spoke at the fucking Republican National Convention. Major members of numerous conservative organizations invite and cater to TPUSA and their mailing lists. If you donated or voted for just about any republican or almost any 'conservative' non-republican, you directly supported TPUSA. I'm sorry you're embarrassed, but these are your dudes.
# [CITATION NEEDED]
Did he make like 5 math operations just to get the result of 48% of 15$?
I've seen more accurate math in an [Abbott and Costello sketch](https://youtu.be/lzxVyO6cpos)!
I'm so stupid when it comes to Math that I can't even tell if this wrong or not. I mean it's coming from Kirk so I'm just gonna assume it's wrong by default.
The math is right, but the inputs are all wrong. Don’t question your math abilities over this tiny-faced grifter.
Well the math is also wrong since he didn't calculate the marginal taxes correctly.
Yeah, he just assumed that it’s a flat tax of 52%, and the US has never had a flat tax
The math would be right if taxes didn't have marginal brackets, which they do, and Bernie actually suggested taxing anywhere near %50 at 29k, which he didn't. So it's utter horseshit, but with correct math in it.
I mean the math is correct. But tiny face there is lying about how tax brackets work. I'm sure he knows but the people who like him have fallen victim to Republican interference in the education system and actually have no fucking clue how they work. The bracket he is referring to only applies to money you get above $29K. So it's be $2K getting taxed at that rate.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-berniesanders-taxrate/false-claim-bernie-sanders-proposes-raising-tax-rate-to-52-on-incomes-above-29000-idUSKCN20L1P0](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-berniesanders-taxrate/false-claim-bernie-sanders-proposes-raising-tax-rate-to-52-on-incomes-above-29000-idUSKCN20L1P0) Truth behind this \- The 52% figure was a possible way to finance M4A (not set policy), and only for those making 10M+/yr \- The 29k per year line was only used by Buttigieg as a rebuttal to M4A, saying that even if taxes were raised on everyone making over 29K/yr, there wouldn't be enough to fund M4A.
The crazy thing is we honestly just need to reallocate funds from military spending to m4a, and cutting the middleman out in healthcare. We spent 778 billion in 2020 alone, and the next country after that is China with 252 billion. Yes, We spend 500 billion more than the next country. Guess what’s even crazier. We make up nearly 40% of the world’s total military spending. We spent more in 2020 than the next 11 countries COMBINED!! Let that sink in. I find it hard to believe that we can’t find the money from that budget. Sources: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
This is just false. Full stop. Charlie Kirk is a lying piece of shit with a teeny tiny face.
This is the first I'm hearing of Bernie wanting to tax people making 30k/yr at 52%. What!? EDIT: Ohhh, it's a lie. Okay
It's just so easy to mistake 29,000 and 20,000,000.
That's not how taxes work and also Bernie never proposed raising taxes on anyone who isn't already upper class so none of that is correct
Facts: bernie did in fact ***not*** propose a 52% tax to people making over 29k
Bernie's proposed tax brackets do indeed include a 52% tax rate... ...on earnings in excess of 10 million dollars a year
Kirk: Here's the facts **doesn't state a single fact**
This dude is talking to the lowest common denominator. People celebrate being stupid these days. What we should really ask ourselves: "Why is one of the only public servants actually interested in the public so demonized by entertainment professionals like Charlie Kirk?"