First tax increase of 2017 announced

[hal2kilo]

I for one will say congratulations! If your experience is anything like mine then today is an incredibly exciting and modestly terrifying day. Hope it all goes well!

I guess I'm just a loser. I get close to grasping the brass ring of no more SS taxes for the year, but they keep moving it out of my reach. I don't think I will get there before I retire. Is that how we measure success in this country?

 

[zinfamous]

I don't have a corn field anywhere around me. Knoxville isn't the biggest city, but sure isn't the smallest either. Almost 200k. Sure there are much bigger, many much smaller. I don't have any issues with food or entertainment. Or the local jobs. Pretty much any job type available, including nuclear scientists, rocket scientists, among other such jobs, jobs one town over at Y12. The place that made the nukes that got dropped on Japan. House is in a new neighborhood, very close to anything you'd want to do. Getting AT&T gigapower Internet hooked up on Thursday, can't be in the boonies doing that.

Yeah you can drive about 30 mins from Knoxville and be way out in the country, especially going towards the Smoky Mountains. I know you're just trying to get under my skin and troll me, not going to work. Too excited about today! Even took of from work, closing in 2 hours and 20 minutes.

ah yeah, Knoxville ain't bad at all. Big Research universities are where I typically aim, because there are always solid resources and opportunities generated by those. It's nice to still be able to find them in relatively cheap cities, because those cities aren't going to remain cheap for very long.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do taxes drastically increase as your income passes $75,300 in a household, but you begin to lose deductions and credits along with it. Child tax credit goes away, child care deduction decreases, Lifetime Learning and American Opportunity credits disappear, student loan interest deduction, Roth IRA goes away, and the list goes on and on.

Trust me, those "high rolling Rockerfellers" that exist in the upper middle class/lower upper class range pay a huge amount of taxes and they are NOT living like kings.

My wife and I thought the same as you only 10 years ago when we were making $60k a year combined. "Those greedy people that make $100k+! They should be taxed more! With that kind of income we would live like kings!!" Then we moved up in our careers and found that we were completely off base.

Your numbers are a bit misleading. For example the 75K limit for Child Care Credit applies only if you file as single or head of household. If you file as joint married the Child Care Credit starts phasing away at $110K AGI. From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, AGI is post 401K contributions, at that income range the couple could and really should max out their 401K's anyway, meaning they can make $146K per year while maxing out their 401K's before the child income credit starts phasing away.

As far as your other post with detailed budget goes, while it may not be rich life, it's looks pretty good to me. 6% to 401K (not enough at that income level IMO, but that's a separate issue) and 500 per month in IRA works out to be about $14000 squirelled away into dedicated retirement savings, $400 per month on entertainment sounds really nice to me, car payments would imply that the couple either perpetually leases brand new cars every 3 years, or buys new ones every 5, having 3-5 year old car again sounds good to me considering the average car age is currently 11.5 years old, and after all of that they still have 2K disposable income? As I said, the couple may not be independantly wealthy, but what you're describing is a pretty damn comfortable life, far far better than most of the country.

 

[bshole]

ah yeah, Knoxville ain't bad at all. Big Research universities are where I typically aim, because there are always solid resources and opportunities generated by those. It's nice to still be able to find them in relatively cheap cities, because those cities aren't going to remain cheap for very long.

Too Southern and Bible beltish for me........

 

[EOM]

Those who have a generous income should not receive additional funds from the government.
In terms of allocation of resources, there are plenty of other people who need it more.

As for what is taxable... it makes no sense for there to be an upper limit.

I concur. If anything, remove the upper limit and lower the overall rate.

 

[child of wonder]

Your numbers are a bit misleading. For example the 75K limit for Child Care Credit applies only if you file as single or head of household. If you file as joint married the Child Care Credit starts phasing away at $110K AGI. From what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, AGI is post 401K contributions, at that income range the couple could and really should max out their 401K's anyway, meaning they can make $146K per year while maxing out their 401K's before the child income credit starts phasing away.

As far as your other post with detailed budget goes, while it may not be rich life, it's looks pretty good to me. 6% to 401K (not enough at that income level IMO, but that's a separate issue) and 500 per month in IRA works out to be about $14000 squirelled away into dedicated retirement savings, $400 per month on entertainment sounds really nice to me, car payments would imply that the couple either perpetually leases brand new cars every 3 years, or buys new ones every 5, having 3-5 year old car again sounds good to me considering the average car age is currently 11.5 years old, and after all of that they still have 2K disposable income? As I said, the couple may not be independantly wealthy, but what you're describing is a pretty damn comfortable life, far far better than most of the country.

That was what I said. Comfortable but not rich. I was trying to dispel the notion that $140k makes a family "high rolling Rockerfellers."

 

[werepossum]

Those who have a generous income should not receive additional funds from the government.
In terms of allocation of resources, there are plenty of other people who need it more.

As for what is taxable... it makes no sense for there to be an upper limit.

Because it's totally government's purpose to take money from one party and give it to another party because they "need it more." Says so in JFK's famous quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And as we all* know, JFK was one of the Founding Fathers and practically wrote the whole Constitution.

* 'All' in this case meaning those educated solely by government schools after the 60s.

 

[IronWing]

Because it's totally government's purpose to take money from one party and give it to another party because they "need it more." Says so in JFK's famous quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And as we all* know, JFK was one of the Founding Fathers and practically wrote the whole Constitution.

* 'All' in this case meaning those educated solely by government schools after the 60s.

Slightly reducing a tax shelter for high earners is now communism?

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, I meant to say a private agreement. A bit slow today due to hangover.

You actually do have a private individual account of sorts. However, it means absolutely nothing. Your account is merely a projected payout, and government is free to alter it (or remove it entirely) at its own discretion, with your sole redress being limited to complaining to your CongressCritters and voting for different CongressCritters and Presidents. A Bernie Madoff account has the exact same legal guarantee as does a Social Security account.

 

[werepossum]

Slightly reducing a tax shelter for high earners is now communism?

The payroll tax/Social Security limit was based on maximum payout. It's not a tax shelter unless you accept that all income rightly belongs to government and therefore anything that forces government to take less is a tax shelter.

 

[IronWing]

The payroll tax/Social Security limit was based on maximum payout. It's not a tax shelter unless you accept that all income rightly belongs to government and therefore anything that forces government to take less is a tax shelter.

Of course it's a tax shelter and a highly regressive one at that. Raise the percentage of national income subject to SS tax to what it was when the program was created and all the dire predictions of insolvency evaporate. High earners have become adept at sheltering their income to the point of destroying the financial underpinning of the program.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because it's totally government's purpose to take money from one party and give it to another party because they "need it more." Says so in JFK's famous quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And as we all* know, JFK was one of the Founding Fathers and practically wrote the whole Constitution.

* 'All' in this case meaning those educated solely by government schools after the 60s.

It's a simple choice, really. Do we want to be more like El Salvador, or less? Brazil? India?

That's where all this self righteous jerb creator bullshit leads us, isn't it?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Just index that limit to CPI. We need to stop using hard limits. Also we need to have a serious conversation about personal savings and retirement accounts for most folks. Allow younger workers who have financial senses to opt out or use a private account instead.

 

[Ackmed]

I for one will say congratulations! If your experience is anything like mine then today is an incredibly exciting and modestly terrifying day. Hope it all goes well!

Thanks! Pics holding our keys. Hate, hate, hate moving but excited about the new house. She's about to pop so have to get in there fast. Not our first house, but our first new house.

But back on topic... 120k is FAR from rich. And I don't feel like I should may a higher percentage of SS because I tried harder to make more money. Nothing was given to me, I worked for it.

 

[IronWing]

Congrats on the new house! Your wife is very pretty. Life is good.

 

[WackyDan]

When most white collar professionals in your area make ~1/3 to 1/2 of that amount, yes, it most certainly make you a "high rolling Rockefeller" by comparison. We would live like kings with that salary. Regardless of what the tax code currently says, with all the gains in the economy going to the upper classes, if the upper classes don't contribute more as a whole to societal stability (of which Social Security is a prime example), they are all but ensuring that they or their children will eventually see the torches and pitchforks come out against them. The social contract in that area seems to be breaking apart.

Those making six figures, but say under 250k are already contributing MORE income taxes (fed and state) than the average person. They are likely paying more in property taxes due to owning a house or having a house that is worth more than average. They are also likely paying more in sales taxes as they potentially consume more. You seem to forget all that on your way to vilify those who make a respectable living but aren't exactly rich. There is a wide swath of tax payers in the six figure range that aren't filthy rich, do not have offshore accounts and fancy tax lawyers to hide their savings and such in family trusts. Those people are not the enemy, but perhaps should be thanked for paying more than their fair share in taxes to support this society.

 

[nickqt]

You'll face a tough crowd here OP - mainly because the view on SS has changed since its inception. Back when it was started the eligibility age was still 65 but the life expectancy was 61.7. It was viewed as a catastrophic situation safety net for the few that made it that far. People were working far closer to the end of their life and\or living with family. Now life expectancy is getting close to 80, the eligibility date is the same and the viewed safety net position has moved quite a bit higher as people expect it to provide for ~15 years of retirement. Thats a bit different from the original intention. Personally I'd like to see a gradual increase in the eligability age combined with some changes to the SS tax cap. Many here aren't willing to increase the age despite the pressure it puts on SS and far greater long term problem that creates for SS as life expectancy continues to climb



If you think this is true you don't know much about Rockefeller.

The best part is when people who don't know a god damn fucking thing about SS attempt to wax philosophic about it.

Protip, chump:

There are these people called actuaries, who existed when SS was created, who knew god damn well about how insurance, risk, and savings plans worked.

 

[Ackmed]

Just ran across an article, little annoying. Just looked at my latest stub, I paid $148.82 in for one week's work for social security taxes claiming married and 1. From November 21st to November 27th. That'd be almost $600 a month for social security taxes alone. And it's going up? Ugh.

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-big-winners-and-losers-in-americas-social-security-system-1477647007

A one-earner couple retiring in 2020 with low wages—$22,500 in 2015 dollars—would have paid the equivalent of $129,000 in 2015 dollars in Social Security taxes. That couple can expect to receive lifetime benefits of $309,000 in 2015 dollars, more than twice what the worker paid in.

By contrast, a couple retiring in 2020 in which both spouses earn the same pay and who have always earned wages at the cap or higher ($118,500 in 2015 dollars) will have paid in some $1,358,000. But on average they’ll receive benefits worth $1,020,000, or about 75% of what they paid in

Why should lower earners get far more after they start collecting than higher earners? They shouldn't, no logical reason the people who put in less should get back a higher percentage than those who put in more.

 

[Fingolfin269]

....yeah, no shit. Honest question: is it worth living in a tiny town surrounded by cornfields for the big house and about 5 types of available jobs? Obviously that's great for some people, but I tend to worry about: being bored, access to quality food and entertainment, local job situation with an extremely limited set of in-demand skills (no mobility if shit hits the fan)

I know he mentioned Knoxville and you already recognized that but there are a lot of very affordable places that exist like this with good industry, lots to do, great restaurants, etc. all over the south. For example, we built our house 4 years ago for around $275k (though may go for $375-$400k in the current market). We live about 30 minutes (by car) from downtown Nashville where I can't think of pretty much anything we miss out on. We've got hockey, NFL football, minor league baseball, etc. A thriving food scene and apparently tourists love the area now too. Would put the music scene against anywhere else in the world. Oh and I'm sure I can drive to a cornfield or two if I really want to.

 

[IronWing]

Just ran across an article, little annoying. Just looked at my latest stub, I paid $148.82 in for one week's work for social security taxes claiming married and 1. From November 21st to November 27th. That'd be almost $600 a month for social security taxes alone. And it's going up? Ugh.

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-big-winners-and-losers-in-americas-social-security-system-1477647007



Why should lower earners get far more after they start collecting than higher earners? They shouldn't, no logical reason the people who put in less should get back a higher percentage than those who put in more.

It's the whole point of the program.

 

[Sonikku]

Just ran across an article, little annoying. Just looked at my latest stub, I paid $148.82 in for one week's work for social security taxes claiming married and 1. From November 21st to November 27th. That'd be almost $600 a month for social security taxes alone. And it's going up? Ugh.

www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-big-winners-and-losers-in-americas-social-security-system-1477647007



Why should lower earners get far more after they start collecting than higher earners? They shouldn't, no logical reason the people who put in less should get back a higher percentage than those who put in more.

Poor people live shorter lives compared to upper middle class (six figures and up) and rich people so they collect for fewer years on average. Poor and middle class people also pay a far larger percentage of their income to social security than the rich do which more adversely effects their standard of living while they're paying in.

 

[JSt0rm]

That money better be there for me. I payed in I expect it. Unless the .gov wants to get sued by each of us individually I suggest they pay up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why should lower earners get far more after they start collecting than higher earners? They shouldn't, no logical reason the people who put in less should get back a higher percentage than those who put in more.

Because low earners couldn't begin to live on SS if it wasn't structured that way. Even median earners can't live decently on SS alone, and that's all many people have. It's why boomers are working longer. Several former coworkers are in that boat. They're scared shitless that they won't be able to work & pay the bills.

It's a very big problem for renters in particular because they can't cut their overhead by paying off the house.

 

[Jhhnn]

That money better be there for me. I payed in I expect it. Unless the .gov wants to get sued by each of us individually I suggest they pay up.

Werepossum just repeats the usual right wing bullshit about SS. They try to pretend that the $2.7T trust fund never happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Poor people live shorter lives compared to upper middle class (six figures and up) and rich people so they collect for fewer years on average. Poor and middle class people also pay a far larger percentage of their income to social security than the rich do which more adversely effects their standard of living while they're paying in.

DJT pays no more into SS than a person whose income matches the cutoff point every year. He's probably collecting ~$2600/mo right now.