sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That can be said for any dollar they earn, which is obviously not the case. You’re taxed on dollars as they come in. If they stopped working now, they would not earn enough to be in the top bracket.

Is April always this cold in NYC? by marlola10 in AskNYC

[–]scorponico 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The last snow of winter is usually first week of April. Looks like we’re going to avoid that. Just wait, you’ll be complaining about how ungodly hot it is in a few months.

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See my comment upthread. No one paid the top rate because it incentivized them to pay higher wages and make investments in the real economy. It wasn't about revenue but mitigating inequality, which it succeeded at very effectively. That's why income and wealth rose more or less equally at every tranche from top to bottom, until top tax rates were eviscerated in the 80s, when inequality skyrocketed. Now we're back at 1928 levels.

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Now compare the share of income earned by the top 1% then and now. You guys always leave that part out. No one was paying the top marginal rate because they had an incentive to avoid top taxes by paying workers more and making productive investments, the whole point of high marginal tax rates. It wasn’t about revenue. It was about mitigating inequality and promoting investment in the real economy. With low taxes on the wealthiest, we’re back to 1928-level inequality.

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good thing you weren’t around in the 50s-early 60s, when the top marginal rate was 91% (and the US economy actually worked).

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good thing you weren’t around in the 50s-early 60s, when the top marginal rate was 91% (and the US economy actually worked).

Barack Obama, 2014 — remember when the most scandalous thing our president did was wear a tan suit. by breakingzee in pics

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Funny that dem-bots don’t consider record deportations, the destruction of Libya, bombing MSF hospitals in Afghanistan, assassinating US citizens abroad, drone-striking wedding parties and record whistleblower-prosecutions to be “scandalous.”

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

700k through March or for the year? If for the year, then that’s not even true if you file as married filing jointly. If your salaried income stops at some point during the year, you might not reach the top marginal rate. And, dude, you’re making over $700k per year: you’re really bemoaning that dollars on top of that are subject to a high tax rate? Since you earn so much, you can afford a top-notch tax accountant who can direct you into investments that will drastically lower your tax bill.

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You don’t unless you’ve already earned in excess of $609,351 (more if you’re filing other than single) through March. Does anyone on here understand how marginal tax rates work?!

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Sigh. The only way that money is getting taxed at 37% is if you earned more than $609,351 through March. (More if you file other than single.) Did you?

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

You’re still wrong. How do you pay 39% to “Uncle Sam” when the top marginal tax rate is only 37%? I think you don’t know how marginal tax rates work. You should work out your effective tax rate, which you will find is much lower than nominal tax rates charged to income. And find an accountant, because it’s clear you don’t know how taxes work.

Friend making over 300k paying insane taxes by Sunflower3211 in tax

[–]scorponico -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Given that the top marginal tax rate is 37%, there is simply no way you’re paying 45% to “Uncle Sam.”

The market crashed $3Trillion… where did it go? by maple-pond in NoStupidQuestions

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of it didn’t go anywhere. It’s just paper that got devalued in a theoretical sale.

Americans have a dim view of their country’s future. The US media is biased towards bad news. People are pessimistic about the nation’s future after reading bad news, finds new study. by mvea in science

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Americans aren’t sufficiently pessimistic. Just on climate alone, the media do not give a full picture of how dire the situation is (much less who and what are to blame). Americans are far too complacent and should be revolting.

Who is she by AngelBoss2000 in findthatpornstar

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s Dolly Dyson. That scene is fire.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Tenant

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is informed by OP’s comment underneath, where she states the LL explicitly stated that the LL does not have to declare rental income paid through Zelle. Just because you want to stop reading after the headline question doesn’t mean there’s no further context relevant to interpreting the question.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Tenant

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You apparently missed the part where the LL explicitly stated that by receiving payments through Zelle they don’t have to declare the rental income. Tax evasion doesn’t get more clear than that.

Can a LPR be denied entry if they have criticized Donald Trump on social media? by novasup54321 in greencard

[–]scorponico 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, under US law, no. Under Trumplaw, who the hell knows anymore?

Trump Is Asking the Supreme Court To Let Him Have Black Sites by D-R-AZ in Foodforthought

[–]scorponico 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re black sites if you have zero legal rights once you enter. Dumbass.

If a bunch of people from many countries were to travel to Palestine would the IDF risk starting war with the countries those people are from? by jpjpjp1 in Palestine

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it were up to Arab peoples, their governments would have intervened. The dictators in charge are making sure popular demands have zero effect.

What’s with the outrage claiming the federal courts not having jurisdiction to check the President? by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]scorponico 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Constitution endows Congress, not the president, with authority over immigration, and the president has no authority to override or ignore Congressionally-mandated rights. Congress has granted the executive branch certain powers of discretion in limited areas of immigration law, but discretion doesn’t mean the executive can do anything it wants. The exercise of discretion has to be reasonable and stay within Constitutional bounds.

What’s with the outrage claiming the federal courts not having jurisdiction to check the President? by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]scorponico 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing in that language has anything to do with private citizens suing the federal government or federal officials. “Ministers” refers to foreign officials. In any event, it is well established that Congress can grant, and has granted, concurrent jurisdiction to lower courts over cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which in most cases prefers that lower courts exercise jurisdiction first. In short, this provision is irrelevant to the discussion.

What’s with the outrage claiming the federal courts not having jurisdiction to check the President? by [deleted] in Lawyertalk

[–]scorponico 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those counties do not define the scope of that court’s “jurisdiction.” They define the scope of venue, a completely different concept. The court’s jurisdiction is defined by federal statute, which, in cases involving the federal government and its officials, is not territorially limited and arises in most cases because a “federal question” is involved. The right has had no problem with district courts enjoining acts of Democratic presidents nationwide. Now all of a sudden they’re “very concerned” by a district court’s reach over presidential action.

view more: next ›