How Much is Enough?

This is a question for everyone, but Archer in particular because she recently commented on the need to raise 'revenues', that is, taxes.

This week I received my annual bonus. The amount isn't important, but what is relevant is how much the government "received in revenues".

That would be 37.27 percent. Maybe if I was a millionaire, or even made 6 figures annually this would be less important. But, I'm not and I don't.

So, is 37.27 percent not enough to tax an average middle class guy like me on a bonus, who now will sit back and see more money wasted through government incompetence such as the billions that will go to fraudulent claims via the IRS?

Tough apples. Please keep working OS because the government needs more and more of your income to support all those who do not work for whatever reason.

As I have said before I am so glad to have Obumacare, the We Don't Care Act hitting the middle class and above taking more from them to give to others. Keep squeezing them I say until they squeal like a stuck pig and get to the polls and vote for those who will stop the hemorraging.

OS, I feel your pain. This year our company bonuses were hit pretty hard too!
But that is Obama's America, fine the productive and reward those who don't contribute.
50 million American adults are out of work, have to support them on the backs of those who continue to remain "job locked".

:banghead: Some of the lefties where I work were blaming my employer for their smaller checks! Talk about deluded.

Taxed at 100% would mean that you have 0% economic freedom. (government slave)
Taxed at 0% would mean that you 100% economic freedom (free as a bird)

So look on the bright side OS, you still have 62.73% of your freedom! (minus all the other taxes you pay like property, sales, gas, booze, aca, etc etc)

The IRS counts bonuses as "supplemental income" so it is taxed at a different rate... Click the link to see how it is taxed.

http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2011/12 ... y-the-irs/

ComputerBreath wrote: The IRS counts bonuses as "supplemental income" so it is taxed at a different rate... Click the link to see how it is taxed.

http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/2011/12 ... y-the-irs/

Yeah, CB. I know. My "supplemental income" has been taxed like this for years.

Back to orignial question. Is the government taking 37.27% of my "supplemental income" enough?

For someone that automatically sees taxes as "government theft" it will always be "too much". How high is "up"? How low is "down"? The word "enough" is a loaded word, and means different things to different people.

If someone has other loopholes they can take advantage of, (a Mitt Romney for example, with offshore accounts, hidden money, carried-interest), then 37.27% on a bonus is probably not enough in the grand scheme of things, if you're looking at "tax fairness." If it's someone who sees ALL taxes as a "taking", then yeah, it's probably too much. Just think--Your 37.27% is offset by someone else's corporate jet subsidy; or to offset some of the $4-Billion we give away to the fossil-fuel companies every year to explore for what is already making them obscene profits every year. (I prefer to think of it as providing some hungry kid a decent lunch at school, or food stamps for the family to get through some temporary tough times.)

Oh, I'm sorry, were you going to use that 37.27% to create-a-job or something? Was it supposed to trickle-down somehow? My bad.

AGAIN, what many want is a "flat tax"....simplified so that everything is up front and obvious....
NO loopholes, NO off shore accounts,NO legal eagles that can "bury" bushels of money.....

LadyJazzer wrote: For someone that automatically sees taxes as "government theft" it will always be "too much". How high is "up"? How low is "down"? The word "enough" is a loaded word, and means different things to different people.

If someone has other loopholes they can take advantage of, (a Mitt Romney for example, with offshore accounts, hidden money, carried-interest), then 37.27% on a bonus is probably not enough in the grand scheme of things, if you're looking at "tax fairness." If it's someone who sees ALL taxes as a "taking", then yeah, it's probably too much. Just think--Your 37.27% is offset by someone else's corporate jet subsidy; or to offset some of the $4-Billion we give away to the fossil-fuel companies every year to explore for what is already making them obscene profits every year. (I prefer to think of it as providing some hungry kid a decent lunch at school, or food stamps for the family to get through some temporary tough times.)

Oh, I'm sorry, were you going to use that 37.27% to create-a-job or something? Was it supposed to trickle-down somehow? My bad.

That 37.27% did not go to support local businesses but will end up being sucked up by government bureaucracy.

And by taxing bonuses more than regular wages, it doesn't appear to hurt as much. "Well, that was just a bonus, so your household budget wasn't dependent on that."
Sneaky Feds!