ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,327
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Sept 23, 2019 23:55:56 GMT -5
On my way home from work today I tuned into the local NBC radio news station for weather and traffic. After that, they had a news story about the top 4 presidential candidates and their recent position on "health care for all" stuff.
The person they were interviewing had some government tax tables. She said "Bernie's figures was about 3 trillion per year but other pundits say more like 4-5 trillion". She said presently according to the tax table, the if a married couple made $160K/yr the tax rate is about 24%. If Bernie's and other candidates plans go into effect the tax rate would go up to about 64%.
64%!! I'm astounded. To have 2/3rds of your income going taxes is madness. Now to be fair, I'm sure the democrat candidates will say that it will all be offset by not having to pay high health care costs. That it will offset the taxes. I'm healthy right now. I went to the doctor once last to year to Kaiser for a annual checkup. Co-payment was $35.
Now how can my $35 offset that?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 0:30:56 GMT -5
The tax rate in Quebec is for a married couple making $160,000 is about 38%, and we're the most heavily taxed province in Canada. Why on earth would it be 64% in the USA? That's crazy talk.
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 865
|
Post by mollyc on Sept 24, 2019 0:47:43 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the US has a progressive tax system. So as presented, the tax rates used don't mean much except as a propaganda tactic.
Is 24% the amount currently charged on every $ of the $160,000 or is it an average of the rates overall? Is this 64% supposed to be the amount paid on every $ earned up to $160,000? Or is it the new top rate to be paid at some $ amount you haven't listed.
We currently have election campaigning going on in Canada and so a lot of "big numbers thrown out quickly to scare or impress you" bullshit is going on. It is entirely possible that more details would have me equally astounded. Right now, however, I'm skeptical.
Also, when taxes are used to cover services on a country wide scale, it is inevitable that some people will never have a use for the services being presented. I've known city people who never used a provincial or federal park. I've also known people who've never needed the fire department.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 24, 2019 7:09:01 GMT -5
Well, no. If a married couple makes 160K, and maxes out their 401k/403b/457 and has 10K in health insurance/FSA/HSA deductions, after the standard deduction, their AGI is like 89K. That means their taxes are 15K for the year, ballparking very generally. 15K is not 24% of 160K.
If this couple has kids or expensive health insurance costs, they will pay less in taxes.
We make less but have 4 kids. Our tax rate is 0. That doesn't mean we don't have any income coming in. We gross about 90K or so these days.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 7:36:40 GMT -5
The tax rate in Quebec is for a married couple making $160,000 is about 38%, and we're the most heavily taxed province in Canada. Why on earth would it be 64% in the USA? That's crazy talk. So I don't know that it's 64%, but I can tell you the US already spends about the same % of GDP that other countries spend to provide health care for everyone...and they're certainly not covering everyone. Government-run/funded healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US. I also think any talk of tax rates is not likely to be accurate. Medicaid/Medicare for all is a fundamental shift in the way healthcare would work here, so there would be a lot of unknowns (for example, if the government wields massive power to set rates for EVERYONE, that has a big impact on the cost of healthcare and puts a lot of the COST of that healthcare in the government's control).
|
|
azucena
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 5,112
Member is Online
|
Post by azucena on Sept 24, 2019 8:27:22 GMT -5
Is there any precedent for a country switching from a system like to ours to what's being proposed? Just wondering and never thought about it that way before.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 10:44:34 GMT -5
Is there any precedent for a country switching from a system like to ours to what's being proposed? Just wondering and never thought about it that way before. We had your system and we switched over half a century ago.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 10:49:49 GMT -5
The tax rate in Quebec is for a married couple making $160,000 is about 38%, and we're the most heavily taxed province in Canada. Why on earth would it be 64% in the USA? That's crazy talk. So I don't know that it's 64%, but I can tell you the US already spends about the same % of GDP that other countries spend to provide health care for everyone...and they're certainly not covering everyone. Government-run/funded healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US. I also think any talk of tax rates is not likely to be accurate. Medicaid/Medicare for all is a fundamental shift in the way healthcare would work here, so there would be a lot of unknowns (for example, if the government wields massive power to set rates for EVERYONE, that has a big impact on the cost of healthcare and puts a lot of the COST of that healthcare in the government's control). Nope. www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 10:57:31 GMT -5
So I don't know that it's 64%, but I can tell you the US already spends about the same % of GDP that other countries spend to provide health care for everyone...and they're certainly not covering everyone. Government-run/funded healthcare is absurdly expensive in the US. I also think any talk of tax rates is not likely to be accurate. Medicaid/Medicare for all is a fundamental shift in the way healthcare would work here, so there would be a lot of unknowns (for example, if the government wields massive power to set rates for EVERYONE, that has a big impact on the cost of healthcare and puts a lot of the COST of that healthcare in the government's control). Nope. www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/I'm not sure what you're referencing, because your link goes to something that says you have to pay $50/month to access.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:03:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're referencing, because your link goes to something that says you have to pay $50/month to access. Worked fine for me.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:03:56 GMT -5
The federal government spent about 1.1 trillion on healthcare in 2018. GDP is about 20 trillion, so about 5%. It also might be the PPP rather than % of GDP I was thinking of for government spend on healthcare. I don't remember which it was, it came up in other discussions about government-run healthcare. The US is basically already spending, just in government programs, what other countries spend to cover EVERYONE. So until that spending gets more under control, there's little purpose in moving EVERYONE to a super costly and inefficient system that's currently in place with the government-run healthcare.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:06:20 GMT -5
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:09:55 GMT -5
That's not a chart of government spending. Though I acknowledged, it might be PPP I'm thinking of rather than GDP.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,298
|
Post by gs11rmb on Sept 24, 2019 11:11:22 GMT -5
The federal government spent about 1.1 trillion on healthcare in 2018. GDP is about 20 trillion, so about 5%. It also might be the PPP rather than % of GDP I was thinking of for government spend on healthcare. I don't remember which it was, it came up in other discussions about government-run healthcare. The US is basically already spending, just in government programs, what other countries spend to cover EVERYONE. So until that spending gets more under control, there's little purpose in moving EVERYONE to a super costly and inefficient system that's currently in place with the government-run healthcare. Do you think it's more expensive because there are two systems? Perhaps it would be less expensive if it was one system. I have no idea of the answer just posing the question! I grew up in the UK so don't have the same fear of 'socialized medicine'. I do recognize that the NHS is not perfect and, depending on where you live, there can be very long waitlists for minor and even major surgeries. At the same time, I don't know of anyone who has been bankrupted for medical expenses. On a personal note, my mother died of breast cancer at the age of 48 after a three year battle. There were numerous hospital stays, chemotherapy, Macmillan nurse visits, and finally hospice. Throughout it all the one thing my parents didn't have to worry about was paying out of pocket for those services.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:13:48 GMT -5
That's not a chart of government spending. Though I acknowledged, it might be PPP I'm thinking of rather than GDP. The chart shows current health expenditure (% of GDP). YOU'RE the one who claimed it spends as much as other countries as percentage of GDP. It doesn't.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:14:16 GMT -5
Same website you referenced (so maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but this one did if I googled into it). Public & Private spending by dollar (not GDP) of countries. Showing the US already spends about the same amount by the government per person. So per person, they're spending what other countries spend to cover EVERYONE, and the US isn't covering everyone, which is pretty straightforward that current government-run healthcare is NOT very efficient. www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:17:00 GMT -5
Now you're moving the goalposts. This is yous. is it not? .. "So I don't know that it's 64%, but I can tell you the US already spends about the same % of GDP that other countries spend to provide health care for everyone."
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:17:39 GMT -5
The federal government spent about 1.1 trillion on healthcare in 2018. GDP is about 20 trillion, so about 5%. It also might be the PPP rather than % of GDP I was thinking of for government spend on healthcare. I don't remember which it was, it came up in other discussions about government-run healthcare. The US is basically already spending, just in government programs, what other countries spend to cover EVERYONE. So until that spending gets more under control, there's little purpose in moving EVERYONE to a super costly and inefficient system that's currently in place with the government-run healthcare. Do you think it's more expensive because there are two systems? Perhaps it would be less expensive if it was one system. I have no idea of the answer just posing the question!I grew up in the UK so don't have the same fear of 'socialized medicine'. I do recognize that the NHS is not perfect and, depending on where you live, there can be very long waitlists for minor and even major surgeries. At the same time, I don't know of anyone who has been bankrupted for medical expenses. On a personal note, my mother died of breast cancer at the age of 48 after a three year battle. There were numerous hospital stays, chemotherapy, Macmillan nurse visits, and finally hospice. Throughout it all the one thing my parents didn't have to worry about was paying out of pocket for those services. That's part of what I was saying about "unknowns" and not knowing the cost. However, at the moment, the government simply sets rates...so they pretty much have full control over how much they spend, they control a lot of the variables (licensing, etc). I think some people actually WORRY it will get less expensive, because the government will try to make it more efficient at the expense of actual health. Ultimately though, I think even if they get more efficient, it's very difficult to imagine that their current spend which is equal to other countries current spend per citizen will somehow expand to cover EVERYONE when they don't today. More efficient? I hope it would be more efficient than today, it would be hard to be worse. Actually efficient? Using other countries with socialized healthcare...it seems like we're not even close.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:23:31 GMT -5
Now you're moving the goalposts. This is yous. is it not? .. "So I don't know that it's 64%, but I can tell you the US already spends about the same % of GDP that other countries spend to provide health care for everyone."I've noted MULTIPLE times it's probably the PPP I was referring to. But if you want to talk GDP, the US as a whole already spends FAR more than other countries, and my entire point is that we're spending more, not less. I haven't actually seen ANY numbers on government spending as a % of GDP though. Is that the graph you tried to post? The government spends about 1.5T on healthcare every year...that's about 7.5% of GDP. What does a typical government spend that provides healthcare to all as a % of GDP?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:34:48 GMT -5
Now you're moving the goalposts. This is yous. is it not? .. "So I don't know that it's 64%, but I can tell you the US already spends about the same % of GDP that other countries spend to provide health care for everyone."I've noted MULTIPLE times it's probably the PPP I was referring to. But if you want to talk GDP, the US as a whole already spends FAR more than other countries, and my entire point is that we're spending more, not less. I haven't actually seen ANY numbers on government spending as a % of GDP though. Is that the graph you tried to post? The government spends about 1.5T on healthcare every year...that's about 7.5% of GDP. What does a typical government spend that provides healthcare to all as a % of GDP? Looks like I have to post it again for you. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZSThe US spends 17.07% of its GDP on health care. (2013), NOT 7.5%.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:36:51 GMT -5
I've noted MULTIPLE times it's probably the PPP I was referring to. But if you want to talk GDP, the US as a whole already spends FAR more than other countries, and my entire point is that we're spending more, not less. I haven't actually seen ANY numbers on government spending as a % of GDP though. Is that the graph you tried to post? The government spends about 1.5T on healthcare every year...that's about 7.5% of GDP. What does a typical government spend that provides healthcare to all as a % of GDP? Looks like I have to post it again for you. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZSThe US spends 17.07% of its GDP on health care. (2013), NOT 7.5%. You realize we're talking about government spending right? You're posting what government plus individuals spend.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:42:48 GMT -5
Where does it say that? The fact remains, that if it refers to government PLUS individual spending, than that's how all the countries in the chart are counted, not just the USA. 17.07% is still way too much, and certainly more than the other countries.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:47:46 GMT -5
Where does it say that? The fact remains, that if it refers to government PLUS individual spending, than that's how all the countries in the chart are counted, not just the USA. 17.07% is still way too much, and certainly more than the other countries. That's why I keep comparing government spending in the US to government spending in other countries. Because the government spending in the US is clearly far less efficient than other countries providing socialized healthcare...and I think it's a bad idea to take a horribly inefficient thing, and expand that horrible inefficiency. The US government already spends what it SHOULD take to cover EVERYONE, based on the efficiency in other countries. So I say let them work on a way to figure that out...rather than dumping a ton of dollars into an obviously inefficient system.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 24, 2019 11:52:22 GMT -5
Where does it say that? The fact remains, that if it refers to government PLUS individual spending, than that's how all the countries in the chart are counted, not just the USA. 17.07% is still way too much, and certainly more than the other countries. That's why I keep comparing government spending in the US to government spending in other countries. Because the government spending in the US is clearly far less efficient than other countries providing socialized healthcare...and I think it's a bad idea to take a horribly inefficient thing, and expand that horrible inefficiency. The US government already spends what it SHOULD take to cover EVERYONE, based on the efficiency in other countries. So I say let them work on a way to figure that out...rather than dumping a ton of dollars into an obviously inefficient system. WHY is your government so inefficient? This isn't a new post-Trump thing. It seems like it's been inefficient for a very long time. Surely the "greatest country in the world" could do better.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:55:37 GMT -5
And yes, 17% is high. The government spends about 7.5% of GDP covering about 36% of people. And that's not 100% of those people, because people have additional coverage on Medicare. An average supplement might cost about $3k/year...and there are about 44 million people on Medicare, which adds an additional 132B to the cost, which adds about another .6% of the GDP. So covering that 36% of the population takes about 8.1% of GDP. That means if we just covered the entire population in the current way that Medicare/Medicaid does...we're talking about 22.5% of GDP to do it.
If it takes other countries about 8-10% to do it...the issue should be how can we do it on 8-10%...not how we can pump more money into a super inefficient system.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 11:59:13 GMT -5
That's why I keep comparing government spending in the US to government spending in other countries. Because the government spending in the US is clearly far less efficient than other countries providing socialized healthcare...and I think it's a bad idea to take a horribly inefficient thing, and expand that horrible inefficiency. The US government already spends what it SHOULD take to cover EVERYONE, based on the efficiency in other countries. So I say let them work on a way to figure that out...rather than dumping a ton of dollars into an obviously inefficient system. WHY is your government so inefficient? This isn't a new post-Trump thing. It seems like it's been inefficient for a very long time. Surely the "greatest country in the world" could do better. It's not new at all...that's my point. If you have an inefficient system, the focus should be on fixing the inefficiency, not on pumping more money into that poor system. Government healthcare is already funded to a level that SHOULD be able to cover 100% of people in a well-run system. The focus needs to be on finding ways to make dollars work smarter.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 24, 2019 12:02:49 GMT -5
Frankly, I do think PPP is a much better measure than GDP. GDP is largely irrelevant to something like healthcare spending for a lot of countries if you aren't comparing like countries. For example, anything GDP related tends to get thrown off if you're comparing countries of very disproportionate sizes or types of economies.
Presumably, you'd want PPP for healthcare to be relatively consistent across developed countries, regardless of GDP impact.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Sept 24, 2019 14:02:52 GMT -5
Well, no. If a married couple makes 160K, and maxes out their 401k/403b/457 and has 10K in health insurance/FSA/HSA deductions, after the standard deduction, their AGI is like 89K. That means their taxes are 15K for the year, ballparking very generally. 15K is not 24% of 160K.
If this couple has kids or expensive health insurance costs, they will pay less in taxes.
We make less but have 4 kids. Our tax rate is 0. That doesn't mean we don't have any income coming in. We gross about 90K or so these days.
Not everyone is YM and that is generalizing it for the whole population. Since we are the couple that are in that ~160k range and also hang with a lot of parents in that 150k-250k (2 working parents in DC); I can tell you not everyone is making their 401k’s. We are able to because we do not pay for daycare. Other people with kids our daughter age are either paying 2k/month in daycare or nanny; or mom works PT or a more flexible low paying job... we are meeting a lot of parents like that sending our daughter to nursery 2 days a week for 3 hours. Second most are starting to or already have kid #2 and or working on #3. Higher expenses. Three: Rent / Mortgage : ~$3,000/month and up. Depending on the location in DC that is what you are looking at to rent a 2 bedrooms or like us buy a townhome in the outskirts of DC, technically MD. So while the income is high (I do not deny it) it does not mean everyone can pull a YM and max 401k/403b, HSA / FSA etc to lower our taxable income.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,148
|
Post by giramomma on Sept 24, 2019 14:23:54 GMT -5
Well, no. If a married couple makes 160K, and maxes out their 401k/403b/457 and has 10K in health insurance/FSA/HSA deductions, after the standard deduction, their AGI is like 89K. That means their taxes are 15K for the year, ballparking very generally. 15K is not 24% of 160K.
If this couple has kids or expensive health insurance costs, they will pay less in taxes.
We make less but have 4 kids. Our tax rate is 0. That doesn't mean we don't have any income coming in. We gross about 90K or so these days.
Not everyone is YM and that is generalizing it for the whole population. Since we are the couple that are in that ~160k range and also hang with a lot of parents in that 150k-250k (2 working parents in DC); I can tell you not everyone is making their 401k’s. We are able to because we do not pay for daycare. Other people with kids our daughter age are either paying 2k/month in daycare or nanny; or mom works PT or a more flexible low paying job... we are meeting a lot of parents like that sending our daughter to nursery 2 days a week for 3 hours. Second most are starting to or already have kid #2 and or working on #3. Higher expenses. Three: Rent / Mortgage : ~$3,000/month and up. Depending on the location in DC that is what you are looking at to rent a 2 bedrooms or like us buy a townhome in the outskirts of DC, technically MD. So while the income is high (I do not deny it) it does not mean everyone can pull a YM and max 401k/403b, HSA / FSA etc to lower our taxable income. I didn't include daycare or the CTC. Back of the napkin math.. A DINK family making 160K a year with 10K in health insurance related costs and putting in 3% into their workplace retirement to get the company match has a tax bill of 24K, give or take. 24K taxes on 160K of income yields a 15% effective tax rate. A family with two kids making 160K a year contributing 3% into retirement, 10K in health care deductions, and 5K in child care costs has an AGI of 116K, give or take. After the CTC, the tax bill would be about 18K a year. Or something between a 10-15% effective tax rate. Still not 24% Just for fun. Say you have the DINK earning 160K that chooses to not make any retirement contributions and does not have any health insurance. Their AGI would still be 136K, with a tax bill of 29K a year. 29K is still not 24% of 160K.
24% of 160K is 38400. I can't come up with a scenerio, in which a DINK family making that much would have to pay 38K in taxes. The only thing I can think of, is perhaps they decide they say no to health insurance, no to retirement, and turn down the 24K standard deduction (or whatever they call it now) that the federal government gives out.
I find this scenario pretty far fetched. I don't know anyone who turns down standard deductions, so they can pay as much taxes as possible..while choosing to turn down health insurance AND retirement. But, maybe you do?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Sept 24, 2019 14:40:14 GMT -5
From the OP 64%!! I'm astounded. To have 2/3rds of your income going taxes is madness. Yeah, um, no. The people currently earning 160K do NOT pay 32% (nearly 1/3rd) of their income in federal income taxes (see the article and chart below). They MIGHT be payin 32% on $2500 but I suspect someone earning 160K is smart enough, forward looking enough to be sheltering at least 2500 in a pre-tax retirement account - or some other way. So, no, they aren't going to be paying 64% of their income to taxes. We have a progressive tax. This explains it: www.credit.com/taxes/how-many-tax-brackets-are-there/ Also, for the most part, there's plenty of ways for high income earners to "shelter" portions of their income - which means that someone with a 160K income - they might not be paying 32% much less 24% (% from the attached article) on ANY of their income. FYI: if you use tax software or have a professional do your taxes - look for your "effective tax rate" - it will be on one of the pages in your pack of tax papers (from the professional) OR with the hard copy you printed from your tax software (or in the PDF). I've been earning just below and just about 6 figures for the last few years and my effective tax rate is between 13% and 17% - I'm single. my only tax shelter is my 401K. That's a far cry from nearly a quarter of my income going to federal taxes (highest bracket was 24% for 2018). I suspect marrieds and married with kids pay even less federal tax than I do and have a higher gross household income.
|
|