(no subject)

[hnpcc]

So I can find it again:

Article about Ayn Rand and her effect on American conservatism. I'd actually never heard of her until recently (and only just found out she was a she.)

Anyway, one of the bits I wanted to keep:

The sum total of these taxes levies a slightly higher rate on the rich. The bottom 99 percent of taxpayers pay 29.4 percent of their income in local, state, and federal taxes. The top 1 percent pay an average total tax rate of 30.9 percent--slightly higher, but hardly the sort of punishment that ought to prompt thoughts of withdrawing from society to create a secret realm of capitalistic übermenschen. These numbers tend to bounce back and forth, depending upon which party controls the government at any given time. If Obama succeeds in enacting his tax policies, the tax burden on the rich will bump up slightly, just as it bumped down under George W. Bush.

I've been wondering what the total federal, state, local taxes add up to for the average American. Thank you helpful reviewer! (And holy crap I pay more than the top 1% of Americans in terms of cents in the dollar. On the other hand, I have health care. *shrug*)

In a similar vein: Most US doctors support some form of public option. As the article points out, what the definition of 'public option' is is currently undefined, but either way, only 27% support private options only.

Mind you, if getting beaten up by your domestic partner can be described as a "pre-existing condition" and you can be denied insurance over it in some US states, I'm amazed that anyone supports the current system.

Comments

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to offer up myself as an example in taxes. Granted, I'm different in a couple of ways:

1) I don't make much money. It's about twice minimum wage, but it's not really a middle-class salary either.
2) Texas has no state income tax. It's almost alone in this, as most states do have a state income tax. Texas does, however, have extra taxes on utilities like electricity and water, which a lot of states don't have.
3) I don't own any property, therefore my local taxes are limited to sales tax, which I can only roughly estimate. Sales tax around here usually is anywhere from 7.25%-8.75% depending on what city you're buying stuff in. Also, by state law, sales tax doesn't apply to basic foodstuffs like milk, bread, eggs, flour, sugar, etc.
4) The taxes on gasoline are federally imposed and rather opaque--they're already included in the price you see on the pump, and not listed on the receipt.

All of that said, my income tax rate is pretty easy to get.

In 2007, my adjusted gross income was $20,730 and my taxable income was $11,980 (I made $10/hour that year, only about $3 or so above minimum wage). My total income tax was $1,405.

In 2008, my adjusted gross income was $30,614 and my taxable income was $21,664 (I made $15/hour most of that year). My total income tax was $2,810.

Mind you, those are just federal income tax. Like I said, my state doesn't have a state income tax (most do), and computing how much I paid in sales tax is an iffy proposition. But considering I wasn't making much money, and my rent + car payment made up about half my salary, assuming the other half of my salary was taxed at %8 is probably a reasonable estimate (utilities and cellphones have their own weird taxes, which I am ignoring for the purpose of simplicity). So in sales tax I probably paid about $829 in 2007, and $1224 in 2008.

So in 2007 I made $20,730 and paid a total of $2234 in taxes (give or take), giving an effective tax rate of 10.78%, and in 2008 I made $30,614 and paid a total of $4034 in taxes (again, give or take), giving an effective tax rate of 13.18%.

Granted, I am on the bottom end of the scale: If I made very much less I wouldn't be taxed at all when it comes to federal income tax. However, I pay as much as anyone else in the state when it comes to state and local taxes, since these are all regressive.

Now that I did all that, I forgot where I was going with it. But at least it should give you a case study, even if I'm not in the income group that is bitching so much.

[hnpcc]

Australia your tax for 2008 would have been $3692.10, probably just about all of which would have likely been taken out in a pay as you go scheme (pretty standard here). (Having said that our tax year goes July-June, so it would have depended on what you earned in the second half of 2007 and the first half of 2008, and yes it is confusing!) We have combined state/federal tax - i.e. we pay one tax to the federal government and then they and the state governments argue about divving it up. Not being a property owner you wouldn't pay local taxes (called rates) although Australia also has a sales tax of 10% on (almost) everything. Which you tend not to notice because it's automatically included - they do tell you what proportion of it was GST on the bill but.. you know.. *shrug* it's the price, whatever.

Link to Australian tax brackets. The bracket you'd be in would be 15c/dollar over $6000. Oh and the Medicare levy definitely wouldn't apply to you - it's applied to people earning over $50K at the moment and due to go up some time soonish.

I think our highest tax bracket works out to be 45c/dollar over $180K.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

We have the option to have our income taxes taken out of our paychecks directly or not, through the use of a horribly opaque system of claiming "exemptions". As a single person, theoretically the number I should put on this form (the W-4 form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_forms#W-4)) should be a 1, but every year I've actually filled it out correctly, I've ended up owing between $500 and $600 when I go to do my taxes. The past couple of years I've filled it out with a 0 and gotten about a $1500 refund. Go figure.

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if my calculations included the Medicare and FICA (Social Security) taxes that are also withheld from my paycheck (you don't get a choice about those). Probably not, now that I think about it.

Isn't it nice how I have to pay a Medicare tax but don't actually get any benefit from Medicare? At least they're sort of upfront about Medicare being a pyramid scheme. They try to hide that about Social Security.

[hnpcc]

I have to admit one of the oddest (and kind of funniest) things about the health care protests is the number of people demanding the government stay out of Medicare.

At least you eventually should get Medicare benefits, if you survive that long. The social security - surely you would be eligible for something if you were unemployed? Not sure exactly how that works.

[valamelmeo.livejournal.com]

Nope, there's no federal unemployment insurance. States run that.

Social Security is for the elderly (over-65s like Medicare) and disabled (have to jump thru all kinds of red-tape hoops to prove you're disabled enough to get it).

In Texas, to get unemployment benefits you can't have been terminated with cause, and you can't have quit your previous job of your own volition. Also, the amounts are obscenely low, and don't last very long either. Full confusing details here (http://www.texasworkforce.org/ui/bnfts/employer1.html), though I will say that when I was unemployed from December 2007-February 2008, my Weekly Benefit Amount was $204, and any money I made apart from that had to be reported so that it could be deducted from my next payment, so that I was basically stuck with living on $816/month until I found a job. Note that this is less than minimum wage, and I wasn't actually getting the minimum benefit.

Data for more states is here (http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/uilawcompar/2008/comparison2008.asp) in case you're interested.