You're quite correct. Murkins wouldn't stand for it. Here, from the
horse's mouth are the *progressive* 2007 US federal tax rates.
<http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html>
The maximum tax rate for anyone is 35% and for most people that only
occurs on taxable income above about 350,000.
Of course, the tax tables are for "taxable income". There are many ways
of using legal deductions to reduce your "gross income" to a much lower
"taxable income". Probably the largest singe deduction for most people
is the home mortgage interest deduction. And if your income is
investment income a whole other set of rules applies.
Not counted here, however, is the social security and medicare (hospital
insurance) taxation which is separate from the income tax. The hospital
insurance is a fixed 2.9% on all income. The social security tax is a
fixed 12.4% of all income up to $97,500 (this year). If you are self
employed you pay all of this. If you are employed by someone else you
pay half and the employer pays half. I think most Murkins never see
that other half and are only vaguely aware that they are being taxed
indirectly.
Chuck Norcutt
Andrew Fildes wrote:
> I am puzzled by some of your claims - giving the federal rate as 28%
> and then 42% for instance. I can't imagine murkins accepting 42% plus
> state taxes on top. Is there not a progressive taxation system there
> where those on minimum wage pay virtually no tax and the feelthy rich
> taking a bigger hit?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|