The shell game with including/excluding FICA taxes to best support an agenda is such a grand and successful scheme.
I personally think we should go back to tax system when this country was founded. My income tax burden would drop to 0. Businesses and the wealthy would be paying near 100% of all taxes.
Make that 76718 USD (513400 Dkr)
Youâll pay 61 % in income tax of what EXCEEDS that amount so to reach 55,4 %, you make considerable above that.
we all deal with the sales tax. you donât pay it if you donât spend. And companies deduct it on their taxes.
Btw, a privat person has a minimum deduction from his income around 7k usd.
One of my friends has been working as a software engineer for years for different companies and the lowest pay for many years has been +13k usd a month and he does even better now. You can easily live a lavish life in great splendor with that kind of money here.
And they have far more wealth (AND GROWING). They should be paying a LOT more. The shift of wealth to the top and tax to the bottom is NOT good for the country.
3 Likes
That would not be good in any country.
2 Likes
I donât believe that anybody or any country can put a set figure on that question.
That depends totally on what you want to be the outcome of your society and what direction you and your government want your country to take.
You and I have different goals, both privat and socially.
I donât want the citizens to have to buy health insurrances - too many young people will cut that spending. I want the kids from the lower income brackett have the same opportunities, without any dependency of funds or other monetary help as the high (wealthy) brackett with regards to education. I want the disabled to have sufficient help in their life so they are free of - say- charity. I want our seniors to have a good retirement without them thinking about money. and I could go on. Thatâs what I want and itâs what the majority of us want. Thatâs why a car cost a good deal more here and why we pay a lot more for gas here. Luxury is luxury no matter where you are and a long bed, crew cab, 4-wd with all the bells and whistles bought for grocery shopping is luxury and you should pay accordingly. There are segments of your society who needs those money - it doesnât matter what country you are in, not everything here is perfect either.
Your priorities are different and thatâs fine, but what set figure on an income cannot be determined from a âYou and I have a different wiewâ perspective.
Btw.
A police system that is financially dependent on fines written or traffic lights sponsored by private companies for a share in in the money!!!
OH BOY, is that corrupt or is it rotten.
1 Like
Clearly the data shows the burden of taxes to the top earners in the US while the tax percentage shift in Denmark is clearly to the bottom earners. Far more so than the US.
1 Like
2012 article. The exchange rate has changed since then. It was the most recent article I could find.
A private person has the standard deduction of $18,000 in the US and $24,000 for a married couple. Reduces the taxes of the lower income people to zero or in some cases, âearned income creditâ gets them zero taxes and money from the government.
The article lists an average wage (2018 article) for all software engineers not just one.
1 Like
That statement begs for a question, what percentage will a really high income be taxed at in USA. And Iâm spea⊠writing about the high income tax brackett?
It could just as well be a question of that in USA, you are lessening the tax burden on the wealthy part of your country.
The highest income bracket in the US is 37% on earnings over $500K. The 10% bracket starts at 0 to $9500 for a single person but the standard deduction zeros that out. The deduction increases if you have kids. That is just Federal. State taxes can range from zero to 12.3% in California. Then you toss in local taxes like New York City which hits another 3.9% on top earners.
On the US coasts, state and local income taxes can reach an additional 12% on top of federal. Oddly enough, they are areas of the US with the largest wealth inequality.
Exactly the opposite. We pay far lower taxes than Denmark does overall but the wealthy in the US pay a much larger percentage of taxes than do the lower income groups. I.e. We have a very progressive tax system - federally. Less so in state and local taxes.
1 Like
One of our legal principles in the US is equal justice under the law whether poor or rich. What a wayward path we go down when we think fines should discriminate against wealth, or color, or neighborhood, or other popular group distinctions. Maybe some here would rather live somewhere else but you canât on the one hand chastise a billionaire while on the other had talk about what a great job Bezo has done with Amazon, no? And what exactly would be the equal end game? Everyone making the same amount of money? Once a year the government takes from everyone and then redistributes it equally? What fun that would be. âFrom each according to their ability, to each according to their needâ? That doesnât work very well in reality since it curbs motivation and industriousness. Yes we are not perfect, but isnât equal opportunity more important?
Yeah and I remember the macaroni days and happened to get a couple speeding tickets too. Back when the interstate was 55 and I had a 120 mile daily commute. But I paid the fines and I donât know about Buffalo Wings but do remember needing to check my checkbook balance for KFC take out. I just donât see why I should be punished for 60 years of hard labor when the guy down the street never made the same sacrifices and thus now has less. Some of you guys are a hoot. Denmark awaits if you are interested. Oh wait, they donât just let anyone in.
1 Like
You could be one heck of a spindoctor. And I mean that as a compliment.
Yes, you pay much lower taxes.
Iâm not calling the system in USA wrong or right, but that way of counting is very easy to do. In USA, quite a lot (what - 5%?) of people will go âunder the radarâ with regards to taxation (anybody here will exceed their deductions by a large margin, even with the âlowestâ paying job) and that will throw more weight over on the rich people, counting the total amount of money paid in income tax, but that does not mean that the individual making the big money by default is paying a âfairâ share (whatever fair is). I donât have the numbers for DK and I donât really care. Itâs basically just a question of manipulation the numbers. You can do that, I can do that. The politicians are making a good life by doing that.
Over and out.
1 Like
Itâs important to note that when that 37% number is bandied about, thatâs only on income above half a million dollars. Your first $9525 is 10% like anyone else, etc. So, really, your tax burden isnât higher because youâre paying the same taxes we are on the income we pay taxes on. You pay more taxes because you make more than we do.
Except, of course, we commoners rarely have tax shelters in Switzerland or the Caribbean, so your effective tax rate is lower.
It should also be pointed out that when Rockefeller and Carnegie were making fortunes so vast that today, 100 years later, theyâre still worth incredible sums of money, the top bracket was 75%. As recently as 1980, it was 70%, and even Reagan only knocked that down to 50%. The âpoor, overburdened richâ havenât had it this good since 1931.
Really though in this day and age, $500,000 isnât really top scale. A nice sum yeah but not like youâre buying a second home in the Riviera with it. Thatâs why Iâm a fan of a flat tax that everyone pays. 10-15% whatever but you pay whether you make $20,000 or $2 million-no exceptions or loop holes. That way everyone has a stake in the deal and cannot simply vote themselves money at the expense of someone else. The way it is now there is a good 30% of the population that feels no income tax pain and thinks its just fine like you, that some should pay a marginal rate of 80%. Itâs someone elseâs skin so itâs ok. Thatâs part of what our constitution tried to avoid is the tyranny of the minority by the majority.
1 Like
I am very computer inept and donât remember how to post links, but the next 3 posters after you were kind enough to do so.
Part of the idea of intelligent tax policy is to attempt to prevent wealth from concentrating in the hands of too few.
A flat tax is inherently unfair to lower incomes. 15% of $20,000 per year hurts a lot more than 15% of 200,000. 15% of one means they have to make choices about what necessities to pay for. 15% of the other means they might not be able to upgrade to the grand suite on their next cruise.
But letâs put that aside and assume the flat tax is on its surface a good idea, and now you have people making high six or low seven figure salaries paying 15% taxes. Theyâre going to accumulate wealth much more quickly than most. And that wealth can be used to buy things they want. Things like political influence and, hey, who wants to pay 15% income tax? That political influence can make that little problem go away.
The idea of increasing marginal tax rates, in addition to making people who benefit more from society pay more for its upkeep, is to keep the political influence to a low roar, and that bears out in that when tax rates decrease for the wealthy, they tend to continue decreasing. At one point after the Great Depression when everyone finally figured out that as a whole, fantastically rich people are not good for the country, the top marginal tax rate was 90%.Itâs been declining more or less ever since as the fantastically rich wormed their way back into politicianâs campaign coffers and started exerting influence again, and now itâs 37% and âthe economy is doing greatâ and âweâre at full employmentâ while food shelves are experiencing record demand.
In short, âtreat everyone equallyâ and âlet the wealth trickle downâ doesnât, hasnât, and cannot work the way theyâre claimed to. Maybe itâs time to try something else.
1 Like
When I was in this thread a day ago, it was still about traffic lights and the like. Can we please go back on topic? Thanks.
WOWâŠtalk about putting a twist on the dataâŠ
Denmarks wealth distribution is the lowest of all developed countries. Where as the US is among the highest. The top wealthiest in US should pay a LOT MOREâŠsince they have most of the wealth.
2 Likes
Wealth distribution is not tax liability distribution.
Are you suggesting to tax wealth already accumulated? I.e. taxing a percentage of an individualâs total net worth each year?