Friday, November 09, 2012
Puzzling math
I'm really having a hard time understanding tax math.
Obama wants to raise rates for individuals making $200 K, or families making $250 K. Hmmmm... So if the level for one person is $200 K, then how is the level for two or more people (say a family of four) $250 K? Seems to me that the family level should be at least $500 K to be comparable, but maybe I just forgot to carry a 1 somewhere. It's also possible I'm just not qualified to do math. Perhaps I should have spent more time and gotten two Ph.D.s in engineering, instead of just the one.
Also, here's another outrageous suggestion. Maybe, must maybe, there should be a cost of living adjustment to the levels. I'm thinking cash doesn't go quite as far living near major cities along the coasts as it does in the midwest. But what do I know, I'm probably just being silly again. It's not like my wife's family is from the Midwest and I have direct firsthand knowledge of living costs on the coasts vs. Midwest.
Yeah, I'm just being silly. The central planners know best.
Obama wants to raise rates for individuals making $200 K, or families making $250 K. Hmmmm... So if the level for one person is $200 K, then how is the level for two or more people (say a family of four) $250 K? Seems to me that the family level should be at least $500 K to be comparable, but maybe I just forgot to carry a 1 somewhere. It's also possible I'm just not qualified to do math. Perhaps I should have spent more time and gotten two Ph.D.s in engineering, instead of just the one.
Also, here's another outrageous suggestion. Maybe, must maybe, there should be a cost of living adjustment to the levels. I'm thinking cash doesn't go quite as far living near major cities along the coasts as it does in the midwest. But what do I know, I'm probably just being silly again. It's not like my wife's family is from the Midwest and I have direct firsthand knowledge of living costs on the coasts vs. Midwest.
Yeah, I'm just being silly. The central planners know best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
5 comments:
BTW, it goes without saying I didn't share my most outlandish thought. Perhaps raising taxes on ANYONE during a recession is the dumbest idea ever.
Not to mention, just on principle alone today's tax rates should be offensive to everyone. Between federal income, SS, Medicare, state, local, sales, etc. the payments are ridiculous.
You must hate your in laws.
"Cost of living adjustment."
Heh. I think we all know how that gets applied. It's surely not an increase to income thresholds in high-expense areas. It's a reduction to income thresholds in low-expense areas.
But to the farcical premise that supports all of your criticisms of the state-civilization-support network...
You expect the guidelines for how the state takes your money to be internally consistent? Rational? Logical?
Because if they're not, "wadda a gonna do about it?"
In the words of Henry Hill, "Fuck you, pay me."
You guys are both using (R) logic. This makes perfect sense using (D) logic.
There are two likely outcomes. First they'll collect more taxes from couples who are just starting to get ahead and are probably either not in the (D) voting block or, are in (D) voting block and won't be swayed by paying more taxes. Second, these people will get a divorce to avoid this problem. Then, one person will no longer qualify for the other's health coverage causing the non-qualifying person to sign on to his employer's health plan. The new volume of individuals on employers health plans causes them to drop the plan and pay the fines. Voila! More revenue for the (D)s.
Nice, solved that puzzle!