0 members (),
302
guests, and
42
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country. Scandinavian social democracies like Denmark, Sweden and Norway have quite regressive direct taxes, as do the Netherlands and Switzerland Perhaps, but in those countries, wealthy people actually have to pay the tax. That's not the case here, as you know very well. The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%–the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. All that tax money goes to paying for schools and keeping university fees very low (among other things).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 448
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 448 |
So my "far more progressive" statement is still wrong but thanks to aquinas my world hasn't been completely turned upside down. My head nearly exploded thinking that everything I've thought about American vs Canadian taxation was completely upside down. I must say I won't complain about our taxes for a while now that I know what a bargain we have (who knew?). I'm still surprised seeing the numbers. We've been indoctrinated to think that we're paying comparatively crazy taxes to pay for all of the perks.
Last edited by chay; 03/24/14 09:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
All that tax money goes to paying for schools and keeping university fees very low (among other things). Poofing large amounts of credit into existence is the same thing as taxes. However, with credit poofing, you make sure that the poofee is the one who is paying the tax.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
The data set here comes from 1997, which would have predated the huge tax cuts under George W Bush, which primarily benefitted the wealthy. If the data had come from some time in 2003-2012, it would have skewed even more heavily towards Canada having higher effective tax rates and a more progressive tax structure.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272 |
Hi everyone - please keep this thread on topic, specifically education.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Mark, I do think that the fee structure/feasibility of free university/college tuition is still very much in keeping with the topic of the thread. Whether it should be done, and whether it can are both entirely relevant here. We obviously do not all agree on the particulars, which is leading to some interesting insights as we go along-- but I think that thus far the discourse on the subject has been remarkably civil.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/opinion/a-quick-way-to-cut-college-costs.htmlA Quick Way to Cut College Costs By STEVE COHEN New York Times MARCH 20, 2014 ... Consider a family of four, earning $100,000 in income and having $50,000 in savings. The [Expected Family Contribution] says that this family will contribute $17,375 each year to a child’s college expenses. A $100,000 income translates into take-home pay of about $6,311 monthly. An E.F.C. of $17,375 means the family must contribute about $1,500 a month — every month for four years. But cutting family expenses by 25 percent every month is unrealistic. Alternatively, the family could use its savings. But that would deplete their $50,000 before the start of the child’s senior year, leaving nothing for the proverbial rainy day, or for the second child’s education. The article below discusses how the EFC depends on income and savings. The effective "tax rate" on savings goes up if you have several children. The article cites a 4-year tax rate on savings of about 23% = (22650/(150000-100000)), but savings left over after the first child graduates will increase the EFC when the second child attends. I estimate the tax rate on savings done before any child attends college to be about 41% = (1-0.77^2) for two children and 54% = (1-0.77^3) for three children. Parents may pay less for college if they have children early, since their incomes and savings may be lower when their children attend college. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/what-happens-if-you-save-for-college/What Happens If You Save for College By SHAILA DEWAN New York Times MARCH 31, 2014, 10:14 AM Let’s take income first. From your income, you get to deduct a number of expenses like taxes, employment expenses and what the federal government calls an “income protection allowance” — that is, an amount that is shielded from being sucked into the gaping maw of college costs. The size of the allowance is based on the household size and the number of college students in the house, and ranges from $14,460 for a two-person household where both are in school, to a high of $37,020 for a six-person household with one student.
Parents are then expected to contribute a percentage of what’s left over (the more that’s left over, the higher the marginal percentage, just like with income tax rates — except the rate here goes up to 47 percent).
...
What about discouraging saving? The more you’ve saved, the more you are expected to pay — so why save at all? The answer is that the oversaver is expected to pay more, but not terribly much more. And unless you want to cut your expenses drastically, you will need the extra savings to cover the enormous bills.
Using the Education Department’s FAFSA4caster, I played around with various scenarios, assuming my hypothetical student had 60-year-old parents with an adjusted gross income of $100,000. With $50,000 in savings, the expected yearly contribution was $16,977. With $100,000 in savings, it went up to $19,797 — over four years, that’s $11,280 more. A whopping $150,000 in savings generated a yearly contribution of $22,617 — an extra $22,560 over four years.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 423 |
Just to play devil's advocate, most here don't have a problem with student's "competing" for scholarships, however, they're basing that competition in their mind purely on academic merit. I'm sure that mindset would change depending on what else was thrown into the mix in that competition. The measure of success in college is rarely purely about academics. As I'd commented earlier, though in this particular circle competing for additional scholarships based purely on academic merit seems a logical thing to do, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing special interest groups of that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,390 |
What (if any) is the downside of having grandparents hold the 529s, instead of parents?
|
|
|
|
|