Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (60187)	4/19/2008 10:50:57 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542957

Wages....as in a W2....which is a record of wages. One can get nice big fat W2s or little puny ones, LOL. I think most economists use wages to cover all income earned by one's labor as opposed to passive income from investments. But I suspected we had a disconnect. Here's a 2007 taxable income table. So it's after all deductions, etc. The top two are being mentioned by the candidates. 10% up to 16,050 15% 16,050 to 65,100 25% 65,100 to 131,450 28% 131,450 to 200,300 33% 200,300 to 357,700 35% over 357,700 As I understand it, that income a person has in excess of 200,300 would have a 2% surcharge levied on it. I think Hillary would put a 4% surcharge on income in excess of the 357,700 level. Or at least I think I heard her talk about restoring the top bracket to 39%. So not all income would be subject....just the portion over those levels. And gross income is not the measurement on this table. It's income after all deductions, etc.