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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (532302)	11/25/2009 3:06:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575856

The majority of the effective tax rate paid was determined by actual taxes, state and federal, income and payroll, (which I don't think you can reasonably dispute), by the effective subsidy for insurance provided by Medicaid and SCHIP (which is a complex question, but which is for many people rather large), and for some by section 8 housing (and the information I posted about it was clearly accurate). A $100 or $200 less, or even the total elimination of the TANF funds doesn't make a very big difference. Not maximizing your other possible benefits could, but subtract 25% off the effective marginal rate (a huge change) and your still facing rates of 50 to 100% (basing it on VA, less in TX, but more in high tax and benefit states), which is certainly enough to be very negative in terms of people's incentives, and which combines with the other costs involved in increasing your income. (If you lose 65% of the additional money to lost benefits and extra taxes, you might still make the effort because the 35% might be worth it, but add in extra commuting costs, maybe daycare costs, and other items, and the job might not be worth it anymore, even if it totals less than 100% most people aren't going to want to work for 10 cents on the dollar.)