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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (43718)	6/9/2010 9:11:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

We haven't added all the extra factors in yet. I've presented total state tax burdens, federal income tax rates, median incomes for different years, and payroll taxes for different years. The only thing I've left out (in terms of actually providing information with sources, rather than just my impression which I consider very solid here) is minor misc. federal taxes, since they are too small of factor to make much of a difference, and too difficult to research for an unpaid SI post. The difference in the payroll taxes alone is enough to make objection to my claim that "Effective tax rates on much of the middle class where lower" (in the 50s and 60s) than they are now. Its too large to be made up by the other factors, and the other factors don't generally work in the other direction anyway. For a significant portion of the middle class federal income tax rates where about the same or lower. For those that paid more (not including the rich, we are talking middle class here) they are not enough to cover the difference in payroll taxes, often not even close. At the same time the state tax burden was noticeably lower. Misc. federal taxes (the only area where I have no given any information) are/where not nearly large enough to make much of a difference.