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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (748678)	10/22/2013 11:09:07 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573930

>You still haven't proven to me that anyone ever paid a 90% income tax rate on anything. Why should I have to? I mean, I'm guessing you're wrong, but why is that relevant? -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (748678)	10/23/2013 12:10:48 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1573930

>> You still haven't proven to me that anyone ever paid a 90% income tax rate on anything. It would have required the rarest of circumstances. I didn't see the 90% reference, but IIRC, the 90% rate was a punitive tax applied only on filing status of MFS. There are about two reasons why anyone would file separately: In rare situations it can generate a lower combined tax (if there are large deductions that are percent-of-income limited that will otherwise be lost; I doubt this could ever apply with the 90% rate). The other would be if one spouse was willing to get destroyed on income taxes to avoid joint liability on filing a joint return, e.g., the lower-earning spouse had illegally unreported income that the higher-earning spouse didn't want to be associated with, even if it cost him/her more. This might also apply when a couple is married but the process of getting a divorce, and the lower earning spouse wouldn't agree to a MFJ election.