2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders made $205,271 in 2014 and only paid a tax rate of 13.5%. The average US worker pays 31.5%...
and makes far less than $205,271.
Funny how that works.
------
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and his wife paid $27,653 in federal income taxes in 2014, an effective federal tax rate of 13.5 percent, according to their tax return released on Friday by his campaign.
Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, and his wife, Jane, had income of $205,271, according to the tax return. They made charitable contributions totaling $8,350.
On Thursday night, in a debate in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, Sanders promised to release his tax returns after his rival for the Democratic nomination, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, raised the issue.
"You'll get them, yes," Sanders said. "They are very boring tax returns. No big money from speeches, no major investments. Unfortunately - unfortunately - I remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-taxes-idUSKCN0XC2UF
----------------
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/238735-average-us-worker-pays-315-pct-tax-rate-report
morningfog
(18,115 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)angstlessk
(11,862 posts)He would even raise taxes on his own self!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Also, he is in a bracket in which he pays less on his payroll taxes -- a lower percentage.
You are making an excellent argument for raising the cap on the payroll of Social Security taxes.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Those 2 deductions do wonders for me every year.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)No payroll tax on almost half his earnings and enough disposable income to carry a larger property tax, mortgage and charity burden.
The right wing clowns would be embarrassed at their own silly arguments if they had any concept.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The right wing supports this tax system. But it is fair that a person who is supposed to be retired since he is over 70 does not pay payroll taxes.
He is very, very careful with money. He probably owes a lot on his house or houses.
Remember that he returns to Vermont nearly every weekend to be with his constituents. He probably eats out during the week, too, and that costs a lot of money.
Our members of Congress are well paid, but they incur a lot of expenses due to their work.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I pay more than Bernie.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Funny how that works.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)come help us change the system
jmg257
(11,996 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... working the system for all it's worth. Must be nice.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Look, you are nuts to not follow the laws as written for now while still advocating for change.
TheBlackAdder
(28,201 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I have more assets than he does and I'm barely middle class.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)only worth $500K now???
HE really isn't playing the system so well.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)NancyDL
(140 posts)...and I think your taxpayers should get a LOT more bang for their bucks. I live in Canada where taxes are roughly the same. What do we get for that? Universal health care, good schools, good law enforcement, pretty good maintenance of roads and public buildings, reasonable bankruptcy laws, lower university tuition, etc.
We had a conservative government that tried to take all that away. We got rid of them. I hope you do the same.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)They were all so sure.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's actually kind of sad that they're unable to recognize an honest politician.
Bernie's one of the poorest senators in Washington and who do they support? The person who made millions from corporations.
QC
(26,371 posts)the Clinton Cave. Remember that one?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)As well as Russia, Cuba, China and elsewhere, it's just being funneled through citizens.
QC
(26,371 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)There have been many links to anti-Semitic articles at right wing websites in fact. One person even linked to Stormfront in an attempt to associate a Jewish candidate with neo-Nazis. Still another called Bernie Israel's #1 shill, and an op that used and associated Bernie with the Yiddish n-word was also posted.
QC
(26,371 posts)when she was called on it.
(Of course, she also claimed to be an economist when she was called on her decidedly right wing economic pronouncements. On the Internet, I am Anastasia, Last of the Romanovs.)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)Total tax rate will be much higher, do we really have to spell this out?
That 31% is total tax rate, federal, state, local, property combined, get it?
MADem
(135,425 posts)The 31.5 average is the 11th lowest rate among OECD countries, putting the U.S. just behind Canada and the United Kingdom. The average rate throughout the OECD is 36 percent, a figure driven up rates in Belgium (55.3 percent), Austria (49.4 percent), Germany (49.3 percent) and Hungary (49 percent).
Chile, New Zealand, Mexico and Israel had the lowest average rates for single workers among OECD countries. Roughly two-thirds of the OECD's members are in Europe, and emerging economies like Brazil, China and India aren't members.
The report, released on the eve of the IRS's filing deadline, comes as Republicans and Democrats remain divided over what to do about the top tax rate for individuals in the U.S.
Democrats have no desire to bring the top rate of 39.6 percent down, after it was raised by the "fiscal cliff" deal more than two years ago. Top Republicans want to slash that rate and have called the divide one of the larger obstacles to an overhaul of the tax code that doesn't focus just on businesses.
I guess the rich get richer....
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)krawhitham
(4,644 posts)katsy
(4,246 posts)Not 33%
Use a tax calculator and enter VT as residence
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Majority of Americans don't pay federal taxes (this is because they don't earn enough). Without any deductibles his maximum federal tax would be 20%.
What you are confusing is other taxes like state taxes which there is very little deductibles and everyone is forced to pay.
dubyadiprecession
(5,711 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)He is special enough to be appreciated as authentic and CONSISTENT
on income inequality. Consistent his entire career fighting against greed.
Your candidate is a pretender.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)He wants income equality, but only suckers pay their whole tax burden.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Damn.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Disgusting that you're proud of it.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Nice ranting with you.
PufPuf23
(8,776 posts)The reported federal tax in the report for the 31% includes income tax plus tax withholding for social security.
The average federal income tax rate in the US is somewhat over 17%.
jfern
(5,204 posts)PufPuf23
(8,776 posts)of a link in a link posted by the OP (as I thought the 31% was way off).
There was not the raw data but a graph of the raw data.
We get the idea.
The OP is wrong.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)is no one else even looking at the link?
And yes, about 17% for income tax rate for a single worker without children.
PufPuf23
(8,776 posts)I don't think the OP was posted in good faith so why bother to understand?
sheeshh.
Bobcat
(246 posts)I call bullshit. First, the article references effective tax rates for singles. Sanders is married and no doubt has considerable deductions related to his employment. Effective tax rate is the rate paid on gross income AFTER deductions. Divide income tax paid into gross income and you get EFFECTIVE tax rate. My (an economics teacher) effective tax rate for the last 25 years has been in the teens. Also, we are told that half the country pays ZERO income tax. I'm having a hard time swallowing these numbers.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Csainvestor
(388 posts)Obama just released taxes and they added up all the taxes, not just federal income tax.
jfern
(5,204 posts)I think the average worker pays less than 10% in federal income taxes.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Either way looks bad, and notice there's been no correction.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This is just one of many, they're calling him cheap for not donating enough to charity while comparing his income to Hillary's.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Yeah, that needs to be defined.
Often what is done is they simply divide the total paid in taxes (for the country) by the number of taxpayers.
However, our income tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough. So higher earners pay a higher percentage.
The "average American" makes about $45k per year. Assuming taxable income is $30k, you're claiming he or she pays over 9 grand a year.
I made somewhat above average last year and paid less than that, single with one kid and no mortgage, medical, or education evidences to deduct.
So I think some of the anti-tax talking points are seeping into this conversation.
Csainvestor
(388 posts)Just curious if it does, or it doesn't.
Once again this is only federal income tax not, state tax not fica and not property tax.
You would have to add all of those up, to get the total tax rate.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Romney's 'Number' Is 13.9: What's Yours?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/08/20/romneys-number-is-13-9-whats-yours/#6a4e0290207a
revbones
(3,660 posts)Good way to make it completely inaccurate. Oh but that's not what you or the Hillary campaign is going for is it?
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)The Clinton tax statement are much more thorough.
Either way, he is certainly not middle class. Heck, he's not even in the bottom 97%. Oh Bernie...I'm so disillusioned.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)..that the definition of poor has been revised up to include someone with no kids earning over $200,000 a year.
I suspect that 99.999% of the people who don't have a problem with Sanders paying less than Romney does in taxes would have a MAJOR problem with someone earning over $200k a year and paying less than Romney being considered "poor" and would never defend such an individual.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Whatever one thinks of Sanders, it's pretty obvious that he's never really focused on enriching himself. I suspect he'd still be a Senator even if the job paid $50k/year.
MattP
(3,304 posts)You can't tell anything from his 1040
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)What a bunch of fools on this thread.
enid602
(8,619 posts)Used to work (moonlight) at H&R Block. The claim of $203k in income is bogus, as he made $200k in the Senate alone. He was over 70.5 years old, meaniing he HAS do take at least 5% of his almost $1mm 401 (k), or its government equivalent. Asumably he's drawing SS. Jane's $200k golden parachute was payable over a 4 year period. She may have earned a salary in 2014. $203k my ass!
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)After schedule A, personal exemption etc what he is claiming is realistic.
I trust Bearnies CPA's to get it right more than somebody who read one article and moonlights and HR Block.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)its offensive?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Maybe he should set up a family foundation and funnel millions into it!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Free stuff, commies, lazy hippies, superpredators, damn kids, etc. It's all purely coincidental, I'm sure, but interesting nonetheless.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)At first I thought they were just defending the Clintons but it's become apparent that I was mistaken.
The increased use of rabid right wing talking points has convinced me that this hatred of Bernie and his supporters is based on something other than primary tribalism.
QC
(26,371 posts)in order to support the Clintons?
First, we agree with the reasoning behind Citizens United, that big money doesn't corrupt politicians. And now, apparently, we are supposed to believe that progressive taxation is a bad thing.
Is there anything or anyone these people won't abandon in order to help Hillary get that ultimate résumé line?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's one thing I was sure that would unite us all, one thing that we could all agree on - no further restrictions on abortion. If Bernie had said that (or any other man for that matter) all hell would have broken loose.
No, there is nothing and no one they won't abandon.
QC
(26,371 posts)The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth would never end.
But then we're talking about a crowd that's willing to accept antisemitism if it comes from a member of their circle, so there's clearly nothing that can't be tactfully overlooked for the sake of Hillary.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And you're right, a hateful anti-Semitic screed that was so offensive it made its way to FSTDT is being defended and shrugged off as though it was nothing.
If someone on our side had used hate speech against a minority group after smearing a member of that minority for months they would be driven off the site.
QC
(26,371 posts)That's such twisted morality than I can't begin to comprehend it, but it's nothing new--we saw plenty of good, decent LGBT people banned for kicking back against homophobes who were allowed to torment them for years and are in most cases still members in good standing. Remember that? It was OK to *be* a homophobe, but to fight back against a homophobe was a bannable offense.
Pretzel ethics.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And it's quite a coincidence that many of the players who engaged in and defended homophobia are now excusing anti-Semitism, isn't it?
QC
(26,371 posts)But yes, I'm sure you and I are thinking of the same names.
Stargleamer
(1,989 posts)Also your "he talks about ALL of us contributing"--does not really characterizes his position, and I think you know that. His emphasis has always been on a much more progressive taxation rates, not on everyone contributing. He knows that many people don't pay any Federal Income tax because they're too poor to meet the threshold. Is he like going around saying this should be different, that they should pay something? No. You know that too.
If he paid just slightly less as a percentage than Romney, it wasn't through a taxation rate of his choosing. Obviously he wants Romney to pay much more, and I think he wants even people making the amount of money he does to pay more. Fox News has had wealthy progressives on their shows advocating a more progressive tax rate. One of the 1st things out of the mouths of Fox News Commentators, is well, do you make up the difference between what you are advocating for those in your class and what you legally owe by sending the Federal Government a check?? As if they don't they're being hypocrites when they are calling for a class action for all in their class. You could probably level the hypocrisy charge against a number of progressive politicians, such as Barbara Lee, if they don't make up the difference between what they are advocating and what they themselves are paying when it comes to taxes.
Also, as others have pointed out here, 13.5% doesn't really reflect all of Bernie's taxes paid. The 31.5% percent reflects both Federal, State, city, and other taxes. So who knows what the rate Bernie paid for all his taxes combined.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)No way in hell the average US worker pays 31.5% in Federal taxes. Especially when 45% of Americans pay NO Federal Income Taxes.
dchill
(38,492 posts)And I don't mean Long Island Expressway.
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)clinton's taxable income ,same year 2014
$22,787,248. and paid $8,970,503. in fed taxes
so clinton's rate was about 39% and bernie's about 19%
since the clintons made 161 times as much money i am fine with their rate being higher
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Hillarians fail math again.
msongs
(67,405 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)You seen to have zero idea what goes into a tax return, how the tax is calculated and why.
Do some research.
elleng
(130,907 posts)pension(s) + soc sec, are about $64,000, and my tax rate is about ?10%. 'Funny?'
matt819
(10,749 posts)Whining about this is disingenuous. Depends on deductions.
And, as others have observed, to the extent that this is unfair, this is what Bernie is fighting for.
Also, it's not insignificant that Bernie's income is less than Hillary's pay for one speech.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And effective... delete this bullshit.
Otherwise forfeit any future credibility.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)No point in shutting the barn door once the mule's already run away.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Bernie doesn't put the seat down when he's done in the bathroom. Shame on you Senator.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)It primarily favors those with means and power. (And, in doing so, maintains their means and power.)
People of middle to upper middle income are most likely to have mortgages, property taxes, college expenses, business expenses, donations and tons of other things that can be written off.
It's fucked up. The working class and poor don't get shit. Even the opportunistic stimulus incentives like cash for clunkers only benefits people who are able to buy a new car. They need cash now, not write-offs in the next calendar year.
And don't even get me started on other regressive taxes like sales tax etc...
But that's not Bernie's fault and arguably he is working against that system. Aside from the charitable donations, he pretty much has to report all that stuff, the IRS knows most of it already anyway.
Nanjeanne
(4,960 posts)Marginal and effective tax rates. It's also helpful if people remember that we have progressive tax rates so if you are in, for example, the 35% tax bracket, you do t pay 35% on your entire income. You pay graduated percentages on each bracket, etc.
But that isn't as jazzy as a stupid OMG he paid 13.5%. It's much easier to post something you haven't a clue about.
Here is a link that spells out things very simply with examples and everything. Might help if someone really is interested in how taxes work. http://cawidgets.morningstar.ca/ArticleTemplate/ArticleGL.aspx?id=701059&culture=en-CA
krawhitham
(4,644 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I'd like to make this more confusing.
The figure of "31.5%" reported in The Hill comes from an OECD report.
What this figure represents is the "tax wedge as a percent of the labor cost" and is described thusly by the OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-tax-burden-trends-latest-year.htm
While it's not entirely clear what this means, it means something like the difference between what the employer pays for "labor cost" and what a single worker without children realizes for his or her take home pay.
Clear?
David__77
(23,402 posts)Nor, for that matter, is what rate other candidates are taxed at. I think there's nothing wrong in minimizing one's tax burden using any available, legal means to do so.
ecstatic
(32,704 posts)Umm, sitting Congress members aren't allowed to give paid speeches. Next....
OK, what were the minor investments?
What the hell is his point here? As a poli sci major, Bernie couldn't make additional money even if he wanted to. So that's a moot point. Is the fact that he didn't have additional skills and talents to make money outside of Congress supposed to make him superior somehow? Yes, Bernie, you are one of the poorer members of Congress, because your colleagues are lawyers, doctors, etc.-- they were successful before being elected to Congress.
It must be nice to make that much money for pretty much doing nothing.
Bernie's income lands him squarely in the top 1%. I too am amazed at how little he donated to charity.
mgcgulfcoast
(1,127 posts)I bet everyone on here pays as little tax as they possibly can.