Lately, our yapping lesser 'borg from the west coast has been kicking
up a lot of dust. As you will see in the short compilation below, some
of his beliefs are so preposterous that one might have assumed he was
just stirring up trouble for kicks. But when he runs into resistance
to his commands (presumably quite the same kind of resistance he
encounters at home and at work), he gets upset. Very upset. So I think
that all the ranting and bloviating is sincere, and that the
Terrierborg really is frustrated about everything.

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

1. A person can have a steady job, report all his income, pay all the
mandated taxes, and still be a "slacker". Scottie would have the T-men
come and repo his house and stereo in order that such a person would
no longer be getting a free ride while Mrs. Terrierborg lounges in
"retirement". One has to wonder what draconian measures Mr. Yaps would
condone against welfare recipients and others who might actually be
slackers.

2. Consumer audio magazines are derelict by not performing torture
rituals along with their Normal reviews. Yes, folks & guys, there are
heaps of frauds being perpetrated by greedy criminals masquerading as
designers and marketers. Stereophile and its ilk are aiding and
abetting this vast criminal enterprise, and getting as their reward
thousands of dollars in advertising fees. It's a huge conspiracy and
it must stop! STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!

3. Nothing the Terrierborg says on Usenet is allowed to be used
against him. Furthermore, as an accomplished practitioner of the
"debating trade" (which he learned from Krooger before he stopped
adoring Mr. ****), Scottie is allowed to tell you what you think. He
also tells us he is right in all his arguments, but of course he's not
obliged to explain why. He's allowed to contradict himself without
being chastised. ;-) Doesn't matter that "chastised" is a way human
beings feel; if he says he's not chastised, that means other people
are "impotent". None of the details matter because he ****ing well
KNOWS he is right in everything he says, and people only argue with
him because they need to amuse themselves.

4. George W. Bush is a great president. The Republicans are a great
political party. Dubya has lied to the American people about many
things, including why we had to invade Iraq, but that's OK because he
is the "right sort". Bill Clinton lied about fooling around on his
wife, and that makes him the worst president since FDR.

5. People who post on Usenet with the no-archive flag enabled are
cowards. No other explanation is possible. Oh wait -- since such a
choice might "inconvenience" Scottie or Arnii, these people should be
kicked off Usenet. No other punishment is possible. Scottie knows all
things. Whatever farfetched accusation or rationalization spits from
his lips is perfect, as fully formed as Athena when she sprung from
Zeus's brow. Scottieborg is omniscient.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:


Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.


Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy for
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe, I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no? If plan
"B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.


Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy for
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe,

Why are you talking to Scott's friend Art here?

I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no?

Yep. I just don't happen to believe that Scott makes $135,000 a year
(he hasn't exactly been forthcoming about his income or the actual
amount of taxes that he pays, now has he)?

If plan "B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?

Isn't it also fair to say that if you're paying a higher tax rate by
filing jointly than by filing separately, it's rather stupid to file
jointly? I don't think that married people should be penalized vis a
vis single people, but I also don't believe that they should get a
special "marriage" tax break either. especially since single people
without children are already subsidising the education of their
children at a state level. At least the federal government allows
those property taxes to be excluded from federal taxes, but Scott gets
that as well.

BTW, my taking a 50% figure for actual taxes paid was just a poke at
him, since it's obvious that one doesn't pay taxes at their nominal
tax rate. I'll note that I just entered a new tax bracket by something
like $400. Fortunately, only that $400 is taxed at 25%. But
regardless, it's obvious that my *actual* tax burden is more like 15%,
not counting SS, Medicare, property and sales taxes and all of those
other things that Scott threw into the mix after the fact. At first he
demanded that I should be paying $7000 toward the federal budget -
then he changed his tune and started including all of the other state,
county and other taxes that we pay.

I want to remind you that he claimed that she was in a 50% tax bracket
in the context of how much each person's share of the federal budget
was - I claim that that was misleading to the extreme.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.


Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy
for
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe,

Why are you talking to Scott's friend Art here?

I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no?

Yep. I just don't happen to believe that Scott makes $135,000 a year
(he hasn't exactly been forthcoming about his income or the actual
amount of taxes that he pays, now has he)?

If plan "B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her
income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?

Isn't it also fair to say that if you're paying a higher tax rate by
filing jointly than by filing separately, it's rather stupid to file
jointly?

You don't get to use the single tax tables.
Please do some research.

http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000526.htm

I don't think that married people should be penalized vis a
vis single people, but I also don't believe that they should get a
special "marriage" tax break either. especially since single people
without children are already subsidising the education of their
children at a state level. At least the federal government allows
those property taxes to be excluded from federal taxes, but Scott gets
that as well.

BTW, my taking a 50% figure for actual taxes paid was just a poke at
him, since it's obvious that one doesn't pay taxes at their nominal
tax rate. I'll note that I just entered a new tax bracket by something
like $400. Fortunately, only that $400 is taxed at 25%. But
regardless, it's obvious that my *actual* tax burden is more like 15%,
not counting SS, Medicare, property and sales taxes and all of those
other things that Scott threw into the mix after the fact. At first he
demanded that I should be paying $7000 toward the federal budget -
then he changed his tune and started including all of the other state,
county and other taxes that we pay.

No Dave, that was your misinterpretation. Keeping your facts
straight seems to be quite a challenge for you.


I want to remind you that he claimed that she was in a 50% tax bracket
in the context of how much each person's share of the federal budget
was - I claim that that was misleading to the extreme.

Sorry you don't believe but it was true for the year we made the
decision and the subsequent year as well.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.


Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy
for
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe, I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no? If plan
"B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?



IDIOT, Dave was inferring that Scott didn't know what he was talking about.
Dave was being sarcastic.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Socky said:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest

Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe, I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no? If plan
"B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?

IDIOT, Dave was inferring that Scott didn't know what he was talking about.
Dave was being sarcastic.

Actually, dave was *implying* that Scottieborg was *lying*.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:30:54 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.


Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy
for
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe,

Why are you talking to Scott's friend Art here?

I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no?

Yep. I just don't happen to believe that Scott makes $135,000 a year
(he hasn't exactly been forthcoming about his income or the actual
amount of taxes that he pays, now has he)?

If plan "B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her
income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?

Isn't it also fair to say that if you're paying a higher tax rate by
filing jointly than by filing separately, it's rather stupid to file
jointly?

You don't get to use the single tax tables.
Please do some research.

http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000526.htm

Thanks for the info.

However, going to Schedule Y-1 and Y-2, using $100,000 as a nice round
figure, at that income level, the marriage penalty is a whopping $644
if married filing separately. Hardly the rip-off that's implied.
Still, I don't think that people should be charged for the privilege
of being married.

And I went ahead and figured out what the difference between single
unmarrieds making 100,000 and a couple making the same amount and
filing jointly. Turns out that the joint filers actually pay $2851
LESS tax than the single person. So where's the marriage penalty
there? Sounds like a single penalty to me.

If I've misfigured, let me know. The amounts that I figured we

Single - 21,446
Married filing jointly - 18,595
Married filing separately - 22,090

The other income levels don't look all that different, although I
didn't figure them out. Since you refuse to disclose what you actually
make, I don't feel like it's any big deal.

I don't think that married people should be penalized vis a
vis single people, but I also don't believe that they should get a
special "marriage" tax break either. especially since single people
without children are already subsidising the education of their
children at a state level. At least the federal government allows
those property taxes to be excluded from federal taxes, but Scott gets
that as well.

BTW, my taking a 50% figure for actual taxes paid was just a poke at
him, since it's obvious that one doesn't pay taxes at their nominal
tax rate. I'll note that I just entered a new tax bracket by something
like $400. Fortunately, only that $400 is taxed at 25%. But
regardless, it's obvious that my *actual* tax burden is more like 15%,
not counting SS, Medicare, property and sales taxes and all of those
other things that Scott threw into the mix after the fact. At first he
demanded that I should be paying $7000 toward the federal budget -
then he changed his tune and started including all of the other state,
county and other taxes that we pay.

No Dave, that was your misinterpretation. Keeping your facts
straight seems to be quite a challenge for you.


I want to remind you that he claimed that she was in a 50% tax bracket
in the context of how much each person's share of the federal budget
was - I claim that that was misleading to the extreme.

Sorry you don't believe but it was true for the year we made the
decision and the subsequent year as well.

No it wasn't. There *is* no federal 50% tax bracket. And the federal
tax bracket is the only thing you can use to determine ones share of
the FEDERAL BUDGET. Why you gloss over that is probably because you
don't want to admit that you're wrong. ,shrug

ScottW

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:30:54 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:40:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:19:03 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.


Shows how little you guys understand about married life. To make it easy
for
dimwits like you two Middius and Yustabe,

Why are you talking to Scott's friend Art here?

I'll hypothesize that a woman
works, and files jointly with her husband. So after deductions, what tax
bracket are they in? Depends a lot on what the husband makes, no?

Yep. I just don't happen to believe that Scott makes $135,000 a year
(he hasn't exactly been forthcoming about his income or the actual
amount of taxes that he pays, now has he)?

If plan "B" is the wife not working, isn't it fair to look at her
income as if it
was in the tax bracket they jumped up to when they were both working?

Isn't it also fair to say that if you're paying a higher tax rate by
filing jointly than by filing separately, it's rather stupid to file
jointly?

You don't get to use the single tax tables.
Please do some research.

http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000526.htm

Thanks for the info.

However, going to Schedule Y-1 and Y-2, using $100,000 as a nice round
figure, at that income level, the marriage penalty is a whopping $644
if married filing separately. Hardly the rip-off that's implied.
Still, I don't think that people should be charged for the privilege
of being married.

And I went ahead and figured out what the difference between single
unmarrieds making 100,000 and a couple making the same amount and
filing jointly. Turns out that the joint filers actually pay $2851
LESS tax than the single person. So where's the marriage penalty
there? Sounds like a single penalty to me.

You need to look at Joint filers vs 2 single filers each making half
the joint. According to the Y tables I find for 2003 on the IRS
webpage (whose numbers give slightly different results than yours) the
taxes for married filing joint are equal to 2 singles making half that
amount (50K).
The penalty kicks in when your income level begins reducing the
amount of deductions allowed on Sched A. You then need to run the
numbers twice to see if the married filing separately works by
allowing the deductions to apply to at least one of the two.
Seperately always comes out worse for me.
Before Turbo Tax, doing the excercise was out of the question.
You have already shown that if separately is the better deal, then a
marriage penalty exists. I think you'll find it gets worse as income
levels increase above your 100K example although the 2003 tables have
made attempts to reduce it.


If I've misfigured, let me know. The amounts that I figured we

Single - 21,446
Married filing jointly - 18,595
Married filing separately - 22,090

The other income levels don't look all that different, although I
didn't figure them out. Since you refuse to disclose what you actually
make, I don't feel like it's any big deal.

Its the schedule A deduction reduction and AMT that really can
hammer you.


I don't think that married people should be penalized vis a
vis single people, but I also don't believe that they should get a
special "marriage" tax break either. especially since single people
without children are already subsidising the education of their
children at a state level. At least the federal government allows
those property taxes to be excluded from federal taxes, but Scott gets
that as well.

Actually, I don't get property tax deductions above a certain income
level.


BTW, my taking a 50% figure for actual taxes paid was just a poke at
him, since it's obvious that one doesn't pay taxes at their nominal
tax rate. I'll note that I just entered a new tax bracket by something
like $400. Fortunately, only that $400 is taxed at 25%. But
regardless, it's obvious that my *actual* tax burden is more like 15%,
not counting SS, Medicare, property and sales taxes and all of those
other things that Scott threw into the mix after the fact. At first he
demanded that I should be paying $7000 toward the federal budget -
then he changed his tune and started including all of the other state,
county and other taxes that we pay.

No Dave, that was your misinterpretation. Keeping your facts
straight seems to be quite a challenge for you.


I want to remind you that he claimed that she was in a 50% tax bracket
in the context of how much each person's share of the federal budget
was - I claim that that was misleading to the extreme.

Sorry you don't believe but it was true for the year we made the
decision and the subsequent year as well.

No it wasn't. There *is* no federal 50% tax bracket. And the federal
tax bracket is the only thing you can use to determine ones share of
the FEDERAL BUDGET. Why you gloss over that is probably because you
don't want to admit that you're wrong. ,shrug

I've explained that I was referring to her total income tax
liability.
Why you choose to pursue this obvious obfuscation is clear. You
can't refute the fact that you don't pay a full "share" of the Federal
budget.

ScottW

On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

No it wasn't. There *is* no federal 50% tax bracket. And the federal
tax bracket is the only thing you can use to determine ones share of
the FEDERAL BUDGET. Why you gloss over that is probably because you
don't want to admit that you're wrong. ,shrug

I've explained that I was referring to her total income tax
liability.

So, what does that have to do with her "full share" of the Federal Tax
budget?

Why you choose to pursue this obvious obfuscation is clear. You
can't refute the fact that you don't pay a full "share" of the Federal
budget.

Ad you haven't shown that you pay over $21,000 in tax either.

On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

You need to look at Joint filers vs 2 single filers each making half
the joint. According to the Y tables I find for 2003 on the IRS
webpage (whose numbers give slightly different results than yours) the
taxes for married filing joint are equal to 2 singles making half that
amount (50K).

That's not what I found (at the $100,000 level). And, if that were the
case, then there isn't any marriage penalty, in least in terms of raw
tax rates.

Here are the guidelines again (at $100,000):

Single $14,010 + 28% of $31,200
Joint - $7,820 + 25% of $43,100
Separately - $19,549 + 33% of $12,650

Run the numbers. If my quick calculations were wrong, then let me
know.

Incidentally, I'm not going to muddy the waters with the issues of
deductions, because they very from individual to individual.

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

You need to look at Joint filers vs 2 single filers each making half
the joint. According to the Y tables I find for 2003 on the IRS
webpage (whose numbers give slightly different results than yours) the
taxes for married filing joint are equal to 2 singles making half that
amount (50K).

That's not what I found (at the $100,000 level). And, if that were the
case, then there isn't any marriage penalty, in least in terms of raw
tax rates.

Here are the guidelines again (at $100,000):

Single $14,010 + 28% of $31,200 = 22,746 (Not 21,446)
Joint - $7,820 + 25% of $43,100 = 18,595 (Not 18,620)
43,200 in 2003
Separately - $19,549 + 33% of $12,650 = 23722.75 (not 22,090)
19,548.25 in 2003


Run the numbers. If my quick calculations were wrong, then let me
know.

You were off a bit on all three.


Incidentally, I'm not going to muddy the waters with the issues of
deductions, because they very from individual to individual.

But you must if you want to understand the marriage penalty. For
example, the taxes of a single person making 50K is exactly half that
of a married filing joint couple making 100K. No marriage penalty at
all apparent.
But when you move into higher income brackets where the deduction
reduction kicks in or AMT comes into play, the marriage penalty can be
substantial.
You can't claim it doesn't exist just because you looked at one tax
bracket from an extremely simple perspective.

ScottW

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

No it wasn't. There *is* no federal 50% tax bracket. And the federal
tax bracket is the only thing you can use to determine ones share of
the FEDERAL BUDGET. Why you gloss over that is probably because you
don't want to admit that you're wrong. ,shrug

I've explained that I was referring to her total income tax
liability.

So, what does that have to do with her "full share" of the Federal Tax
budget?

Nothing. It was just another point that the tax burden for higher
income people is severe.
I'm sorry you can't seem to keep from confusing two separate data
points that support a similar conclusion. Still, your inability to
keep your facts straight
is your problem, not mine.


Why you choose to pursue this obvious obfuscation is clear. You
can't refute the fact that you don't pay a full "share" of the Federal
budget.

Ad you haven't shown that you pay over $21,000 in tax either.

You haven't shown that you pay $6,000 in taxes. You've said you do,
but you haven't shown us you do. I'm not suggesting you need to BTW.
That is your hangup, not mine.

ScottW

On 29 Jan 2004 12:06:49 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

You need to look at Joint filers vs 2 single filers each making half
the joint. According to the Y tables I find for 2003 on the IRS
webpage (whose numbers give slightly different results than yours) the
taxes for married filing joint are equal to 2 singles making half that
amount (50K).

That's not what I found (at the $100,000 level). And, if that were the
case, then there isn't any marriage penalty, in least in terms of raw
tax rates.

Here are the guidelines again (at $100,000):

Single $14,010 + 28% of $31,200 = 22,746 (Not 21,446)
Joint - $7,820 + 25% of $43,100 = 18,595 (Not 18,620)
43,200 in 2003
Separately - $19,549 + 33% of $12,650 = 23722.75 (not 22,090)
19,548.25 in 2003


Run the numbers. If my quick calculations were wrong, then let me
know.

You were off a bit on all three.

Well? Are you going to say what the actual amounts should have been?

Incidentally, I'm not going to muddy the waters with the issues of
deductions, because they very from individual to individual.

But you must if you want to understand the marriage penalty. For
example, the taxes of a single person making 50K is exactly half that
of a married filing joint couple making 100K.

Not according to my figures.

No marriage penalty at
all apparent.
But when you move into higher income brackets where the deduction
reduction kicks in or AMT comes into play, the marriage penalty can be
substantial.
You can't claim it doesn't exist just because you looked at one tax
bracket from an extremely simple perspective.

You mean like you did when you took my federal tax payments and
extrapolated that I wasn't "doing my share"? Is *that* what you mean?

Also, don't forget that I came out against the marriage penalty. Of
course, I'm not in favor of any marriage subsidy either.

On 29 Jan 2004 12:13:31 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

No it wasn't. There *is* no federal 50% tax bracket. And the federal
tax bracket is the only thing you can use to determine ones share of
the FEDERAL BUDGET. Why you gloss over that is probably because you
don't want to admit that you're wrong. ,shrug

I've explained that I was referring to her total income tax
liability.

So, what does that have to do with her "full share" of the Federal Tax
budget?

Nothing. It was just another point that the tax burden for higher
income people is severe.
I'm sorry you can't seem to keep from confusing two separate data
points that support a similar conclusion. Still, your inability to
keep your facts straight
is your problem, not mine.

OK, so now we can agree that, according to your criterion, I *do* do
my share since I'm in an almost 50% tax bracket as well.

Why you choose to pursue this obvious obfuscation is clear. You
can't refute the fact that you don't pay a full "share" of the Federal
budget.

And you haven't shown that you pay over $21,000 in tax either.

You haven't shown that you pay $6,000 in taxes. You've said you do,
but you haven't shown us you do.

Actually, I don't think that I have. I've simply said that I pay my
share of the services that I use. I certainly pay over $7000 a year in
taxes, but that's all taxes combined, not just federal.

I'm not suggesting you need to BTW.
That is your hangup, not mine.

In the meantime, you continue to insist that you pay your share and
yet you don't admit to paying over $21,000 in federal income taxes a
year.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:57:50 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Nothing. It was just another point that the tax burden for higher
income people is severe.
I'm sorry you can't seem to keep from confusing two separate data
points that support a similar conclusion. Still, your inability to
keep your facts straight
is your problem, not mine.

OK, so now we can agree that, according to your criterion, I *do* do
my share since I'm in an almost 50% tax bracket as well.

This was an incorrect statement. It was supposed to have been edited
out.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jan 2004 12:06:49 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On 28 Jan 2004 11:59:34 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

You need to look at Joint filers vs 2 single filers each making
half
the joint. According to the Y tables I find for 2003 on the IRS
webpage (whose numbers give slightly different results than yours)
the
taxes for married filing joint are equal to 2 singles making half
that
amount (50K).

That's not what I found (at the $100,000 level). And, if that were the
case, then there isn't any marriage penalty, in least in terms of raw
tax rates.

Here are the guidelines again (at $100,000):

Single $14,010 + 28% of $31,200 = 22,746 (Not 21,446)
Joint - $7,820 + 25% of $43,100 = 18,595 (Not 18,620)
43,200 in 2003
Separately - $19,549 + 33% of $12,650 = 23722.75 (not 22,090)
19,548.25 in 2003


Run the numbers. If my quick calculations were wrong, then let me
know.

You were off a bit on all three.

Well? Are you going to say what the actual amounts should have been?

I did Dave, see the = after your guidelines, in ( ) is your numbers from
a previous post. I also noted the discrepancy
in guidelines when I saw one.


Incidentally, I'm not going to muddy the waters with the issues of
deductions, because they very from individual to individual.

But you must if you want to understand the marriage penalty. For
example, the taxes of a single person making 50K is exactly half that
of a married filing joint couple making 100K.

Not according to my figures.

See my corrections. According the 2003 tables I checked,
it was exactly half for 100K income bracket.


No marriage penalty at
all apparent.
But when you move into higher income brackets where the deduction
reduction kicks in or AMT comes into play, the marriage penalty can be
substantial.
You can't claim it doesn't exist just because you looked at one tax
bracket from an extremely simple perspective.

You mean like you did when you took my federal tax payments and
extrapolated that I wasn't "doing my share"? Is *that* what you mean?

You're getting blurry again.


Also, don't forget that I came out against the marriage penalty. Of
course, I'm not in favor of any marriage subsidy either.

I heard.
Apparently not in favor of children either.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote:

George Middius wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.

George also left out the fact that when Scottie, so obsessed with being
"right" about everything all the time, gets challenged or proven wrong, he
reflexivly resorts to compulsive lying. When proven wrong about that he
avoids the issue like the plague and goes on to new and lamer lies. And he
continues on and on like that until he bores the crap out of everyone so
that he can at least have the last word, i.e., the final lie. Then he
proclaims victory, a la Krooger.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote:

George Middius wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.

George also left out the fact that when Scottie, so obsessed with being
"right" about everything all the time, gets challenged or proven wrong, he
reflexivly resorts to compulsive lying. When proven wrong about that he
avoids the issue like the plague and goes on to new and lamer lies. And
he
continues on and on like that until he bores the crap out of everyone so
that he can at least have the last word, i.e., the final lie. Then he
proclaims victory, a la Krooger.

Anymore unsubstantiated bull****? Most people at least make an
attempt to substantiate their claims. I guess you're just beyond all
that.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
newsmDVb.10696$IF1.9661@fed1read01
"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote:

George Middius wrote:

Here is what poor Scottie believes, in no particular order:

You left one out - married women making $40,000 are in the highest
Federal tax bracket.

George also left out the fact that when Scottie, so obsessed with
being "right" about everything all the time, gets challenged or
proven wrong, he reflexivly resorts to compulsive lying. When
proven wrong about that he avoids the issue like the plague and goes
on to new and lamer lies. And he continues on and on like that
until he bores the crap out of everyone so that he can at least have
the last word, i.e., the final lie. Then he proclaims victory, a la
Krooger.

Anymore unsubstantiated bull****? Most people at least make an
attempt to substantiate their claims. I guess you're just beyond all
that.

I'm just ROTFLMAO with the irony of it all. It it's real.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:40:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I'm just ROTFLMAO with the irony of it all. It it's real.

In English please.