What's the most you've paid the tax man in a year?

[tacpoly]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wish they would balance the tax rate better if you made lets say 0 dollars while  going to school or lower pay, and now 10 years later you are a doctor, and you get **bleep** in taxes, you shouldn't get hit as hard because your first 8-10 years you were in school.

---

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  It seems to me that paying low or no taxes when you're not earning much, then paying more taxes when you are finally earning a lot is quite fair. 

Those 8-10 years when you were in school, you probably didn't pay much income tax.  To get longer preference tax treatment than that doesn't make sense. 

[Anonymous]

---

@tacpoly wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wish they would balance the tax rate better if you made lets say 0 dollars while  going to school or lower pay, and now 10 years later you are a doctor, and you get **bleep** in taxes, you shouldn't get hit as hard because your first 8-10 years you were in school.

---

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  It seems to me that paying low or no taxes when you're not earning much, then paying more taxes when you are finally earning a lot is quite fair. 

Those 8-10 years when you were in school, you probably didn't pay much income tax.  To get longer preference tax treatment than that doesn't make sense. 

---

I think it does make sense, think about it if you had person A made 50k a year for 10 years, and person B 0 for 8 years then 250k your last 2 years.  Both scenarios the people made 500k in 10 years, except 1 person A probably netted 350k+ and Person B netted 250k+.  I don't see this being a fair scenario, especially person B will continue to contribute more to society we shouldn't penalize him for investing in himself.  Their should be some adjustment tax rate for students getting out of college, this would hopefully help them pay off their loans, and make for a fairer tax system.

[tacpoly]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I think it does make sense, think about it if you had person A made 50k a year for 10 years, and person B 0 for 8 years then 250k your last 2 years.  Both scenarios the people made 500k in 10 years, except 1 person A probably netted 350k+ and Person B netted 250k+.  I don't see this being a fair scenario, especially person B will continue to contribute more to society we shouldn't penalize him for investing in himself.  Their should be some adjustment tax rate for students getting out of college, this would hopefully help them pay off their loans, and make for a fairer tax system.

---

First of all, how do you know a person will "contribute more to society"?  How would you even measure one's contribution to society?  I am surrounded by people with advanced degrees and many years of post grad schooling and I think, for one or two of them, society would benefit more if they weren't around   That super smart quant who came up with an algorithm for automatic trading that sends stocks plummeting or the doctor who got a free ride through med school wanting to service children with deformities but is now a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills (not a whole lot of deformities there except for botoxed, over-filled faces) -- I know them.  How are they contributing to society?  I would argue someone who keeps the streets and sidewalks clean does society more good than these guys. 

Second, we are not "penalizing him for investing in himself".  He is reaping the reward of that investment:  a high income.  That is a personal investment with personal rewards.  Taxes are different:  that is a public system where the costs of society are shared based on what people can afford to pay.  So when you weren't paying taxes, those roads, clean air, safe water (unless you were in Flint, MI) that you enjoyed were being funded by that guy making the 50K a year, amongst others.  But it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too -- the benefit of being able to "invest in yourself" then pay less to the system that allowed you to "invest in yourself" (by the way, universities are non-profit and get quite a lot of funding from the government) while keeping the rewards.  Do you think our crumbling infrastructure is going to get fixed or military funded with less money from you?  How about if you multiply that by millions of people who are more than happy to pay less taxes.  Or are you fine with having the schmucks making the 50K/year shoulder the costs of that? 

[Thomas_Thumb]

---

@tacpoly wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wish they would balance the tax rate better if you made lets say 0 dollars while  going to school or lower pay, and now 10 years later you are a doctor, and you get **bleep** in taxes, you shouldn't get hit as hard because your first 8-10 years you were in school.

---

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  It seems to me that paying low or no taxes when you're not earning much, then paying more taxes when you are finally earning a lot is quite fair. 

Those 8-10 years when you were in school, you probably didn't pay much income tax.  To get longer preference tax treatment than that doesn't make sense. 

---

If you make money, pay your taxes. Also, pay your loans. 

There are way too many greedy folks out there reaping in the benefit of higher eductation that default on their loans. Education, like many other things is an investment. Asking others to foot the bill for advanced degrees is asinine. People need to honor their obligations - not transfer debt to other tax payers. 

[Anonymous]

---

@tacpoly wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I think it does make sense, think about it if you had person A made 50k a year for 10 years, and person B 0 for 8 years then 250k your last 2 years.  Both scenarios the people made 500k in 10 years, except 1 person A probably netted 350k+ and Person B netted 250k+.  I don't see this being a fair scenario, especially person B will continue to contribute more to society we shouldn't penalize him for investing in himself.  Their should be some adjustment tax rate for students getting out of college, this would hopefully help them pay off their loans, and make for a fairer tax system.

---

First of all, how do you know a person will "contribute more to society"?  How would you even measure one's contribution to society?  I am surrounded by people with advanced degrees and many years of post grad schooling and I think, for one or two of them, society would benefit more if they weren't around   That super smart quant who came up with an algorithm for automatic trading that sends stocks plummeting or the doctor who got a free ride through med school wanting to service children with deformities but is now a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills (not a whole lot of deformities there except for botoxed, over-filled faces) -- I know them.  How are they contributing to society?  I would argue someone who keeps the streets and sidewalks clean does society more good than these guys. 

Second, we are not "penalizing him for investing in himself".  He is reaping the reward of that investment:  a high income.  That is a personal investment with personal rewards.  Taxes are different:  that is a public system where the costs of society are shared based on what people can afford to pay.  So when you weren't paying taxes, those roads, clean air, safe water (unless you were in Flint, MI) that you enjoyed were being funded by that guy making the 50K a year, amongst others.  But it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too -- the benefit of being able to "invest in yourself" then pay less to the system that allowed you to "invest in yourself" (by the way, universities are non-profit and get quite a lot of funding from the government) while keeping the rewards.  Do you think our crumbling infrastructure is going to get fixed or military funded with less money from you?  How about if you multiply that by millions of people who are more than happy to pay less taxes.  Or are you fine with having the schmucks making the 50K/year shoulder the costs of that? 

I guess you would have to evaluate contribution to society, but if you educate 100,000 people and out of those 100,000 you get 1 that will become the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk it could change the whole world for the better, maybe save our species.  I believe that people shouldn't have to pay that much for education in its current form, education is the great equalizer in our society.  Since people had to take out massive amounts of debt to get this education, I just believe in cutting them a break, we waste so much money on the military industrial complex, private prisons, subsidies for some of the most profitable businesses in the world, why can't we give a small break to people pursuing an education, it would be a drop in the  bucket.  Also on a side note you saddle some of the smartest and educated people with debt, they are less likely to reproduce and want to reproduce, leaving only the stupid people to keep breeding.

[tacpoly]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I guess you would have to evaluate contribution to society, but if you educate 100,000 people and out of those 100,000 you get 1 that will become the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk it could change the whole world for the better, maybe save our species.  I believe that people shouldn't have to pay that much for education in its current form, education is the great equalizer in our society.  Since people had to take out massive amounts of debt to get this education, I just believe in cutting them a break, we waste so much money on the military industrial complex, private prisons, subsidies for some of the most profitable businesses in the world, why can't we give a small break to people pursuing an education, it would be a drop in the  bucket.  Also on a side note you saddle some of the smartest and educated people with debt, they are less likely to reproduce and want to reproduce, leaving only the stupid people to keep breeding.

---

It's ironic that you bring up Steve Jobs, who dropped out from college in his sophomore year, and Elon Musk, who went to college in South Africa.   They show that people don't have to pay a lot for an education, that people aren't required to go into "massive amounts of debt" to go to college, that people aren't required to go to post grad, med, law, or business school -- that's a choice, and frankly it's a luxury. 

[Anonymous]

---

@tacpoly wrote:

It's ironic that you bring up Steve Jobs, who dropped out from college in his sophomore year, and Elon Musk, who went to college in South Africa.   They show that people don't have to pay a lot for an education, that people aren't required to go into "massive amounts of debt" to go to college, that people aren't required to go to post grad, med, law, or business school -- that's a choice, and frankly it's a luxury. 

---

 There are definitely some people for whom you're right. And it's true that higher education is a choice. However, it's a choice that all too often seems like software usage agreements. You can choose to not accept the agreement, but then you can't use the software. And you already paid for it and can't return it either. 

For most people, it's difficult or impossible to get into desired career fields without going to college, and the average student loan debt on graduation is higher than $30,000 and continues to climb. That tells me that the problem is systemic and not just people making bad decisions about which school they attend.

[tacpoly]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 There are definitely some people for whom you're right. And it's true that higher education is a choice. However, it's a choice that all too often seems like software usage agreements. You can choose to not accept the agreement, but then you can't use the software. And you already paid for it and can't return it either. 

For most people, it's difficult or impossible to get into desired career fields without going to college, and the average student loan debt on graduation is higher than $30,000 and continues to climb. That tells me that the problem is systemic and not just people making bad decisions about which school they attend.

---

That $30,000 average includes graduate students - those going to law school, med school, business school, etc... who have made the calculation that the money they will be making after they get their degree will be worth the time sink and the very large debt they are getting themselves into. 

[RonM21]

Wow, there are some big totals being listed!

[Anonymous]

---

@Thomas_Thumb wrote:

---

@tacpoly wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wish they would balance the tax rate better if you made lets say 0 dollars while  going to school or lower pay, and now 10 years later you are a doctor, and you get **bleep** in taxes, you shouldn't get hit as hard because your first 8-10 years you were in school.

---

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.  It seems to me that paying low or no taxes when you're not earning much, then paying more taxes when you are finally earning a lot is quite fair. 

Those 8-10 years when you were in school, you probably didn't pay much income tax.  To get longer preference tax treatment than that doesn't make sense. 

---

If you make money, pay your taxes. Also, pay your loans. 

There are way too many greedy folks out there reaping in the benefit of higher eductation that default on their loans. Education, like many other things is an investment. Asking others to foot the bill for advanced degrees is asinine. People need to honor their obligations - not transfer debt to other tax payers. 

---

I don't have much to add to the tax conversation, but I just wanted to point out RE: The bolded.

Asking an 18 yr to make a qualitative risk/reward assessment RE: their education by guaranteeing their education financially is like giving a loaded gun to someone who's never handled a gun before. It's very easy for someone who is uneducated to make a very bad decision very quickly. Asking an 18 year to commit to a certain career path, and then ask them to take on a debt burden that they themselves were not fully understanding on the risks inherent is bad decision making not just on the students part, but also on the parents and on the educators that helped him/her. It doesn't help society if same person decides to use their education and newly created debt to provide something that damages society but significantly rewards financially.

Adding to that, student debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy easily anymore. That was changed by legislation in 1998. It's POSSIBLE, but highly unlikely that a judge will consider most people a fit for the Brunner test.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/2014/08/13/debunking-the-student-loan-bankruptcy-myth

Having said that, I have no clue what morlandoemtp was on about.