3 ms·

So much depends on how you measure it. But median individual income in the US is quite a bit higher than 19k no matter how you measure it. Real, adjusted, indi

by HEmanZ 4y ago

So much depends on how you measure it. But median individual income in the US is quite a bit higher than 19k no matter how you measure it. Real, adjusted, individual including non working and part-time population above 15yo: $38k/yr Including only full-time workers: $57k Median household income: $71k The US has enough problems, no need to make up much smaller income numbers than the reality. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

account42 4y ago
Pretty sure GP is talking about net income.
- HEmanZ 4y ago
  Does it seem at all realistic that someone at the median is paying 50% income tax in the US?
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  That would require greater than 50% taxation, which isn’t realistic at all in the United States. The federal income tax rates for lower income brackets reach 0%. State, sales, payroll, and other taxes aren’t going to come anywhere near 50%. The real, net, median income in the United States is significantly higher than what the OP quoted.
  - sempron64 4y ago
    The top federal income tax bracket is 37% and the top California tax bracket is 12.2%. This is for income exceeding 500k. So disregarding local taxes and property taxes, in California most of this income would be taxed at 49.2%.
    - azernik 4y ago
      This is a subthread about the median income that we would compare the $7M payout to, not the $7M payout itself. It certainly falsifies the graph paulluuk linked to, and using high CA taxes on the Bay 12 payout only further undermines paulluuk's comparison.
      - sempron64 4y ago
        Apologies for the lack of clarity, I was addressing just this sentence in the parent > That would require greater than 50% taxation, which isn’t realistic at all in the United States. My point is that higher than 50% total taxation on a large single-year income (considering local and corporate taxes) is entirely possible in the United States, though it may be less in some states than other. I’m not saying that the estimate is correct as the Tarn Brothers don’t live in California. But if they took the income to a corporation, paid corporate income tax, and then took the whole income or a large part of it as dividends in a high tax state, then >50% is quite possible. On a pass-through entity, close to 50% is the standard and unavoidable in high tax states.
    - lsaferite 4y ago
      Federal taxes are marginal. You don't pay 37% on the full 500k, you pay 37% on anything below that bracket start point, you pay the lower rates. For instance, if you're single and declare $1M in income your effective tax rate is more like 33.5% and not 37%.
mort96 4y ago
I found this figure: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Median_personal_income_after_taxes.webp https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Median_p... (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...). The individual median net income was $19k around 2005-2006, maybe they were just using outdated numbers? Or it could've been a typo or misreading, as the current median net income is $29k. In any case, their point still stands with the $29k figure.
- endominus 4y ago
  The first paragraph of that Wikipedia page: "Personal income is an individual's total earnings from wages, investment interest, and other sources. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a median weekly personal income of $1,037 for full-time workers in Q1 2022. For the year 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the median annual earnings for all workers (aged 15 and over) was $41,535; and more specifically estimates that median annual earnings for those who worked full-time, year round, was $56,287." That graph seems to be just incorrect. All three of the links it's supposedly sourced from don't have it on their pages. There is a remark of "own work," so I think a Wikipedian assembled it themself. Given that it frankly contradicts the article it's in, I would assume that it's in error.
  - mort96 4y ago
    The graph would be consistent with the part you quoted if the median earners were paying 33.5% tax: 41535 - (41535 * 0.335) is roughly the 27598 figure it shows for 2020. The figure only shows state and federal income tax, which adds up to 13% tax; I don't know enough about the US to now if there are other taxes which would add up to 33.5%.
    - endominus 4y ago
      The graph includes state, federal, and payroll tax. They're stacked above the income after tax. They do not add up to $41,535.

by HEmanZ 4y ago

account42 4y ago

Pretty sure GP is talking about net income.

HEmanZ 4y ago
Does it seem at all realistic that someone at the median is paying 50% income tax in the US?
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
That would require greater than 50% taxation, which isn’t realistic at all in the United States. The federal income tax rates for lower income brackets reach 0%. State, sales, payroll, and other taxes aren’t going to come anywhere near 50%. The real, net, median income in the United States is significantly higher than what the OP quoted.
- sempron64 4y ago
  The top federal income tax bracket is 37% and the top California tax bracket is 12.2%. This is for income exceeding 500k. So disregarding local taxes and property taxes, in California most of this income would be taxed at 49.2%.
  - azernik 4y ago
    This is a subthread about the median income that we would compare the $7M payout to, not the $7M payout itself. It certainly falsifies the graph paulluuk linked to, and using high CA taxes on the Bay 12 payout only further undermines paulluuk's comparison.
    - sempron64 4y ago
      Apologies for the lack of clarity, I was addressing just this sentence in the parent > That would require greater than 50% taxation, which isn’t realistic at all in the United States. My point is that higher than 50% total taxation on a large single-year income (considering local and corporate taxes) is entirely possible in the United States, though it may be less in some states than other. I’m not saying that the estimate is correct as the Tarn Brothers don’t live in California. But if they took the income to a corporation, paid corporate income tax, and then took the whole income or a large part of it as dividends in a high tax state, then >50% is quite possible. On a pass-through entity, close to 50% is the standard and unavoidable in high tax states.
  - lsaferite 4y ago
    Federal taxes are marginal. You don't pay 37% on the full 500k, you pay 37% on anything below that bracket start point, you pay the lower rates. For instance, if you're single and declare $1M in income your effective tax rate is more like 33.5% and not 37%.

mort96 4y ago

I found this figure: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Median_personal_income_after_taxes.webp https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Median_p... (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...). The individual median net income was $19k around 2005-2006, maybe they were just using outdated numbers? Or it could've been a typo or misreading, as the current median net income is $29k. In any case, their point still stands with the $29k figure.

endominus 4y ago
The first paragraph of that Wikipedia page: "Personal income is an individual's total earnings from wages, investment interest, and other sources. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a median weekly personal income of $1,037 for full-time workers in Q1 2022. For the year 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the median annual earnings for all workers (aged 15 and over) was $41,535; and more specifically estimates that median annual earnings for those who worked full-time, year round, was $56,287." That graph seems to be just incorrect. All three of the links it's supposedly sourced from don't have it on their pages. There is a remark of "own work," so I think a Wikipedian assembled it themself. Given that it frankly contradicts the article it's in, I would assume that it's in error.
- mort96 4y ago
  The graph would be consistent with the part you quoted if the median earners were paying 33.5% tax: 41535 - (41535 * 0.335) is roughly the 27598 figure it shows for 2020. The figure only shows state and federal income tax, which adds up to 13% tax; I don't know enough about the US to now if there are other taxes which would add up to 33.5%.
  - endominus 4y ago
    The graph includes state, federal, and payroll tax. They're stacked above the income after tax. They do not add up to $41,535.