What should I do in life? Anesthesiology, Radiation Therapy, or ??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Average-Tax-Rate-US.jpg



No worries for me as my EFFECTIVE RATE is far greater than anything listed here and That's why Obama is a criminal. Why should my effective rate be 44% when all these loopholes exist in the tax code? Obama wants to keep the loopholes so his rich liberal friends keep paying less.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Atlanta (CNN) -- Last week we learned that Barack and Michelle Obama's effective tax rate for 2011 was 20.5%. They had adjusted gross income of $789,674. We also learned that their tax rate was slightly lower than President Obama's secretary, who had about $95,000 of income
 
Average-Tax-Rate-US.jpg



No worries for me as my EFFECTIVE RATE is far greater than anything listed here and That's why Obama is a criminal. Why should my effective rate be 44% when all these loopholes exist in the tax code? Obama wants to keep the loopholes so his rich liberal friends keep paying less.

Blade,

Quick question as I'm simply curious: why don't you take advantage of those same loopholes to bring your 44% rate down a bunch like all the rich liberals (and rich conservatives no doubt). :D No dog in this fight, but am curious, if it's a legal loophole, why not? (honest question). If it's something that keeps your head up at night, I get it. I know people who write off 50,000$ paintings for their "home offices" (where they write) and I wouldn't sleep well like that...

Curiously yours
D712
 
Average-Tax-Rate-US.jpg



No worries for me as my EFFECTIVE RATE is far greater than anything listed here and That's why Obama is a criminal. Why should my effective rate be 44% when all these loopholes exist in the tax code? Obama wants to keep the loopholes so his rich liberal friends keep paying less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/b...-for-the-irs-common-sense.html?pagewanted=all

"Relatively few taxpayers pay an enormous percentage of the total federal income tax, and most of them are people who work for a living and have adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 to $500,000, which is the sweet spot for tax revenue. They account for 20.2 percent of total returns but pay a whopping 44.9 percent of total tax. The average tax rate for this group ranges from 11.9 percent for those with less than $200,000 in adjusted gross income to 19.6 percent for those with $200,000 to $500,000. Above those income levels, the rate rises to close to 25 percent and then declines to 22.6 percent for taxpayers earning more than $10 million.

The I.R.S. doesn't break down the data for incomes above $10 million, but the results for the top 400 returns suggest that the rate continues to decline as incomes rise. The top 400 paid an average of $49 million, or 18.1 percent of their adjusted gross income, in federal tax — lower than taxpayers in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket. They reported an average $14.1 million in state and local taxes, bringing their total income tax level to about 23 percent of adjusted gross income, far below my rate. And not one of them paid more than 35 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal tax."

The part I bolded there is the real problem. Doctors' salaries get hit particularly hard, but the people earning stupid money get huge breaks.

I don't know how much you make Blade, but I'm guessing if it isn't below $500k, it isn't much higher.

We need more tax brackets, and yes, with higher rates. It won't fix the budget, but it's a start. Why not have a $1e6, $1e7, $1e8, $1e9, etc brackets? Someone earning $1e9 should be paying 70%.

Doctors vote Republican because we are the ones getting screwed by the current tax code, but Republicans write laws for people earning much more than us. Doctors don't have a strong voice in politics, because we're too rich for Democrats and too poor for the Republicans.
 
Blade,

Quick question as I'm simply curious: why don't you take advantage of those same loopholes to bring your 44% rate down a bunch like all the rich liberals (and rich conservatives no doubt). :D No dog in this fight, but am curious, if it's a legal loophole, why not? (honest question). If it's something that keeps your head up at night, I get it. I know people who write off 50,000$ paintings for their "home offices" (where they write) and I wouldn't sleep well like that...

Curiously yours
D712

This year I had the option of probably saving an extra $10K on my taxes. My CPA showed me a few gray areas that would save me that amount. I decided against it. I really do sleep better knowing my tax statement is audit proof and I'm paying my fair share.

Now, if Obama hikes my taxes any higher the gloves are off. I'll do everything in my power to avoid paying those higher taxes.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/b...-for-the-irs-common-sense.html?pagewanted=all

"Relatively few taxpayers pay an enormous percentage of the total federal income tax, and most of them are people who work for a living and have adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 to $500,000, which is the sweet spot for tax revenue. They account for 20.2 percent of total returns but pay a whopping 44.9 percent of total tax. The average tax rate for this group ranges from 11.9 percent for those with less than $200,000 in adjusted gross income to 19.6 percent for those with $200,000 to $500,000. Above those income levels, the rate rises to close to 25 percent and then declines to 22.6 percent for taxpayers earning more than $10 million.

The I.R.S. doesn’t break down the data for incomes above $10 million, but the results for the top 400 returns suggest that the rate continues to decline as incomes rise. The top 400 paid an average of $49 million, or 18.1 percent of their adjusted gross income, in federal tax — lower than taxpayers in the $200,000 to $500,000 bracket. They reported an average $14.1 million in state and local taxes, bringing their total income tax level to about 23 percent of adjusted gross income, far below my rate. And not one of them paid more than 35 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal tax."

The part I bolded there is the real problem. Doctors' salaries get hit particularly hard, but the people earning stupid money get huge breaks.

I don't know how much you make Blade, but I'm guessing if it isn't below $500k, it isn't much higher.

We need more tax brackets, and yes, with higher rates. It won't fix the budget, but it's a start. Why not have a $1e6, $1e7, $1e8, $1e9, etc brackets? Someone earning $1e9 should be paying 70%.

Doctors vote Republican because we are the ones getting screwed by the current tax code, but Republicans write laws for people earning much more than us. Doctors don't have a strong voice in politics, because we're too rich for Democrats and too poor for the Republicans.


SIMPSON-BOWLES. Fair and Balanced. Better yet, it's OBAMA's own commission.
 
Why is this so complicated? The tax system has been gamed. It is so simple. Pick a number for each bracket. No deductions. Pay that amount on your gross earnings. No gimmicks. No games. No deductions.

I'll still donate to charity. I'll still own a home. I'll still keep my kids. For those earning less than median throw in a few bones/deductions.
 
Why is this so complicated? The tax system has been gamed. It is so simple. Pick a number for each bracket. No deductions. Pay that amount on your gross earnings. No gimmicks. No games. No deductions.

I'll still donate to charity. I'll still own a home. I'll still keep my kids. For those earning less than median throw in a few bones/deductions.

Sure, I agree, just don't think it should be a flat tax (doesn't sound like you do either).

There should be a sigmoidal tax with no deductions, and someone earning $1 billion should be paying a significantly higher percentage than someone earning $100,000 (not significantly lower like it is now).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm suprized that there is not more talk about tax reform (in a huge/structural way) in the poltical scene anymore. I feel like it getting some attention till social issues took over. I think it had to do with the economy did not sliding into a drastically worse situation.

I agree with you guys that something should be done.

Just for a lil discussion: what do you guys think about the "Laffer Curve"? Do you think it's possible to quantify? Do you think there is an indirect relationship between tax rates and tax revenue via economic growth? And what tax % do you think would give the US optimal growth and tax revenue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

_________________________________________

I wish we would cut capital and fed income to 25% and corp to 10% to see what would happen. Just start cutting spending that doesnt help public/privite partnerships as they're important to growth till this revenue is enough not to run a deficit. What's wrong with a flat rate? The percentage makes those who earn a larger sum pay more and they benfit less from the social programs they're paying for.
_________________________________________

**Just wanted to add something. I expect that there will be alot less tax deductions in the future [with no drop in rates] as the baby boomers are ageing. They will no longer benifit from alot of the deductions and therefore will vote against those. They are a very selfish generation that will only serve their own interests. I imagine in the future they will force (politically) health care workers to work for cheap so they can afford to enjoy the retirement they've always dreamed of.
 
Last edited:
Future model for health customer service:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owNO5s3eln4[/YOUTUBE]
 
I'm suprized that there is not more talk about tax reform (in a huge/structural way) in the poltical scene anymore. I feel like it getting some attention till social issues took over. I think it had to do with the economy did not sliding into a drastically worse situation.

I agree with you guys that something should be done.

Just for a lil discussion: what do you guys think about the "Laffer Curve"? Do you think it's possible to quantify? Do you think there is an indirect relationship between tax rates and tax revenue via economic growth? And what tax % do you think would give the US optimal growth and tax revenue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

_________________________________________

I wish we would cut capital and fed income to 25% and corp to 10% to see what would happen. Just start cutting spending that doesnt help public/privite partnerships as they're important to growth till this revenue is enough not to run a deficit. What's wrong with a flat rate? The percentage makes those who earn a larger sum pay more and they benfit less from the social programs they're paying for.
_________________________________________

**Just wanted to add something. I expect that there will be alot less tax deductions in the future [with no drop in rates] as the baby boomers are ageing. They will no longer benifit from alot of the deductions and therefore will vote against those. They are a very selfish generation that will only serve their own interests. I imagine in the future they will force (politically) health care workers to work for cheap so they can afford to enjoy the retirement they've always dreamed of.

Something like the Laffer curve must be true if you agree with the assumption that revenue will be 0 if taxes are 100%. The issue is where the maximum would be, and it's probably impossible to tell.

Considering that tax cuts have cut revenue and tax increases have increased revenue in the past two decades, we're probably on the left side of the curve right now.

Several papers have placed the apex at around 70%, right wing think tanks tend to place it at around 25%.

The truth is, at high tax rates like 70% or 90%, evasion is probably a bigger hit to revenue than any decrease in effort, so the Laffer curve isn't incredibly relevant.
 
Also, the issue with a flat rate is both a practical and an ethical one.

People earning less by necessity have to spend a greater percentage of their incomes just to get by.

The utility of money decreases as you have more of it.

It would be easy to have a simple progressive tax structure, there's no good reason for a flat rate except to give the wealthy a tax cut and increase taxes on the poor.
 
Also, the issue with a flat rate is both a practical and an ethical one.

People earning less by necessity have to spend a greater percentage of their incomes just to get by.

The utility of money decreases as you have more of it.

It would be easy to have a simple progressive tax structure, there's no good reason for a flat rate except to give the wealthy a tax cut and increase taxes on the poor.

1. It's the spending stupid
2. Deductions matter as much as the rate
3. The treatment of capital gains needs to be addressed
4. Why is the little guy destroyed with taxes from Mutual Funds while the hedge fund guy pays 15% in taxes?
5. The tax code is full of special interest and holes. Simplify it to one page (2 for Democrats).

We can't balance the budget off of taxes alone. This economy will roar to life once the Socialist Obama is voted out of office. I guarantee it.
 
1. It's the spending stupid

Biggest block of spending in the budget that isn't going to the military is going to us, so we should be careful what we wish for...

2. Deductions matter as much as the rate

Of course. Deductions and subsidies should go away. Particularly oil and agricultural subsidies - those make no sense unless you're running for office.

3. The treatment of capital gains needs to be addressed

Agreed. It should be taxed as regular income.

4. Why is the little guy destroyed with taxes from Mutual Funds while the hedge fund guy pays 15% in taxes?

Isn't this just point 3 again?

5. The tax code is full of special interest and holes. Simplify it to one page (2 for Democrats).

Definitely can simplify the tax code. There's still room for the use of taxation to influence behavior (eg taxing alcohol and cigarettes), but it doesn't need to be in the income tax.

We can't balance the budget off of taxes alone. This economy will roar to life once the Socialist Obama is voted out of office. I guarantee it.

We can't balance the budget with tax increases or spending cuts alone. At the moment we probably couldn't do it with both.

We need to get the economy on track first and then increase taxes (on everyone, but particularly those over $1 million) and cut spending.
 
2010-11-18-POLLNBCWSJonSimpsonBowles.JPG


Cuts must be made. It's never easy cutting Federal spending but it must be done. If the world sees we are serious about reducing our spending and reformong our tax code this economy will boom. Yes, we can cut spending as recommended by Simpson-Bowles and reform the tax code NOW; we won't go into a recession again as govt. is the PROBLEM not the solution in 2012.
 
So what has a better future... Rads or gas?
 
So what has a better future... Rads or gas?

Rads probably has more immediate cuts in the future, but I'd be worried about the mid level situation for anesthesia.

The old guard will be fine for both, but things will get progressively rougher for people starting out...
 
It's great to know that you are interested in the field of medicine.Radiology is definitely a subject to choose for.I think you have taken a right decision in this regard.All the best.
 
Top