#### Comment Preferences

• ##### closer to 6%.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Stranger in a strange land

4.6% increase to rate + 1.2% increase due to itemized deduction limitations, so about 5.8% increase or so.

Hat?

• ##### If you are correct(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Zacapoet

and the number is only 4.6%, then the savings numbers above per rich person amount to \$9,200.

This makes my point stronger, IMO.

Cheers.

• ##### It's the Pease limitations.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Stranger in a strange land

For income over \$400K (IIRC, but may be lower), itemized deductions are reduced by 3% of AGi.  So, say I've made \$400k in income.  My next \$100 of income reduces my itemized deductions by \$3, so my taxable income increase is actually \$103.  39.6% of that is \$40.79 in marginal tax.  \$39.60 of that is attributable to the higher rate, and the difference - \$1.19 - is attributable to the "haircut" on my itemized deductions.

• ##### And no deal has been made.(0+ / 0-)

Good luck with the diary, fancy internet language inserted here.

• ##### Friend(0+ / 0-)

I think the math is accurate - \$200,000 times 6% = \$12,000.

If it is the 4.6% you suggest then the rich will save even less - \$9,200 per rich dude.

My understanding is similar to johnny wurster's and we are talking about roughly a 6% net increase for the wealthy, starting at either \$250k or \$450k.

To me - it is a trade off I will take to save unemployment insurance for 2.1 million Americans.

Cheers.

• ##### OK(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
NoMoreLies

I guess not one of them will notice the difference.  But can we get a permenent UI extension untill unemployment is under 6%?  That has been the norm under all republican administrations prior.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.