It's like looking at clouds and finding human faces and animals in the cloud shapes. You'll see shapes that look familiar, and then your mind tries to make sense of the shape. .
In this case, these just look like taxable income ranges.
Maybe! I’ve said that exact thing myself with a lot of “decodes”.
There’s no way the 1776 was an accident, but any of the 17’s could absolutely just be staring at clouds.
Funny that the amount that the 24% bracket is calculated on is almost exactly 17%, either way. You’re probably right, and it’s just a coincidence. Kek.
Seeing as the correct amount would be 17966 and OP changed it to the incongruous 71966, without boasting of another 17, seeing as the OP didn't boast of "201775" or "103291.75" that contain 17, the answer is yes, it's OP's imagination.
As you know, the actual tax code is designed to tell us that you are free to voluntary assess yourself as owing the government, even if the code is written so deceptively that it's trillions of dollars easy to overassess yourself. Tax pros brag that people are overpaying by "billions" and they can help, but that's basically revelation of method.
Am not a pro decoder, for the record. Got one that I’m convinced on, another 2 or 3 that eehhhh maybe, and a handful of “hmmmmm!”s like this one.
Didn’t notice that the 17k was flipped to 71k in the bracket image. A correct 17k from a correct image was used for the original calculations, and the 71 made it in while transcribing from this erroneous one.
Just seemed peculiar that they would shove the 100k bracket up juuuuust high enough above it that the net 100k tax amount was 17%.
Looks like imagination at work.
It's like looking at clouds and finding human faces and animals in the cloud shapes. You'll see shapes that look familiar, and then your mind tries to make sense of the shape. .
In this case, these just look like taxable income ranges.
Maybe! I’ve said that exact thing myself with a lot of “decodes”.
There’s no way the 1776 was an accident, but any of the 17’s could absolutely just be staring at clouds.
Funny that the amount that the 24% bracket is calculated on is almost exactly 17%, either way. You’re probably right, and it’s just a coincidence. Kek.
Seeing as the correct amount would be 17966 and OP changed it to the incongruous 71966, without boasting of another 17, seeing as the OP didn't boast of "201775" or "103291.75" that contain 17, the answer is yes, it's OP's imagination.
As you know, the actual tax code is designed to tell us that you are free to voluntary assess yourself as owing the government, even if the code is written so deceptively that it's trillions of dollars easy to overassess yourself. Tax pros brag that people are overpaying by "billions" and they can help, but that's basically revelation of method.
Am not a pro decoder, for the record. Got one that I’m convinced on, another 2 or 3 that eehhhh maybe, and a handful of “hmmmmm!”s like this one.
Didn’t notice that the 17k was flipped to 71k in the bracket image. A correct 17k from a correct image was used for the original calculations, and the 71 made it in while transcribing from this erroneous one.
Just seemed peculiar that they would shove the 100k bracket up juuuuust high enough above it that the net 100k tax amount was 17%.
Seeing this just makes me so excited to be extorted next April...
u/#ummwhat
Lol dangit fine I’ll baleet this one.
After 2024, I’m happy to just be left solvent.
FJB.
Will be happier when it’s gone. Wish following some non-payment-because-I-made-no-income guidance was an option.
The thing is...
If they eliminate income tax, they're gonna get ot one way or another via some other kind of tax.
Gummint never gives anything it doesn't eventually take back later...
It’s gonna have operating costs, for sure. Will be interesting to see how they’re met.
u/#catdance
Surely that’s a typo? How does the tax / theft system work in America?
You pay more tax if you earn below $200k, but more than $109k?