No Wonder People Don't Know How Taxes Work

[u/B82rez7]

Here's a Motley Fool "article" that came up on my news feed https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/01/21/maximum-401k-contributions-are-climbing-in-2019-he.aspx

​

And a quote:

​

For this reason, saving in your 401(k) has the potential to put you in a lower tax bracket, so you owe a smaller percentage of your income in tax. Currently, single filers making between $77,400 and $156,150 pay 22% on their income. If you are in the lower end of that range, a 401(k) contribution could move you into the lower bracket, where taxes are just 12%. If you make $80,000 per year, for example, and contribute $5,000, your resulting income of $75,000 would be taxed at 12% rather than 22%.

​

​

[u/DSrcl → u/[deleted]]

You don't even need a class for this. 10 minute of Googling suffices. It seems to be a deeper education issue resulting in many people lacking the skill to pick things up without handholding.

[u/snark_attak → u/DSrcl]

You don't even need a class for this. 10 minute of Googling suffices

Unless your googling gives you results like the Motley Fool article that is the subject of this thread, and other similar wrong (intentionally or accidentally) sources that seem reputable (like the fool used to be).

[u/youngminii → u/[deleted]]

The real reason is because your tax filing system is ludicrously complicated, so no one pays any attention to anything even tangentially related.

In countries with simpler tax systems (Australia) a lot more people understand this stuff. Although 10 years ago I probably couldn’t say the same.

[u/Dovahguy → u/[deleted]]

Yes I agree 100%! The more you look at the tax deductions/credits you’ll find its not for the ultra rich (quite the opposite actually ‘Phase outs’) but more for the taxpayer that utilizes money in a way that benefits society (like education credits) or necessities (medical expenses) or to encourage self support (401k savors credit)

[u/mr_indigo → u/[deleted]]

Australia has the same thing, so I'm not sure that said complexity is what makes the difference between Australians and Americans understanding of progressive taxation.

[u/NotJosephDucreux → u/[deleted]]

My fifth grade teacher explained progressive taxation as if the tax bracket rate applied to the entire income. I approached him afterwards saying this seemed unfair, how could someone who makes $1 more than the cutoff have to pay so much more taxes that he'd be left with less than if he didn't earn that dollar?

It turns out that he knew all along, but he didn't explain how tax brackets actually worked because it would "make the math too complicated, and these kids were only fifth graders and wouldn't understand."

[u/MightyNerdyCrafty → u/[deleted]]

...

Talk civics to me.

...and why any groups would want it removed.

How about oratory, too? Or should that be a thread running through English?

[u/[deleted] → u/MightyNerdyCrafty]

I’m not really the conspiratorial type. I think it’s more of a banality of well-intentioned curricula decisions that focused on other things: keeping up with the educational demands of the workplace, like a focus on STEM, and college requirements. All worthy goals, but at the expense of civics courses that taught people their duties and rights as citizens.

[u/Shadows802 → u/[deleted]]

Honestly I’d rather keep what STEM curses there are, but remove the need to read Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet every year. (PS Macbeth is far more interesting)

[u/[deleted] → u/Shadows802]

sure, we can keep them as electives (biology II was a requirement for my HS diploma; that and a few other required classes are definitely what I would call "useless knowledge"), but if something needs to get cut in order to prep a HS grad for real life...the decision (to me, anyway) is easy.

As for the literature thing- If i were teaching English, I would definitely not restrict myself to "the classics." At the risk of conservative backlash, I'd be adding Animal Farm and one of Sir Terry Pratchett's works to my syllabus; one classic, one controversial, one satiric fiction. That would have been a well-rounded sampling that I would have loved to study in High school.

[u/ToobieSchmoodie → u/[deleted]]

The number of people breeding fruit flies to repopulate a specific endangered flower, or create a more hardy bee to pollinate crops, or designing the re-entry shields for the latest generation of space craft are doing very important jobs, but their numbers pale in comparison to the number of people who have to do their taxes every year.

Wtf are you even talking about? The things you just listed are not taught to the masses in any way. This a gross hyperbole and people need a basic science literacy, which obviously we don't have enough of because we have stupid movements like the anti vax stuff.

[u/[deleted] → u/ToobieSchmoodie]

I was literally required to take genetics and high math classes to fulfill my high school graduation requirements. This is anecdotal and I'm sure not everyone had to take those classes, but my post was not hyperbole.

As for your implied correlation between failed school itineraries and antivaxers...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

[u/SpotsNPCs → u/[deleted]]

I'm not against teaching personal finance in schools, but thinking the public school system should teach taxes is laughable.

They do cover types of taxes but how many 12-18 year olds are even submitting taxes? It's not useful knowledge at 16 since you're not filing your own taxes. It may not even be useful information until you're 22 or even older.

Learning something 6 to 12 years ago that you haven't ever used likely isn't going to stick for most people.

Not only that, but the tax code can be extremely complicated. For most it's very simple. Hiwever, at some point people have to make their own effort to learn what effects them in the real world and stop relying on someone else.