Tax brackets in the US
"Yes, your tax bracket is 25%.  However, that doesn't mean that your take home pay will be 75% of your salary.  There is much more that goes into figuring out what your take home pay will be. First, you have payroll taxes.  This is often listed on your pay stub as ""FICA.""  The Social Security portion of this tax is 6.2% on the first $118,500 of your pay and the Medicare portion is another 1.45% on the first $200,000.  (Your employer also has to pay additional tax that does not appear on your stub.)  So 7.65% of your salary gets removed off the top. In addition to the federal income taxes that get withheld, you may also have state income taxes that get withheld.  The amount varies with each state. Also, the 25% tax bracket does not mean that your tax is 25% of your entire salary.  You step through the tax brackets as your income goes up.  So part of your salary is taxed at 10%, part at 15%, and the remainder is at 25%. The amount of federal income tax that is withheld from your paycheck is really a rough estimate of how much tax you actually owe.  There are lots of things that can reduce your tax liability (personal exemptions, deductions, credits) or increase your tax (investment income, penalties).  When you do your tax return, you calculate the actual tax that you owe, and you either get a refund if too much was taken out of your check, or you need to send more money in if too little was taken out." I suggest taking a look at your pay stub or pay statement. Your employer should provide you with one for each time you get paid. This shows your gross income (pay period and year to date or YTD for short) and all stuff that gets deducted and how your actual payment is calculated. In my case there are nine things that get taken off: Other things that might show up there are various life or accident insurances, Child Care flexible spending account, legal & pet insurances, long term disability, etc. Some of those are under your control (through benefit election or contribution choices), others you just have to live with. Still, it's worth spending the time to look at it occasionally.
The purpose is to be a racket. Assuming you're in the same tax bracket, you pay exactly as much tax later as you would now. If you're in a higher bracket, you pay more! And even if you pay less (assuming they don't change tax law before you retire) you give up direct control of your assets in exchange for a promise which may not be honored. How about if we lower taxes on the bottom two brackets and increase taxes on the top two brackets? Right now it's 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. But wouldnt it be better if we change it to 8, 13, 25, 28, 35, 38 percent?   The poor are the ones who spends most of their money on sale taxes than compared with any other brackets and the more money the poor have the more they will spend which will lead to more growth in the economy "In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket  UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about ""the fiscal cliff"" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year." Craig touched on it, but let me expand on the point. Deposits, by definition, are withheld at your marginal rate. And since you can choose Roth vs Traditional right till filing time, you know with certainty the rate you are at each year.  Absent any other retirement income, i.e. no pension, and absent an incredibly major change to our tax code, I know your starting rate, zero. The first $10K or so per person is part of their standard deduction and exemption. For a couple, the next $18k is taxed at 10%, and so on. Let me stop here to expand this important point. This is $38,000 for the couple, and the tax on it is less than $1900. 5%. There is no 5% bracket of course. It's the first $20K with zero tax, and that first $18,000 taxed at 10%. That $38,000 takes nearly $1M in pretax accounts to offer as an annual withdrawal. The 15% bracket starts after this, and applies to the next $57K of withdrawals each year. Over $95K in gross withdrawals of pretax money, and you still aren't in the 25% bracket.  This is why 100% in traditional, or 100% in Roth aren't either ideal. I continue to offer the example I consider more optimizing - using Roth for income that would otherwise be taxed at 15%, but going pretax when you hit 25%. Then at retirement, you withdraw enough traditional to just stay at 10 or 15% and Roth for the rest.  It would be a shame to retire 100% Roth and realize you paid 25% but now have no income to use up those lower brackets.  Oddly, time value of money isn't part of my analysis. It makes no difference. And note, the exact numbers do change a bit each year for inflation. There's a also a good chance the exemptions goes away in favor of a huge increased standard deduction. In general you will take home more in the US than in Canada. There are so many variables that is is impossible to provide a comprehensive answer that will cover all bases: so here are a few hand-waving statements. Two example calculator web sites for Canada and the US (chosen somewhat at random through Google, show that making $50,000 of either currency for the upcoming tax year in Canada you would expect to pay about $9,100 and for the US $5,900.  Missing there are the state taxes, however, which also vary wildly. The deductions, adjustment and credits in both countries can really add up, so if you have specific questions, you should consult a tax specialist. Similarly, both countries provide various tax sheltered investment structures that change the game somewhat over the long term. It IS affecting our bottom line though. The rich have been taking more of the pie by suppressing wages while also getting tax cuts for decades. There's no reason that the super wealthy should be paying less tax (as a percentage of income) than Americans in the bottom tax brackets. That's a large part of why American infrastructure is crumbling, the top earners (who couldn't earn that much outside the system) aren't paying their fair share.  And don't even bother bringing up that top earners pay the most dollar amount of tax because that's exactly how it's supposed to work in a progressive system but paying the most in tax doesn't necessarily mean they're paying enough. The percent payed in tax is supposed to go UP the more you earn, not down. No he's arguing for a lower US Corporate tax rate specifically on overseas earnings. Because companies are earning overseas and not taking it back to the US because of our double taxation.   He absolutely does not want higher taxes There is no federal inheritance tax.  The federal estate tax, currently, exempts the first 5.49 million (US citizen spouses even avoid this).  Current law also does a stepped up basis on inherited assets which were bought with after tax money.  Example: Dad bought a house years ago for 100k.  He dies and leaves it to JJ along with other assets worth $100k (well below the federal estate tax level).  JJ sells the house for $400k which was its market value on the day dad died.  He gets to keep the entire $400k. Note: Current government wants to eliminate the estate tax AND the stepped up basis.  In above case, JJ will now have $300k gains on the house sale and will pay income tax on that!  He will end up with much less that $400k.