Does my net paycheck decrease as the year goes on due to tax brackets filling up?
Most countries with income tax, including the USA, design their withholding system so that in straightforward cases, tax is withheld from each month's paycheck on an annualized basis: tax for a month is calculated on the assumption that you will keep earning the same monthly amount for the rest of the year, and the withholding is set so that the tax is spread evenly across the year. Another way of putting that is that in practice you only get the tax brackets allocated proportionately throughout the year - so up till the end of August you'll only have been assigned 8/12 of the $37450 bracket, and so on. So if your income doesn't change and your general tax affairs don't change, your paycheck also shouldn't change. If your income is irregular or changes during the year then things can get more complicated. As other answers have noted, withholdings are calculated according to tables that normally just take into account that specific month's income. There are various possible changes to your tax affairs that might cause the withholdings to change. For example there'd be an impact from any change in your contributions to tax advantaged things like health insurance or retirement, health or education savings. You might also use form W-4 to change your withholdings yourself. Note that even with a regular income that doesn't change through the year, you might find yourself either owing money or being owed a refund when you file your taxes after the end of the year. It's worth making sure that your W-4 accurately records the allowances you are entitled to, to minimize or eliminate this adjustment. If your payroll payments are the same each period, you will generally have the same net pay per period.  Some things that can cause variations: If your employer puts special payments in a specific paycheck (such as a quarterly or annual bonus, or a vacation payout) this can increase the percentage held from that specific paycheck.  The IRS publishes lookup tables, and your payroll system should withhold the amount in the lookup table.   If you get a raise midyear, your new payroll withholding rate may increase based on the gross pay amount.   http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf "H.R. basically consults Publication 15 (this is the link to 2015) to determine how much to hold, based on filing status, exemptions, and pay amount. What's described here is a form of estimation, or, in other words, H.R. withholds what would be your actual taxes, dividing across the number of paychecks you receive. Assuming your gross pay and exemptions do not change, this usually results in a zero-sum for taxes owed (you will receive nothing, and owe nothing). As you can see from the charts, the year is basically broken down into equal tax units that reflect how much you would owe if you worked at that bracket all year. This estimation works best when you have steady hours from check to check. In other words, your taxes are based on the estimate of what you'd make if you earned that much all year, scaled down to the time frame (e.g. 1/52 if you are paid weekly, or 1/26 if you paid biweekly). They do not go ""up"" near the end of the year, because they're estimated in advance. You don't move up a tax bracket, but are instead taxed at a particular bracket every paycheck. There's also other forms of estimation mentioned there, but basically follow the same scheme. Note that all estimation forms are just that-- estimates. It's best to use a calculator and compare your current taxes whenever a significant change occurs-- a raise, a new child, getting married or divorced, etc. You'll want to be able to alter your exemptions so that enough taxes are coming out. That's also the reason for the ""withhold extra"" box, so that you can avoid owing. For example, if you're making $44 a week for the first 26 weeks, and then you make $764 a week for the second 26 weeks of the year, you'll end up with an actual tax liability of $2,576.6, but end up paying only $2,345.20. You would owe $231.40. Of course, the actual math is a lot more complicated if you're an employee paid by the minute, for example, or you have a child, go to college, etc. Paychecks that vary wildly, like $10,000 one week and $2,000 the next tend to have the hardest-to-predict estimates (e.g. jobs with big commission payouts). You should avoid living check-to-check with jobs that pay this way, because you'll probably end up owing taxes. Conversely, if you've done your estimates right and you're paid salary or exactly the same number of hours every week, you'll find that the taxes are much easier to predict and you can usually easily create a refund situation simply by having the correct exemptions on your check. So, in summation, if your check falls in the 25% category (which is, of course, 25% above the tax bracket break point), you're already paying the correct amount, and no further drop in your check would be expected." It seems that you are misunderstanding how your taxes are calculated. You seem to be under the impression that once you pass $37,450 annual income, ALL of your income will be taxed at 25%. However, in reality, only the income you earn above that amount will be taxed at 25%. You can use this chart to determine exactly how much federal tax you will pay;  As you can see, if you earned, $37,500 in a year, you would only be charged 25% taxes on $50 (and you will pay 15% on the amount between $9226 and $37450, and 10% on the amount from $0 to $9225, which is $5126.25 when summed together). In general no, if you just have one employer and work there with the same salary for the whole year.  Typically an employer does tax withholding by extrapolating your monthly income to the entire year and withholding the right amount so that at the end, what is withheld is what you owe.  It's not a surprise to them when your income crosses a tax bracket threshold, because they knew how much they were paying you and knew when you would cross into another bracket, so they factored that in. If you have multiple jobs or only worked for part of the year, or if your income varied from month to month (e.g., you got a raise) there could be a discrepancy between what is withheld and what you owe, because each employer only knows about what it's paying you, not what money you may have earned from other sources.  (Even here, though, the discrepancy wouldn't be due to the tax brackets per se.)  You can adjust your withholdings on form W-4 if needed, to tell the employer to withhold more or less than they otherwise would. No, you will (generally speaking) not see a decrease in your net earnings from crossing a tax bracket: This means that your highest marginal rate (the top bracket you fall into) only applies to the portion of your income that is in that bracket, not your total income. This helps ensure that your total tax burden does not increase measurably from crossing a tax bracket. Be aware that you can still see measurable changes in your total taxes due if increases in income make you no longer eligible for certain deductions and/or benefits that were otherwise reducing your tax burden, but this is not the same as how changes in your highest marginal rate affect your overall average tax rate. Note that when you see a rate table such as the one on efile.com's federal income tax rates page or on Wikipedia's Income tax in the United States page, the rates listed are for each segment of income, not for your overall income: In other words the 15% rate below (for 2014, filing single) only applies to the portion of your income falling between the listed numbers, not to income below it or above it: that would be calculated under the respective rates given. You can use the i1040tt tax tables to gain a sense of how this works in practice: (The linked resource is for 2014 taxes) The threshold in 2014 for the 25% rate vs 15% was $36,900. Using the linked table, if you were single and made between 36,850 and 36,900 in gross income, your tax liability before other considerations was $5,078. If you made between 36,900 and 36,950, your base tax liability was $5,088.
I see several interesting statement in your question.  A. my only income is from my Employer B. I also receive employer stock (ESPP, RSU, NSO). However, employer withholds taxes for these stock transactions through my broker (I see them broken down on my W2).  C. I have been subject to Alternative Minimum Tax. A implies a simple tax return. B and C tell the opposite story. In fact if B is not done correctly The amount withheld due to payroll may be perfect but the under withholding could be due to the ESPP's, RSUs and NSOs.  The AMT can throw everything else out the window.  If a person has a very simple tax situation: Income doesn't change a lot from paycheck to paycheck; they take the standard deduction; the number of exemptions equals the number of people in the family. Then the withholding is very close to perfect.  The role of the exemptions on the W-4 is to compensate for situations that go above the standard deduction. The role of extra withholding is when the situation requires more withholding due to situations that will bring in extra income or if the AMT is involved. Looking at the numbers quickly,  if he makes this amount for the entire year, single, no kids, no investment income, standard deduction only, his taxable income will be about $110,000.*  That puts him in the 28% tax bracket.  His federal tax would be:  $18,481.25 plus 28% of the amount over $90,750 Which comes out to about $23,800 in tax liability.  His federal withholding is $26,047 for the year, so with absolutely no deductions whatsoever, he will be getting a tax refund of about $2200. I'm not very familiar with the California tax return, but it is entirely possible that he would get a decent sized refund from the state as well.  This means that his tax refund could be about the size of an extra paycheck.  He may want to consider increasing his allowances, which would make his paychecks bigger and his tax refund smaller. That having been said, taxes are high, no doubt about it.  Remember that when you are in the voting booth.  :) * Here is how I got the taxable income number for the year: The plan is perfectly valid and legal as tax rules currently stand. There is no limit to the amount you can rollover or convert to Roth. Assuming your 401(k) is traditional pre-tax, you'll have to pay income taxes on the amount you convert above personal exemption + standard deduction, which is currently about $10k/year for single filers. The other caveat is you'll need funds to live off of while your conversion money is seasoning for 5 years in your Roth IRA. If you start the conversion while you are still working, you'll be paying taxes on it in your marginal bracket, which will negate much of the benefit of the pre-tax 401(k). If your living expenses are low, you can convert about $10k/year without federal income taxes, while living off capital gains from a taxable account which have a 0% rate in the 15%  income tax bracket (goes up to about $37k/year). "Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the ""should."" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match?  Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc?  Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds?  One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back.  If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose.  To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it." Ask the company if they can make an adjustment for the next paycheck. If they can't then do the following: Increase the number of Federal exemptions by 1. In 2014 a personal exemption reduces your apparent income by $3950.  If you are in the 10 % tax bracket and you are paid every two weeks you will see the amount of taxes withheld drop by ($3950*0.10/26) or ~$15. The 13 Paychecks later change it back. If you are in the 15 % tax bracket and you are paid every two weeks you will see the amount of taxes withheld drop by ($3950*0.15/26) or ~$23. Then 9 Paychecks later change it back If you are in the 25 % tax bracket and you are paid every two weeks you will see the amount of taxes withheld drop by ($3950*0.10/26) or ~$38. Then 5 paychecks later change it back. Remember the money isn't gone, it has just been transferred prematurely to the federal treasury.  You could also wait until you complete your taxes this spring, then see if you needed to make an adjustment to your exemptions. If you normally get a large refund then you should be increasing your exemptions anyway. If you are always writing a check to the IRS then you weren't getting enough withheld. Also make sure that payroll has the correct numbers. Most companies include the number of federal and state exemptions on the paycheck stub, or the pdf of the stub. The focus of this article isn't on tax revenue. The author is discussing income disparity.   The laffer curve doesn't tell the whole story. You are correct, a higher tax rate does not imply higher tax revenue, and a lower tax rate does not imply less revenue. Changing tax rates isn't going to significantly affect tax revenue. However, there are a broad range of other effects when changing tax rates. In evaluating adjustments to tax rates, our focus needs to be on these secondary effects.   We are taxed on *income* not *revenue*.  When I sell you a $10 widget that I paid a worker $2 to produce from $5 of materials, I pay taxes on the $3 net income, not the $10 revenue I received from you.    The main way businesses avoid high marginal tax rates is by increasing deductible expenses, such that their net income after these expenses keeps them below their desired tax bracket.  It is far better to spend that money on something that can benefit the business than simply give it to the government. Any businessman would rather keep his earnings if possible. If that is not possible, he'd prefer to spend them on something that can help him, rather than squandering it on junk or giving it away to the government.   For most businesses, the largest deductible expense is payroll. Any decent employer would prefer to pay out a Christmas bonus instead of giving that same amount to Uncle Sam. Any businessman would prefer to pay for additional advertising, or a charitable donation to a worthy cause, rather than paying the IRS.   Run up the top-tier tax rate and suddenly, businessmen feel a compelling need to lower their prices and pay their workers more. Run up the tax rate, and income disparity shrinks.  Run up the tax rate, and you put more money in the hands of consumers. "my taxable income was roughly $230,000 in 2012. Indeed it is relevant. The highest AGI limit for deductible IRA contributions is 112K. So no, IRA contribution will not help you reducing your tax bill this year. The deduction phases out starting from AGI limits of $10K in certain cases (for married filing separately), and phases out entirely for anyone at AGI of 112K (for 2012). The table linked describes the various deduction phase-out parameters depending on your filing status, and will probably be updated yearly by the IRS. However this is only relevant if your company provides a retirement plan, as Joe mentioned. If your company doesn't provide a retirement plan but your spouse's does - then the AGI phase-out limit is $178K. If neither you nor your spouse (if you have one) is covered - then there's no AGI limit, and you can indeed make an IRA contribution before April 15th that would be attributed to the previous year and reduce your tax bill. Note that ""provides"" means the plan is available, even if you don't participate in it, any time during the year." "This is ridiculous. Of course some companies don't pay taxes each year. Off the top of my head, NOL's (net operating losses) can be carried forward 20 years and will definitely reduce tax liability. For that matter, a loss during any year prevents paying income tax (though sales, property, ad valorem and other taxes may apply). Other companies may get capital credits, green credits, or other subsidies that might prevent a tax liability. None of these indicate that a corporation is getting away with anything. The IRS is a lot better at its job than most people think.  The point is, you can't look at any individual year and make an accurate assessment of a company's (or even an individual's) tax burden. It's completely dishonest reporting.  Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to.  EDIT: additionally, 2010 was the heart of the recession for a lot of companies. There were a LOT of corporations that took losses that year. So to say that ""GE took in 14.2 billion and paid no taxes"" is misleading: you have to say WHY they paid no taxes or you're just blowing hot air. Taxes are assessed on **income**, not **revenue**. There is a big difference."