In the USA, does the income tax rate on my wages increase with the amount of money in my bank account?
I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have   more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations   have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations   haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000   in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income   tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because   he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income.  But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.] besides accrued interest But that's important. one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? If they are interest bearing accounts, then yes the guy with the $40K balance will pay a little more* income tax than the guy with $9K. * If the account earns 1%/ann and the $40K and $9K have been in there all year, then the big account will earn $401.84 interest, and the smaller will earn $90.41. You can call what you're asking about a 'wealth tax', or 'capital tax'.  These are taxes not based on income you earned in a year, but some measure of how much you own. Some countries (Italy I believe is a prime example) tax ownership of foreign land. Some countries tax amounts owned by corporations [Canada did this until ~5-10 years ago depending on province]. Some countries strictly tax your wealth above a certain level (Switzerland, as has been mentioned, does this).  One form of what you are referring to that does exist in the US is the 'Estate Tax'. This is a tax on the amount of wealth that a person owns, at the time they die. The threshold for when this tax applies has been very volatile over the last 20 years, but it is generally in the multi-millions, and I believe sits somewhere around $5M. If these taxes start to crop up more and more (and I believe they will), don't be shocked at the initial 'sticker price'. Theoretically a wealth tax could replace some of the current income tax regime in many countries without creating a strict increased tax burden on their people. ie: if you owe $10k in income tax this year, but a $2k capital tax is instituted next year, then you are still in the same position as long as your income tax is reduced to $8k.  Whether these taxes are effective/preferable or not is really a question of economics, not personal finance, so I will not belabour that point. Note: if the money you have saved earns money (interest, or dividends, or maybe rent from a condo you own), then those earnings are typically taxed alongside your wage income. Any 'wealth/capital tax' as I've described it above would be in addition to income tax on investment earnings.
"Where goes the Delta? To the sea, of course.  Your question is very valid and for once, I think most of the answers are too involved into mechanical details and are badly missing the big picture.  At the risk of over simplifying things, let me try to describe the situation in broad strokes: Inflation: the volume of money grows faster than production (including services).  Deflation: production increase faster than the volume of money.  Imagine an economy with 10 products and $10. 1 product = $1. In an inflationary scenario, money available increase: $20 for 10 products. 1 product = $2.  In a deflationary scenario, money available decrease: $5 for 10 products. 1 product = $0.5.  So far, it's pretty textbook. Now onto the stuff that you don't usually read in textbooks: Time.  Say 10 people are attending an auction, each with $10 bucks. 10 items are for sale. $100 and 10 items. Item price is $10. Now, if just before opening the bidding, you go around and give each person $40, every one has $50. Each product sells for $50. That's the picture people have of inflation. Prices have increased, but everybody has more money, so it comes down to the same thing.  Now, let's bring this example closer to reality: You have to distribute $400, so the total amount of money is $500, which means that the normal price of each item should be $50. Now, imagine that instead of giving money to everyone at the same time, you started by giving $40 to 1 guy who was hanging out in front. The auction starts. While you go around distributing the money, the first guy manages to buy 2 items at $10 each. Now, there is $480 in the market, and only 8 items, making each item $60 on average. The next guy to get money manages to snap 2 items at $15. 6 items left and $450 in play. Each item now costs $75....and keep increasing in price as things move along. People who get the money early buy items under their real value, and people who get paid at the end pick up the tab, because by then, there are only a few items left. Back to reality, while inflation means that wages eventually increase (and they do), actual purchasing decrease for most people due to this simple trick. Employees are pretty much at the end of the chain. Income tax Another major source of ""signal loss"" is income tax. It works by brackets, as you certainly know. Simplifying again because I am lazy: Take a guy who earns $100. Pays no taxes. Can buy 100 products at $1 each. Now, put in some inflation... He earns $500. He pays $50 in taxes and can buy 90 products at $5 each. By the time he earns $10,000, he can only buy 50 products on account of income tax. So this is another area where you are bleeding purchasing power, and why income tax, which was originally presented as a tax for the ultra-rich is now a fact of life for most people (except the ultra-rich, of course).  Money as debt Next stop: Money itself. Money is created as debt in our society. At the risk of over-simplifying things again, let's say Bank A has $1000 in assets. In the fractional reserve system (our current system), Bank A can lend out many times over that amount. Let's say $9,000, for a total of $10,000 (much more in reality). And of course, it lends that money at interest. When bank A has made $10,000 available through 10% interest loans, the total amount of money has increased by $10,000, but when the loans are paid back, $11,000 must be paid to the bank, so the net result of the operation is that $1,000 get taken out of the market.  This system explains why almost all companies and governments have huge debts, and why most of the world's large companies belong to financial institutions of some kind, and why most of the world's wealth rest in very very few hands.  To fully answer your question and provide details and references and names, one would have to write a book or 5. There is a lot more than can be said on the subject, and of course, all the examples given here are extremely simplified, but I think they illustrate the key issues pretty well.  Bottom-line is that our system is designed that way. Our economic system is rigged and the delta bleeds out on automatic." "If you elect to have the company treated as an S corp, the profits/losses of the company will pass through to the shareholders (i.e. you) on a Schedule K-1 form every year. These amounts on the Schedule K-1 are taxable whether or not the company actually distributed the money to you. Typically, the company will distribute profits to the shareholders because they will have to pay taxes on this amount. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Small-Business-Taxes/What-is-a-Schedule-K-1-Tax-Form-/INF19204.html So the money held in the company's bank accounts won't appear on your taxes per se, but the profits/losses as reported on the company's tax return will pass through to you on the Schedule K-1. Typically these amounts are taxed as income. Your tax accountant can advise you on how much money you can/should take through regular payroll and how much can be distributed as a shareholder, as well as help you prepare the corporate tax returns and schedule(s) K-1 every year. There are tax advantages to taking money out of the company through distributions instead of payroll, but the amounts can be scrutinized and subject to a criterion of ""reasonable compensation"", hence my recommendation for a tax accountant." "Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the ""what-ifs"". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the ""pay-off-early"" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%." I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income.  I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet.  Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes.   Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments.   If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter?  You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS. From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates.  This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%.  In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that. "I transfer all their funds to my bank account Are they paying tax on that transfer?  Gifts under $14,000 are excluded from taxation in the US, but they're going going to have a hard time arguing that it is a gift (since they expect it back).  The taxes are almost certainly going to exceed the amount you can make from your investments in the short term, and if they aren't paid then your ""clients"" are going to be in hot water with the IRS. You need to have something set up that establishes you as merely managing the funds, and not receiving them personally as a transfer.  The other answers have good suggestions." It depends on your bank's terms (which may in turn be influenced by laws and regulations), but most banks calculate interest on a per-day basis, so if you leave the money in the account for more than a day, it will generate interest. However, it will most likely be so little that you could make more money doing any kind of paid work in the time it took you to write this question... "Your ""average company and taxpayer"" generally wouldn't have significant off-shore/foreign income. In the U.S., for example, even if you have your employer deposit all of your salary to an account at a foreign bank, they would still report it to the IRS as income. Removing the money from your home country isn't what gets it out of being taxed, it's that the money was never in your home country."