Not at all. My point is just that if I could live on $20,000 per year, I don't believe for one second that others can't cut back from spending $80,000 per year if they need to. I view $20,000 as what a person actually needs to live on...anything beyond that is extra. Nothing wrong with spending extra...but the more extra someone has, the easier it should be to cut back if necessary.Didn't say it wasn't doable, but do you really think it's a good idea to encourage people to live on 20 grand a year?
Anyway, I don't really advocate a major tax increase on those earning $100K. Maybe a percent or two, at most. The ones who really need to pay more are the ones for whom it would hardly affect their lifestyle at all: the wealthy.
All of those things are a result of one's own lifestyle decisions, except arguably the car note...and even that is mostly a lifestyle decision whether you buy a Ferrari or a Cavalier.Do you have kids? Ol' lady? House note? Car note? Been divorced? Call me in 20 years. I'm sure your tune will change.
Even with all my student debt I'm still typically better off with the standard deduction.I'm talking the scenario of taxing people on their gross, with no deductions, as you're suggesting should be done.
Did you take any deductions?
I'd also like to point out that just because I don't support deductions (with a couple exceptions), doesn't mean I want to tax everyone at their marginal tax rate. So if your marginal tax rate is 28% on $100,000, your effective tax rate is less than that, which is OK with me. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and under our current tax code, a single person who earns $100K and takes the standard deduction will actually only end up paying about 19% in federal income taxes.