• First off, not all of anyone's income is "taxable"
  (due to exemptions and deductions.)
   
• Secondly,the 35% tax rate would only be
  on the top portion of the salary
  (if it was high enough, i.e., only the portion over $379,150.)
   
  For example:

$100,000 total income   0% on the first $3,650 (personal exemption)<1>   0% on the next $5,700 (your standard deduction)<2>   $90,650 "taxable" income 10% on the first $8,375 of taxable income [$837.50] 15% on portion between $8,375 and $34,000 [$3,843.75] 25% on portion between $34,000 and $82,400 [$12,100.00] 28% on portion between $82,400 and $171,850 [$2,310.00] 33% only on portion between $171,850 and $373,650<3> 35% only on any over $373,650<3>

 
^<1> More if you have dependents, or are blind or over 65.
^<2> May be more if you itemize more deductions.
^<3> Not applicable in the example presented.
 

Tax	= $837.50 + $3,843.75 + 12,100.00 + 2,310.00 = $19,091.55  [rounds to $19,098 per tax tables] = (effective tax rate of 19%)

 
2010 Form 1040 - created by H&R Block Tax Program
  -   Example-Investopedia-2010-Tax-Return.pdf

• Thus, the actual disposal income on a $100,000 salary
  would be more like $81,000, which is about 25% more
  than reported by Investopedia.
   

  In fact, if you deferred the maximum into a 401K fund, your taxable income would have been even less, resulting in an even lower tax bill: - $74,650 "taxable" income; - only $13,350 in taxes; - and resulting in $70,150 net disposable income;   ... (but with $16,500 deferred income); - for an overall effective tax rate of only 13%.

   
• So much for the credibility of the backers of Investopedia to prove accurate information.