| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2007/8/9-13 [Reference/Tax] UID:47567 Activity:high |
8/8 IRS tells guy who caught the Bonds ball you now owe 200k
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns
\_ The dude won a $600K+ ball. He owes taxes the income. How is
that so strange? You pay taxes on gambling income and lottery
winnings too.
\_ The ball has no measured value until it's sold. Why should he
pay taxes now? Oh, and the guy who claims there's a tax
liability isn't the IRS, it's a (surprise) lawyer. -emarkp
\_ probably under the AMT laws, just like the dot
com folks in the early crash days, who owed taxes on their
options' value at time of grant, rather than their later
real value (or more accurately, lack thereof).
\_ Which are stupid laws as well. -emarkp
\_ Some parts of the constitution and amendments are
stupid as well. What is your fucking stupid point?
\_ [pointless off topic rude stupid troll purged]
\_ What if, instead of paying you cash, I pay you in a
magic card, that you can use to get cash at any time,
that gives you intrest on the income you have on the
card, and that you can even use as collateral to borrow
money off of. Should you have to pay taxes on that?
\_ No, we should move to the http://fairtax.org system, and
eliminate personal income taxes. -!emarkp
\_ I think the only problem with fairtax is the
rebate. But it would be an improvement, and would
have the advantage that the gov't doesn't know
what everyone is making. -emarkp
\_ Consumption taxes are incredibly regressive,
rebate or no, and if you really believe they
will do anything but be a giant tax burden
on the middle class you are a fool.
\_ Well, with that kind of argument, who can
respond! We have tons of regressive taxes.
So what. Imagine the wealth freed from
dealing with tax forms and laws, etc.
Oh, and if you're going to complain about
regressive taxes, are we going to get rid of
the confiscatory tax on cigarettes? What
about the Lottery?
-emarkp
\- "The state lottery is a public subsidy
of intelligence" --WVOQUINE@harvard.edu
of intelligence" --WVOQUINE@HARVARD.EDU
\_ Sin taxes: ok if moderate, especially
if for things that cause a significant
harm to public health. I do think
cigarette taxes have gone way past
a reasonable limit.
\_ Even with the so called "confiscatory"
tax, are smokers paying for their own
medical expenses?
Sales taxes: ok if low or moderate. Yes
they are regressive, so keep them fairly
low.
Lottery: Not quite the same thing at all.
Noone makes you pay the lottery. That
being said I really don't like goverments
having a lottery monopoly.
\_ Does it matter that you're not forced
to buy a lottery ticket? Funds are
used for public spending, and the vast
amount of lottery tickets are bought
by low-income people.
Why are "sin" taxes okay? Who are you
to declare what public policy is
toward sin? -emarkp
\_ No one makes you pay the BMW either.
\_ No! YOU are the one who is fool.
It's fair is what it is, saves ordinary
people from dealing with massive bureaucracy
and removes the incomprehensible system of
writeoffs and loopholes that the rich
already exploit. Encourages saving and
earning income, and discourages wasteful
consumption that liberals are always
complaining about. If, after all this, you
still want to take wealth away from the
rich then there are other means: just
directly tax their property and such,
or set up some special total wealth tax.
The truly rich are few in absolute numbers.
90+% of people shouldn't have to deal with
income tax. Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden
Consider the payroll tax. Consider all the
401k/IRA and flexible spending account BS.
If you think a fairtax with rebate is
"incredibly regressive" you need to show
numbers. Also, with no income tax, the
"death tax" makes a lot more sense: it's
no longer double-taxed.
\_ Ok, I'll let the rest of your blather
stand but this double-tax bullshit has to
go. We tax people when money transfers
from one individual to another. For
instance if I pay someone to clean
my house, the maids income is taxed,
even though I had to pay taxes on the
income I made to pay her. If I go and
buy something from a store the store
pays taxes on their profit, even though
my money was taxed. There is no "money
only gets taxed once" rule and anyone
who says that estate taxes are double-
taxed is either an idiot or medicious.
taxed is either an idiot or mendacious.
Which one are you?
\_ Wow, look at that big word.
Short answer: I shouldn't have brought
it up. Really it should not be taxed
either when there is no income tax.
Ultimately someone has to spend the
money and it will get taxed then.
I appended that about the death tax
without thinking about it. (Feel free
to dance in glee at this point.)
I could, however, argue that in the
current scheme, inheritance isn't
a "new production". It isn't being
given in exchange for goods or
services. So it is "double taxed" in a
way that your examples aren't. But
I really don't care about this issue.
\_ The reason politics is such a mess is because people aren't willing
to be scientific about politics. I think the reason is, there
is a low cost for believing stupid shit in politics (some economists
view beliefs are a 'good' that people 'purchase'), but a fair bit of
psychological benefit (belief as 'tribal markings' for instance, or
beliefs which reinforce convenient internal attitudes) . In other
domains (medicine, engineering, etc) the penalty for believing
stupid shit is high, so people were forced to turn to science to
make their bridges stay up so to speak. This analysis applies
to some other areas, but the discreet lexicographer does not
name them... -- ilyas
\_ I've learned everything I need to know about politics from the
motd: "My guy is Good! Your guy is Evil!" What could be more
scientific than that?
\_ Are you still a libertarian drawing a government paycheck?
\_ Libertarians are not opposed to all government so it is not
hypocritical of a government employee to be a libertarian.
\_ I no longer think 'big political theories' are productive.
What ends up happening is you spend most of your time worrying
about coherence and thinking about silly edge cases which make
no practical difference. These days I rely on 'political
intuitions' and mostly concern myself with what direction
the current state of affairs must move to get better.
Similar insight in SVMs: only points close to the separating
hyperplane matter. -- ilyas |
| 5/17 |
|
| sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns It's the greatest American sports accomplishment in history," Murphy said Thursday on NBC's "Today Show." "Part of me might want to sell it, but I really am leaning towards keeping it. Selling the ball for that amount would instantly put Murphy in the highest tax bracket for individual income, where he would face a tax rate of about 35 percent, or about $210,000 on a $600,000 ball. Even if he does not sell the ball, Murphy would still owe the taxes based on a reasonable estimate of its value, according to John Barrie, a tax lawyer with Bryan Cave LLP in New York. Capital gains taxes also could be levied in the future as the ball gains value, he said. On the other hand, he said, if the ongoing federal investigation into steroid abuse among professional athletes takes a criminal turn for Bonds, the ball's value could go down -- which would likely allow Murphy to claim a loss. Murphy said he and his friend, Amir Kamal, nearly missed Bonds' historic at-bat because they were getting crab sandwiches at AT&T Park. They attended the game because they had a layover in San Francisco on the way to Australia. A third friend, Ryan Breslin, is the brother of Abigail Breslin, the young actress who received an Oscar nomination for her role in "Little Miss Sunshine," and she's shooting a movie in Australia. Murphy and Kamal bought Giants tickets about three weeks before the game as they were planning the Australia trip. Breslin turned down an invitation to attend the game because he was finishing up classes in Washington, DC Is he kicking himself for that decision? Also feeling pangs of regret must be the San Francisco cab driver who drove Murphy and Kamal from the airport to their hotel. Hoping to get out of the $55 fare, they told the driver that if they caught Bonds' record home run ball, they'd give him a couple thousand dollars. After the ball whizzed past Kamal, he turned around to high-five Murphy, but his friend had disappeared. The ball "took a lucky bounce," Murphy said, and set off a scrum -- with him at the bottom. "I think one gentleman kicked me in the back of the head. There were people on top of people on top of people, which I didn't really understand. The San Francisco Police Department really helped me out by getting there quickly." But after making the catch, he asked the grounds crew for some Giants gear, thinking he might face some malice for wearing a Mets jersey. Murphy declined to reveal where he's keeping the ball, but said it's not coming to Australia with him. "When I get back, I'm going to sort things out," he said. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates. The rebates would have the greatest impact at low spending levels, where they could lower a household's effective rate to zero or a negative rate. personal income tax replacement (excluding other taxes) and rebate system, the overall tax burden on middle-income Americans would increase while the tax burden on the very rich would drop. The report states, "Families with the top 10 percent of cash incomes would benefit substantially from the retail sales tax. Middle-income Americans, however, would bear more of the federal tax burden. A typical married couple at the bottom 25th percentile of the income distribution earns $39,300 per year and would pay $5,625 dollars in federal taxes in 2006. Proponents contend that since the FairTax base would be twice the size of taxable income, a revenue-neutral FairTax rate would be almost half the size of income and payroll taxes. Further, research by Arduan, Lapher & Moore Econometrics shows that consumption would increase by 24% in the first year of the FairTax. The increase in consumption would be fueled by the 17% increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that occurs once the FairTax was enacted. Brookings Institution writes: "Under the AFT proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, while households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000." Gale continues, "If households are classified by consumption level, a somewhat different pattern emerges. While Gale's analysis differed from the FairTax legislation, he is referring to absolute tax dollars--ranked by income, households at the lower end of the distribution will tend to pay more in absolute taxes, while households at the higher end will tend to pay less in absolute taxes. Ranked by spending or consumption, households that currently spend less on consumption would pay less total taxes, while households that currently spend more would pay more. For example, a family of four (a couple with two children) earning about $25,000 and spending this on taxable goods and services, would consume 100% of their income. A higher income family of four making about $100,000, spending $75,000, and saving $25,000, would consume only 75% of their income on taxable goods and services. When presented with an estimated effective tax rate, the low-income family above would pay a tax rate of 0% on the 100% of consumption and the higher income family would pay a tax rate of 15% on the 75% of consumption (with the other 25% taxed at a later point in time). marginal propensity to consume (MPC) decreases as income increases. Households at the lower end of the income scale spend almost all their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving. Income earned and saved would not be taxed immediately under the proposal. In other words, savings would be spent at some point in the future and taxed according to that consumption. FairTax advocates state that this would improve the taxing of wealth. "Their view that taxing sales is regressive is just plain wrong. Taxing consumption is effectively the same as taxing wages plus taxing wealth." Kotlikoff continues, "But what about saving one's wages and wealth and spending these funds plus accumulated interest in the future? payroll tax system is regressive on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions taxing only the first $97,500 ($94,200 for the year 2006) from gross wages, and none earned from capital investments or interest. the FairTax Consumption assumptions for the 42 stylized households in the study are the basis for the relative progressivity over the current system. If the assumptions are changed, the adjusted tax rates below would also change. edit Marginal effective federal tax rates on working Marginal Effective Federal Tax Rates on Working *Note the difference between marginal rates (the rate of tax paid in the last dollar spent) and actual average rates. Under the FairTax, no taxpayer in this chart pays any FairTax until they spend above the poverty level, whereas the first dollar spent above the poverty level has a marginal rate of 23%. |
| fairtax.org -> www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer The FairTax Plan is a nonpartisan national grassroots campaign to replace the federal income tax system with a progressive national retail sales tax. It provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement and, through companion legislation, repeal of the 16th Amendment. "Taking it to the streets" Team FairTax at RAGBRAI 08/06/2007 RAGBRAI - 3 riders - thumb Organized cycling clubs from Alaska to Florida were joined by the FairTax team in the Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa. |