|
12/25 |
2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:43287 Activity:nil |
6/6 Don't forget to vote today! \_ Yes vote for tax more or tax even more. \_ Robinhood, we need you! Please tax the rich to support the poor because the super rich like Kenneth Lay, Skilling, Fastow, Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, the Bush Dynasty, so on and so forth have had a history of ripping off the poor ever since the dawn of mankind. Please help Robinhood. \- i think BGATES may be a pigdog for other reasons but i dont think he is one of the people pushing plutocracy. |
2006/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:43029 Activity:nil |
5/11 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_taxes I make over 100K base salary, not including options/stocks. How does this law benefit me? |
2006/5/9-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:42994 Activity:nil |
5/9 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/09/MNGSVIO7NG1.DTL "The top 3 percent of the returns, those with incomes exceeding $200,000, paid about 60 percent of all state taxes." It must be cool to be a minority and own so much wealth. \_ You realize that with the progressive tax structure, those 3% likely own _less_ than 60% of the wealth, right? And having N% own N% of the wealth isn't actually an achievable _or_ desirable ideal, btw. \_ We don't need a progressive tax structure. An all digital HDMI tax structure is much better! -troll \_ in theory, those with the highest income may not have the highest total wealth... however, it is indeed more or less the case. In 2001, the top 5% had about 60% of the net worth, and about 68% of the financial wealth \_ It must be cool to be the majority and not work hard in school and just sort of coast by in life. They probably have more fun anyway. |
2006/5/4-7 [Reference/Tax] UID:42927 Activity:nil |
5/4 Can the money spent on taking community college or UC extension courses be deducted from my taxable income if they weren't part of any degree program? \_ No. I was in this same situation (taking some language classes in the morning before work just for the sake of learning) and I remember TurboTax saying it was only deductible if going for a degree. -bz \_ I see no reference to this requirement: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf |
2006/4/17 [Reference/Tax] UID:42762 Activity:low |
4/17 Today is tax deadline day. Just a reminder. \_ Let me tell you how it will be: There's one for you, nineteen for me. |
2006/3/28-29 [Reference/Tax] UID:42494 Activity:nil |
3/28 I bought a piece of unoccupied property and got it appraised at X, which was slightly above the listed price. Now that I moved in and doing a refi, the loan officer says I need to do an "owner occupied" appraisal. How is this going to affect my tax and other things? If tax and fees will be based on it, is it possible to make my place a total mess and hope to devaluate the appraisal? Is there any advantage of getting it appraised higher? I understand how silly this question sounds. Need advice. \_ Appraisal does not change your property tax. \_ It would not be a good idea to make the place a dump as this would probably give the bank an action for waste against you. If you really make a terrible mess of the place, they might even be able to call in your loan and foreclose. |
2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:42395 Activity:high |
3/23 Have you done your taxes yet? Do you owe or do you get a refund? \_ owed $4500 (too much capital gains) \_ L'chaim. -dans \_ Only got $1500 from the feds, $600 from CA. \_ you didn't "get" anything. it was your money in the first place. \_ Except for the portion lent to us from China, Japan, Europe, etc. \_ Damn alternative minimum tax cost us $4000 above what we'd normally pay. No weird deductions, just a mortgage. Doh! \_ Yeah so? That just means you're rich and need to be taxed even more. \_ $160 back Fed, $700 CA (don't ask) \_ $3k Fed, $3k CA...first year with a home, I immediately raised my exemptions after I found out how much money I could have had all year to invest. I love home ownership, I compared my apt to home taxes and have saved $12K overall. Even accounting for property tax ($7k), I still save $5k a year with a home. \_ really? can you show us the math? |
2006/3/23-25 [Reference/Tax] UID:42393 Activity:high |
3/23 Chinese levies taxes on non-environmentally-friendly products: http://tinyurl.com/k3922 (NY times) I can't wait to see what would happens if USA does the same thing. and... if Bush is serious about remove dependency on foreign oil, he should levy taxes on gasoline :p \_ bush would never raise taxes. well, except on the poor. \_ I think any commodity tax is innately a regressive tax, and therefore "on the poor". \_ Does he also call them fees? \_ are you nuts? any idea how much each gallon is already taxed? what do you mean "he should levy taxes on gasoline". we already have gas taxes and they only go up. \_ I am talking about raise it to $1 / gallon. Use these taxes to fund roads, freeway, bridges. \_ Seriously, dude. It's already higher than that. It already funds roads, freeways and bridges.... Wanna do a little research before deciding on public policy? \_ he's just dumb. he also has bad grammar. "Chinese levies..." \_ not if levies is a noun \_ then "Chinese levies taxes" doesn't work. so you're dumb too. \_ bad grammar, but dumb? I beg differ. I am just making too much sense here, because gasoline tax will encourage people drive less, drive a smaller car, etc. \_ How about if the US would just stop subsidizing so many environmentally UNfriendly things? \_ wow, ship all the democrats to china, they'd love these taxes. \_ Why not send the Republicans--they'd love the oppression, prison camps and corruption? \_ We already ship all of our pollution to China, by proxy. \_ Gasoline should be taxed to pay all the costs of roads, pollution cleanup, etc. etc. A lot of car ownership and usage is subsidized. \_ That's a nice delusion tree-hugger. Keep smokin' whatever it is you are smoking, it obviously makes you smarter than the suits that run the world. \_ Are you trying to bait foaming-at-the-mouth anti-car guy into a rant? \_ how much was the highway bill last year again? you don't call it a subsidies? \_ because without highways our economy and society would mostly collapse. all government spending is a form of subsidy for something. if you don't like subsidies then let's cancel taxes and stop having a government. \_ Yep. Without those billions spent on bridges to nowhere in Alaska, the fucking planet would probably stop spinning. \_ Every bill has pork. Picking a single pork project and painting the entire system with it is intellectually dishonest and rhetorically cheap. What's the point of posting one liner snap shots? \_ That may or may not be true, but it is hard to argue with a straight face that car driving is not subsidized. \_ Of course it is. Who said it wasn't? -driver \_ why highway? why not railroad tracks? light rails? bike lane? \_ Rails are already subsidised and have been for 150+ years. Bike? Nice for short single trips for healthy people but we're not about to restructure society so everyone lives in a village or near quality public transit. Public transit \_ Why aren't we? Do you think magic Jetson style perpetual motion runs on air funny cars are going to be sold by GM next year? We should start preparing for a non car centric lifestyle now or suffer the serious consequences later. has other issues such as inflexibility and one event can bring 10s of thousand of people to a halt such as the Oakland BART shut down the other day. We need a variety of transit options and quite frankly all of them have already been subsidised. How many bikers ever paid for using or creating a bike lane, for example? \_ Would people please stop bitching about subsidies for mass transit/biking? The subsidies for automobiles dwarf any other transit subsidies. \_ I wasn't bitching. I'm saying *all* transit is subsidised. Yes, some more than others but it all is. \_ URL? I want to see the amount of $$$ spent on highways outside of the $$$ collected by gas and automobile taxes versus the amount spent on mass transit. \_ Actually a Carter-era tax idea was to raise taxes on gasoline $1- $2 per gallon, and then rebate the same money back in the form of lower payroll taxes (most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes). It doesn't raise taxes and still encourages conservation. \_ Don't "payroll taxes" _include_ income taxes? \_ no. \_ until they make up a reason to raise payroll taxes later then you're stuck with both taxes which will continue rising. \_ You mean like what Reagan did? Well the current climate is to never raise taxes, cut them whenever possible and have future generations & massive inflation deal with the ensuing problems. |
2006/3/21-25 [Finance, Reference/Tax] UID:42364 Activity:nil |
3/21 I'm here to expose that Edward Magluyan has a company called INA which is really Amway. This guys will say anything to get you into Amway trap. He'll talk about debt elimination, tax reduction, multiple income streams, etc. Don't buy into any of that crap unless you want to lose money. Edward Magluyan is a really nice looking guy and a smoooooth talker. Any time someone like that approaches you and talk about unlimited growth potential, WALK AWAY. -really pissed \_ I lost 30lbs in 30 days! Ask me how! \_ A very slow guillotine? \_ A cheese-grater. Gotta be. \_ A cheese-grater? \_ An angry dystopic future? \_ so how did you get screwed? inquiring minds want to know \_ bored sodans |
2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/Tax] UID:42336 Activity:moderate |
3/20 http://www.slate.com/id/2086617 \_ I've got nothing against tax cuts but what we've got is not really a tax cut but rather tax postponement. All that money you're "saving" now? It's going to come out of your budget later, with interest. --PM \_ You realize that most of the conservatives are too bright to consider Slate, a left wing propaganda web site, to be a fair and balanced source of information? \_ The exact details of how the facts were misrepresented is what's being reported. Fair and balanced or not, unless they're actually lying, that's pretty damning. \_ I think pp was trolling. \_ this is 3 years old, dude. |
2006/3/20-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:42325 Activity:nil |
3/20 For those who have lots of capital gains (stocks, etc.), and contribute to charity, check out donor advised gift funds (Fidelity: http://www.charitablegift.org Vanguard: http://www.vanguardcharitable.org These allow you to shield your donated assets from capital gains taxes. You can then redirect your donation to the charities of your choice whenever you want. If say you donate $10000 stock of which $8000 is capital gains, you save taxes worth $1500 compared to selling the stock and donating the after-tax amount to charity (assumption: 15% captial gains rate and 25% income tax bracket, itemized deduction)(calculation: (0.15*8000)+(0.15*8000*0.25)=1500). (i.e. $1200 lost to capital gains tax and this $1200 also lose its benefit for charitable donation deduction worth $300). Other benefits: you can give your fund your own name, or donate anonymously without losing tax savings, undistributed funds have several investment choices, etc. caveat: $100 or 1% management fee per year, $10000 to start fund (for Fidelity) - christian socialist |
2006/3/18-20 [Reference/Tax, Consumer/TV] UID:42305 Activity:nil |
3/18 I'm shopping for a LCD TV and as much as I like newegg, on a purchase like that I'd like to pay tax OR shipping, not both. Can anyone reccomend a retailer with good prices and selection that is either local to the SFBA or else wholly out of state? \_ I used http://onecall.com (Oregon) for a 46" Toshiba projection TV. They also do LCD TVs, but probably not the cheep ones that newegg sells. |
2006/3/13-14 [Reference/Tax] UID:42214 Activity:nil |
3/13 I'm looking to start some part-time sysadmin contract works. Are there any sites that gives you tips on how to start? What kind of accounting/ billing software can you recommend? \_ Unless you plan to hire employees yourself, you don't have to do anything. You will just get a 1099-MISC form instead of W-2. Just make sure you pay estimate tax. \_ Make sure the work you do is really 1099 and not 1040 disguised as 1099. Know the legal difference between the two. |
12/25 |
2006/2/28-3/2 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:42028 Activity:low |
2/28 What's a good "next step up" from high-yield (4-5%) savings accounts if I want something to invest, say, $50k in and still keep it fairly liquid and still have little to no risk (i.e. I'm OK with !FDIC if it's a biggish institution and not too likely to fold). By "fairly liquid" I mean no more than a year lock-in. \_ I have some I-bonds that are pulling in 6-7% a year. I bought those a few years ago though, and I think they've been dropping the yield in recent years. the yield in recent years. Oh, and they're fed tax free too. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/ibonds_glance.htm \_ Don't you have to pay taxes when they adjust the principal? \_ Woops. I got it the other way around. No state tax, and fed tax deferred until either bond redeemed or annually--your choice--and not on adjusting the principal. \_ No, that is for TIPS. \_ I bonds deduct 3 months interest if you sell before 5 years, so that's a minus for the op since he wants less than 1 year lock-in. \_ probably more risk than you would like but I like FAX (asian bonds close end fund) recommended by Bill Gross (king of bonds). It yields 6.87% and is currently 4.68% below its net asset value. \_ 6.87 taxable w/ risk vs. 6.73 state-tax free no-risk (I Bond).. meh. What does "4.68% below..." mean? \_ well, I Bond yield is inflation dependent and may go down, so it is not risk free. 4.68% below nav means that the fund is trading at a value that is 4.68% below the total value of the bonds it holds. of course FAX also has exchange rates risk. you should probably only buy it if you think the dollar is going to fall, or you want to diversify your currency risks. I personally think the dollar will fall, so I especially like FAX. In the scenario that FAX returns to NAV, and dollar falls, I could get 15% return. - I bond holder who suggested I bonds on the motd a few months ago. \_ I'm a big fan of FAX too. I'm curious though, where are you getting the "*currently* 4.68% below its net asset value"? I know they mention it periodically, but is there some way to check at any given point (they have way too many holdings to calculate it yourself) -crebbs \_ http://www.etfconnect.com it's down to 4.35% now. I recently found out that IFN is 30% above NAV. I am going to sell IFN and get MINDX or maybe IBN (ICICI) to stay exposed to India. IIF is also 15-20% above NAV so it's not much help. \_ Funny, I was just yesterday showing a buddy of mine a comment that IFN was 30% over NAV and that he should short it. How do they manage a 9% dividend at that pemium? are they really holding assest that pay well over 9% divedends on average?? Anyway, thanks for the over 9% dividends on average?? Anyway, thanks for the link. Email me and tell me who you are if you don't mind being bugged once in a while about this kind of thing. -crebbs \_ feel free. good for me to have someone to bounce one's investment ideas off too. I have a rather patchy record with shorting. I recently tried shorting GM; it promptly appreciated 20% but later fell back, so I am now even. Do you think I should be glad I didn't lose money and run, or keep the short? - ecchang \_I would be terrified of shorting GM. The funds seem to be sticking with them. The gubmnt could come to their rescue (again). Despite their dire straights and massive debt, I think that's a scary play. But I pretty much only take short positions in combo with long. For exmple I shorted 3dfx and went long with NVDA back in the day. </brag> -crebbs \_ my thinking with regard to GM is that there is something fundamentally wrong with GM that cannot be fixed without going into bankruptcy. yes there may be short term gains but it won't last. question is whether one can hold through those gains. But you may be right, the risks are pretty high, especially given how far GM has fallen already. NVDA is another of my bad shorts. I shorted it around 21 and it went up to 26 at which point, I gave up. After I gave up, it dropped all the way to 10. This was in mid 2004, I think, when ATI is kicking NVDA's butt when NVDA is having production and heat issues with their chips. What's worse is that I then missed NVDA's runup from 10 to the current 48. ugh! - ecchang \_ How about T-Bills? If I read this right, you can go in for a month and make > 4% state-tax free? Am I reading that wrong? What's the catch? -op |
2006/2/21-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:41942 Activity:nil |
2/21 In an effort to reduce paper clutter, I'm thinking about scanning my old tax and W-2 related papers, convert them to PDFs, and shred all physical copies for good. Is this a good/bad idea? \_ Okay idea, but it's probably better to just to keep them around. |
2006/2/20-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:41929 Activity:nil |
2/20 Does anyone plan to pay the use tax for their internet purchases? \_ Is porn a service or good? \_ When it's good, it's a service! \_ No, but I do not fill in '0' for that line of the tax form either. \_ I paid $500 for the last two years, might do it again. |
2006/2/18-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:41925 Activity:nil |
2/18 Business SUV tax break still far greater than hybrid tax break http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060218/ap_on_bi_ge/suvs_tax_breaks |
2006/2/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Tax] UID:41779 Activity:high |
2/9 With housing costs outstriping salaries, 40% of young people are moving back in with their parents after college. "And with deep cuts to education and tax breaks aimed mainly older, wealthier Americans, government no longer has young adults back." Gosh, I don't know whether to feel bad for these kids or laugh at them. They should have been born in another era. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11238227/from/RS.5 \_ And why is housing so expensive? http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-7.pdf \_ there's a shock, the Cato Institute thinks that government regulation is the cause of all our problems! -tom \_ Actually a couple of guys from Harvard and UPenn. \_ "A college degree is mandatory for most entry-level professional jobs, but most of today's job growth is in low-paying, low-skill industries like retail and food preparation." Isn't globalization supposed to force Americans to move up the job food chain, instead of down? \_ It does happen, just not immediately. The Reaganists and the Free Market theorists say that there is a short period that people down the chain will have to make adjustments. In practice, that short period lasts about 1/2 a person's lifetime, and adjustments are rarely made because displaced workers usually have no foundations and stepping stones to which they could better themselves in order to take jobs that require higher skill sets. \_ "advertised to" != "supposed to" \_ What exactly is wrong w/ this? For most of human history people lived in extended families and it mostly worked. \_ Nothing wrong. It's just that people want to moan louder these days and they don't want their parents to hear it. \_ No, I also think there is more of an expectation of personal privacy and space. Some people moan about this as an indication of the decline of "family values", while others just don't feel comfortable with the idea of the perceived intrusiveness of shared living space. Unfortunately that costs. I feel bad for people who don't have the possibility of their own space, although regarding the article, I don't understand why people in a dodgy financial situation opt to have children. -John \_ what?! even Big Cow Wang making $1 a day in rural china can have children. the dude in the article is making $27000 per year. of course he can and should have children. that's his right, and any place where a person making $27000 can't afford children must be seriously screwed up. what I find really wrong is all the tax breaks rich people get when they have children. I don't mind subsidizing poor people for child care expenses but why do rich people get them too? It's good that you still don't have children. I would hate paying tax to support your kids and your expensive tastes. ok, just kidding. \_ I think child care tax credits phases out as income goes up. \_ The world has more people now than ever before. I don't think it is really a case of "living with family" vs not. I think it is that when you and 500 people live in a small village and the next village is 2 days away, you are going to get a lot more 'personal space' than living with your parents in a 4/3 house in the burbs. \_ I think think the village of Long Wang, China (2 sq. miles, 500,000 inhabitants, 3 billion chickens) is not something by which I want any society I live in to measure itself. And yes, by all means have children, but don't whine if you're too poor to support them in the manner you'd like, and don't rely on my state to do so. -John \_ 500k in 2 sq. miles is exactly what I'm talking about as a "Bad Thing" that you'd only see in an over crowded world. And no, I don't want to shell out so someone else can have 8 kids and still live like a prince, either. \_ Thanks for your concern, but we manage our affairs just fine, and we alway say "butt out" when American hypocrites start whining about our population control policy, etc. We also plan on turning Tibet into a big theme park tourist attraction. All the Tibetans are very excited with the prospects of new tourist money. But we still love our American friends, so when they are in big economy trouble because their people are lazy and love to enjoy life, and their government is corrupt and like to spend money, we help them by appreciating our currency and lending lots of money to them. This, in spite of the fact that they stole lots of our treasures last century and acted like drug dealers. - Big Cow Wang \_ You personally help do this stuff eh? That's quite the active motd poster. How's your standing in the Party? \_ I am member of the legislature for the Great and Glorious Republic of China. I led the successful "Just say no to buying overpriced and outdated American weapons" campaign. - Big Dog Lee \_ Here, we'll give you back the glorious imperial hankie that we stole in the Opium War, you have a bit of froth right there, to the left. -John \_ Don't tell me. Tell your museum directors. But it's okay, you can have them for now. May help a few of those laid off delphi workers work as museum security guards. - Big Cow Wang Think of the children they have to feed. and security guards most likely make less than $27000 a year. - Big Cow Wang - Big Cow Wang \_ Hey, I don't care. As long as great glorious Chinese mob is living in shit and getting beaten with sticks to make room for new factories, it's all good. -John \_ Paddi field bad. Factory good. More pay at factory so I take my children to see exotic natives in Tibet, and Americans dancing around in funny suits in Hong Kong Disneyland. - Big Cow Wang \_ http://tinyurl.com/av5va -John \_ http://tinyurl.com/9gto9 |
2006/1/31-2/2 [Reference/Tax] UID:41622 Activity:nil |
1/31 Is the land above/below the freeway owned by the state or federal government? Who pays property tax on I-80, 880, 680, 280, 237, 101? If the federal government owns a piece of land, does it pay state tax on those properties? -land newbie \_ This probably depends on whether it's an Interstate or regular CA highway. As for tax, the government doesn't pay tax. Are you kidding? \_ federal property in DC is not subject to local taxes. \_ To see why the fed. gov't. is not subject to local tax, perform a thought experiment where you're a mayor and you get to tax Fed. property however you like. \_ We declare this here bridge is worth $1 billion and we like to tax the feds at 50%. \_ I don't think there is a question as to why. I was just posting an example to help answer the question. \- See MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND on the tax question. \- See McCulloch v. Maryland on the tax question. That is The Standard. note, this also applies to when say LBL buys a pencil in CA ... you are not supposed to be taxed. \_ And if you are there is a form for reclaiming that money from the State. |
2006/1/25-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:41513 Activity:nil |
1/24 I am single not married no itemized deduction. My income is about 90K and I pay about 30.0% tax (both federal and state). Does that sound about right? \_ Buy a house, stupid. \_ I think at 90k, you should be itemizing. \_ ~ 30% is what I pay, and I made $90K and am single. I itemized in TurboTax, but I didn't have mortgage interest to itemize. \_ State tax can be itemized, at 90k it is probably worthwhile. \_ "I itemized" |
2006/1/24-25 [Reference/Tax] UID:41506 Activity:nil |
1/24 Tax question. Currently my tax withhold is "2" (single). Usually I get back a few grand every year from Uncle Sam because of too much tax withheld. However, someone told me that it's better to put down "3" so that you have more in the bank to accumulate interest rate, and pay back Uncle Sam later. The overall gain would be the interest rate from the few grands that the government withheld. Has anyone done this and is it particularly bad? Thanks. \_ Everyone does it. I think I'm claiming 6 for withholding purposes right now. Your goal should probably be to be close to breaking even when tax time comes around; if you get a bunch of money back, you gave the government an interest-free loan, and if you have to pay a bunch of money, you might also have to pay a penalty. -tom \_ If you withhold too little you will be subject to http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html . Whether it's a good idea to withhold more or less really depends on your spending habits. \_ Note that you can also be penalized for withholding too much. You should owe/overpay within 10% of the amount due. \_ Wow, I didn't know there's an overpayment penalty. Do you have a pointer to more info re that? \_ I bet this entirely academic, but ... \_ I bet this is entirely academic, but ... http://www.irs.gov/govt/fslg/article/0,,id=112714,00.html "An employee who files a false Form W-4 may be subject to a $500 penalty." Of course, it depends on what the meaning of "false" is: "Sometimes this cannot be done simply by claiming an exemption for each member of a family. The employee may be entitled to additional withholding allowances, as provided in the regulations. Code section 3402(m), section 31.3402(m)1, Employment Tax Regulations." to a $500 penalty." \_ Unfortunately this doesn't say there's an overpayment penalty. To be honest, I was suprised to hear that the IRS would penalize overpayment, no matter by how much. \_ Don't forget that you need to pay tax on the interest from your bank account, so the overall gain is lower than you think. |
2006/1/14-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:41376 Activity:nil |
1/13 If the government literally offered you five million dollars for having a foreign object shoved up your ass by IRS agents, and you knew it would be sterile and would not cause permanent rectal damage, would you do it? Assume that the IRS agents are not hot chicks. \- just out of curiousity, since this is a voluntary transaction why are you making the govt/irs the other party. why not just ask "would you be willing to be medically ass probed for $5m?" this isnt an opening to a rant about emiment domain is it? --psb \_ It's a response to the ED rants. For whatever reason anal probing has featured prominently in that debate(see below), so I thought I'd cut to the chase. \_ You should be asking, "Would you be happy if a government agency grabbed you off the street and anally raped you against your will for their own pleasure but gave you $5MM tax payer dollars after wards?". \_ Did I have a bonafide deal I would get the $5M before the anal raping? Was it lubed, and what's the size and duration? \_ There's no "deal". You're grabbed off the street at random and have no choice. And oh yeah, to recover the $5MM cost, they give the tape to some private business who shows the tape for cash to the public. \_ My work here is done. -op \_ Whatever. It was your analogy. The rest of us were just going along with you. \_ No, it wasn't my analogy. -OP \_ Of course it was. You're saying you're the op but didn't write what you wrote? Ok whatever. Anal retentive engineer or overly clever English major? \_ You're the one who's being an anal retentive engineer here. Obviously I wrote what I wrote; the point is that the analogy originated in the ED flame war below, and I was just continuing it. \_ Ok so you're not an overly clever English major or you'd know the difference between the slang use of the word in the first ED thread below and your literal meaning in your thread. Thanks for joining us. \_ In the case of the OP, the anal probe may be the same as a brain probe. |
2006/1/13-17 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:41370 Activity:high |
1/13 You think Bay Area housing prices skyrocketed? Check this out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060113/ap_on_re_us/everglades_holdout $60K -> $4.95M in 30yrs. \_ Synopsis of this article: Many dumb asses bought useless FL swamp lands during the 1960's land scam, and got paid millions of dollars 4-5 decades later. My interpretation: The land/real-estate market is dumb ass dummy-safe. If you hold it long enough, and in this case 2/3 of your lifetime, you'll still come out ahead. So go ahead and buy your first home or 5th income property regardless of the bubble, you'll still do well 4-5 decades later. \_ Why is it a surprise that land might have tremendous value *50 YEARS* after purchase? You seem pretty bitter that these people had the foresight to give themselves a nice retirement package starting *50 YEARS* ago. Why are you so upset that other people have done well in life? Nothing is stopping you from putting some money down on cheap land today and *maybe* retiring well on it in *50 YEARS*. \_ "...I will never be able to freely do what I wanted to do." With $4.95M? I'd think he could afford a big place somewhere just as rural. \_ He was apparently forced off his land. I see a problem with that. \_ Go bother Jeb http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e39080a.htm "Bush said Thursday that it looked as if negotiations with Hardy would not succeed and that the state would have to pursue eminent domain against him, something Bush said he doesn't like to do. He said Hardy would be 'well-compensated.'" (Oct 17, 2003) Hardy sure wants to: http://www.jessehardy.com "So, you can do the math, people, 160 acres at $50,000 per acre, equals $8 million dollars - a far cry from the 'staggering' $4.95 million I 'shrewdly' negotiated!" ... along with his lawyers: "My negotiator, Will Smith, let me get ripped off, just like my attorney, Charlie Forman. I would do anything to get my land back, even if I didn't have anything else left." \_ I'm happy to bother Jeb. Why does that matter? \_ 70 year old with a 9 year old son.. This guy sounds like a trip.. \_ just telling you who's to blame in this case. \_ This is horseshit, Jeb or not. There is a reason for the existence of eminent domain, and the fact that it's been abused crazily by corrupt politicians and property developers doesn't mean it's always bad. Ask yourself: qui bono? The guy got $5 million for a piece of swamp he acquired for 60k--that's a lot of money. -John \_ It doesn't matter what he got for it or what he paid for it. We still like to pretend in this country that we have property rights. \_ Not after Kelo. \_ Well yeah, like I said: "pretend". \_ So when someone lubes you up and reams you, it's just haggling over remuneration? \_ Re. property rights: if you don't pay property tax, your property is taken away from you. So that sort of scotches that argument. Re. reaming: you \_ Scotches what? In no manner does the concept of property taxes scotch an anti-ED point. [erased my own long rant]. In short, what the hell are you talking about? don't seem to be getting the fundamental difference between taking away land for someone else's profit (a la New London) and taking away land that was initially probably developed at least shadily, \_ Probably? All land in this country was initially stolen from the natives. By your logic it is therefore ok to ream all current land owners just because. like much of the Everglades, and returning it to the commons. And yes, I know there's a huge grey area. -John \_ There's no grey area. Land taken from an owner for anything more than strictly defined public use (such as needing a \_ I hope you realize that after Kelo pretty much anything the gov says is a public use is a public use, including taking away your home and giving it somebody wealthier b/c they will pay more property taxes. school, firehouse, etc) without first making all reasonable efforts to use other land and not *fully* compensating the victim for their loss is theft by government. There are way too many ED cases where the ED isn't for a real public use and the compensation figures are calculated falsely (such as after prices in the area drop by 80% after they announce an ED) that it is impossible to defend ED and it's advocates without associating one's self with some of the scummiest people in local government. This isn't Europe. We've always been allowed to actually *own* our property here. \_ Nice dig, there. The money allocated to him was not calculated falsely, as property prices could would not drop in the conventional sense if the property was not being commercially allocated. You may have noted the bit about it being returned to its natural state. That said, of course there is a grey area and it is huge. I agree fully that ED is vastly over- and too often misused. But do you seriously believe that communities as such could make _any_ economic progress if they had no way at all of occasionally expropriating resources? And no, before you hint at it again, I do not believe in some socialist utopian idea of land as a public good, but as a limited resource to be handled judiciously. And let's face it, the guy _did_ get $5 million for a swamp. -John \_ Ah, so the lube is okay if the price is high enough. Thanks for sharing. If the government can take land not for public use, then private property doesn't exist. Period. \_ Parks are for public use. -tom \_ Not state park and "preserves." Too often they're off limits for people. ED is reasonable for roads and ... well pretty much nothing else. So let's take this ad absurdum--if I build a house on a pristine _/ natural resource under some sort of homesteading "nobody's using it, come 'n git it" initiative, and the land is later found to be the last remaining preserve of the rare spotted mud iguana whose secretions cure cancer, and my presence is killing off the last few, then the gub'mint takes my land, fences off the area and doesn't let anyone in, you would oppose this, right (like I said, ad absurdum)? Also, I'll freely admit that maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see the difference in the big-picture between this and the gub'mint taking your land if you don't pay property taxes. In both cases, the land isn't really yours unconditionally as such. -John \_ I'm not the op or anyone who responded to your post. I just want to say that all this talk is further proof that the concept of ownership (I give you XX trinkets so that you will give me YY acres of land) makes people greedy and do really evil things. The land is precious, and an individual has very limited scope in what he/she can do to fully use the land for greater goods. Given that most common people have been proven to be selfish & stupid in the entire history mankind, it should have been the case from the beginning that the land is not monopolized by individuals. Land belongs to the common habitats of the land. \_ Is this a troll? Are you really actually advocating some form of socialism or just looking for enraged responses? \_ What? You haven't learned to pick up on the subtle article-abuse we have all come to know and love of Chicom troll? Get with it. Nevermind. I re-read the post, and I believe it to be an imposter. \_ I didn't see the expected ChiComTroll grammar at all. I'm sure it is someone else but still a troll. \_ I'm not the above poster you're responding to. With that in mind: Cancer: it doesn't matter how you came about the land as long as it is legally yours today. ED'ing cancer cure land: first, it is necessary to keep the frogs on that land to harvest them directly for a cancer cure? If so, we're screwed anyway since there won't be enough of $rare_animal_or_plant_X to matter. If someone wants to "steal" all the frogs off the land, I don't have an issue with that. We're assuming the rare plant/animal is secondary to the normal land use pattern for the owner. If the owner was actually raising and farming these things for a cancer cure then I've got a problem with stealing his frogs. Property taxes: this is what all land owners pay in exchange for the State (be it local, state or federal) to support and protect the owner and their land claim so they don't have to raise their own private army to defend their stake. The resource being paid for with PT is protective physical and legal enforcement of the land ownership claim. The State usually uses that cash to do things like provide water, roads, schools, etc, but it doesn't have to. Once the PT are paid, the State does what they want with the money. By not paying your PT you are not paying the State what they need to protect your land claim. Since the State is effectively forced to defend all land claims, you can't opt out of your property taxes. Back to the core idea: I don't think the vast majority of people have a problem with the concept of ED. I don't. The problem is that local governments have been very seriously abusing it for years and in the last 15-20 years the abuses have skyrocketed both in number and severity well past the point of thinking of ED as anything more than theft. Far far far too many cases all over the country go like this: 1) Business Developer buys a few beers and kicks a few bucks at a local mayor or board. 2) Locals find some nice water front land inhabited for the previous $MANY_DECADES by honest, hard working tax paying, working class folks and retirees and announces ED on the whole area calling it a "blighted area". 3) ED announcement naturally causes huge drop in housing prices in the area. 4) Locals use new lower comp figures as pay out number to determine worth of remaining houses and small businesses. 5) Citizens get pennies on the dollar and evicted. 6) Locals hand over the land to the Business Developer we saw back in #1 who builds yacht club, fancy hotels and condos. 7) Locals and Business Developer claim victory for The Community and "Yay! ED makes everyone a winner!" except for those Community Members we decided weren't adding enough to the tax base and were kinda lower class anyway and couldn't afford a yacht club membership, screw them. Welcome to ED in the current era. Oh yeah, we might have built a school or small park in there somewhere, too. The alternative to the above is less common but has happened here and there is they steal some dumb bastard's land, don't do a thing with it and then sell it on the public market 20 years later after real estate sky rockets. Not even a token park is built. Just pure raw flat out theft under color of authority. \_ Well, I think we agree that (a) this is theft, and (b) ED has been massively abused and is a slippery slide in itself. I do however still think that this particular case falls under the few "legit" uses of ED--both due to the intended use of the land ("for the public good" in the greater sense) and the amount paid. -John \_ I believe in this case he ended up in some sort of negotiated settlement that he felt was forced upon him under threat of ED. Negotiating under the gun isn't much of a negotiation and he probably could've gotten more which I think is what his gripe is. Anyway, at least we agree on the major points which is the part I was here for. |
2005/12/27-30 [Reference/Tax] UID:41150 Activity:nil |
12/27 Creative Commons needs $50k in donations to maintain tax exempt status in the US: http://creativecommons.org/support \_ Where does it say anything about tax exempt status? \_ Excuse my ignorance, but what does Creative Commons actually do other than draft up various licenses for people to use? Where is this money going to go? Why shouldn't I donate to the EFF instead? |
2005/12/13-15 [Reference/Tax] UID:40995 Activity:nil |
12/13 Currently the yearly gift tax limit is $11,000 per year, and if it is over you can deduct it from your lifetime unified gift tax (for both gift and estate) exemption limit per person, which is $1.5 mil. This will increase gradually in the next few years thanks to Bush. http://www.fairmark.com/begin/gifts.htm http://law.freeadvice.com/tax_law/gift_tax_law/unified_estate_gift_tax.htm http://www.amerilawyer.com/gift_taxes.htm (old, just change numbers) According to the URL above, "Because of all of these rules, gift taxes are rarely required to be paid." Fine. If they're rare in the first place why did Bush want to increase the limit, and what % of the Americans actually give more than $1.5 mil as gifts? \_ political benefits? \_ Because taxes should always be cut to zero whenever possible, and instead of balancing the budget you just pressure Asian countries to keep buying out debt? countries to keep buying our debt? \_ asian money is like opium. We have a need for it but it's bad for us. \_ Republican Party ideology requires as many tax breaks for the rich as are politically feasible. -tom |
2005/12/5-7 [Reference/Tax, Consumer/Audio] UID:40862 Activity:nil |
12/5 Anyone interested in a white 60GB iPod at 15% off ($339+tax)? I just bought one through my employee discount but my roommate said that he meant to ask for the nano instead. It has no engraving. Email me if interested. First come first serve, I live in the Mission. -abe |
2005/12/5-7 [Reference/Tax] UID:40854 Activity:low |
12/5 Say I buy a house and my parents wire in the down pay. The down pay over $11,000 is subject to the gift tax. But what if they add their names to the title of the property, is that still subject to gift tax? \_ Talk to your mortgage agent. They know how to solve these issues. \_ no. \_ they have no clue on this matter. talk to your accountants. \_ Even if they have a clue, they are legally barred from giving such advise to you because their relationships to you are real estate / mortgage agents, not tax advisers. But you can try to pursuade them to tell you off the record as friends. \_ Yes, the gift tax applies to goods and real estate as well as money. But if you give them ownership of the house concommitant to the amount they contributed, it's not a gift. But that would mean that when you sell, they would get part of the proceeds. It also means that they're liable for the mortgage. -tom \_ Could they then gift you an $11,000 portion of the title every year until they have no remaining interest? -gm \_ Yes, they can gift the equity back $11K at a time. \_ technically, yes. but each time you redistribute the ownership, you need to re-assess the house which of is not free! \_ And if that reassessment triggers a change in your tax assessment, you're probably better off paying the gift tax. \_ Talk to a professional. Do not take financial, medical, or legal advice from motd cranks. \_ you should talk to an accountant to make your final decision. however, it's good that you get some background information first so you will ask good and useful questions. \_ They don't really have to pay any tax yet, but it will reduce the amount of tax free gains will be in their estate when they die. Talk to an accountant about all this. \_ Use the "unified (tax) credit" http://csua.org/u/e6c This makes the most sense. I am very surprised no one earlier suggested this. Your parents do not need to be dead to use this. IRS example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p950/ar02.html#d0e260 Your parents file form 709 (just like it says on irs.gov) to tell the IRS they're using part of their unified credit. \_ Uh, this is what I was referring to in the entry directly above yours. \_ Okay, I'll give you half-credit for this question. -your Physics TA |
2005/11/22-25 [Reference/Tax] UID:40696 Activity:nil |
11/22 Are there still tax breaks for buying hybrids for personal use? \_ If I recall, there'll be new tax credit starting January 1st. Don't know the detail, though. \- what about google arbitrage? |
2005/11/14 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:40577 Activity:nil |
11/14 My Alameda County property tax statement reads "Secured Property Tax Statement. What's the difference between Secured and Unsecured? Thanks. |
2005/11/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:40370 Activity:low |
10/31 Second homes accounted for 36 percent of all home sales last year. Is this historically normal? http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/051031/316081.html?.v=1 \_ randomn guess... no :p how many of your parents' friends own more than one home 10 years ago? \_ dunno, that'd depend on how rich my parent's friends are. is that a statistically reliable sample set? \_ lots of kids are also living with their parents past 30, when they should get off their ass and buy a house.. Is that normal either? I believe it evens out. \_ Is it 36% of all successful sellers sold their second homes? Or is it 36% of all successful buyers bought their second homes? |
2005/10/19-21 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:40180 Activity:nil |
10/19 http://www.ginniemae.gov/rent_vs_buy/rent_vs_buy_calc.asp?Section=YPTH Rent or buy? \_ "Please use Netscape4.7 and below to see your result or, please use IE. Thank you" Wow. |
2005/10/11-13 [Reference/Tax] UID:40044 Activity:high |
10/11 "President Bush's tax advisory commission indicated today that it would not propose replacing the income tax with a national sales tax or a value-added tax but would recommend modifications in the popular tax deductions for mortgage interest and employer-provided health insurance." http://csua.org/u/dp4 \_ What the hell. That whole article reads like "ok, what can we fuck with?" \_ Yay, let's make the tax code ten times more complicated than it already is! \_ As long as Paris Hilton's accountants can have her pay almost no tax ... "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" \_ "The generous mortgage-interest deduction in the law [that the commission is proposing to reduce] now helps rich people the most, leads to larger houses and encourages borrowing..." Why cut back the deduction? Because "the commission agreed to recommend abolishing the alternative minimum tax for individual" and the commission has "a mandate to develop an overall proposal for changing the tax system that is revenue neutral." \_ This doesn't account much for those parts of the country where you spend 75% of your take-home on housing. \_ I have this suspicion that the parts of the country that spend 75% of take-home pay on housing are the parts of the country that bitch loudest about AMT. Of course, reducing the home mortgage deduction screws one group of people within those parts and likely rewards a different group, but that's what the income tax is all about anyway. Where did you think the offsetting revenue was going to come from when you MOTD types were bitching about the AMT? \_ By not giving the uber-rich tax breaks? Yeah I know, it's just a fantasy. \_ Certainly Teresa Heinz and her ilk are undertaxed relative what I pay (since I pay the same order of taxes as she does and I am worth 2 orders of magnitude less). But you might find out that taxing the uber-rich yields less money than you think, simply because there are so relatively few of them. In the end, to get the big tax bucks, you have to tax the upper-middle class. \_ I am worth one order of magnitude less than Heinz, but I still consider myself upper-middle class. I consider you lower-middle class. \_ You're worth multiple million, and think you're middle class? Ha. Check some statistics on the average wage in the US. \_ No, no, no. I am worth multiple TENS of millions. A mere multiple million still brackets you within the lower middle class. \_ You're probably worth 2 orders less than Teresa Heinz if your net worth is in the tens of millions. \_ Does that mean I am still in the lower middle class? \_ Only if you live in Palo Alto. \_ At least in: http://csua.org/u/dp7 The cap on interest deduction to $300,000. If you're paying $300,000 in interest per year, you *are* the uber-rich. \_ You misunderstand. The cap of $300,00 is not on interest paid per year, but on the principal owed on the mortgage. \_ Show me where this is the case. I'm unable to find that anywhere. -pp \_ Not from where you picked up the $300k, but earlier in that article "the current $1 million cap on deductible mortgage interest should be reduced, possibly to about $350,000". From http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc505.html we learn million cap came from "you can deduct the *interest* [emphasis added] ... [if the debt] totaled $1 million or less". \_ ^Paris Hilton^Teresa Heinz How did she do it anyway? \_ Well ^X^Y syntax really is short hand for !!:s so, it was pretty straight forward once she had that down. \_ Paris Hilton bang bang Teresa Heinz? i likes me some ultra rich girl on ultra rich girl action. \_ Teresa has her heart set on becoming the First Lady. Your chances of her dumping Kerry and going for some hot girl-girl action with Hilary are much better. \_ She stands a better chance of becoming first lady as Hillary's gf than with Kerry. |
2005/10/10 [Reference/Tax] UID:40038 Activity:high |
10/10 My parents are buying an apartment outside of the US for their retirement and I am going to help them to pay for part of the down payment (over $10,000). What is the best way to gift the money to them? \_ You can buy an apartment with only $10K down? What planet, I mean, what country is it? \_ Latin America, Eastern Europe, etc. (I am talking about decent housing, not living in the slums). Besides, you can buy decent new homes in places like Texas or New Mexico for $100K or so (not in the prime spots, but still very acceptable for retirement). \_ My parents just built an 8 bedroom house in China for <$40k. \_ ".. part of.... (over ...).: \_ Just give them the money along with a letter describing what it is for. There won't be tax consequences for either of you. \_ i hope it's as simple as that. \_ If the amount you are giving them is $11K or less, you can just send them a check. If it's over $11K, they probably have to pay gift tax on it, unless you are going to end up with partial ownership of the property. -tom \_ that the answer i get from various sources. \_ This might help. http://www.turbotax.com/articles/TheGiftTax.html \_ I think you can give each parent $10K.. \_ $11k now \_ oh yes, that's right, so you can do up to $22K. -tom \_ If my parents need $80k, I write $10k to eight different people and these eight people each write $10k to my parents. Would that work? Am I inviting tax auditing? \_ I don't know whether that would trigger an audit or not, but if you do get audited, the IRS is going to look for the eventual recipient of the money, and probably fine you heavily. -tom |
2005/10/7-9 [Health, Reference/Tax] UID:40016 Activity:nil |
10/7 Can I get some advice on where to go for health insurance? There is a cute set of circumstances which sadly leave me without, and I was wondering where I should go/look to buy it. I would likely want a plan with a high deductible (aka low monthly?) that would basically just be needed if I had some catastrophic health issue. Thanks. -mrauser \_ Mike, I went through the same thing few yrs back and used http://www.ehealthinsurance.com After you feed them your basic info (age, smoking/nonsmoking, zip code, etc) they will present you with a list of options. You can certainly find the high deductible ones with low monthly. For example, I got one through Blue Shield with $2400 deductible (yes, it's outrageous, but) with dues around $86/mo. Assuming you're 30+ yrs old, Bay Area nonsmoker. They also offer short-term insurance (12 months or less) if you're simply between jobs. Hope this helps! - jthoms \_ I got this same plan through Cal Alumni Assoc. Check it out. \_ Forgot to add, with high deductible, you're also eligible to open a Health Savings Acct (the so-called 'Healthcare IRA') or HSA. So with a $2400 deductible, you can open a $2400 HSA and write off $2400 from your 1040 for tax year 2005. Sweet! Go to http://www.hsabank.com for more info (but you don't have to open it through HSA Bank). \_ You still need to make sure that your high deductible plan is HSA-compatible. My wife's Blue Cross plan was not, even though the deductible was $2500. \_ Yes, but if you don't use the money you lose it. \_ Wrong. You're thinking the HCRA, the 'use-it-or-lose-it' acct. HSA is totally separate, you accrue it for life, and you can only use it for qualified medical expenses. (no, your monthly dues don't count, unfortunately). It's a gov't ploy to encourage folks to save up for their hlthcare exp prior to and during retirement. Unlike IRA though, you can use the money even before you turn 59.5, as long as it's for qualified medical exp. STFG for a list. open a Health Savings Acct (the so-called 'Healthcare IRA') or HSA. So with a $2400 deductible, you can open a $2400 HSA and write off $2400 from your 1040 for tax year 2005. Sweet! Go to http://www.hsabank.com for more info (but you don't have to open it through HSA Bank). |
2005/9/28-10/1 [Reference/Tax] UID:39908 Activity:nil |
9/28 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050928/od_nm/dutch_witchcraft_dc Take a witchcraft class, get an educational tax deduction \_ And the objection is...? \_ No objection. It's good to encourage education \_ If churches aren't taxed, might as well make witchcraft tax free. |
2005/9/14-16 [Reference/Tax] UID:39669 Activity:kinda low |
9/13 Dear Seattle fan guy who lived in Crowne Seattle in downtown for $129 plus 15% tax. How did your trip go, and did you like Seattle? \_ actually our trip went very well. It was quite fun. Even the hills were "small" compared to SF. The streets were so clean, and the people were very friendly. The crowne wasn't bad at all, and on one day, having a "big fat greek wedding" next to the lobby was fun to watch. Pike place market was very crowded when we went. We went back on labor day morning, but the place that throws fish around was closed that day. 3 days wasn't enough time to really see too many things, but it was overall enjoyable. After staying in some dumps for $70-80 a day in an earlier Portland trip, $129/day for a decent place was worth the extra $$$. I wish we had enough time to take a ferry to Bainbridge, and maybe take a drive to mt. st. helens, and vancouver. We rented an SUV on our trip, but a smaller car would have been better. On some streets it felt too wide. The biggest downer on the Crowne was $25/day valet parking. \_ See, where you went to before Seattle completely changes the way you look at the city. I visited Vancouver first. It's cleaner, streets not as crowded, good traffic, extremely nice hotels (and much cheaper), friendly people, nice scenery, best Dim-Sums in North America, etc. Then when I visited Seattle it was a total dump. In fact Vancouver makes the entire U.S. look like a dump. [formatd] \_ Vancouver is a nice town, but I felt no overwhelming urge to want to move there. It's just another city to me. \_ Obviously, you're not an Asian and don't share the same values and desires many of us share. \_ No, I am not Asian. I didn't realize Asians like the cold, wet, short days and high taxes. I am trying to figure out what Vancouver and Monterey Park have in common. \_ I'm white and I love Vancouver weather, so there. Also, short days part of the year means long days the other part. \_ No one like cold, wet, short days and high taxes. But Vancouver has one of the highest density of Cantonese/HK populations in the US. The dim-sum Cantonese/HK populations in N Am. The dim-sum there is INCREDIBLE. Before the Chinese takeover, 1/3-1/2 of the top notch chefs and restaurants moved to Vancouver. The elite buy properties in Vancouver. It's like HK-- right by the coast, good mass transit, lots of Chinese people, lots of high-rise buildings. If you're retiring and you're Chinese then most likely you'll love to socialize and play majong or just have a nice cup of tea. Tax? No one like tax. But things are cheaper anyways, and most people realize that the Canadian government really spends the tax money well. The infrastructures are incredible-- good transit, little traffic, clean, very few people below poverty, low crime rates, etc. http://tinyurl.com/b393c (here, NYTimes about HongKouver). And yes I'm Asian and I prefer metropolis, mass transit, drinking boba, karaoke, and simply living close with w/ other Asians and I'll easily take horrible weather and high taxes for the other things I like. taxes for the SeaBus. \_ You forgot the most insane collection of gorgeous women I've ever seen in one place. A colleague claims it's because there's a huge porn industry there. -John \_ Not that you'll get any chance, but, are they white or Asian? When I went to the Oceanfront I didn't see many white people. However, when I went to Gas Town and Victoria I saw the most incredible looking blonds. I don't have a white women fetish and it's rare that my penis gets hard when I meet them, but I actually met quite a few friendly white chicks there who for the first time in my life made my penis hard. Unlike a lot of white trashy Paris Hilton wannabes in the US, they actually look natural. They look skinner, classier, more well dressed, and don't put on too much make-up. They're almost like the Asian women I date in the US, except taller and whiter. \_ I'm trying to determine if this is a troll. If not, it's one of the funniest things I've seen on motd. \_ "Where all de white women at?" -John \_ Besides vacation, the trip to Seattle was more of a scouting trip to see if it might be a place that we could be happy moving to for lower housing prices, a decent job market, and a good quality of life. I think Seattle is someplace I could put on my list of possible places to move to. Having places like Vancouver nearby for weekend trips would be great. Plus, there are plenty of places to shop, bookstores, restaurants, and cafe's to hang out at. The huge REI there rocked! The weather held up nicely while we were there. It was warmer in their downtown, than SF downtown, though, it was also more humid, but not bad. I only used my jacket once, and even then it was warm enough to do without one. I would still like to experience a typical rainy season (winter) day. It did rain on a Sat afternoon/night, but we were tired and sleeping thru most of it. The Uwajimaya (sp?) market was pretty cool. Their ready-made crab sushi was really delicious and cheap. \_ Go in the winter. Seattle in the summer is great. \_ I'm orig from the midwest, so anything better than cold snowy winters, or just brown and dead vegetation is a big improvement to me. I would actual welcome a change in seasons, just not a winter full of snow and ice. \_ Depends on how far north you lived. The days are really short. Imagine Wisconsin more than, say, Kansas. \_ Just east of there in MI. \_ Ah. Everywhere looks nice compared to MI, except maybe OH. |
2005/8/31-9/2 [Reference/Tax] UID:39373 Activity:nil |
8/31 Dubya to release oil from strategic petroleum reserves. Yay! \_ Too bad he can't release our strategic refineries. \_ It's a stupid idea that will accomplish nothing. \_ Psychological effect. \_ "Many other refineries are struggling to cope with shortfalls of crude caused by the closure of major port terminals and pipelines from evacuated and missing rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. " \_ Slapping a $2 tax on gasoline temporarily would probably fix the problem. \_ no tax is ever temporary. taxes don't fix problems. |
2005/8/30-9/2 [Reference/Tax] UID:39370 Activity:nil |
8/30 Get a $2000 tax break next year by going solar: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/knock_4000_off.php \_ Yay! I can spend $20000 and save $4000. What a deal! \_ Actually, do the math. Between the state and federal credits and discounts, it's a pretty good deal vs. the "real" cost. That being said, PV is still a pretty poor price performer. But if you're in a high electricity tier and going PV could drop you a couple tiers and you finance the PV installation and you're collecting all of these discounts, you could end up money ahead every month, starting now, and more in the future. --dbushong \_ Not to mention the fact that we don't know the future of electricity prices. What if they start going up 10% a a month for a few years? Those with PV panels will have no change to their $0/mo electric bills. \_ A solar system is also a home improvement which increases the value of the house, so the cost is at least partially recoverable, even leaving aside the electricity bills. -tom (Zero kwh usage for three months now) |
2005/8/26-29 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39296 Activity:low |
8/26 How many poeple here would find the following tax system to be acceptable: A flat income tax of 15 % is paid by everyone, *but* it's based on your first job right out of college, and stays fixed even as your income increases. So if you work at walmart for a year and then go into investment banking, you're still taxed at the flat 15% rate based on your walmart salary, while the guy who got the ibanking job right out of college pays six times what you do in taxes. Imagine also that everyone who moves into the state starts at the rate of their first california job. Hence when an out of stater takes a job, they might pay four times what their co-workers pay, since the co-workers are paying based on happening to have a low paying job 15 years ago when they graduated college in California. Sound fair? Or does it sound like a perverse nightmare that would fuck up the whole labor market for the state and totally distort the tax base? \_ I didn't think the current tax system could be any more broken than it already is. I was wrong. \_ I'm guessing this was intended as a Prop. 13 analogy. \_ Yes. I wanted to see if any of the pro-prop 13 crowd would be willing to defend the same system applied to fucking up the labor market as they're using to fuck up the real estate market. \_ Then get a real analogy. Yours is silly. \_ Hm, I guess. It's a poor analogy since a job != a house. I can get a crummy job for a day and then get a high paying one. If I get a crummy house, I pay less property taxes. If I get an expensive house, I pay more. The analogy falls over at step 1. \_ It continues to be poor: changing income tax rates don't screw over retired people on a fixed income. \_ When I graduate, I'll make sure I tell Google or whomever to postpone my start date by a month, so that I'll have time to take up a job at Walmart for a few weeks. \_ How do idiots like this get into Cal? Is it really that easy? \_ broken analogy. When/if I buy a new home, I pay new taxes. |
2005/8/25-26 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:39276 Activity:nil |
8/25 How much is california property tax like? ballpark figure? here in the chicago suburba, my property tax is about 1.2% of the price of my house. \_ 1% per year, based on the assessed value of your house. The house is re-assessed when it's sold or there's new construction. \_ how is "new construction" defined? Anything with a contractor/ building permit? (new windows? update bathroom?) Or more major things (build an addition?) Seems like this would be a major disincentive to do repairs/updates? \_ Minor stuff doesn't count. I dunno what the cutoff is though. Not minor remodeling. \_ Yes, minor remodeling counts. However, you are only assessed the added value of the construction. That is, if you add a $50K den to your house then you pay property tax on $50K. If your previous assessment was $100K it is now $150K. It doesn't cause the entire house to be reassessed. Otherwise, the assessed value changes +/- 2% per year depending on inflation. E.g., my parents' house owned for ~ 15 years is taxed at $375K even though it's worth $800K right now. If they decided to gift it to me for $0, I'd have to pay 1% of $800K per year. \_ I've always wondered how it worked with inherited property - some articles I have seen seemed to imply that if it was not a sale, it would still have the original cost basis. Anyone have any experience with inherited houses and the resulting property tax? \_ Yeah it retains the cost basis. \_ Your parent's house is from 15 years ago and it only went from 375k to 800k? Something's not quite right here. 15 years ago 375k would by you a lot! I for sure would've bought one in Palo Alto for that price ;) \_ it's next to a freeway ... the 10 freeway and you're doing your math wrong. it's taxed at $375K today, but new it was purchased for ... $150-200K? I forget. \_ 15 years ago was the top of the last real estate bubble. Houses have about doubled off of that high (after subsequently falling for a few years) so it's totally feasible. My neighbor bought her house in 1989 for $280K. It's worth probably $600K. In the interim it fell in value all the way to maybe $220K and was only worth $300K again in 2001. So it doubled in 4 years, but fell before that. \_ 1% + regional additions. Albany, for example, is 1.25% I believe. \_ Alameda county base is 1.1%, Berkeley adds 0.6%, so in Berkeley you pay 1.7%. |
2005/8/25-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:39275 Activity:nil |
8/25 How about tying property tax with income, such that if your property tax goes above certain percentages of your income, you only have to pay a smaller and smaller percentage of the "full" property tax. \_ Extend that to corporations, partnerships and the like as well and it seems reasonable. \_ That's called (wait for it) "income tax". \_ It's called it a progressive property tax. \_ Thank you Mr. Orwell. \_ Umm I was serious ... If you don't own property wouldn't pay a penny, so how is it an income tax exactly. |
2005/8/25-26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39262 Activity:high |
8/26 Does anyone know how prop 13 even come about? On one hand it makes sense that old people who owned homes for 30 years should not have to pay mortgage up their nose. On the other hand, new home-owners many who are young and owning homes for the first time have to pay MORE than old home-owners, many who are corporate land owners, or individual investors owning and controlling vast amounts of lands? We talk about flat tax, but this is the opposite of that. Is this even fair? \_ How about taking an end-run around prop13 by abusing the newly refined powers of eminent domain (thanks SCOTUS) to force longtime landowners to sell in order to bring the property taxes on their properties in line with current valuations of the property. Yeah! \_ "old people who owned homes for 30 years should not have to pay mortgage up their nose" You mean pay taxes up their nose. Let's see...is it fair for the government to reassess your property and then tax you on their assessment? That sounds a bit scary doesn't it? \_ This is how government has been raising taxes as long as there has been government and still how it is done all over the world. Don't know why it scares you so much. \_ It's not fair at all. It passed because people were sold fake images of old people sitting on extremely valuable property, losing their homes because they couldn't pay property tax. -tom \_ Well, the people who voted for it were people who owned land. In another word poor people didn't vote, and people who wanted to protect their assets, did so regardless of consequences like less funding for infrastructures, etc... \_ Were you in CA at the time prop 13 passed? I was. People were selling houses left n right and moving out of state because they couldn't afford to own their houses anymore. They were taxed out of home ownership. \_ True, but you didn't answer the question about fairness. Why is it fair that new hard-working home owners have to pay more than everyone else? Whatever happened to meritocracy, where the harder you work, the more you should get back? What about the fact that old timers usually own properties close to down-town or working areas where they no longer work, forcing young home owners to buy properties much farther away, and causing traffic? You mentioned one effect of not having Prop-13, but what about its side-effects? \_ The idea is that over time people will sell and the house will be reappraised at market value or die or whatever. The effect is to slow down the overall rate of increase of property taxes across the state. Those same young people (but really *any* new buyer) who pay current value rates will be paying next to nothing in 30 years, the same as that "old couple" who stayed in their house. I see nothing wrong with encouraging and even rewarding people to stay in the same neighborhood, helping to build a community instead of the super transient "don't know who my next door neighbor is and don't care" nature of many people today. Those old people paid high rates when they were young. They pay low now. Same thing for current young people. No issue. \_ The issue is that the cost of the services keeps going up, so other taxes, like sales tax, get raised to pay for them. So Prop 13 transfers the tax burden onto people who don't happen to be sitting on half a million dollars in equity. -tom \_ I'm not the pp but I think he will respond like this: "No. The old couples were once young and had to share the burden of having to pay more. Now new young couples have to share the burden of paying more but when they're older, new young couples will share their burden, so on and so forth. No issue." \_ Uh, you might not realize this, but there are a lot of people in California who don't own property and are not likely to ever own property. So they get to pay more for their whole lives. -tom \_ That isn't the first thing I thought of, but yes I believe that's true. In direct response to tom above, "the cost of the services keeps going up" is not just an inflationary measure but also an ever increasing number of 'services'. I'll happily pay my share of roads, schools, etc, but there's a zillion other "services" I'll never use which are just vote buying at best and high corruption and criminal at worst. \_ That's a red herring argument; the vast bulk of municipal government expense is roads, schools, police and fire. -tom \_ When Warren Buffet advised Ah-nold to repeal Prop-13 to raise revenue, Ah-nold said "If he mentions Prop-13 again I will make him do 500 push-ups." Thank god for Ah-nold, thank god I voted for him. -going to inherit 3 properties from my parents \_ If you're inheriting properties from parents, don't worry. There's a law protecting that. \_ Why should this be "protected"? \_ It's written into the Prop. It was part of the selling package. Sold as "preserving" neighborhoods and avoiding "poor kids inherit pricy house - must sell" scenario. \_ Where do people get the idea that government has a right to endlessly tax your house, and raise those taxes without limits? Imagine paying $24K for your house in 1970, as my parents did, now their house is worth $600K. If they paid property taxes on 600K as they would without prop 13, they would be spending 100% of their retirement income on those taxes alone. -ax \_ They're sitting on $600K in equity and you don't think they can afford, what, $5K/year? And of course, the services they receive from property taxes still cost the same as they did in 1970. -tom \_ When the premise of your argument is that we aren't taxed enough, I give up and walk away right there. -ax \_ The premise is that the *wrong people* are taxed. -tom \_ Under what conditions should someone escape taxes? Shouldn't retired poor people pay the least amount of taxes, if any? You want a flat tax? -ax \_ I think it's fair to say that property owners should be taxed more than non-property-owners. The beneficiaries of Prop 13 are almost exclusively not retired poor people. -tom \_ I'd like to see the numbers. I know a lot of retirees in my neighborhood benefit from Prop 13. You call them rich because they own a $700K house free and clear, but the reality is they have very little income and would have nowhere to go if they sold. By the way, if you raise taxes on property owners then guess who will eat that? Owners will pass the costs on to the renters anyway. \_ Look, it's pretty simple. The proportion of tax paid by property owners after prop 13 is less than before. This is trivially obvious even if you account for rents rising to pay property tax. Therefore, non-owners pay a greater proportion than they used to. And it is also trivially obvious that poor retirees who own their own homes are a tiny portion of all property owners in CA. -tom \_ It is not trivially obvious that the beneficiaries of Prop 13 are almost exclusively not retired poor people. Young people tend to move much more often. It is also not obvious that non-owners pay more now than they did. Essentially, the same people pay either way (the wealthy landowners) whether it is in the form of income tax or property tax. Renters can pay more rent (w/o Prop 13) or more in other taxes (w/ Prop 13). Sales tax is a red herring, because it is about as high even in states w/o Prop 13. At issue is whether the state is collecting enough, not who is paying for it. The poor are never paying for it, unless you consider the poor retirees who would pay if Prop 13 is repealed. Given state revenues, I think the state is collecting more than enough as-is. \_ OK, given that the state is in deficit, and two-thirds of the budget is schools and health care, what do you think should be cut? -tom \_ Whatever we've pumped money into recently. The State spent a lot of money in the <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> years when we were flush with cash. What did we spend it on? I also guess I am not opposed to raising, say, income taxes or the VLF. I just think going after Prop 13 is barking up the wrong tree. Here's the budget: http://tinyurl.com/ckduv If you look at previous years you see we spent now than before, so it's not that anyone wants to 'cut education' but instead change how we spend some of the money allocated to it. years you see we spend more now than before. Why? \_ Because of increasing education and health care costs, mostly. -tom \_ Health care costs are rising faster than inflation, but what about education? Why would that be true? \_ Because we're comparing against historically low (abysmal) school spending from the Wilson years. -tom \_ What about before that? Prop 13 was around a long time before Wilson. \_ Equity is meaningless until you sell your home. When you sell your home, you don't need to pay property tax. \_ Umm, the whole economy is currently being powered by cash-out-equity financing. Don't forget there is always the reverse mortgage for old folks. So equity is NOT meaningless until you sell your home. \_ So you get to determine how much someone can pay? In a city that has normal property turnover, aggregate taxes will go up. That doesn't give gov't the right to decide what property values are and then tax you on it. \_ Alright. No do you feel the same way about commercial property? I.e., would you oppose something that specifically repealed prop 13 with regards to commercial property alone? -- ulysses \_ YES. A general pholosophy of taxing: Taxing on real gains, fine. Taxing on paper gains, NOT GOOD. My fater recently sold his business's building for about 2x what he paid. But if property tax kept going up on PAPER gains before he sold it, it would have been a significant additional expense. \_ Alright. Now does that same approach apply to the massive land value appreciation of, say, the Shorenstein- owned buildings in downtown San Francisco or the hundreds of square miles developed into office parks by Kaufman and Broad - which have, incidentally, made outfits like these the most powerful political players in the State? \_ It is a NECESSARY evil when you get bubbles in the market. I'm all for taxes on real gains and real property, but being taxed on paper gains is, emm, problematic. Would you like to be like my friend in Virginia who's property tax went up by $5000 a year because his rather modest suburban townhouses' appraised value went up by ~$200k? \_ I think it is fair to be taxed $5000 a year. It's called natural forces of capitalism. If you have to pay more, you work harder. If you can't afford it, then you leave so that someone else more capable or more desperate can take your place. Look at Silicon Valley. Half of the inhabitants are tech-related workers but can't afford housing, thanks to land investment companies that lock down land, or people who locked properties from generations and generations even though they have nothing to do with the local industry they're in. You either help with progress, or inhibit progress. \_ I think it's fair if you are taxed $100000 a year. It's not natural forces of capitalism, because the person didn't sell their property. It's an artificial reassessment by the government who then tells you to hand over more cash. Doesn't sound fair to me. \_ My issue with granting immunity to land owners is that often times they own a huge amount of land and lock them down for things that are not necessarily good for the people. For example, a Sunnyvale nursery built 100 years ago, now surrounded by young working people who are desperate to find housing in one of the most expensive places in South Bay. This is not helping everyone. \_ Actually, in spite ofyour communist rant about 'helping everyone' it might be nice to have things like a nursery within a 100 mile drive of your house, right? Some of those old mom and pop businesses are valuable to the community. Tearing them all up for (what exactly?) doesn't sound good to me. \_ What if the property-owner enjoys letting the field lie fallow and unused? \_ You gonna tell him how to use his land, comrade? \_ Not me, but that fellow a few posts up ("My issue with...") sounds like he's got a few ideas. -pp \_ Well, the law could build in some hysteresis and do the increase as an increment every few years based on the difference or sth. But permanently exempting prop owners from tax reassessment is bullshit when those taxes are what's used to support community services that all use. It makes the rates higher for the rest of us. (And doesn't the tax base get transferred on an inheritance? And of course to rental investment properties.) If values go up like crazy then at some point that tax rate should be cut also, since services costs probably don't go up linearly. Not wanting to pay taxes in general isn't a good enough reason. \_ Prop 13 doesn't exempt property owners from reassessment. It limits the amount the assessment can be raised each year. Also, if you do something like improve your home you will trigger a reassessment on the new construction. In short, I think people opposed to Prop 13 are whiners. The government doesn't tax you on stocks until you sell, so why tax on property? My coworker just received a 'special assessment' of $40K from his city in order to upgrade the sewer even though he has a septic tank which he just installed a few years back. He has no choice but to pay. This is fair? If shit like this happens with Prop 13 in place can you imagine what will happen without Prop 13? Every time the city or county needs money they will take it rather than make the necessary cuts. In LA, even with Prop 13, there was an unexpected windfall because of property taxes. Most people sell after ~7 years. If Prop 13 is ever repealed the CA economy will be screwed. \_ I paid plenty of AMT tax on stocks I didn't sell, so the statement that the government doesn't tax you on stocks until you sell doesn't work for stock options. \_ Sure it does. Did you exercise the options or not? If you didn't then you shouldn't have owed any tax. You mean you exercised them and then didn't sell the stock afterward. Not quite the same. \_ Exercising is not the same as selling. You can exercise the stock, the company can go bankrupt and not be able to sell the stock ... You've now paid taxes on paper value only. The statement was "The government doesn't tax you on stocks until you sell" -- I didn't sell and still paid tax. This is not advanced logic here, the statement is simply WRONG. \_ He said "stocks". Not "stock options". No matter how bitter you may be, he is right. \_ When you exercise an option you are 'selling' the option. A transaction has taken place. People are taxed (generally) on transactions. If you don't exercise you don't pay tax. Same idea. \_ Thx for overwriting my response. And the argument here is about SELLING stock you don't SELL options. You \_ Of course you can buy and sell options. http://www.cboe.com \_ Funny I sat through hours of stuff and my company never mentioned selling my options, because that doesn't apply here. And matters not since I'm not selling the option anyhow. \_ You made a categorical statement that was factually incorrect. \_ Ok I probably should have said "I couldn't sell MY options" can exercise an option and not be able to sell the stock. You may never be able to sell the stock. The statement was "The government doesn't tax you on stocks until you sell" -- NO STOCK SALE HAS OCCURRED! Exercising options and selling stock are totally different things, unless you believe that BUYING stock and SELLING stock are the same thing. And I'm not bitter about anything, I did quite well. However, I know many who had to declare bankruptcy because of AMT taxes on now worthless stock. \_ I'm opposed to AMT on stocks as well. \_ Well, stock taxes aren't the same as yearly property taxes. It almost sounds like you're opposed to those at all. Basically I stand to benefit from this stuff because my parents inherited some property, and I stand to inherit that same property eventually, and I don't forsee ever doing anything to trigger a tax reassessment. But I still think it's unfair. They rented this prop out and I probably would end up doing the same. Other thing are bullshit like depreciation writeoffs, exemptions from taxes on gains, etc. I believe all taxes should be very clear and straightforward, not a myriad of special rules that people manipulate and that interfere with the free market. I also think it's bullshit that tax rules are voted on in general propositions and the legislature is crippled. \_ Prop. 13 came during a housing bubble akin to what is happening today. The initial proponents were small goverment conservatives who saw the backlash against the huge rise in property tax as a chance to "starve the beast" by limiting property tax increases and reassessments to a minimal level. As such CA has become more dependant on income and sales tax and fees for it's budget. Unfortunately, those sources of revenue are not as reliable nor as progressive as property tax, so you get CA's socially liberal stance clashing with it's constant budgetary problems and failing infrastructure. until you sell doesn't work with stock options. \_ I believe prop 13 is a good thing. Without prop 13, a lot older retired and soon to be retired people will be forced to leave, because there's no way they could afford to pay property tax that's more than their retirement income. Raising property tax without a limit is NOT FAIR any way you cut it. Forcing people out of their homes because the market has gone up (especially in a crazy time as now) is not fair. Capping the gain is a reasonable compromise. I suppose you are also against prop 60/90 that allows seniors to carry over the current property tax to their new place. I pay a premium now on my property tax, but knowing that it will not grow without limit and I can have a comfortable retirement life later in life sounds pretty fair to me. I made a wise choice buying a home a few years ago, the savings I get on property tax now is my reward, plain and simple. Just like I have no problem with people making millions because they bought Microsoft 10 years ago. It's their reward and they earned it. There are other ways to solve the housing shortage problem. Most retired people does not want to sell because they have no place to go and anywhere they go they cannot afford the new property tax. Prop 60/90 is a step in the right direction. \_ Your reasoning is flawed. Seniors are by far the richest age segment today and most likely to afford increases in taxes. Before Prop. 13, you could have your property reassessed or apply for property tax relief. Those imaginary poor old people being "forced" out of their houses? The state would have had them jump through a few hoops, but they wouldn't have to pay anything close to the full amount. This is how it works in other places. Your whining about having to pay property taxes is nothing more than more self-interest. It's always amusing to hear people speak of the downfall of American communities and society, and yet when it gets down to brass "taxes," forget it. It's all about the individual. \_ I don't think anyone is whining about paying property taxes. Prop 13 doesn't eliminate that. What it *does* do is set a reasonable rate that taxes can be raised. You might think seniors are the wealthiest, but they are not, by the way. They might have high net worths if they happened to own a home (which many do not) but their incomes are low in any case and much of the income they do have goes to medical care. If this real estate bubble crashes many seniors won't have any money at all beyond Social Security. In fact, many people depend solely on Social Security as it is. I am going to guess that you are either a wealthy limousine liberal (in which case you can afford to fund the government's waste) or else someone who doesn't own any property and thus doesn't care. |
2005/8/18-22 [Reference/Tax, Reference/BayArea] UID:39157 Activity:low |
8/17 I went to Seattle for the first time in my life, and I have to say it really blows. The city traffic sucks as badly as SF, and the freeways are almost as congested as Los Angeles. The freeway signs are really fucked up and curves too much to be newbie friendly. The mass transit doesn't take you anywhere. The $1.75 ticket for a 1 mile stretch on the famous Seattle Monorail is utterly pointless. What's up with the Space Needle? It is expensive, the queue is over 1 hour, and it's really stuffy & crowded. When you leave the city, 1/2 of the roads have huge pot-holes and many don't even have signs, or have old signs that you can barely read. It's near impossible to drive and read the map at the same time, since the roads curve a lot and the signs suck. It's funny my flawless GPS failed ***three times*** to take me to the right places in downtown Seattle; it gets confused. One of the bridges closed down so I had to fucking drive 5 hours around the bay from Port Angeles to the city. And the weather? It is fucking 90 degrees. Food is mediocre. Bay Area is so much better. Sleepless in Seattle? That's right. Fucking lame city. \_ Everyone I know who loves Seattle, happens to be hiking and camping fanatics. They can never stop talking about how close they are to great camp-sites and all that crap. I am somewhat disabled so I don't really give a shit about hiking, or Seattle for that matter. Bay Area is still beats Seattle in terms of food, traffic, weather, and career opportunity. \_ You are correct. You should stay away from Seattle. That much is absolutely clear. In fact, you should consider not even visiting. -- ulysses \_ Good riddance. \_ Good riddance. There's nothing native seattles like more than to see Californians go home. \_ the proximity to mt. ranier, olympia nat'l park, etc. are nice but otherwise it is just another crowded city. \_ Still want to visit Seattle. Where is a good yet cheap place to stay? Ideally within walking distance of shops, cafe's, etc. \_ I did exactly that, I tried to get something cheap and close to the Market. The only thing I got was a $120 hotel with a $12 parking fee/day, the garage was a HUGE 45 degree hill \- have you ever been on a 45deg "hill"? it was probably not more than 12deg. \_ For reference, the steepest streets in SF are about 32% [18 degrees]_/ (Lombard is closer to 40, [22 degrees]_/ but uses the switchbacks) And according to wikipedia, the steepest hill in SEA is 21%, E. Roy [12 degrees]_/ Street. from the hotel, and the Market was 10 blocks aways. It turned out to be 10 HUGE blocks, with 30 degree hills all the way. The place is called The Virginia Mason Inn. According to Google Map and my GPS it's right by the ocean. It's not. It's pretty hard to find anything under $150, within 10 blocks, and is good. In fact Virginia Mason smells like a hospital. I think they converted it to an Inn a few years ago. Anyways, I booked 3 days with them, and I totally regret it. The city is small and you'll pretty much see everything in one day. There's no need to torture yourself by living closer to it. \_ We ended up booking the Crowne Seattle in downtown. $129 per night. But something like 15% hotel tax will be added. \_ Hey, no state income tax. I visited in 1998, and there were trees everywhere and home prices were lower than that in the BA back then. \_ No state income tax = no money for mass transit or basic infrastructures. \_ I don't have any facts, but maybe Microsoft generates enough tax income like Vegas is with the Casinos? \_ I visited in July. Don't forget the stench of coffee everywhere. You can't swing a cat by its tail without hitting two Starbucks. \_ I have been many times to Seattle. It's okay. The weather sucks. The 90 degree days aren't bad, but the cold, wet, and dark (short days) winters are unbearable. It's kind of a manufacturing town and I don't find it beautiful. It is odd to see so many redheaded people, though. There are worse places to be, but I don't like it too much, especially now that it is expensive to boot. You could buy a big, brand new house there for $150K 12 years ago and it seemed almost worth it then. Same house is $500K+ now and not worth it at all. I'm a California snob, though. Whether it's San Diego, Santa Barbara, LA, SF, or wherever I find I like CA better than anywhere else. \_ Yeah, I'd love to stay in SF, but the housing is too $$$. We need a one bread-winner mortgage and a decent quality of life. \_ follow-up: what neighborhoods near Seattle have decent housing prices, and walking neighborhoods (shops, cafes, etc)? I would like to avoid suburban sprawl, Wal-Marts, and so forth, and prefer independent establishments. Basically your good old-fashioned main street. |
2005/8/17-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:39154 Activity:nil |
8/17 How's the housing boom in Canada? Vancouver, Richmond? How much are properties there and are they worth buying for investment? Are taxes much higher? \_ I know that Vancouver and Toronto have boomed a lot. I think it's pretty much like the US market. |
2005/6/21-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:38225 Activity:nil |
6/21 Is it worth winning a trip on a gameshow when they set the prize's worth to like $4000 to make it sound good when you can just book a the same vacation for like $1500? since you have to pay taxes on it and all anywayz \_ took me five minutes to find, but here it is: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/03/aa_free_plane_tix_co.html \_ what gameshow? You also have to consider that it might be fun participating in a gameshow. |
2005/6/14-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:38124 Activity:moderate |
6/14 Even Alan Greenspan thinks the rich/poor gap in the United States is becoming a big problem. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050614/ts_csm/ataxing_1 \_ The dumbing down of the average American is NOT the core of the wealth gap. The problem is that there are too many people getting smarter, thus creating and keeping wealth that the average American can't possibly have. The solution is to cut all education programs and reduce F1/F2 skilled-worker VISAs from India and China, which will hopefully reduce the educational and income gap in the U.S. Wait, it's already happening thanks to the guidance of our great President. Thank God and Bush for standing up to evil. The Good and Righteous will always prevail. God Bless. \_ You know, the Catholics have the Pope as the head figure. What about the Jews? So I asked my best friend who's a Jew, and his reply is that they have Alan Greenspan. \_ -5 Lousy excuse for a troll. \_ "America's powerful central banker hasn't suddenly lurched to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean. His solution is better education today to create a flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of plutocrats' yachts." I'm confused. When did Dean announce his yacht-confiscation plan? \_ High taxes == no yachts, because rich people can't afford lawyers to avoid taxes. \_ I think he meant Yacht confiscation != Progressive taxation to check the wealth gap You say the first thing if you're a Republican. You say the latter if you're a Democrat. \_ What's funny is that most of my entrepreneur friends here have this ideal of America as a place where people say "hey, he's rich, how can I be rich too?" whereas in Europe people say "hey, he's rich, he shouldn't be rich, that's not fair." How about making it easier for the poor to, I don't know, make more money? Given all the effort that goes into coming up with taxation schemes, that might be an idea, or am I just being hopelessly naive? -John \_ The standard Republican answer seems to be keep taxes low on the off chance any of them do start earning more money. The truly poor pay little in taxes as it is so reducing their taxes further is moot. The left response is provide things that either give the poor money directly or make things cost less for them so they can keep more of what they make. Where, however, shall that funding come from, if lifting the poor is one's actual concern? -- ulysses \_ Income taxes != sales taxes != inheritance taxes. I do not like the latter, and #2 are regressive, except for "luxury taxes", which are a logistical nightmare. I have no problem with cutting taxes for "the rich" (usually including your upper middle class) thereby creating incentives. There's nothing wrong with "the rich" getting richer, as long as nobody's poorer overall. How about better education? Scientific incentives? Tax breaks for successful industries? And how to pay for it? How about greater accountability in govt. expenditure, sensible military budgets, and cuts in direct subsidies? And yes, I'm a hopeless romantic. -John \_ When taxes are decreased, the programs they made available are curtailed. This is most likely the exact intent of much recent and Reagan-era strategy. For people whose income is small to begin with, reducing programs such as socialized health care and public transit is making many people poorer overall. Succesful industries (oil, pharma) already receive frightfully large incentives. Is that the most effective way to help poor people? A sensible military budget would go a long way, at least at the gov't end of funding. That is not likely for quite awhile, though. Bless your hopelessly romantic heart. -- ulysses \_ I don't mind cutting programs. In fact I would specifically want to cut spending on programs which I don't feel benefit "the poor" (or the country) at all-such as a lot of hopelessly inefficient pork in defense, agricultural subsidies, etc. I make no apologies for my stance on taxes--where I am willing to concede that I am unrealistic is in my strong belief that there _is_ a shitload of waste and inefficiency in government spending, and that, in an ideal world, this would all go away. I am of the firm conviction that a government's expenditures will always rise to exceed any funds available to it. -John \_ Why don't you like the latter, which I assume you mean inheritance tax? \_ Because I feel it is the business of an individual to what he wants to give to whom. Note that I didn't say I don't see some justification behind having it, I just don't like it. \_ If we really wanted to reduce taxes on the poor we'd get rid of the lottery and reduce tabacco taxes. \_ The new thing is Greenspan says there is a widening wealth gap and widening wealth gaps are bad for America. The questionable thing is he also implies the dumbing down of the average American is the core reason for this. It's true, though, that if the average American gets smarter, the gap should narrow. The question is whether this is "the core reason", or just one with the distinction of having approval from Dubya's people. He probably can't say: "The wealth gap widened because the wealthy benefited most on the last tax cut, and don't forget the elimination of the dividend tax and of the inheritance tax." \_ If everyone gets a PhD who will dig the ditches and pack meat? \_ The answer is apparent in Europe. EVERYONE. \_ Yeah, it's great, I just got back from my weekend socialist-enforced ditch digging collective trip, and we all sang people's ditch digging songs and dug ditches for the glory of the EU constitution. -John \_ You know, you laugh, but I actually have been on one of those. Along with my mother, who was a college-educated civil engineer. -- ilyas \_ Why do you hate Socialism? \_ Because there's a chance of being forced on a peoples' revolutionary ditch digging gang and having to listen to ilyas sing peoples' revo- lutionary ditch digging songs. -John \_ I've been known to sing russian war songs when I had a bit to drink. -- ilyas \_ Ironically, I would pay money to see ilyas forced to sing revolutionary people's ditch digging songs. \_ I've been known to sing russian war songs when I have a bit to drink. -- ilyas \_ And Russian peasant drinking songs? \_ Ironically, in a society in which he'd be digging ditches, you'd be right there next to him, bub. -John |
2005/6/13-15 [Reference/Tax] UID:38101 Activity:kinda low |
6/13 Not that I agree with all Krugman said, but this commentary explains why dynasties fell: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?8hpib \_ Like I said, Reagan's super tax break for the super wealthy (60% tax for the richest before Reagan) really contributed to the wealth gap. \_ Not exactly related, but is anyone else concerned that whomever takes over in 2008, R or D, is going to have to raise taxes a LOT in order to get us out of this huge hole we are digging for ourselves? One way or another it's going to have to happen, whether through "regressive" or "progressive" means. \_ Like the "by 2040 we won't be able to afford anything but debt financing" hole. Yeah. If people don't wake the fuck up, this country's going to be in pain. \_ Of course I am concerned. Can you imagine your tax bill going up, say, 10%? That's a lot of cash you suddenly won't have. The ultra-rich and the poor won't care, but it is really going to screw the people in the $75-200K brackets. \_ On a national level, yes things are screwed. On a personal level, save more, and learn to live on < 80% of your income, but I guess everyone knows that but only some do it. \_ When taxes have to be raised, you'll bet your ass it's a personal issue. Tax cuts + huge spending increases are a tax on future generations. \_ STARVE THE BEAST!%@@666!# \_ Yeah, I am kind of worried that taxes on my 401k are going to be huge when I try and withdraw them. I don't really know what to do about it though. Start an offshore account? \_ they are thinking about doing a Roth 401K. |
2005/5/30-6/1 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:37887 Activity:high |
5/30 dear motd probate lawyer, an elderly woman who lived in an expensive house dies, leaving two surviving sons, brother X and brother Y. After her death it turns out that several years before, brother X got her to sign over the deed to the house to his name in exchange for some money that was worth less than 10% of the value of the house. no one else in the family knew about this and everyone assumed she still owned the house at the time of her death. People suspect that coercion or trickery was involved but there is no proof. The brothers don't get along but the mother had a good relationship with both and there is no possibility that it was her intent to "cut off" brother Y from owning his share of the house. Does brother Y have any legal recourse? -clueless about legal stuff \_ this is pretty sad. I assume you're Y. You can take X to the court of course, but you have no evidence of coercion, and basically, you have no case. You might be tempted to talk to lawyers and many will take up your weak case without telling you what your real chances are, since they just want to take your money (trust me, many lawyers will tell you what YOU want to hear and take you for a ride). Trust me, my grandpa left several estates back in my country and my dad, who thought he was close to his dad, only got 20 acres of tea farm while my old uncle (the oldest son, who never talks to my grandpa), got EVERYTHING. But this is in Asia and the oldest son always gets everything, and there's nothing you can do. Anyways, let's examine your case. If you really had a good relationship with your mom, and if she's not senile or stupid to be tricked, then she would surely have consulted with you in regard to the transfer of deed. The fact that she didn't tell anyone, is an indication that 1) she really favored X for whatever reason, like being the oldest son, etc and 2) she didn't want to hurt your feelings. If this is the case maybe it's time to reflect back and see that perhaps, perhaps you weren't as close to her as you originally thought. And if she was indeed coerced, then I'd just take this as an expensive lesson in life, because seriously, your case is just weak. It's a cold world out there and it's all about survival of the fittest, and it's clear to me that X is the one who's more fit, you're weak. I'm sorry, I wish you luck. \_ Sorry but you're totally clueless. This isn't "the old country" where you come from. Judges here 'tend' to apply common sense to cases when allowed to by law. See below for a much more useful answer as it applies in the US. In short, the cheated son should consult a few lawyers, compare notes, and decide from there. This sort of thing is very common unfortunately and can be invalidated by a judge quite easily if they choose to do so. From the OP's description there was clear intent to defraud the mother and other heirs. \_ I'm not a lawyer yet, but some things I think you need to find out about are: (1) Was the contract between mom and X for the sale of the home in writing? - If not, mom's estate may be able to void the the contract b/c the statute of frauds. (2) How educated was mom in relation to X and was mom in decent health, &c. when the contract was made? - If mom wasn't very well educated or was sick, &c. it might be possible to void the contract b/c of a lack of capacity/unconscionability since the price was so low (by itself the low price probably is not sufficient to void the contract, and I'm guessing that you won't be able to find evidence of coercion/duress). (3) Did X record his deed? - If so, it will hard to invalidate the transfer from mom to X. (4) Did mom live in the home (or rent it out and keep the rent) after she "sold" it to X? - If so, mom's estate can argue that the deed to X is ineffective b/c mom did not have an intent to convey the property to X. (5) If mom lived in the house or rented it out, (i) did she do w/ X's possession and (ii) how long did she do it? - Mom's estate might have a claim of adverse possession. Notes/Assumptions: (a) I'm guessing that mom didn't have a will or her will didn't cover the house or what to do w/ unidentified property interests. (b) The deed from mom the X didn't impose any conditions on X that X might have violated thus forfeiting his claims. (c) There might be a statute of limitations problem w/ (1) and and (2) if the sale happened a long time ago. (d) Unless Y is the executor/receiver of mom's estate, I don't think that Y can sue X directly for (1) and (2), however Y probably can sue for (4) and (5) directly think that Y can sue X directly for (1) and (2). \_ Anyone with an interest can sue. \_ My contracts class was a mess but I'm pretty sure that for a 3d party, like Y, to sue on a contract theory (#1 and #2) they will need to show that there were an assignee or a 3d party beneficiary. It doesn't look like mom assigned her rights under the contract to Y, so Y would have to argue that he was a 3d party beneficiary under the contract to Y, so Y would probably have to argue that he was a 3d party beneficiary (possible, but hard) of the contract in order to sue on his own, which is why I said that Y probably can't sue X directly. \_ This isn't a contracts issue. It is fraud and probate. It is also defrauding the IRS since I'm sure the son who stole the house didn't pay taxes on his instant 10x profit on the difference between what he 'paid' and the fair market value of the house. \_ This isn't a contracts issue. It is fraud and probate. It is also defrauding the IRS since I'm sure the son who stole the house didn't pay taxes on his instant 10x profit on the difference between what he 'paid' and the fair market value of the house. \_ AFAIK, there are multiple issues here. (1) Y wants to rescind the contract for sale between mom and X which means Y needs standing under a contract theory. If fraud was involved in the formation of the contract for the sale of the home, then the contract is generally voidable by the parties. I don't think there are enough facts to show fraud, misrepresentation, &c.; incapacity and unconsionability are probably better theories. theory. (2) There may or may not be a probate issue separate from the contract issue - did mom actually transfer an interest to X and did mom get and interest via adv possession? (3) There may not be a tax fraud issue if 10% of fmv is close to the state assessed value of the house. (e) I think that Y can sue directly for (4) and (5) b/c mom would have retained a property interest that (assuming the will did not deal with explictly) may have passed in part to Y. BTW, is this for real? It sounds more like an exam question. \_ Yes, this is a real case, and yes, it's pretty sad. I'm not Y (though I can see why people might assume that) but he's someone I care about and I appreciate the advice so far. I guess the first reply mirrors the kind of worry I have about lawyers pressing for a case when there's no case there, which would waste a lot of money, and more importantly, cause a lot of unnecessary stress. Then again, i don't see this as weak versus strong (and there is no "survival" involved). what's "strong" about cheating an old woman? but of course I'm biased. The mom did live in the house until she died. Apparently after selling the house she told a friend of hers it was one of her "biggest regrets". The rest of the questions I don't have answers for right now. -op an old woman? (I know, I'm biased). The mom did live in the house until she died without paying rent. Apparently after selling the house she told a friend of hers it was one of her "biggest regrets". The rest of the questions I don't have answers for right now. -op \_ If mom lived in the home rent free, it would strengthen #4, but it might cause you a problem with adv possession (esp if mom knew she had sold it). If you answer #1 or #2 as yes, then you might have a case and should probably see a real lawyer and see what they think. If the plan is to sell the home, you might be able to get the lawyer to take the case on contingency that Y wins and gets an interest. \- It seems to be the strongest thing to focus on is the sham sale, given that it was not anywhere near market value. Otherwise that would be a way to get around tax laws. I think you may be able to attack that way. If you hire your kid to mow the lawn so he is eleiglbe for your "corporate education program" where you pay for his college and then you claim that as a business expense, something fishy is probably going on. etc. \- It seems to be the strongest thing to focus on is the sham sale, given that it was not anywhere near market value. Otherwise that would be a way to get around tax laws. I think you may be able to attack that way. If you hire your kid to mow the lawn so he is eleiglbe for your "corporate education program" where you pay for his college and then you claim that as a business expense, something fishy is probably going on. etc. \_ The "sham" sale may not be the best thing to focus on: (1) The fact that the sale price was 10% of fmv is inconclusive b/c family members often sell land to each other at below fmv in order to keep the property tax low (in sj there are homes the city values at $200K for property tax but fmv ~ $1.2e6, a sale at $200K would be ~ 17% of fmv but still legit) \_ My understanding is that property values are re-assessed whenever a property changes ownership, so it doesn't matter if the sale price was x% of fair market value. (2) Unless there is conclusive proof for the sale, X can claim that the money he gave his mom was a gift and that she made a separate gift of the home. \_ BZZZT! Gifts are limited to $11k per person without getting nailed by the IRS. \_ Even if X had to pay the tax it is probably on the assessed value (in CA generally less than the fmv) so claiming it is a gift maybe pretty good for X. \_ There is a large exemption called the unified tax credit which everyone uses when gifting houses. (3) Y may not have standing to sue under the contract. Best thing OP can do is to get more info and then go see a real lawyer. \- yes, i understand this happens, i understand the law and tax enforcement people dont spend a lot of resources rooting this out, but i image it is not legal ... just like a business is supposed to be in the business of making money if it is to be treated as such for tax reasons. \_ I am aware of a situation where a 'family friend' bought a house from an old widow for quite a bit less than it was worth. Someone involved in the process (attorney, realtor, or accountant - I have forgotten) noticed the unusually low sale price. The transaction was rescinded by a court after they found the woman mentally incompetent. The house went on the market with the stipulation that the 'family friend' could not bid on it for something like 30 days. It ended up selling for $70K over asking, which was like double what the 'friend' had offered. He was not the winning bidder. This happened in CA. |
2005/5/20-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:37778 Activity:nil |
5/20 These obscure and complicated US tax laws are really annoying. I just discovered that this 5-bagger stock (crxl: $3.67-$19) I bought is classified as PFIC (passive foreign investment company). I would presume the law is made for foreign mutual funds but unfortunately, it also hits foreign biotech companies with lots of raised cash, but little earnings. So now instead of a capital gains rate, I have to pay an income tax rate on gains. Not only that, I also have to pay interest penalties to IRS, unless I pay tax on unrealized capital gains every year. WTF?! Now I am faced with two "choices": (1) Spend many hours to visit an accountant (TurboTax doesn't deal with PFIC satisfactorily), file an amended tax return, emails and phone calls to crxl to get the needed information to complete the tax forms, in order to pay like $6000 additional tax payment, and file election forms every year in the future as long as I own the stock. (2) Pretend I didn't know the company is a PFIC and not do anything, and just pay the capital gains rate when I actually sell. Choice (2) just seem so much more attractive. I mean, first, the spirit of the law should not be applied to biotech stocks, and second, why does IRS make it so complicated and time consuming, and so much work to pay them additional taxes. PFIC tax laws: link:tinyurl.com/ajptl Anyone has any experience dealing with PFICs? \_ Just do (2). If the IRS sends you a bill for the remainder just pay that. The cost of dealing with this on your own, i.e. the cost of hiring an acountant/tax attorney can be deducted, however... With the IRS being as emasculated today under the Bush administration, I think they'll just be happy to receive a check... \_ Thanks. I "transferred" (sold and rebought) the stock from my regular account to my Roth/IRA accounts. I decided to take a tax hit now (or rather, next year) rather than let this tax issue fester while I continue to hold on to the stock. |
2005/4/16-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:37221 Activity:kinda low |
4/15 Teresa Heinz's 2004 return: $2,338,000 primarily from dividends and interest $2,777,000 in tax-exempt interest income from state, municipal and other bonds. Total fed tax: $750,000 Effective rate: 14.7% \_ How would you factor in the fact that she's subsidizing state, municipal, and other debt at a lower rate than would be earned by putting the money elsewhere? |
2005/4/15-17 [ERROR, uid:37212, category id '18005#5.74719' has no name! , , Reference/Tax] UID:37212 Activity:moderate 57%like:37210 |
4/15 Cheney's 2004 return: (Mr. and Mrs.) AGI: $1,734,373 Taxable income: $1,328,678 Total fed tax: $393,518 Effective fed tax rate: 22.7% \_ You're looking in the wrong place. Check out how much cash is going past taxes to Haliburton so it can continue to pump cash into Cheny so he can fund schools to eliminate original thought. http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html \_ So Cheney is the real evil, not Bush? More than twice the AGI, yet lower effective tax rate. \_ The Cheney's contributed more to charities, I think. Also, Lynn "Makes Hillary Look like a Girl Scout" Cheney made a lot of money off books. \_ Money made off writing books aren't taxable income? \_ Nah, just saying Lynn made more than Laura. \_ 40% of Cheney's profit from Halliburton goes to Univ Wyoming (his home town), 40% goes to GW University's medical faculty, and 20% goes to private and religious schools: http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html |
2005/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:37210 Activity:low 57%like:37212 |
4/15 Dubya's 2004 Federal tax numbers: AGI: $784219 Taxable income: $672788 Total tax: $207307 Effective (not marginal) tax rate: 26.43% \_ Is he still considered a TX resident so he doesn't have to pay state tax? \_ How do you get $110,000 in deductions? \_ ~$80k of charitable contributions, I think. \_ Of that, $10k for the tsunami, as far as I remember. \_ Not that hard. Buy a $2M house and finance 80% of it. Capital losses. Business losses. Depreciation on rental property. Hell, I made 1/7 of what Bush did and deducted $30K. Seems right in line. \_ No, you can only deduct the interest of up to $1M mortgage. I suppose you can just buy a $10M house and deduct the property tax. \_ Is there a huge difference here between a $1.5M mortgage and a $1M mortgage? \_ This brings up a question; if you were the President, and wanted to paint the White House some other color, could you? \-rainbow/google coalition. \_ BLACK LIKE MY SOOOOULLLL!!!!! --rivethead |
2005/4/15 [Reference/Tax] UID:37209 Activity:high |
4/15 What could you have bought with the money spent paying taxes? \_ spent occupying Iraq Ob yermom: Nice dinner: Nice bike: .. BMW: . Hummer: Condo: . Third-world country: BA House: None, because after I paied my taxes I have nothing left. \_ Isn't this the same as ob yermom? Cute petite chick with big natural boobs: . \_ Rent or buy? \_ Buy. I don't like sharing chicks. |
2005/4/15-16 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37206 Activity:low |
4/15 Just curious, anyone pay use tax on the ca state return for internet purchases? \_ Yes, I wrote in I spent $500 on out-of-state purchases for both 2003 and 2004 tax years. $41 in taxes for being in L.A. County. \_ No I don't. \_ No. \_ Statistically speaking, no. |
2005/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:37203 Activity:insanely high |
4/15 So does anyone object to the so-called (love those names) "fair tax"? Replacing all federal tax with a 23% sales tax? \_ Poll, Yes: ........ no: \_ Worst. Idea^H^H^H^HTroll. Ever. \_ If you're rich, you love it. \_ No seriously, why would you believe this? \_ Uh, because they could accumulate wealth unhindered by ANY taxation. How much does any one person need to spend in a year, even to live (VERY) well? a few hundred thousand? so you pay the tax on that amount of consumption, and the rest is gravy. \_ So what? \_ So, because you're wealthy you get to enjoy the freedoms and protection of this country while paying less into this country than everyone around you. That sounds fair? \_ Are you seriously suggesting that the rich, under either a sales tax or under the current system, somehow pay "less into this country" than the poor? 40% of Americans pay NO income tax at all, and the top 20% pay over 80%. \_ Yes. Under a sales tax, the rich would pay less than they currently do, and far less proportionally to the rest of the people. That 40%, under a flat tax, would pay pretty much 23% in your sales tax. A person in the top 20% can afford to save and invest. They would be hard pressed to spend their entire $250k or so on sales-taxable goods. They would pay a far lower percentage of their income in this tax. Are you intentionally being daft? \_ Don't change the subject. You didn't say "paying a lower percentage of their income into this country". You said "paying less into this country". That's very different. \_ And you're an obtuse little bitch. In a discussion like this, the "fairness" point pretty much always refers to proportions. DUMBFUCK troll. \_ consider that roughly 25% of the population is below the age of 15 (2000 census numbers). Are you including all those newborns and kids who can barely get a work permit (at least in CA)? \_ He is talking about top 20% of taxpayers, not about kids and unemployed. --dim \_ You are just making up numbers now. No way does the top 20% pay over 80% of all taxes. \_ http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm Top 20% pays 81.4% of federal income taxes. Top 1% pays 38.8% alone. If you include payroll taxes, the share of the top 20% drops to 60.8%. However, you can see following the chart that the least wealthy 60% also only have 5% of the wealth. --dim \_ Compare the pre-tax income shares versus the federal tax share. It's very slightly progressive. Note that this was in 2000. Now that comparison is basically flat. For all intents and purposes, W has given y'all the flat tax y'all wanted. We'll see how long until it all crumbles.. \_ wtf? You didn't know that? You better be some bored undergrad. \_ Since the rich don't pay less than less wealthy, you're full of shit. Since "wealthy" is undefinable, you're just arguing that THEY SHOULD GIVE MORE, WAHHH! Shut the fuck up you retard. \_ This is about as incoherent as you could get. We're talking about proportions, not absolute values, you twat. \_ Here's a nice game to play with your friends. Go ask them "do you think the rich should pay more in taxes". Then ask them "what percentage of all taxes should the top 20% of taxpayers pay?" Then have some fun asking them to reconcile their answers to these two questions. \_ We don't all have stupid friends. The larger issue here is that it will be very dangerous for us as a country when a substantial fraction of the electorate pays no taxes (40% now) and thus realizes they can vote in any government program (say, prescription drug benefit) without having to pay a dime for it. \_ Yeah, it would be much better to tax them into the debtors' prisons. We could have so much cheap labor if we could bring those back. Those people who you see as freeloading are the ones who make the economy happen. They spend their paychecks like good consumers. They produce the goods that they turn around and buy. Without generous exemptions on a sales tax for the lower end, our economy would grind to a halt. \_ Don't put up the strawman of debtor's prisons. My point is that I feel it is bad public policy to have a substantial fraction of the population pay no income tax. \_ you're right. So what are you doing to increase their income? -tom \_ Because the amount of money you spend on taxable items becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of your income the more money you make. A person making $1 million might have a $100K car, whereas a person making $50K might have a $25K car, for instance. \_ So what? \_ So that's why a sales tax is a regressive tax. \_ Are you insane? A $50K/yr schlub can't affort a $25K car. \_ Well, actually -- if you have a decent credit rating, you can buy a $25k honda with only a $3-4k down. The payments might be rough, but financing over 48-60mos makes this very reasonably affordable. Welcome to the real world, son. \_ Wow, you're a DUMBFUCK. Are you the same DUMBFUCK from yesterday? \_ $25K barely buys a Honda Civic EX these days. Plenty of people making that kind of salary drive $25K cars whether or not you think they can afford to. Let's change it to $90K salary and $40K car then (real numbers from BMW). Same difference. \_ With that logic who the fuck can buy a house. It's called LOANS. \_ "Reagan's 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act is recognized as the most significant tax policy change in modern history. The bill significantly reduced the marginal income tax by roughly 25 percent over a three-year period, lowering the top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, the bottom from 14 percent to 11 percent." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/issues/issue_taxes.html Proportionally, Reagan still beats Bush. Why aren't you guys bitching at him instead of Bush? I know why. Because Reagan is good looking and charming and irresistable ON TV. \_ And, uhm, not the current president for almost 20 years. \_ The fact that he's no longer President never seems to stop the Republicans from blaming everything bad on Clinton. \_ Oh that's easy. Clinton is an unperson. Reagan is our Glorious Hero. Get it straight, Comrade. \_ Reagan was a cold warrior; shouldn't that be 'Citizen'? \_ I'm in favor. I think our current tax code is broken and far too cumbersome. For an income tax, I'm against flat income tax. \_ Since the poor currently pay a fairly small percentage of their income in taxes, how would you reconcile that with the new system? Either you just accept you're giving the poor a massive tax hike, or you need some system of exemptions, deductions or refunds and you're right back to everyone having to file taxes again. \_ One way is to tax more heavily on luxury items and waive tax on essentially items. \_ The plan is for an automatic rebate to cover the taxes up to a floor level of consumption. Such a rebate is nothing like the current income tax situation. the current income tax situation. And it means that it's possible that the rebate ends up being more than some people actually pay in taxes. Also, wealthy people do consume more; they don't just sit on their cash and live like a poor sap. It's not a massive tax hike when you consider the massive overall benefits to the economy. \_ The wealthy consume more, but on different things and in a different way. As a percentage of income and net worth they consume far less. Most wealthy people I know bought a lot of property, which contributes to property taxes but not to the IRS. Lots of money also does get 'sat on' in the form of investments. \_ What happens when you buy a $500k house? Pay $115k tax? \_ But there's nothing wrong with that. We should only "tax the rich" to support the poor to a minimum extent. Rich people make investments, fine... they help create jobs and eventually money gets used on end products and services. They hire contractors, buy fancy stuff for their houses, etc. The level of consumption in the country is fairly stable and the proposed numbers provide for a scenario where both poor and rich are less taxed, and are better able to manage their own savings by being frugal. Personally, I'm not "poor" at 90k salary but I've had really low consumption all my working days so I'd be way better off. A consumption tax would encourage savings which economists say is sorely needed in this country. \_ What happens when you buy a $500k house? Pay $115k tax? \_ There is no sales tax on real estate and there is no tax levied by the Feds. I assume this would remain unchanged. \_ "Fair tax" is stupid. If you don't like progressive tax and want "fairness", let's just not pay any tax at all. That would make it fair. |
2005/4/15-16 [Reference/Tax] UID:37202 Activity:kinda low |
4/15 Happy tax day. \_ April is the cruelest month. \_ When my first company was located on Shattuck, we had an outing where on every April 15th at around 11pm, we grabbed donuts and coffee and headed down to the post office on Allston and watched procrastinators rushing to mail the forms. A lot of them wore suits and looked like accountants. We cheered and applauded and they usually liked it. \_ That sounds pretty entertaining, actually. \_ It makes sense to file at the last possible minute if you owe money. \_ I get a net refund every year, yet I still procrastinate. \_ InktomiP \_ No. Geoworks. |
2005/4/14-15 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:37194 Activity:high |
4/14 So it seems like TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities) are the safest bonds to buy. It doesn't seem like they're at all affected by market conditions (bad or good), and they have a guaranteed rate of return after inflation (CPI adjustments). So what's the catch? Is the only downside of this tiny risk investment a tiny post-inflation yield of ~ 1.8%? Anyone with experience? I think I can buy these direct from the government, too. Thanks! \_ AFAIK the low yield is the drawback. \_ well, yes, the catch is you can get better rates elsewhere. for example, top cd rates today are rather higher than the comparable TIPS rate. if inflation were to go crazy, TIPS could be a better deal. but otherwise... \_ Over the last few years interest rates have dropped below that of inflation. While inflation rates weren't "crazy," lots of fixed income households were hurt. TIPS is supposed to solve this. \_ If you can count on the government to report inflation accurately. I don't think you can, personally. \_ So if Dubya's people say CPI is overstating inflation and manage to drop the CPI calculations by 1 or 2 points, I get screwed right? \_ Hey, maybe one of those Bush guys took Econ 100b! "The CPI overstates rates of price increase by 1/2 to 1.5 percent per year (and the GDP deflator has similar biases)." http://csua.org/u/bpg \_ Which leads us back to Social Security which uses the CPI to determine how much to increase payouts. Messing with the CPI means messing with SS. Neat stuff, huh? \_ You know, when it shows up in Econ 100b, it's probably not a controversial issue whether the CPI overstates or not. So, the question is would you prefer to run Social Security based on a CPI you know is faulty, or would you prefer to run it based on something that economists can agree is more realistic. \_ It showed up in Jan 1996 lecture notes. I believe CPI calculations have already been adjusted downwards since then. The question is, well, how accurate is it now? \_ Well, apparently Greenspan is still pushing for using a chained CPI, which was recommended by the Boskin Commission back in 1996. \_ Makes sense. You need a big gun opposite Greenspan to challenge him. Otherwise, he's probably right on that point. \_ There have been a lot of arguments that the CPI _under_estimates inflation. I think overall it is probably a decent number if people argue both ways. \_ The catch is, as far as I can tell, that you have to pay taxes on the increased value of the bond when it adjusts, which sucks. From http://www.kiplinger.com/basics/archives/2002/11/story14.html "Another caveat: If you buy TIPS directly from the Bureau of Public Debt you're liable for federal taxes on the inflation adjustment, even though it's not a cash payout. That's in addition to the tax you must pay on the interest income. (You don't pay state or local income tax on Treasuries.) For that reason, it's best to hold TIPS in a tax-deferred or nontaxable account, such as an IRA." |
2005/4/13-15 [Reference/Tax] UID:37185 Activity:moderate |
4/13 http://tinyurl.com/4bzl9 This is gonna make the Gates' kids, Walton kids, and Paris Hilton very very happy. \_ Like it matters. If you're as rich as Gates etc. you would have already figured out ways to let the next generation inherit your property with minimal taxation. The people who are going to benefit the most probably are medium rich people, people with assets between 2-10 million bucks. \_ why do you hate rich people? \- gates is a bad example in this case. --psb \_ Why is he a bad example? \_ It also makes people who care about the principle happy. -emarkp \_ Which principle is that? Getting rid of all taxes and just borrowing money indefinitely? \_ I'm sure you're capable of thinking of one. I'll leave the exercise to the anonymous troll. -emarkp \_ I sure like to see the IRS get a chunk of wealth from the super rich to finance social programs that benefits me and my family, but what justification is there to tax them when a father passes his wealth to his son while there is no business activity or employment involved? \_ I had to pay a ton of AMT taxes on virtual wealth I no longer have. The question is, which taxes do you want to raise to compensate for the loss of tax revenue to make up for the money we will no longer be getting from rich dead people. Small businesses and family farms are already protected, so the "passes his wealth to his son" argument is bogus. \_ How are family farms already protected? \_ 1. Rich dead people don't necessarily pay tax when they were alive. People who simply hold on to a lot of money don't (and shouldn't) pay tax. Only people who use that big money to generate income does (and should) pay tax. 2. Do you mean which tax we raise comes down to which tax the majority of people want to raise, rather than which tax is justified to be raised? \_ What about the gift tax? \_ Also immoral and socialist. |
2005/4/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Tax] UID:37166 Activity:nil |
4/13 Yahoo! News - "At tax time, lots of money under table": http://csua.org/u/bog The evaded tax is "equal to 75 percent of the annual budget deficit, two-thirds of Defense Department spending, or what the US spends on Medicare in a year." |
2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:37082 Activity:moderate |
4/5 So it begins. Welcome to the culture of death: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/43933.htm \_ Big churches esp. Catholic, gives me this image of having a lot of clout like the ones mafias have. I would think that if pro-lifers seriously want her to live, [weathly] Churches like the ones in Utah would have no problem coming up with Save-a-Shiavo campaign. In addition, it would be a great public relationship stunt. The fact that none of the Churches offered a penny or had not organized any visible and successful campaign, shows you that either they don't give a damn, or that they're not as powerful as GodFather the movie portrays them to be. -troll \_ WHY is it anyone not talking about bolemia and anorexia and other things that could have prevented Shiavo's death in the first place? I mean, an ounce of prevention is... you know. \_ i for one welcome our new culture of death overlords. \_ "Hail Death!" \_ How much of your tax money would you like to go toward keeping ABD (all but dead) people alive? Would you rather that money went toward schools or prenatal care? How much of your income would you like to pay in taxes? As for me, if I am ABD, take the money and buy immunizations for the poor, and let me drop dead. --PeterM \_ The *real* question is *who* decides which people are ABD. \_ Who do you think is deciding now? If you disagreed in Schiavo's case, it was the doctors who decided she was hopeless, and her guardian chose to end extraordinary measures. That seems the right way to me. \_ It is long past time for us as a society to have this discussion. I worked in a hospital and I used to watch doctors do stupid and expensive procedures on people who were obviously in their last few months of life. \_ And I've seen doctors not give a shit about whether someone lives or dies. They're the ones we're bowing down to. \_ Where did you see a doctor like that? I worked in two different hospitals for a total of 4 years and I never saw anything close to resembling what you are describing. \_ Radiation Oncology. \_ This makes the case for a serious conversation about how to handle these cases even more compelling. \_ We've always been a culture of death. Even those expousing the "Culture of Life" are enamored by death and have fetishized their beliefs to the point of ridiculousness. |
2005/4/5-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Tax] UID:37075 Activity:high |
4/5 Pope JP2's death reminds me of Ronald Reagan's death. I don't agree with most of Reagan's policies and in fact I think they're stupid. Tax break for the super wealthy, military spending explosion, aggressive [redneck] foreign policies, etc. However, when he's on camera he's so nice looking and charming and I just can't help it liking him. Ditto with JP2. I don't agree with b-control and other crap JP2 says but I still like him for some reason. \_ A tax cut that moved the highest bracket from 70% to 28%. 70%!!?! How did we ever allow that? It's immoral! \_ You shouldn't tax the rich, they CREATE jobs and equal opportunity for everyone! Just look at Microsoft, WalMart, and Dell! Every employee looks so happy and they REALLY believe in their company! Let's all turn America into one big happy corporate family. Yeah! \_ You're being dense. Nobody's arguing against taxing "the rich" (what the hell kind of dumbshit stupid, ill-educated American fat-buttocked Fox viewer demagoguery is that, anyway?) The point is that taking 70% of a person's earnings is, besides being counter-productive (as it removes the motivation to excel, etc. etc.) is just theft. Please stop it with the "anyone who argues against fleecing teh r1ch is a bloated plutocrat pig, workers of the world unite!" horse shit, it's unworthy. -John \_ According to your argument, any tax at all is "theft." What is the difference between taxing at 70% and 50%? 50% and 20%? Do you think that all taxes should be abolished because they are "theft"? Why not? What is magical about 70%? Plenty of countries tax at a marginal 70% rate and somehow manage to muddle through. \_ I believe that any tax taken, regardless of rate, by a government that does not do its utmost to use its citizens' money responsibly and conservatively is theft. Nowhere from my statement can you infer that I belive "any tax at all is theft". Furthermore, while there is a large gray area, there comes a point at which taxation is oppressive. I maintain that, once more of your earnings are taken from you as taxes than go to you, a boundary of what is reasonable has been crossed. And I believe you used the magic word, "muddle". Is that something to strive for? -John \_ Microsoft has made a lot of very ordinary Americans very wealthy. \_ The Waltons were smarter than Gates, they made sure their money didn't leak out as in the case of M$. \_ It is inhumane to tax the super rich. Imagine the pain Paris Hilton has to go through when she can only afford to buy a BMW 740i instead of a Ferrari Testarosa, or the suffering of George W. Bush when he can only play at a cheapo 4 star golf course instead of a full fledged 5 star golf course. It's simply unusual and cruel punishment. \_ It doesn't even cause that. They still afford what they want. \_ Don't forget Paris resorted to making herself a porn in order to afford a BMW 740i. That's cruel punishment. \_ Do you not understand how marginal tax rates work? \_ Yes I do. A 70% marginal rate is immoral. \_ What a strange and twisted version of ethics you must have. \_ I could argue it's immoral to allow billionares to exist when there are people starving. \_ It's immoral to allow my neighbor to own a Ferrari when I only drive an Audi. What the fuck kind of argument is this? Spawning season on planet thick? -John \_ Having to drive an Audi is not very much like starving to death. Your analogy is flawed. \_ Of course it's flawed, it's downright silly. Now tell me where exactly the line is. Until then you have no argument. And from whom should we expropriate assets to feed all these people? Billionaires? Millionaires? Over $500k? $100k? Yes it sucks that there's poverty and starvation and hurt and whatnot and we should all do what we can, but please, do give me a working model that relies on a Robin Hood approach. -John \_ Just because I cannot give you an exact answer without further experimentation doesn't mean that no experiment is worth doing. Sweden is a pretty good working model, I would say. So are Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy and even Switzerland. \_ I am going to guess that you subscribe to the utopian ideals of Europe and Canada instead of witnessing the realities. \_ No, I have been to all these countries. Canada and The Netherlands are especially nice. \_ Holland *USED* to be nice. My mother was born there and lived there until 16. All the rest of her family is still there. They used to always make fun of how bad things like education, crime, and medicine were in the US. Now, many of them are shopping for houses here in the US. It's not nice like it once was. The system is collapsing. \_ Sweden has been haemorrhaging educated professionals for years who forsake it for the UK (!) and its lower taxes. All Scandinavian countries have massive immigration problems, and can't cope (as the rest of Europe) with their overburdened welfare systems. Switzerland has way lower taxes and stingy welfare, and will face the same problems. You're right about "it's worth trying something". But blind truisms about redistribution of wealth at the expense of "the rich" isn't it. Some people will always simply be wealthier than others--life isn't fair; you cannot enforce uniform economic equality. -John \_ No one is arguing for enforced equality. That is a straw man you made up to avoid talking about the real issue: what is a fair top marginal rate. You claim that 70% is immoral, but have provided no evidence as to why that is so, other than your feelings. Sweden is doing fine economically actually, much better than the rest of Europe. And "the line" to answer your previous question, is that point where society provides enough resources to keep anyone from starving to death. I don't think it is too much to ask from those who are the primary beneficiaries of that same society. \_ OK. To be honest, I would add "a roof over everyone's head" and even "education" to that mix. I simply massively criticize the extreme polemicization of the idea of forced redistribution--i.e. the systematic fleecing of "the rich" rather than a decent tax system (which nobody's arguing against.) Governments are massively inefficient organizations, and it's wrong to use the classic European welfare states as examples of how to do things right--they have been either stagnant or coming apart at the seams. Yes, Holland is nice, but as a visitor don't let utopian visions cloud your impressions. I spend a lot of time in W. Europe and the UK, and there are too many problems to elaborate on, a lot of them caused by over-bureaucratization and crazy government taxation & fiscal intervention. -John intervention. Oh yeah, and as for Sweden, you've probably read the Rijksbank report. Look at http://tinyurl.com/6ut95 too. -John \_ Communist! Seriously, by American standards you are some kind of loonie liberal. liberal. I have no doubt that bad government is bad. I see lots of bureaucratic bungling in San Francisco, and we have much less to work with than they do in the Scandanavian countries. But the solution to this is to make the government institutions more efficient. The Swedes seem to like their government just fine, so they must be doing something right. Thanks for the link, btw, I had not seen that. http://csua.org/u/bm1 (The Economist) Sweden is the second fastest growing economy on that list. And if you go by GDP/capita, which is what really matters to a person, they rival the US. It's growing quickly, the quality of life is great, and according to many _/ economic indicators, they're just dandy. However, this relies on adherence to a social contract which is slowly coming apart, cultural homogeneity (ditto), and enough people working to keep up the fun (ditto.) Economic excellence, entrepreneurship, and personal mobility seem disparaged (i.e. don't get above your station, sit around having smiling blond babies.) Same in many European countries. The Swedes (except for aforementioned educated professionals who are fleeing in droves to avoid taxes) love it, which is great. This model would not work in many other places--note how high taxes, bureaucracy and govt. inefficiency have just about destroyed the German economy--and frankly it frightens me just a bit. And yes I probably am a bit of a commie in some respects--I think that (a) I deserve quality and accountability for _my_ $$$, and (b) it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg. -John \_ I would argue that the massive deficits of the USA give a false sense of economic health. \_ please do. \_ that's not very Randian of you \_ Or very Jeffersonian. \_ "The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands ... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785 \_ He was referring to land, which is truly a limited resource. \_ So would you agree to cut taxes on one's primary home, and ramp up tax rates on 2nd, 3rd homes etc? Currently we have the opposite. The tax situation is better on a 2nd investment home and there's no limits. \_ Sounds reasonable to me. -pp \_ Just cut down on Asian immigration. They're like the Jews in the 30s, buying up cheap land (Silicon Valley land is cheap relative to expensive Tokyo and HK properties) and screwing up us natives. Go final solution! \_ Somehow I doubt you're a "native" \_ Price per sq ft living space in SF is going to beat HK soon. \_ Don't forget the previous paragraph to his letter: (I am talking about "people starving" vs. billionaires and morality, not necessarily Jefferson's views on an income tax) "As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her. ... As we had walked together near a mile and she has so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. ... This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal ision of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe." \_ "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied ... We shall soon see the final extinction of our national debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defense and improvement of our country. These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich. ... The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." \_ Look, the Gov't should never get more of my income than I do. That's simple enough. \_ the government didn't get 70% of anyone's income. Get a clue. -tom \_ I am sure it did happen. Why not? \_ Of the income in the bracket. Are you sure no one ever had an effective tax rate of >50%? \_ My overall tax rate, including state and federal was about 40% in 2000, so I would not be surprised at all if someone had a 50%+ rate at some point when the tax rate was higher. \_ Don't forget to add 8% sales tax, > 50% gas taxes,\ etc, etc. \_ Don't forget to add 8% sales tax, > 50% gas taxes, etc, etc. \_ They were both previously actors. \_ Ah-nold! \- As I have said many times, this is really at core a conversation about "what we owe each other". Well, there are other ways to formulate the core question, but it isnt a conversation about tax policy alone. You might want to for example google for "wilt chamberlain, nozick, liberty upsets patterns". I dont have a problem with people being wealthy and in general a very asymmetric distribution of wealth. And I also dont think you can do much about say the wealthy having better health care than the avg person. But in certain areas, we can do something about keeping a level playing field or try to have a "floor". While the Nozick view about voluntary contribution to Wilt -> nobody can complain when he is rich, is complelling, these claims that spending money = free speech liberty in a political context, so there should not be any limits on campaing spending seems iffy and other areas where the state can do something about buying influence [like say legacy considerations in college admissions, buying organs etc.]. And if you do want to tlk about tax policy, let's look at what people actually pay rather than one number, the highest marginal tax rate. \_ Although I agree 70% is way too high, there should definitely be market controls to regulate the free market (not necessarily taxes). I believe a "completely" free Market will eventually lead to a caste society with a limited middle class. The gap in pay between average workers and large company CEOs surpassed 300-to-1 in 2003, but in 1982, it was just 42-to-1. Annual pay was $26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average large company CEO received compensation totaling $8.1 million in 2003, up 9.1% from the previous year. The average worker took home $517 in their weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took home $155,769 in their weekly pay.If the minimum wage had increased as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour, more than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. http://tinyurl.com/5tc4t \_ Are you stupid? EVERYONE knows that the wealth gap is increasing disproportionally esp. in the US and everyone knows that the current Reagan-worshipping administration doesn't really give a damn. You don't need to spend 10 million dollars on formal inquiries to find out if Clinton had sex in the Whitehouse or not; it's just common knowledge. \_ Speaking of Clinton, the wage gap grew tremendously under Clinton. \- clinton didnt try to repeal the billionaire estate preservation tax. however his pardon of marc rich does give us an example of of the problems that can be avoided. \_ Does it ever shrink? Did it grow more under Clinton or under Bush? \_ i believe more under Clinton, but he had a booming economy for 7+ years. \_ As wages have DROPPED under bush, this whole point has a definite apples-to-oranges feel. \_ This is simply not true. The poorest quintile's share of national income grew under Clinton. Unless you are talking about something else, like the average ratio\ of CEO pay to worker pay. What are you talking about? talking about something else, like the average ratio of CEO pay to worker pay. What are you talking about? \_ References please \_ google for: wage gap under clinton. here's an example: http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/dec97nnn.html \_ Here are much better statistics: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/share1.html Go look at the whole site. The top got richer, but the poor did not get poorer. It was the middle class that really took a hit under Clinton. \_ That's an odd conclusion to reach from the data there. \_ In 1992, the bottom quintile took 4.2% of the national income. In 2000, they took 4.3%. 4.3 is larger than 4.2, right? \_ I was talking about the "middle class .. took a hit" conclusion. The quintiles moved, but the data are incomplete. Did the second or fourth quintile grow? \_ http://csua.org/u/bm0 The top quintile made a bunch more and the bottom stayed the same. It should be pretty easy to figure out who is left and what happened to them. \_ Look at the full data: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html income increased for all levels through the clintotn years. Bush takes office and the bottom gets taken, the middle slows and the top keeps rising. \_ I'm all for Bush, Cheney and Co having wild & raunchy bestiality S&M orgies 24/7 in the White House if it will make my stock portfolio go back up to 2000 levels when Clinton was getting in trouble for getting his cock sucked. \_ Well you could have done *better* than 2000 had you gotten in/out of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Enron. A lot of Texans didn't get in/out of the tech era, but now they're pretty happy with the current administration. Sucks 2 b u. \_ I did fine actually, just no longer rich on paper. |
2005/4/4-5 [Reference/Tax] UID:37059 Activity:nil |
4/4 Is there a Home & Business version of TurboTax this year? There was one last year but I don't see one this year. |
2005/3/28-30 [Finance/Investment, Reference/Tax] UID:36925 Activity:moderate |
3/28 tom, can you please tell me how to invest overseas? -anon coward \_ Give all your money to John. -tom \_ come on, I'm being serious. \_ So is Tom. -John \_ Mutual funds/bond funds, of course. \_ Vanguard Pacific Stock Index Fund, Vanguard European Stock Index Fund, Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund (Disclosure (Recommendation?):) I have holdings in all of the above funds. I particularly like the Emerging Markets fund because it has been aggressively growing the percentage of the fund that is invested in China and Taiwan over the last few years. -dans \_ Thanks dans. I checked all 3 and they're available from ETrade. Is that what you're using? Also, how come I can't see any historical data? Also, what is the monthly fee I have to pay (I plan to just buy and hold for a while), and what is the tax implication on EFT? Thanks.-ok thx \_ If you're planning to buy and hold (especially for retirement), put the first $nk (I think n is currently 4 and will be 5 next year, but double check) in as your yearly IRA contribution. Unless you're planning to retire in less than a decade, you should get a ROTH IRA (pay tax now, don't pay taxes when you withdraw) as opposed to Traditional IRA (pay no taxes now, pay taxes when you withdraw). If you're investing in anything you should get a prospectus, this will include historical data. You can order a prospectus (free of charge) via Vanguard's website, and I believe you can also download a prospectus in PDF form. I don't know all the tax implications since all of the mutual funds I hold at present are retirement savings in ROTH IRA's so the tax implications are nil in my case. Otherwise, I believe that it's your standard investment taxation rules for capital gains. My holdings are directly with Vanguard. Their fees are very low compared to other long-term investment oriented firms (Charles Schwab is comparable, many supposedly premier fund firms, e.g. Oppenheimer are much higher). -dans \_ The miniscule tax advantages of a Roth IRA are not enough for me to keep numerous accounts like that. So I just max out my 401k at work. \_ So there's really not much effort involved with keeping IRA's/ROTH IRA's. From a tax standpoint, the 401k and Traditional IRA are identical. You pay no taxes now, but you pay when you withdraw your funds. The nice thing about 401k vs. IRA is that the yearly cap for 401k contributions (I think 25% of gross income) is much higher than that for IRA ($4-$5K). That said, the tax advantages of a ROTH IRA vs. Traditional IRA/401K are *huge* if you're not going to be retiring for at least a decade. ROTH IRA, you pay no taxes when you withdraw your funds which has been compounding exponentially for 30+ years. One useful trick is that after changing employers, you can rollover your 401k to a Traditional IRA, and then convert the Traditional IRA to a ROTH IRA. This allows you to have a ROTH IRA where you contributed more than the yearly IRA cap. -dans \_ $3k/yr is not much money, even over 30 years. Even if the tax difference was 25%, I don't think I would find it worthwhile to deal with the extra hassle. Unless tax rates go way up, in which case I will wish I had done what you are doing. \_ Ahem interest compounding *exponentially*. Run the numbers, what you have at the end is not chump change. And a 25% cut of $100K is 25K, which is not the kind of money I can throw around with reckless abandon. YMMV, I guess. -dans |
2005/3/25-29 [Reference/Tax] UID:36889 Activity:kinda low |
3/25 Why the hell doesn't Wal-Mart pay to have its street widened? Spending $37 million of taxpayer dollars seems stupid when Wal-Mart can easily afford it. \_ Is this a troll? They don't do it because it's not profitable. \_ Why pay for it if the government will. sounds like sound business fundamentals. \_ No shit. Why is the government subsidizing Wal-Mart? \_ Because of the income that Wal-Mart promises. Big box stores pay a nice bit of property taxes and sales tax. Plus an anchor store like WalMart attracts other businesses. There are minuses too. It's all POV. \_ it also decimates nearby businesses and pays its humans such a low wage that they need to go on\ on public assistance. its humans such a low wage that they need to go on public assistance. \_ Funny, wasn't the the whole merchant/road thing one of the main examples in The Wealth of Nations? -John \_ url? \_ It's well known that Wal-Mart is especially adept at sucking every freebie from the government it possibly can, in addition to paying their employees so little they have to rely on government services. |
2005/3/21-22 [Reference/Tax] UID:36790 Activity:moderate |
3/21 Does the TurboTax CD this year let you pirate it onto more than one machine? \_ I have it, althought I havn't tried it on another machine, I don't see anything that will prevent you from doing it... \_ Last year there was some protection scheme that prevented one from doing it. \_ I know, I didn't see anything this year. Things look normal. \_ Thanks for the info. \_ Completely unprotected. The CD contains both the PC and Mac versions and does not require you to have the CD after you have installed the program. \_ TurboTax may let you, but one might hope that your conscience may not. \_ Well, it does cost $15 to file electronically for federal; same for state. As someone else pointed out, you can always print out the forms and mail them in for the cost of postage. |
2005/3/20-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:36781 Activity:moderate |
3/20 I bought a car last year and my dealer took care of filing for title and registration. I never got an itemization for VLF fees for tax purposes but I know what the total amount paid was. Is there a way I can find out what the VLF portion is? \_ I had the same problem before. Go to DMV site and there's a number you can call to ask. I'm too lazy to go through it again now, though. Basically, just call DMV and ask. \_ Page 66 of the California 540 booklet: "Vehicle License Fees for Federal Schedule A On your federal Schedule A, you may deduct the California motor vehicle license fee listed on your Vehicle Registration Billing Notice from the Department of Motor Vehicles. The other fees listed on your billing notice such as registration fee, weight fee, and county fees are not deductible." Note: you need to subtract off any VLF Offset listed. --dbushong \_ Heh, I took the deduction, but it was kinda silly. My car VLF was $14 and my motorcycle's was $4. -jrleek \_ I also bought a new car last year. I think you can deduct the sales tax as well. But I haven't started doing my tax, so I'm not sure. \_ You can choose between deducting your state sales tax or your state income tax from your federal return (that's new this year IIRC). A new car will likely have more sales tax than your state income tax. \_ Really? I thought state income tax is around 7-8%. So unless you make less than the cost of your car, shouldn't your state income tax be greater than your car sales tax? Of course I am assuming CA tax, it does benefit if you are in a no state income tax state. \_ Yo man, my ride is hella pimpin. \_ I paid ~$14000 in interest payments on my mortgage last year, so ~$50-$100 for my VLF seemed pointless. \_ why? $100 would still mean like a $30+ check. Why throw $30 away? |
2005/3/9-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:36591 Activity:nil |
3/9 Anyone have a promotion code for a Turbotax State discount? Federal's free this year, but it'd be a shame to have to pay full price for State. \_ Promotion code? I had to pay to download. Then I submit a rebate form to cover the price. Did that last year too, probably the year before that too. Used to be it came as an .exe that you could give to your friend, but this year, they hid the download process in the interface, and I couldn't locate it on my hard drive. The "free" State comes with Deluxe, as usual. \_ I've always heard that the government save on electronic filing, by not having to scan. There are lots of free tax filing options available - why isn't turbotax filing free yet? (you already have to pay for the program, who is getting the filing charge $$?) \_ Your first federal filing (and state, with Deluxe) can be reclaimed on rebate. If you have friends or family members using the same copy of TurboTax, they need to pay - since there's only one set of rebate forms per box. \_ So it is purely a mechanism by which Intuit can charge for additional uses of one program CD? I don't like hassling with rebate forms/checks, so I just printed and emailed the taxes instead, to be done with it. But I'm annoyed that the system doesn't work more efficiently... |
2005/2/17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:36211 Activity:high |
2/17 "No, the philosophy, as I recall, was that if you earn money, you deserve it (note "earn" in the the meritocratic sense.) And are not wealthy, and don't work for money, you do not deserve it. -John" \_ ok, few Q's. 1) what if you won the lotto, is that meritocratic? 2) suppose you simply got lucky, say during the dot-com days and got 5 million dollars even though the poor bozo around you worked just as hard, is that meritocratic? 3) suppose you inherited an apartment building and all you do is you hiring someone else to manage it for you, and you get good and consistent income from that. Is that meritocratic? 4) suppose your ancestors left great wealth to you and the wealth "self-generates" with minimal input, is that meritocratic? Lastly, for each of the question, if the answer is no, should the solution be to redistribute the wealth via brute force? \_ Are you asking what John thinks, what we (other random motd posters) think or what Ayn Rand would have thought? \_ asking what everyone thinks, just a survey, not expecting a right wrong answer, just want to understand what and why you guys have certain opinions. open ended question ya know -pp \_ (1) Yes. You invested, you got lucky. Question the system if you will, not the winner's right to the money. (2) Yes. Life is not fair, sorry. If he's starving, you may take a moment to think about whether you have an ethical burden to help him or not, but this is your prerogative. (3) Yes. It's capital. It was earned at some point by someone, you received it through legal means. (4) Yes. See (3). Of course I'm ridiculously stretching the meaning of "merit", but I fail to understand the source of all the resentment directed at those with money obtained through legal means? I always thought the American ideal (compared to some wacko European marxists I know) was not "hey, he's not supposed to have that", but "hey, how can I get that as well". And if you're going to quote me, do me the favor of correcting my ass grammar, would you please? -John \_ I don't resent the wealthy. I do think that wealth reaches the point of diminishing returns fairly rapidly, and that it is better for the society for a billion dollars to be spent on, say, public health care, than for Bill Gates to be worth $51 billion instead of $50 billion. -tom \_ I don't know what the exact endowment of his foundation is, but it's accomplishing exponentially more than the same amount of money would in the hands of, say, NIH bureaucrats. Yes, if you rely on private charity you can't guarantee the flow of money from the hands of the wealthy, but it's also pretty obvious that, without the choice of what to do with the money (hence the idea of tax deductions, I guess) the money would go somewhere else (i.e. a Cayman account) pretty quickly and nobody would benefit from it. -John \_ The argument you just made--you can't tax the rich because they'll just hide the money--is a lot different than the one you started this thread with, don't you think? -tom \_ (a) I didn't start the thread, (b) I didn't say you can't tax the rich, I objected to the idea of taxing the rich out of principle (as in "because they're rich and we're not") and (c) I'm pointing out economic realities which any society trying to come up with a usable and just taxation model must consider--that enforced equality is bunk, that exorbitant taxes will be seen as theft (rightly imho but that's just a subjective opinion) and that very often private disbursal of funds is more effective than government spending. -John \_ Having read only Atlas Shrugged, I would say that Ayn Rand would reply as follows: (1) No. Lotto is theft. (2) Possibly, depends on what you did vs. what others did. Did you create value? Did your work translate into $$? Or was it plain dumb luck? (3) Yes. Capital begets capital. It's smart investment. (4) Yes. See previous. Although, given Ayn's philosophy, she would likely say for (3) and (4), that if the previous generation earned the money via superior intelligence, ability, etc., they would most likely also have trained their progeny to be "men of ability," who would be able to further the family line. Ayn believed in what John says above, and also believed that certain ppl had inherent qualities that made them "men of ability," and that they knew hard work, were intelligent and capable, and would thus naturally rise to the top in a meritocracy - a system that rewarded those who earned money, and not those who didn't. \_ I have also only read Rand's fiction, just Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I am having trouble seeing where you get (1) from. I don't remember gambling being mentioned in either book. Personally, I agree with "no. lotto is theft", but where's the evidence that Rand did? \_ Privately run lotteries would not be considered theft. Whether a publically ran lottery would be something Rand agrees with is not a question I know the answer to. In some sense the question is moot because government ran lotteries make, rather than lose, money. She certainly wouldn't say it was 'theft', she might possibly say this sort of thing lies outside the juristiction of government. -- ilyas \_ Wealth becoming concentrated in the hands of a small minority of richer and richer landlords is a phenomenon seen in the dynastic cycle of China. Usually, when a new dynasty is founded, land is redistributed to make it more equitable, and taxation would be working well, then as the years passed by, wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer number of richer and richer landlords. Wealth begets wealth and these landlords gain power and can bribe local officials or become officials themselves, and through corruption, they don't pay much taxes, and the central government starts having problem collecting taxes, and the tax burden goes increasingly to the small farmers, and the dynasty weakens and eventually fails. This phenomenon was well observed and documented in China's history and they even have a term for it. A little simplistic, and probably not entirely relevant to the modern world, but it's something to think about. \_ Very astute and accurate observation. Equally interesting is to chart out what happens to healthy economies and societies when the rabble finds that it can help itself to the wealth of its prosperous members at gunpoint in the name of democracy and equality (French revolution, Soviet revolution, Zimbabwe, Uganda under Idi Amin, etc.) -John \_ The idea is that if the problem the poster above you mentioned is not dealt with, it may eventually lead to the problem you stated. \_ Also completely accurate--however it's an fascinating to compare upheaval-type attempts to redistribute wealth to more gradual ones (viz. growth of tax systems in western countries since 1700.) \_ Yes, the gradual ones are known as 'boiling the frog.' \_ Of course, there is also a Chinese proverb that says wealth doesn't survive past 3 generations. BTW, what is the chinese term that describes the phenomenon you described? \_ I only remember the second character is "tian2" as in farm land. \_ I wonder how Marx and other various famous political theorists would respond to this question. \_ Take my girlfriend. She just got her master in human resources from a above average school. She is very capable and driven and I am sure she will do well in her career. But because she is a foreign student, doesn't have any US working experience, and also her English is not very good at all, after a few months of job search, all she got was a $47000 offer from a tiny company in the middle of nowhere. So she called up her wealthy and successful cousin who knows many wealthy and successful people, and viola, she got a $80000 job with nice annual bonuses of $20000+. Now, people say most job offers are made through networking, but do you think this is meritocratic? \_ I don't. I think networking is evil, and I don't do it professionally myself. -- ilyas \_ no wonder you don't have a job. -tom \_ isn't academia very political as well? I get to know a few people, write mediocre papers, submit to conferences in which your buddies or your professor's buddies are chairmen of, and get published? How about DARPA and NSF funding, don't professors shmooz a lot to get those funding? \_ Yes, academia is extremely political. -- ilyas \_ Yes, academia is extremely political and schmoozy. However, past a certain point, in academia (as in industry) results speak for themselves without any of the crap. -- ilyas \_ "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." -Honore de Balzac |
2005/2/2-3 [Reference/Tax] UID:36038 Activity:low |
2/2 (Re-post) Are any of you full-time grad students on fellowship at UC Berkeley? If so, I am curious how you are interpreting the info on your 1099-T. TurboTax is useless here. -- ulysses \_ I'm in grad school and got a 1098-T. I wonder what the difference is. \_ Give your copy to me if its useless to you. :) \_ I'm not sure what to do with my 1099-T here either. It doesn't seem right to not even input it into the program, or return a copy of it, but not really sure. What's even more sad though is that I asked a few people at the SD office where TurboTax is made (I'm a former employee of Intuit), and they had no clue what to do with it either. Worthless bastards. -phale |
2005/2/1 [Reference/Tax] UID:36010 Activity:nil |
2/1 Do any of the full time grad students here have a good way to work through taxes? My wife (a full time PhD candidate) just received her 1099-T and we are both at a loss as to how to determine what is taxable and what isn't. TurboTax assumes one already knows this. -- ulysses |
2005/1/31 [Reference/Tax] UID:35989 Activity:nil |
1/31 Turbotax for the Web: Worst. Tech. Support. EVAR!!!! \_ Hey it's free. Stop complaining. |
2005/1/26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35915 Activity:moderate |
1/26 Question: Currently we have a surplus of social security funds every year (i.e., more taken in from social security taxes than disbursed). I do know that the federal government spends the surplus, and leaves an IOU to the social security trust fund. The trust fund will start collecting on those IOUs around 2019, when social security taxes will not be enough to cover disbursements. Does the IOU make any money, and if so, how much? \_ The surplus is used to buy government bonds, which pay (not great) interest. When the surplus needs to be spent, the bonds will be redeemed (government pays money into the SS system from general revenues) or the bonds will be sold on the market. These have basically the same net effect. \_ What this is getting at is that at some point the government is going to borrow to cover the system. This is a given. I don't know why everyone is up-in-arms over the costs of PRAs when SS is going to go bankrupt at some point without reform. If you object to privatization then what is the solution when SS eventually goes bankrupt? Wouldn't it be better to try to fix it now? It will cost more now, but save more in the long run. \_ "at some point" is when? \_ Basically, all of Krugman's articles argue that private accounts will be significantly worse than a long-term SS fix. \_ I think we SHOULD pay now to fix the system, but that means either raising taxes or not letting people excuse themselves from payroll taxes just because they have a PRA. What's being proposed is just running up the debt now in stead of later. I think it's an especially bad idea to run up a big debt when we already are running a huge deficit. \_ What makes you think we will borrow? Why not just raise taxes? The current surplus is being handed to the wealthy in the form of a tax cut. Eventually, they will have to pay it back. They are doing everything they can to blow smoke in your face and avoid admitting to the responsibility though. up your ass and avoid admitting to the responsibility though. \_ Let's have a hard number. 3% annually? |
2005/1/26 [Reference/Tax] UID:35912 Activity:moderate |
1/26 When did SS get renamed "payroll tax"? \_ When someone figured out a way to talk about killing it without becoming automatically unelectable. Taxes are bad, see, so getting rid of "payroll taxes" sounds like a good thing instead of "robbing Social Security," which is what it is. \_ fyi, payroll tax includes the social security contribution, Medicare, maybe disability and unemployment too. but yeah, SS is the biggest part. \_ Why is working for a living taxed more than passive income? That seems counter-intuitive. \_ We all hates inheritance taxes. Except Bill. -rich bastard \_ Because the rich own more senators than you do. |
2005/1/26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35911 Activity:very high |
1/26 I don't think everyone understands this yet, so I'll make sure. You know the 6.2% social security tax you pay every year (and the matching 6.2% paid by your employer)? All of it goes directly to people receiving social security checks today. It does not in go into any "private account" for you. Instead, the government tracks how much money you make over your life. Once you hit 67, you start getting social security checks. The size of each check will be somewhat proportional to how much you made over your life. But this number is very progressive -- that is, people who made a lot of money get a much smaller proportion of how much they made, compared to people who made a small amount of money during their life. Once again, the current generation pays money directly to the old generation. What happens when you have "private accounts"? Well, everyone gets a private account now. You are paying yourself, not other people. However, the old people today still need their social security checks. So who pays for it? The government! It takes out huge loans to pay money to old people, since all the young people are now saving for themselves instead of paying old people. Now, it's not a 100% transition to private accounts. At the beginning, it will be a 1/3 transition. So 4.2% tax goes to the old system (paying old people), and 2% goes to yourself (your private account). \_ Where did you get 6.2? I pay 7.65% (as does my employer). \_ Medicare is 1.45%. 6.2% is social security tax. \_ But where does the government money come from? Taxes. Collected the same way the money would be collected under the current system. Right? Am I missing something? \_ I don't understand your question. \_ You are missing someting. If an individual goes the PRA route, they will stop paying SS taxes and in stead pay a (regulated) amount into their PRA. The government is now missing the payroll taxes for this person but still has to pay for current SS beneficiaries. To make up this missing money the government must either raise taxes or run a (larger) defecit. The person who got a PRA is paying X-dollars less in taxes but being forced to invest X-dollars into their PRA. You will see your payroll tax be replaced with a enforced PRA contribution. That money must be made up with new taxes or a defecit (future taxes). \_ While you're contemplating this, please also ask yourself the following questions.. Is an average American capable of making reasonably good investment decisions for his/her private account? If \_ You presume that there will be a choice. not, then do you think you would trust the government to do that for you? What about mutual funds? Where is the guarantee that whatever gains you get from the higher stock market returns will not be skimmed by those firms as administrative fees? What will happen to the financial markets around the world as trillions of dollars from the private accounts will start being poured into them? What will happen to the world economy and the US economy in particular if the US government tries to borrow trillions of dollars that are necessary to implement the transition? Have you seen a country that has successfully privitized their social security system? \_ Solution is simple. Holders of the PRA are only allowed to invest in T-bills. The rate of return is still better. \_ The problem is that with financial industry lobbying you know that regulation won't last for long. If you think they'll let themselves miss out on this avalance of financial-services business you'd be deluded. What about people (like me) who think that with our current-account defecit T-bills are not a terribly safe investment? \_ You investing in T-bills is likely as safe as the SSA investing in T-bills for you. Would limiting investments to T-bills resolve the pp's concern for the lack of security for PRA funds? I am trying to figure out if the sensitivity is over the security of the investment or something else. \_ It may be as safe an investment, but it destroys the system. Is that where your sensitivity is? Do you want the system gone? \_ We all understand this. SS does not need to be privatized, but it needs the ability to invest better. Imagine if that massive surplus has been invested in something other than navel lint. \_ Why? What's wrong with treasuries? \_ can I just opt out of the whole system? Where's my freedom to do that? Don't send me checks, don't make me pay into it... \_ It's part of living here. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. \_ The social contract is that you get to live in a country where old people get medical care and don't starve to death living on the streets. In return, you must pay payroll taxes. \_ The law allows that if you become Amish. \_ Why do I have to pay for freeways even though I don't have a car? Why do I have to pay for the police even though I don't commit crimes? \_ And why is there an income cap for SS tax? \_ Do you mean, why is it that if I make $200K/year, I only pay 6.2% of $90K? \_ Exactly. Why make any income exempt? \_ I think it's because they want social security to be progressive, but not THAT progressive. In fact, one of the remedies toward fixing social security is to raise the the amount taxable, while keeping the maximum social security check amounts lower in proportion or the same. \_ SS is regressive, at least when taxed. \_ The payout is much more progressive, outweighing what you put in. |
2005/1/14 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:35712 Activity:high |
1/14 http://csua.org/u/ap3 \_ I wonder if the moron parent who was all pissed off that her son wanted to be a fisherman has any idea what commercial fishermen make. \_ Actually, I'm curious how long the kid would last as a commercial fisherman. It's a whole different boat from sittin' on the riverside with a pole. \_ Well, I did it every summer I was in college. Personally, I can't stand the sitting around with a pole type of fishing. Yes, it's hard work, but depending on what fishery you're in, it's comparable to construction work in difficulty, but with *much* better pay, and much more fun. The big pay difference partly comes from the fact that when you're at sea you don't spend *any* money, so what you earn you actually save, without bills, food expenses, etc. And there's no income tax in Alaska. \_ No income tax in Alaska? How oppressive! \_ Yeah, but the sales tax is 12%. \_ Nice try. It's zero. \_ Omg! Poor poor people! How can they stand it? Clearly, someone has NOT thought of the children in Alaska. \_ Actually every resident of any age gets a check from the interest on a fund from oil money that was started in the late 70's. It's usually about a grand a year per person. And yes, that includes children. \_ But if you're a resident in CA you have to pay tax on income made elsewhere as well. Also, how's the mortality rate on the boats? \_ The danger level strongly depends on which fishery you're in. Crab is really dangerous, salmon hardly at all. I mentioned the income tax thing because if someone were to do it fulltime, that makes a big difference. It made no difference to me, since I only worked two months a year and was still in a low tax bracket. \_ I wouldn't last a day. I hate sea-sickness.. -- ilyas \_ You'd be suprised how many commercial fisherman have the same problem, but just suck it up and take dramamine until they get used to it. \_ Heh. Let me tell you something about dramamine. Dramamine does not work in storm weather, if you are on a tiny boat. To the tune of continuous vomiting. -- ilyas \_ Other cool career choices for 8th graders: Adult Film Star \_ If no one grew up to be an adult film star, about 75% of you would have nothing left to live for. Professional Prostitute Pawn Shop Proprieter Mobster Crack Dealer \_ Don't forget crack whore; it is a noble profession and quite necessary to help sustain our society's way of life. \_ Crack dealers make GOOD money. It is a great profession if you don't fry your brain first. \_ How much would a street dealer make? Not some distributor who sells to the street dealer, but the guy on the street pushing the shit. Are there really that many crack addicts in a given area? \_ Hollywood, and the 2nd floor labs in soda. \_ Rule Number One: Never use your own product. \_ Don't get high on your own supply. |
2005/1/10-11 [Reference/Tax] UID:35632 Activity:very high |
1/10 Flat tax: how does this make sense? If you make over $100k, 15% may not seem like a lot of money, but if you're making $25k, that 15% could be necessary for feeding a child or paying for health insurance that your employer's not giving you. Serious replies, please. \_ I think even in the proposed "flat tax" scheme it's not absolutely flat. There is still some basic exemptions and deductions that everyone will take. After those exemptions and deductions, a flat percentage number is applied. \_ I see where you are coming from, but on the other hand 40% of $x million is a buttload of money, right? It's not like that doesn't hurt a very rich person, too. \_ True, but it hurts in a different way. 40% of $xm still gives you 60% of $xm free and clear, which will still support a very generous lifestyle, whereas 15% of $25k could result in welfare. I agree that 40% may not be fair to the very rich, but I'm not sure a flat tax answers that. \_ Yes, flat taxes are regressive. Yes regressive taxes are bad for society and bad for the economy. Yes, the people calling for flat taxes don't give a damn. \_ Flat tax is not regressive by definition. You are an idiot. -- ilyas \_ Everyone knows sales tax is regressive, even though it is a fixed percentage. So, is a flat federal income tax regressive, progressive, or neither? Neither, you say. But, when a flat federal income tax is combined with a sales tax, the overall system is regressive. I think both of you can agree with the above. \_ True, sales tax is regressive. Flat tax is not. I favor a flat tax and abolition of all other taxes -- i.e. a non-regressive, non-progressive system. -- ilyas \_ This also includes eliminating all capital gains and corporate taxes, right? Finally, are you including eliminating all deductions? \_ I would subject corporations to the same flat tax as individuals, since corporations seem to enjoy a legal personhood status, and can earn money just like people. I would eliminate deductions. I would tax all effective income at the same rate, which would include some form of capital gains tax. -- ilyas \_ I agree with this. Even though my rate would effectively go up (I have a mortgage, 2 kids, and charitable contributions that are worth itemizing under the current system). -emarkp \_ What do you two think of a two-bracket progressive system? E.g., eliminate all deductions and sales tax, but have an income tax of 10% for < 30,000, and a rate of 40% for > 30,000? \_ Nope. Any progressivism is bad IMO. And where did you come up with 40%? And why 30K? -emarkp \_ Currently, wealthy people and corporations pay most of the taxes in the U.S. Let's say they pay a 50% rate. Let's say the non-wealthy pay at a 25% rate. If you have one rate, the loss in taxes from the wealthy is huge versus the gain you get from raising taxes on the non-wealthy. Hence, "40%" for everyone. These are guessed numbers, along with the 30K number, but the basic idea is as stated above. \_ That's the long way of saying you pulled them out of the air. But thanks for answering. -emarkp \_ No. The extra information here is that the wealthy carry most of the tax burden in the U.S. Since the wealthy are few, then if you have a flat tax rate, this rate will be closer to the high end, assuming no efficiences and the government stays the same size (whereas in the rest of this discussion, the assumption is you gain efficiences, and the government gets smaller). \_ Corporations have been paying less and less taxes year after year, now they only contribute a sliver to revenues. About equal shares come from payroll and income taxes. \_ I disagree with any non-flat tax on principle. -- ilyas \_ emarkp/ilyas: If you have one bracket, this means you increase taxes for the poor and decrease taxes for the wealthy. Perhaps this is the way it should always have been. Can either of you suggest something that would alleviate the additional burden on the poor? \_ I no more believe the poor should receive compensation for 'additional burden' of paying their share than I believe african americans should receive compensation for having to compete on equal footing for college admissions in CA, since the time affirmative action was struck down. I think the effects of smaller burden on the investors, along with the vastly simplified tax code would have a hugely positive, liberating effect on the economy overall -- ilyas (just as I think the lack of affirmative action has a positive effect both on the quality of the student body, and the academic performance of african americans). -- ilyas \_ So you're saying if we move to a purely flat tax system, the efficiencies gained will be so great as to not create an additional burden for the poor? \_ I am saying the additional burden on the poor is something I am willing to live with, since it's only a burden in comparison to the current system, which I view as unfair. As a completely separate comment, I think the positive benefits of flat tax are vastly under- estimated. -- ilyas \_ I understand now. The wealthy and middle class are are being forced to subsidize the poor through a progressive tax system. Such charity should be voluntary, not government- enforced. This is speaking from the viewpoint of fairness. Economically speaking, you think a flat tax system will have a hugely positive, liberating effect overall for the reasons you mentioned. \_ Yes, this is correct. -- ilyas \_ See, we CAN have a reasoned discussion on the motd! \_ Unfortunately, it all only works in theory. Like all the big libertar- ian ideas. \_ As if anyone ever tried this. I wonder if any monarchist nobles who read up about read up on democratic governments in Plato wondered: 'democracy sounds nice in theory, but it would never work.' -- ilyas \_ Oh, and I agree with ilyas. -emarkp \_ Okay, I've probably been trolled but I'll ask anyway. So you're for revoking tobacco taxes? Sales taxes? Social Security (I love how that's been renamed "payroll tax")? \_ This is one of the things I think is funny. If we were really in favor of reducing taxes on poor people we'd lower tabacco taxes and eliminte the lottery. \_ Exactly. Also, poorer people tend to die sooner, so private SS accounts would allow them to have some inheritance to give to their children. \_ *All* taxes are bad for the economy. Progressive taxes, too, if not more so. As for society, I am not sure. Lots of people address the poor by proposing a negative income tax along with a flat tax. I actually think a flat tax might be a better idea, since our current 'progressive' system has so many loopholes that companies like MSFT pay nothing. Just have them pay 15% flat with no deductions and you might get some money from them. Charge them more and watch them leave the US. \_ While MSFT pays nothing (or rather, a lot less than its size suggests it should), in order to qualify for all of those deductions it has to spend an inordinate amount of money on charities, non-profits, and the public sector. While some of that money may go to questionable causes (i.e., toward increasing MSFT's market share), it's still money spent on the public good; taxes are supposed to be collected for similar reasons (although, of course, Joe Taxpayer doesn't get to decide where his tax money actually ends up). A Flat Tax would seem to remove the need to spend all of that money on charities and other social programs; the money could instead be hoarded and passed on as dynasty (cf. the repeal of the Estate Tax). \_ While many large companies do spend money on charities and whatnot, most of the deductions are because of capital depreciation, capital losses, stock options, and so on. I don't think this money is going to charities, since that's not a big allowed deduction anyway. \_ oh my, 100 million dollars worth of Windows XP donated to schools. How generous!!! Thank you Bill Gates. \_ would you rather they run Linux? MacOS ain't free either \_ No, *all* taxes are not bad for the economy. If this idiotic belief were true, then countries like The Congo would be booming economically. Taxes are necessary for roads, armies, police and the functioning of a safe and sane society. Take your libertarian BS elsewhere. \_ I didn't say taxes were unnecessary, just that they are bad for the economy. This is not me talking, but Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have studied this. \_ I understand that taxes may, on their face, be bad for the economy, but the benefits reaped from the proper application of collected taxes can create the infrastructure to actually boost the economy. Cf. Roosevelt's CCC programs and their effect on transportation, et. al. \_ Perhaps, but then you are saying that people do not recognize the value of such investments. I believe that the free market will provide infrastructure if it really is an economic benefit. A tall $30 million bridge serving a remote part of Wyoming is not really a benefit, but the Bay Bridge is. If you believe that the free market will not provide those things truly of benefit then, yes, you need to tax. \_ Let's just say that I believe the current system holds the best chance for properly allocating funds for the greater good, insofar as it holds within itself the means of reform. The free market has the properties you've mentioned, but the deficits are very difficult to overcome. \_ Most taxes, other than income tax, are regressive. See Social Security, sales tax, use fees, etc, so no, I think replacing income tax with a flat tax would be unfair. If all taxes were replaced with a single flat income tax (with a largish deduction), that would be fine with me. It sure would put a lot of accountants out of work. -ausman \_ under progressive tax where the rich pay more, they will suffer at a disproportionally rate. Imagine you making 5 million dollars a year and you get 50% tax. Now you'll only make 2.5 million dollars. That means you'll only be able to buy a LearJet 4 instead of LearJet 5 (plus pilot and maintenance and storage), or you can get a LearJet 5 but you may have to fly it yourself. Progressive tax is unfair and flawed. \_ Boy, you really have NO idea what you're talking about, huh... \_ Yes, comrade. We should divide all assets equally among the citizens. \_ Fair or not, very high income taxes for the rich reduce their incentives to invest money into riskier business ventures potentially hurting the economy. \_ Unless, of course, you offer tax deductions for investments in certain key industries. Taxes and loopholes can be a powerful tool to guide an economy; they can also lead to huge abuses of power. \_ I'm against that; I don't think the tax system is the right place to provide such incentives. It makes the system too complicated and seems hard to manage. Incentives for e.g. better environment-friendly tech. can be handled under a different umbrella, and new-industry development done through competitive research grants and other stuff. \_ So're Bush and most of the super-wealthy. They'd prefer to keep the goods for themselves. Estate taxes help ensure that their money reenters the general pool now and then, and the current tax system makes them more likely to do something with what they've got rather than just building up legacies; as the adage goes, spend it while you've got it, and you'll know where it goes. |
2005/1/3 [Reference/Tax] UID:35523 Activity:very high |
1/3 I propose a way to compare who's more generous in aiding the tsunami victims: calculate the govt and private donations of a country as a percentage of its GDP, then rank the countries. \_ I propose ranking generosity of people, not governments. -- ilyas \_ But then it's hard to compare low-tax countries to high-tax ones. \_ Why do you want to compare countries? -- ilyas \_ Wow! You're a genius! I wonder why no one has thought of that before? \_ Maybe because the result might not be that pleasing. \_ The sarcasm just flew right by ya' there didn't it? \_ How much is are the Saudis giving to the relief effort? |
2004/11/22 [Reference/Tax] UID:35013 Activity:high |
11/22 We should make income tax flatter, but also allow all charitable donations to be tax deductible. This will encourage Christian giving to the poor and give glory to God as opposed to the evil liberals who just want entitlements. \_ Except that it doesn't. \_ Are you the same guy who's trying to say the poor should pay more taxes and not get food stamps because they sometimes blow their lottery winnings? 'Cause if you are, that's pretty un-Christian. |
2004/11/22 [Reference/Tax, Finance/CC] UID:35011 Activity:high |
11/22 So in a recent article I've read that relatively poor people who win state lotteries tend to lose all of their money and then some within a couple of years, especially those who opt to collect all of their funds up front. In other words, it's useless to give poor money if they haven't actually earned it since they'll just lose it. Something to be said about our tax system. \_ are you equating lower tax brackets and welfare to the lottery? \_ No, this says something about systems that give money without education or expectation. \_ TROLL HARDER! \_ Did you see what happened to the homeless guy that Howard Stern gave money to? He was one of those street drummers. He blew the money on liquor and whores. He bought a very expensive leather jacket that was then stolen from him. He bought himself some nice drums which were also stolen. The idea was that he was going to rent an apartment. I think Howard gave him $10K, which was a year of rent. He was supposed to report back in with his progress and never did. The station finally hunted him down. I agree that education is the key, but entitlement programs often don't include such components. \_ Entitlement program != HUGE CASH PRIZES! \_ Entitlement program == small cash prizes \_ No. A prize is a one time bonus, while a low tax bracket or government service is a regular income source. If your job gave you a bonus, wouldn't you spend some of it on impulse buys? \_ Not if I was HOMELESS!!! \_ Would you point me a research that says the entitlement class tends to spend smaller regular payments more responsibly than they do larger lump sum payments? Or, to continue the above Howard Stern example, would the recipient of the largess not just buy the drums one month and the leather jacket the next? \_ Would you point me to research that says the poor are more wasteful of their money than, say upper-middle class people with too much disposable income. Who buys the Hummers and Luis Vuitton bags? It's not the working poor. \- i'm not sure it's much dumber of a homeless person to blow $10k boon than for a berkeley phd making $150k+ to be amassing credit card debt [i know such a person] \_ Buying expensive leather jacket and drums is good. This will help stimulate the economy. |
2004/11/22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:35009 Activity:insanely high |
11/22 so what is the justification for eliminating the tax deduction for providing your employees with health insurance? evil? assholeness? true conservatism? freedom is on the march? i don't get it. \_ If you are asking a serious question, some people believe controlling/encouraging behavior through taxes is not a good idea. Why Bush did this is another matter, of course. -- ilyas \_ I don't think the gwbush administration is doing anything because of deeply held conservative principles that are ingrained in them after long years of study of Smith. They just want to stick non ultra rich people with the bill for their spending habits. - danh \_ Neat Dan, can I borrow your direct line into W admin's heads sometime? I mean seriously, is it completely inconceivable to you that there may be a non-evil explanation? -- ilyas \_ so what is their justification? the war on terror? - danh \_ It's not like Dubya woke up one day and decided to cut in this particular way. He has some idea of what he wants, and he asks his advisors, who in this case would be high powered econ people, for plausible implementation. Your beef is probably with them, but I bet they _are_ governed by principle (and understanding of econ). You may not agree with the principles, but painting them as mindless evil is silly. -- ilyas \_ No, he didn't wake up and think this. He's said all along that this was what he wants to do. His whole plan of the ownership society is about "encour- aging investment". Unfortunately the HUGE majority of the population does not have sufficient investment to benefit from these policies nor available cash to increase their holdings. This is a massive tax burden shift from investments to income. \_ Actually, insofar as Bush wants to encourage any sort of behavior (even 'good' behavior, as I see it), I disagree with him. On the other hand, moves to make out tax system less progressive and more flat make me happy. I d be annoyed if he copped out of the vague flat taxish motions he was making in early 2004. -- ilyas \_ you don't believe there are evil people in the world? \_ No, I don't believe Bush's econ prof advisors are evil, no. Do you? Can I have some of the good stuff you are having? -- ilyas \_ I believe Grover Norquist bathes in the blood of liberal virgins every night. - danh \_ don't be an idiot! no red blooded texan listens to sissy econ prof from academia. he just finds an econ prof whose theory happens to fit his agenda. \_ whether they are evil or not doesn't matter so much to me lately, whoever is in charge of fiscal policy appears to be completely delusional as they continue to increase spending while deliberately cutting off the gov's revenue streams. maybe grover norquist has gay blackmail photos of everyone? can you find a non faith based economist who actually thinks cutting off revenue and running huge budget and trade deficits is a good thing for the US economy? i think the dollar is going to plummet, debt service is going to become a huge chunk of our budget just like several third world countries, but at least gay people won't get penalized by the death tax. - danh \_ Link? I have no idea what you're talking about. \_ http://csua.org/u/a2h [stuff about the administration trying to further cut capital gains taxes] "The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said." - danh \_ Do people here live in caves? \_ More or less. I don't watch TV, and read the news that shows up on google. \_ I particularly like the $2m to buy the presidential yacht. \_ The justification is that the current administration is against gay marriage and terrorists. Get it? \_ What will screw me is eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes. It would be just like Kerry winning. The biggest reason lots of Repubs vote Repub is because of taxes. If Bush is gonna sock it to high-income people living in states with high tax rates then the Repubs are ruined. \_ Welcome to the ownership society. \_ Dude, Bush is spending massive amounts of money while slashing taxes for obscenly wealthy, leading to record debts. Where do you think the money is going to come from? Just because the Republicans claim to be the party of financial responsibility doesn't mean they are. \_ "If Bush is gonna sock it to high-income people"... \_ He isn't socking it to the ultra-high income people. \_ There aren't enough ultra-high income people to make any real difference to government debt one way or the other. \_ Ultra-high income people are still getting screwed by this, because they pay a lot in state taxes. If you make $10 million per year you are paying $1 million to CA and Bush's stupid idea costs you real money. \_ No. Those states voted Kerry anyway. Bush's power base is secure. \_ Haha, it would be awesomely evil if Bush implemented a blue state agenda in blue states. Democracy would work then! -- ilyas \_ This was not a blue state agenda in any way shape or form. \_ Raising taxes is always a blue state agenda. \_ Until you start actually questioning this are you just going to keep being surprised that the republicans are fucking you tax wise while claiming the opposite and then forgetting about it until the next time your ass hurts? \_ Oh, you mean CA. A state with blue state budgetary priorities and the predicted blue state problems? |
2004/11/17-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:34942 Activity:low |
11/17 http://www.csua.org/u/a03 (wonkette) Infamous Cheney photo. \_ Is that the one with his schlong? \_ yes. \_ And it's TAX-FREE -freeper \_ No, it's FLAX-TAXED. Not to mention PRIVATIZED. |
2004/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:34581 Activity:moderate |
11/2 Why is Orange County so red? San Diego-- easy, a lot of dumb and patriotic servicemen. But Orange? \_ I am glad you can disparage those "dumb" serviceman with your freedom you owe them but hey, what can I expect from those selfish many who never served. \- i feel sorry for them ... i think they are being taken advantage of by BUSHCO, halliburton etc. \_ I'm glad they feel that way 1 out of 3 times. Don't forget Halliburton was hailed by Clinton for their work in Kosovo. Please, BTW, tell me just what other companies provide the same services and take the same risks ? \_ Bechtel. \_ so, no bid contract is ok? \_ Rich, hard-working people live there. Rich, hard-working people want smaller government, less taxes -- they don't want handouts for lazy poor people or higher taxes for inefficient govt bureaucracy. \-a recent study suggests there is more willingness to fund social welfare programs when it is visibly and obviously going to "people like you" ... that may in part explain why some areas are more willing to have social welfare ... some people are suggesting the support for social welfare programs in europe is declining with brown people immigration. also the OC people dont feel bound by principle to suck it up when the "going isnt good" ... think state bailout after OC investment fiasco. i think the OC is still the largest municipal banruptcy in american history. --psb \_ Why would you vote for Bush if you wanted a smaller government? \_ "Free Heathcare for Everyone!" answer your question? \_ Do you even know what that plan entailed? FYI: it didn't cover everyone. Providing basic health insurance to those who can't get it from employers doesn't require too much. Those people end up costing money regardless, in emergency rooms for example. |
2004/10/13 [ERROR, uid:34084, category id '18005#10.665' has no name! , , Reference/Tax] UID:34084 Activity:high |
10/12 http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/12/pf/pocketbook_proposals I'm looking at the differences, and frankly, none of them really affects me. In another word, I don't care about estate/inheritance tax, education relief, and I'm not in the high tax bracket, so it makes little difference who I vote for \_ Way to think only in the short term and only about yourself! \_ Social Security? Capital gains? And, for you especially, minimum wage. What about other non-financial issues? \_ I for one don't give a damn about foreign policy and all that crap. Money talks and everything else matters little. I know this is a very narrow minded and selfish point of view, but I'm sure I'm not the only person thinking this way. \_ So you know you're narrow minded and selfish, but you don't care? I'm really glad that I don't know you. \_ I am selfish and I don't care. Actually, that's not true, what I actually think is that anything other than selfishness requires justification because selfishness is natural human behavior. It doesn't help that altruism is often used as a justification for questionable policy. -- ilyas \_ altruism can also be the most efficient method of selfishness. come on, you know game theory, surely you understand that a system in which all members strive only for maximum gain over the short-term is ultimately self-defeating? \_ Sure in small systems and if there aren't defectors. Selfishness is still natural, and most of the animal kingdom is selfish (eusocial animals excepted and I should admit they are VERY successful -- ants make up something like 90% of animal multicellular biomass). Eusociality is, of course, selfish from the gene point of view. -- ilyas \_ Government policy has a long term effect, for good or ill, on economic growth. If the stagflation ills of the 70's return, you will with you had paid more attention. \_ I am sorry, I should clarify. What I meant to say is that it doesn't bother me that I am selfish (I think it's good actually). Foreign policy of the US is of great concern to me, of course. -- ilyas \_ Foreign policy can directly affect how much money you do or do not have. This is one reason why you are not in the top tax bracket: You are an idiot. |
2004/10/11-12 [Reference/Tax] UID:34041 Activity:nil |
10/11 motd poll. income tax is unconstitutional: income tax is constitutional: public services are unconstitional: \_ The USSC has already made it clear they won't take any cases that challenge the 16th. It's over. No point in polling. |
2004/10/7-8 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:33974 Activity:very high |
10/7 So I read in The Economist last week that Americans now save 1% of their income. That astonished me. Time for a motd poll: I save 30% or more of my income: . I save 1% or more of my income: ....... I save less than 1% of my income: I save NaN of my income: . \_ I think these things are bogus. They usually say "disposable income" but what exactly is that? 401k counts? \_ Any income that goes above the standard costs of living, basically any money left over after you pay rent/mortgage, food, utilities, transportation, debts and insurance. A lot of people are living month-to-month because they have zero disposable income (they buy too much house, they have kids, they buy too much car, they have high cc debt, etc.) The only real way to get out of this trap is to own some assets which generate you money, which is why it's technically a lot less riskier to start your own venture than it is to just keep living from paycheck to paycheck. (Optimally you do both). In contrast, my disposable income approaches 50-60% of my total income, but that's because I have both assets (in terms of rentable, paid-off real-estate and running small business ventures on the side and playing the market) and a steady income from a "day-to-day" job. Plus, I have no capital intensive dependents (read kids). \_ That's very nice for you, but doesn't really do much for all the Americans who can't save. I find your explanation for why people are living paycheck to paycheck to be somewhat glib. What about skyrocketing health care costs? What about skyrocketing housing costs (a tiny single family home is only "too much house" because it is overpriced)? What about stagnation in middle class income? \_ I make about 23k/year and save about 10% of my income. not driving is probably the single biggest factor. \_ What about them? As I said before, the only way to get out of the trap is to own money-generating assets. Sure, a 10-25% increase in healthcare/fuel costs is going to cost the average American about 3-4K more per annum, but 3-4K is like peanuts compared to the money you can generate by doing things beyond a monthly paycheck. Is it easy to do? No. Does it take a toll on your social life? Absolutely. Working weekends/nights on your own stuff is only for those who want to do it, but the rewards are there if you stick to it. Plus, buying a house in an overpriced market is just dumb. Even if interest rates are low the savings in monthly payments are offset by the longer term of the loan and the higher property tax you pay. Think about it, a 15 year loan is finished in 15 years, but property taxes are there ALWAYS until you sell the property. A lot of people get suckered into thinking that buying a home is good because it's an asset. It isn't. Buying a home that is overpriced with long-term mortgaging is just plain stupid because it's a big LIABILITY. So, people should take the emotion out of buying real-estate and pay for what the property is worth, NOT what the monthly mortgage payments are. After all, if you are making a decent living the extra couple of points on the mortgage are tax deductible anyway. \_ My mortgage + property tax is not that bad once I deduct the interest and the tax. If the house falls in value the property tax goes *DOWN*. Be careful that you don't fall off your high horse, because many people in this country cannot afford a house at any price and $3K/year is a lot of money to someone who clears $450/week (which is what you get if you make $30K). It's easy for us six figure college boys to scoff, huh? \_ I've met a number (not many, but a fair number) of people who have never even set foot on a University campus who slowly but surely became millionaires. They did it by owning small businesses. They did it by being frugal. They did it because they knew how to save. A large paycheck doesn't equate to knowing how to save that money because Uncle Sam whacks off 33-40% off of that paycheck thanks to our progressive tax system. The key is to think about doing things OUTSIDE your daily routine that will generate money. \_ This is not everyone. The number one thing you need to have in order to save is money. Discipline and motivation are second. My dad saves a lot of money (as a %) but he could save that % for the rest of his life and it wouldn't do much good. Your audience is wasteful professionals, not the working man. Yes, you can turn from burger flipper into burger chain owner like the Wendy's guy, but not everyone is capable and quite frankly there's a lot of luck to it. \_ I dunno about that. My wife worked as a waitress for seven years and managed to put away $50k, which she had turned into $100k by investing. Now she has a Master's from UCB and is making high five figures, but even as a waitress, plus working odd jobs, ske was able to pull in about $40k/yr and save 1/4 of that. And this is in the Bay Area. I, on the other hand, was $30k in credit card debt before a dotcom cashout saved me. Needless to say, she manages the finances. \_ She saved $10K per year on a $40K salary? That's definitely unusual, but even so what can she do with $50K? She's going to start her own business with that?! In 20 years she would have $200K and will have lived like a college student for her entire life. That is not exactly appealing to most. Most people take $50K and buy a house with it, which is probably not a bad idea. \_ That is what we did with it: we bought a duplex, which we live in and provides a good revenue stream. That is how you do it: save $50k, turn it into $100k and leverage that into bigger gains. It is not easy and it takes some luck, but unless someone hands it to you, that is all you can do. At this point I would like her to start her own business, but she likes where she is at too much to switch. \_ I see. I spend like $1900 per month. If I make $5000 (should it be before or after tax?), does that mean I have a savings rate of 62% ? I have trouble believing the 1% figure. Many people I know don't save enough, but 1% sounds too low. Does, say, home improvements that increase the value of your house count as savings? \_If you make $5000 per month your take home pay is about $3700-$3900 after taxes, SSI, etc. depending on how you do your taxes. If you spend $1900 per month you'll be left with around $2000 of disposable income. Obviously you're not going to save $2000 (you probably spend some on stuff like movies, games, gifts, computer junk, etc). so you probably save around $1200-$1500, which is a good number compared to most Americans. The U.S. could encourage even more savings if they would give people who saved their money tax breaks, i.e. they would knock off a buck off your taxes for every 10-20 bucks you save. If you want to save on taxes you should start a business and expense a bunch of stuff, like your vehicle, equipment, etc. That way you expense some of your consumables and you can deduct that from your taxes. In addition, you should really use some of the money you save for business ventures because if you lose the money it's tax deductible. So hey, why not risk it? And contrary to popular belief, you have about a 50% chance (if you do your homework) of having a business succeed. (the 1-10 number is not an accurate statistic). \_ I thought that the 1 in 10 number was just for VC funded high-tech startups. \_ Why save when the government is there to take of you cradle to grave. \_ The gov't wasn't there to help you write a coherent sentence, apparently. \_ The couple who live below me are probably 38-44ish, have no kids and are renters. The complain about chipping in an extra $7/mo for garbage but they own 1 brand new 5series BMW, a corvette, and another car, a +$25k harley and another motorcycle. One is some kind of office manager type and the other is a personal trainer. I fully believe the have a ~1% savings rate or one of them is a successful drug dealer. |
2004/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:33953 Activity:very high |
10/6 I'm trying to beat a radar speeding ticket on "speed trap" grounds. I want to see if I can find the Engineering & Traffic "Speed Zone" Survey for that road to see if the speed limit's set too low, or a survey wasn't done recently enough. Does anyone know how or where you go about obtaining these? \_ if you haven't already, snag a copy of the 'fight your ticket' book from nolo press. It covers all of this stuff, in good detail.. -- Been there, done that, beat my ticket. \_ Pay the fine you ass! Or drive slower. \_ Pay the fine AND drive slower! \_ Speeding tickets are an underhanded regressive tax for the most part. If the system cared more abouit safety and less about raising money enforcement would be on other things. \_ As long as the speed limit is set in a sane way, I'm fine with speeding tickets. It would be interesting if we had a system where your fine was proportional to your income, like some Scandinavian countries. \_ The argument here is about the speed limit being set wrong (specifically, that it's lower than the speed at which 85% of people actually drive on that stretch), not about cheating the system. \_ 85% of people deciding to break the law doesn't make breaking the law right. 85% of people deciding to drive above the speed limit doesn't necessarily mean speeds above that limit are safe. \_ Perhaps, but it makes enforcement arbitrary and hypocritical. Especially when approaching 100% of cops and politicians speed. (and the number for the general populace is closer to 95%) \_ In these situations, to avoid being pulled over, do not be passing people, changing lanes, or young and black. \_ you forgot having out of state plates in BFE states. \_ It also makes driving below the speed limit dangerous, when everyone is tailgating you, or speeding pass and then cutting in front of you. \_ "85%...doesn't make right." You know... we live in a democracy. Laws exist to serve the people, not the other way around. If the majority of people break a law, I believe that by definition makes it "right" in our society. \_ If the majority of restaurant waiters evade tax by not reporting all their tips to IRS, does that make not paying tax on tips right? \_ you've never waited tables, have you? \_ No, but I've tipped at restaurants and I've seen how much the waiters collect in one hour. Anyway is this relevant to the point? \_ maybe yes, maybe no. I'm not really that interested in this debate. my point is that compliance with taxes on cash tips is probably less than a tenth of a percent in most places. \_ The IRS collects taxes on the imputed value of tips collected to counter this. \_ That's a false comparison. The correct comparison would be "majority of taxpayers all not claiming gratuity income" Good luck finding that. If the majority of americans cheated in the same way on their taxes, then yes, I think that way of "cheating" should become legal. \_ Wrong. The first poster who quoted 85% wrote "... lower than the speed at which 85% of people actually drive ON THAT STRETCH". The correct comparison is "if the majority of WAITERS don't report tip income", not "if the majority of taxpayers don't report tip income". On the other hand, if what the first poster wrote were "... lower than the speed at which 85% of people actually drive IN AMERICA", the correct comparison would be "if the majority of TAXPAYERS don't report tip income". See the association? \_ Ah, but you're ignoring the "who it effects" \_ Ah, but you're ignoring the "who it affects" facet. Speeding affects... people who drive on that road. Federal tax evasion affects all taxpayers (and some non-taxpayers) in one way or another, hence they are involved in the majority. \_ what many folks here dont realize (and would if you bothered to read the nolo book, is the letter of the law (at least in california) isn't against violating some arbitrary limit of speed (unless you were going over say 70mph), but that the speed was fast enough to be 'dangerous'. This 'fuzzy' definition provides for lots of flexibility to the defendant, as the cops now have to *prove* the speed was dangerous. Usually they use the traffic engineering studies to estabilsh a 'prima facie' speed limit that anything over is *assumed* dangerous and this is the posted 'maximum speed limit' you see.. But you still have room to argue against this, as there are a number of things that you can attack on the traffic study, including the 85 percentile speed travelled speed that the OP mentioned.. Do you research, show up to court prepared, and argue your case. If you dont have a good argument, maybe you were driving hazardously, and should just pay up and not deal with the hassle. \_ Is over 70 always indefensible? \_ I've driven numerous times on roads with limit 75. \_ I bet you are a democrat, right? \_ See, AMC, what happens when you censor political threads? Now we start to pollute other threads. |
2004/9/27 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:33770 Activity:kinda low |
9/27 Gates has been an extremely generous philanthropist, giving away $28.3 billion over the years. http://www.forbes.com/forbes400/2004/09/27/cx_mn_rl04_0927toptenintro.html?partner=yahoo&referrer= So does that include all the free MS OS he donated? Can he claim to have donated $100 for each free XP given to schools? \_ that's an impressive figure. Even more so when you realize that he can lose 30% of his fortune and not even notice. In my mind though, the better man is the poorer man who gives away money he could actually use. \_ Are you trying to get biblical on our asses? \- i think bill gates is a pigdog for most things, but i think he has spent some of his charitable $ in a good way [like finding work on vaccines for which there is no mkt incentive, like malaria]. it's also sort of cool that he has said "fuck you" to the philan- thopy racket run by women with expensive hairdos out of coctail parties. apparently they took a fair amount of criticism because they didnt hire a "professional" to run it but instead turned it over to big bill [parent of evil bill]. --psb \_ The article failed to realize that had he not given away $28b, he wouldn't be worth $28b more, because he would have to pay tax on it. \_ No, he'd be the full $28B richer, just not liquid. Do you think his current net worth reflects the massive tax hit he'd take if he sold all his MSFT? No, it's calculated by addingu p the value of all his shares. Otherwise to calculate rich people's net worth you'd have to track all the purchase prices of their assets and estimate the tax liability if liquidated. \_ Oh, I see. |
2004/9/21 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33666 Activity:kinda low |
9/21 Missing signature mars launch of war on hunger U.N. Global Tax http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651327340.html?oneclick=true \_ login? \_ csuamotd csuamotd (newly made) \_ UN: We want more of your money to pour into our pockets. \_ Kofi Annan's son's friends pockets, actually. -John \_ And you think Kofi Annan and son did not receive any kick backs? How naive you are then. \_ For god's sake, "subtlety" for you must be a fucking sledge hammer. Ever heard of "implying something"? -John |
2004/9/14 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:33517 Activity:very high |
9/14 For people working for UC: Is the 457(b) a complete no brainer investment like the 401k/403b, i.e. everybody should max it out, or is it more nuanced? [I am a Bay Area renter without a mortgage or any debt, so this would not cause a cash flow problem ... and I would like to reduce my tax liability.] \_ My financial advisor told me to max out both 403b and 457b. So if you have the cash, do it. \_ Max out? That's $26,000 a year! \_ It's not a complete no-brainer; there is a $45/year fee, and you can't get at the money while you still work for UC (though that's less restrictive than the 403b). If you're going to use it, it probably makes sense to put a significant amount of money into it, just to reduce the fee on a percentage basis. -tom \_ Plus, at least for 2004, you can only go into the uc-managed funds, which definitely have limitations. Yes, you immediately profit (from the taxes you don't have to pay now), but to get into the fidelity funds you need to wait until at least July 2005. \_ If your salary is over $100k, the tax savings more than offsets the management fee, right? Only being able to choose from UC managed funds does not seem like a significant limitation to me. Especially siince your comparable 403b can be moved. I dont understand the "Max out?" comment. -op |
2004/8/26-27 [Reference/Tax] UID:33172 Activity:insanely high |
8/26 Question for motd conservatives: what do you think about the following argument for progressive taxation? The practical value of money does not grow linearly with the amount of money you have, but faster than that. For instance, you can't live in LA on 50 dollars a day. On 50000 dollars a day, not only can you live well anywhere, but bend the fabric of society around you for your own benefit, like a star bends spacetime. Progressive taxation then is meant to compensate for this. -- ilyas \_ Why does there need to be any compensation for having more money? If you want to redistribute wealth and thereby destroy it, then just do that and don't hide behind 'funny' terms like "progressive taxation" which are just buzzwords for what the left really means. \_ Capitalist system tend to concentrate wealth. Wealthy tend to bend rules of law for their benefit, thus, generate more wealth. People who inheirt this wealth won't need to do anything. By protecting their constant stream of income, they destroy opportunities for others. Soon or later, you will have a few wealthy people, may be 1-2% of population who lives very well-off, and 90% of people who can barely fed themselves regardless how much they work. If you reach that point, then, bloody revolution occures. Progressive taxation is just one of way to slow down such process. \_ Don't forget that the wealthy can now pass laws to prevent any future uprisings from having any chance of succeeding. New York won't even let the people protest this weekend, to "protect the grass." -rollee \_ If I were wealthy enough to do so, I would certainly try to use any influence I could muster to prevent redistribution of _my_ wealth. It's _my_ money, not the money of the collective. Taxation is about people paying for their fair share of goods and services, not out of some dipshit communist principle of preventing the accumulation of wealth out of pure spite. -John \_ No, inherited wealh diminishes over generations. It is taxed, divided, spent, and gone. It is very rare that the next generation ends up with more than the generation that created it. Only if there's a growing and successful \_ False. Try again. family business, in which case, the next generation has earned their wealth by successfully running and growing a business. I also object to your bit about the wealthy making laws for themselves which generates more wealth. That is opinion and conjecture. As a salaried person I pay more than half my income in various taxes. After working \_ Wages are heavily taxed. Asset income is not. The Republican rich are laughing at you, wage slave. --aaron for 15 years I have a mortgage and less than year's post-tax income saved. How come I'm not making my own laws and creating a legacy of vast wealth on a salary yet I pay such a huge amount of my income in taxes? This is bullshit, but thanks for trying to make an honest effort to justify your redistribution and destruction of wealth plan. \_ Because you're a wage slave dupe who doesn't understand the wage-unfriendly tax system. Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston. \_ This seems like opinion and conjecture as well. Have you seen that HBO documentary "Born Rich"? If most of the inheritance is in real estate, then there's not even the necessity to earn the wealth, since the returns from real estate can be so rediculous. BTW, if you are working for a salary, you are not truly wealthy. \_ I'm not truly wealthy. I made that clear. If I'm not truly wealthy then why am I getting ripped apart by your progressive taxation/theft system? \_ You're not even close to wealthy. You're part of the 19% of the population that mistakenly thinks they are in the top 1%, probably. http://www.lcurve.org \_ Because you've reached the top of a heap that should be higher. Those making more than you are paying the same percentage income tax as you, essentially it's a "flat tax.". It's no longer progressive in your favor. Add on property tax on your house and POOF, 50% gone. If those who raked in 5x or 10x paid a higher percentage, it would allow the easing of the tax burden on you. Ah such is the curse of the upper middle class... \_ tell us about the... ah forget it. \_ darn, you beat me to it ilyas: Please remove the part about the stars, it is honestly distracting. \_ Hey at least now you asked, rather than (rudely) doing it yourself. I appreciate that (really). -- ilyas \_ But it sounds so dramatic! Inspiring, really. I can only bend a crappy apartment around me for my benefit. \_ How progressive is progressive enough? -emarkp \_ Separate question. Assume we are able to establish the precise curve for 'amount of money I have' vs 'practical value of said money.' Just have the progressive schedule make that curve linear. The question isn't about the specifics, but whether the argument itself is good. -- ilyas \_ It's not a separate question, it's fundamental to the issue. Who decides how much more valuable my property is? -emarkp \_ I just proposed who (or rather what) decides -- the curve decides. You can either say 'yes I accept this curve is a good measure' or 'no I reject this curve for reasons x, y, z.' -- ilyas \_ I reject this curve because if I earned it then I should keep it. If tax rates were flat, I'm still paying more for the same basic services while not using more of them. Then you want me to pay more on top of that so I not only pay a greater absolute amount but a greater percentage of what I earn. Just take it all and be done with it. \_ Regardless of where the wealth comes from, our judicial system and law enforcement allows you to keep the wealth that you have "earned". \_ *laugh* wtf? Yes, and? You would prefer a system of total anarchy? A system where I don't like what you posted on the motd so I drop by your place and shoot you? Ok, you're right, we have cops and courts and jails, so we should have a brutal tax rate to match. That makes sense. That way if I object to my insanely high tax rate I can be processed. Thanks. \_ Alright, do you agree that the relative usefulness of money is a superlinear function of amount? \_ No, I don't. Who determines "relative usefulness"? -emarkp \_ The magic rocks in my hat determine it. --aaron \_ Hi troll! \_ I'm just reminding emarkp why he has no credibility. If so, what's wrong with a 'flat % of usefulness tax' versus a 'flat % of money earned tax?' Yes, I am familiar with the standard flat tax arguments, you do not need to reproduce them here. I am curious where a typical conservative's worldview clashes with the above observation, that's all. -- ilyas \_ It clashes anytime a salaried guy making 6 figures who doesn't own any new gadgets or spend a lot on much of anything has less than a year's income saved and pays out over 50% of his income on various taxes every year. \_ I agree with emarkp here. It's hard for me to understand the question if you just say "The right amount of money will be taken." Communists would say this is all the money that puts you above average, so everyone make $50,000 (or whatever). \_ Yes, thank you. We all know what communism means. This is in no way pertinent to the discussion. If you want to play in the real world, call us when your clue arrives. \_ The real problem with the tax system is that 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all (33% of all tax filers have no tax liability). Thanks, Bush tax cuts! |
2004/8/13 [Reference/Tax] UID:32882 Activity:insanely high |
8/12 CBO reports Bush tax cuts have shifted tax burden to middle class http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12_2.html The CBO is headed by a former senior economist from the Bush white house, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. And the Bush response? "Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as 'the Democrat-requested report.'" \_ General question about tax increases and tax cuts for the liberal-minded sodans. Say we agree that progressive taxation is good. So whenever the government raises taxes, it does so in a progressive way (the rich pay more). Shouldn't it, when lowering taxes, do so in a regressive way for the result to be the inverse operation? Why is this raising such furor? Is this just emotion politics? -- ilyas \_ Yes it is. \_ Assume you have some progressive graph of total income in the x-axis and total taxes on the y-axis. In a progressive system, this curve would look something like a hyperbola monotonically converging to the max tax rate. Multiplying the curve by some constant, say 0.9 would fairly lower taxes by 10% for everyone. The problem is if you change the shape of the curve in a way that it's overall 'progressiveness' is reduced. If Bush's tax cuts preserved the progrssiveness, than everyone would have seen their total taxes decrease by the exact same percentage, but in reality the rich saw a much larger percentage drop in the amount they were paying. \_ Careful, you're making Motd Debate Mistake #1: trying to argue with ilyas. \_ It's not debating or arguing with the guy; it's pointing out to everyone else on the motd why his argument is clearly misleading. \_ That's my whole point - once you are in the IlyaLogic zone, normal rules do not apply. Its best just to ignore him. \_ I think you guys pick on him because he is both smarter than you and thinks more clearly and logically than you. And his real crime is he questions your assumptions and beliefs. The only thing you can do is dismiss him without comment because you can't win against someone smart and right. \_ actually, ilyas' brain has a lot of weaknesses. it's too theoretical and ivory towerish. he tends to think autistically, unable to keep an open mind in examining others' point of view. he also likes to project his own rather narrow and limited experience onto problems he has no clue about, like "affirmative action is bad for US, so it must be bad for India" or "Libertarianism is what I like, so I support Taiwan declaring independence", etc. Like software, his brain could possibly be upgraded to a better version, but it would require some effort. \_ Actually, I personally think he makes a lot of not well-supported statements, just like in this post. I try to explain why. \_ There are people on the motd who get picked on because they're smarter, know more, and are too willing to show it, but ilyas is not one of them (except for the showy part). He is an example of someone who pushed himself (or get pushed) through education that is just beyond his own capacity. He and Tom show that one doesn't necessarily become wiser by getting higher degrees, and vice versa. No, I am not against education, but just think what a waste it is of everybody's time and resource to pursue graduate degree without knowing how to reason. \_ No, the progressiveness should be fixed, like each income bracket paying a portion of the total taxes. Now, as a percentage, the top 1% is paying less. \_ The question is "how progressive is progressive enough"? If one assumes that taxes are currently (after the Bush tax cuts to the rich and the removal of the dividend tax) not progressive enough, then to become more progressive, you can either (1) Lower the tax rates on the poor, (2) Perform (1) but lower the tax rates on the right by a smaller amount, (3) Increase taxes on the rich, or (4) Both (1) and (3). rich, the removal of the dividend tax, and the phasing out of the inheritance tax) not progressive enough, then to become more progressive, you can either (1) Lower the tax rates on the poor, (2) Perform (1) but lower the tax rates on the right by a smaller amount, (3) Increase taxes on the rich, or (4) Both (1) and (3). If, on the other hand, as you suggest, we lower taxes on the poor and rich at the same rate, you leave the tax system at the same level of progressiveness (which takes you from "not progressive enough" to the same level of "not progressive enough", given the initial assumption). \_ Uhm, ok, but as far as I know, the tax cuts were never made permanent. I think it's 2011 they all revert back to the pre-Bush tax era. Please correct me if I'm wrong. \_ You are likely correct. It is also true that it does not change the original argument. \_ To clarify my earler comment. Suppose you start with a system of progressive taxation where one person pays $100 taxes on $1000 of income and another person pays $1000 taxes on $5,000 of income. To fairly reduce taxes by 10%, you'd see the poor guy's tax bill go to $90/$1000 and the rich guy's tax bill go to $900/$5000. An unfair reduction in taxes would be to reduce the poor guy's taxes by 5%, to $95/1000, but reduce the rich guy's taxes 15% to $850/5000. \_ Ok. So the general feeling is 'current tax system is not too progressive.' Did I get that right? Because if it _was_ too progressive, you would need to reduce taxes regressively to fix it. Next question: what's 'progressive enough?' -- ilyas \_ we did reduce the taxes regressively. \_ So was that good or bad? -- ilyas fix it. Next question: what's 'progressive enough?' To clarify: assuming you believe progressive taxation is a good idea, AND assuming the current rates are 'just the right level of progressiveness', you would want to reduce uniformly. If you believe it's not progressive enough, you reduce progressively, if you believe it's too progressive, you reduce regressively. So is the outcry about Bush's reduction stemming from the fact that there's the belief the current rates are not progressive enough? What is progressive enough? Btw, I was really flabbergasted by the level of shit in this thread earlier today. I was trying to understand the liberal mindset in criticizing regressive reductions. You would think I would be encouraged to be more open minded, but I guess not. -- ilyas \_ The outcry was because the tax cuts were regressive, that is, they made the tax structure less progressive. \_ Yes ... but the outcry only makes sense if you believe the system before Bush's cuts wasn't too progressive (i.e. either just right or not progressive enough). Do people here believe this to be so? -- ilyas \_ That's a topic all its own. Me personally? I think it should be more progressive. \_ Well... the way I see it, you can't separate the 'outcry' from this topic. And yes, it's a big topic. The fact that a regressive cut being good or bad seems so disconnected in people's minds from what a fair progressive tax system ought to be makes me suspicious that it really is some sort of hot button issue (the poor are getting screwed more than the rich!). -- ilyas \_ I thought ilyas is reasonably smart. how come he doesn't even understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. \_ check your assumptions. \_ IlyaLogic is "different" than normal logic. \_ from \_ He does, he's just trying to lead you into a trap. \_ Since payroll taxes aren't being cut, most of the taxcut should go to the middle class. Bush and Co always leave this bit out. |
2004/8/11 [Reference/Tax] UID:32829 Activity:very high |
8/11 Rep. John Linder, R-Ga. has introduced a bill that would replace the income tax with a federal sales tax: http://csua.org/u/8jw \_ Conservative politicians will always be talking about a sales tax or flat tax. There is a beguiling simplicity and sense of fairness behind every individual citizen getting taxed at the same rate, or only paying a federal sales tax. That Bush said recently that the sales tax idea was "interesting" does encourage his base, but is also a strawman. When all the liberals go bonkers over that, he'll just say, "well, then the tax cuts I have in place aren't all that bad, huh?" \_ You have a funny sense of fair. \_ Take it up with Adam Smith and construct a real argument and get back to us. Learn what marginal utility is as well. \_ Blah, blah, I know economics. Yeah, well: Wassily Leontief, a Harvard economist and 1973 Nobel winner in economic sciences, once observed: "In no field of empirical enquiry has so massive and sophisticated a statistical machinery been used with such indifferent results." \_ Fair is 0% or 100%. Anything different and someone gets treated differently. No need for your personal abuse. When you're really smart, you can come here and insult people. \_ what does 100% mean? \_ Totalitarian communism. \_ This is such a strange answer, I guess I am going to have to bite. What is 0% fair, then? \_ I don't think you realize that my post was in support of a progressive tax system. \_ Well, although I don't think anything like this would happen, it does have the advantage of getting rid of the bloated carcas of the IRS. \_ This plan is not feasible. See: http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040809bb.htm \_ Nobody should pay any taxes. Period. |
2004/8/6 [Reference/Tax] UID:32752 Activity:nil |
8/6 The tax thread was active. Why was it deleted? |
2004/8/5-6 [Reference/Tax] UID:32723 Activity:very high |
8/5 On taxes from the housing thread below. I think this deserves it's ^^^^ own thread. I was thinking about what a 'fair' tax rate is, whether it is for income, property tax, whatever, doesn't matter. If 'fair' means the tax has the same level of burden on each tax payer, there can be only 2 truly 'fair' tax rates: 0% and 100%. Anything else is going to be unfair to someone. What do you think? \_ I don't think there is anything inherently unfair in a progressive tax rate. It may however be stupid, discouraging of enterprise and hard work, etc. But as long as everyone is in the same system it's not unfair... no one forces the high income guy to do that work. Personally I do believe we'd be better off with a small tax rate, with some progressivity but a pretty low slope up to a defined "rich point" of at least $150k, and moving up to about 33% as the very top rate even for super high income. The fed. gov't may be too huge right now to make it ideal. But even at $150k I'd like to see less than 15%. Such a system would 1) encourage doing higher paying work since you can actually get ahead for your efforts, 2) keep the wealthy still with a big incentive to invest in the economy, and 3) be more fair to those who are able to earn a lot in just a few years for some reason, rather than a smaller amount each year. Ideally the gov't would be a lot smaller in the first place. And I would prefer taxing from the consumption side than the income side although there are practical problems with that now. --foo22 \_ you could also blame howard jarvis. - danh \_ Depends on your definition of fairness. I think fairness is achieved when each tax-payer has approximately the same level of post-tax income. This is similar to the scheduling definition of fairness, I think. \_ Why is that fair? If someone works harder, they should make more money. If money was not a hoardable resource, I would say fairness is achieved where everyone has the same results/reward ratio (note: not effort/reward). Since money is hoardable, and reasonable people believe in property rights, things become a lot more complicated. The feeling I get from people who know a lot more about 'fairness' (as a formal concept) is that the closest tax scheme to 'fair' (as most people define it) would be some sort of flat tax scheme. -- ilyas \_ Is hard work the only contributing factor to income? Should someone be rewarded for good luck, in the sense of having the right parents, or born with natural ability, or having chosen a career that turns out to be high paying rather than not? Notice you did a switch in your argument. In the beginning you said "if someone works harder", then in the middle you switched to "note: not effort/reward". Which one is it? Do you reward effort? Do you reward result? Do you reward good luck? Is money the measure? Is societal benefit? Might incentive for some of the above actually be detrimental in some societal sense? Fairness. I prefer the communications model where fairness is achieved when all competing consumers of a resource have an equal share of the resource. In that case, a high-consumer of the resource is throttled (or pay a greater tax, if you will) more than an low-consumer of the resource. I'd be perfectly happy to discuss other models of fairness if you wish. \_ You are right, I did switch (not on purpose). I meant 'results' not 'hard work.' -- ilyas \_ You are right, I did switch (not on purpose). I believe results are what's important, not effort. I view money in a very basic sense: money are the symbol of value. Value is a very basic sense: money are the symbol of value. Value is that which people want. I compared money to a resource, but I don't believe it is, in the same sense as air or oil or natural gas. However, let's run with it for a while. It seems your notion of fairness goes something like this: There are 2 people digging for oil in the desert. One works 16 hour days, the other works 2 hour days. Both are equally good diggers, but one digs up about 8 times as much oil. You say, there are two agents competing for the same resource, so each should get an equal share of the oil. I say that's stupid. They should keep what they dig up. -- ilyas \_ I'm not the pp. Of course hard work isn't the only way to make money. Should it be? Should we 100% tax gamblers in Vegas? The lottery? Should people with greater natural ability be paid the same as someone doing the same thing with less natural ability? Should I get the same money as a million bucks a year NFL quarterback even though I lack his natural physical ability? To answer your question, the result is what counts. You don't 'reward' good luck but I don't see a need to punish it either. How exactly would you go about taxing good luck, anyway? Why is it fair that all competitors for a resource get the same amount? What if one competes harder for it because they want or need it more than someone who puts in less effort to acquire the resource? Should they be punished or capped in their ability to acquire? Should the lazy do nothing get the same reward for little or no effort? That is certainly not fair in any sense of the word I know. \_ When I raised my approximately equal post-tax income proposal, people complained that it would kill the incentive to work. I merely observed that there are many contributing components to income, and hard work is but one. How about a proposal that says we set up a tax regime where we limit the post-tax income min-max spread to 3x? Would that still provide incentive to succeed and at the same time be more fair? \_ Do you think it should be results that counts or ability (I include hardwork as part of ability, you can say "ability + hardwork" if you wish) that counts? I can achieve more results than someone more capable and hardworking than me simply because I have more resources, for instance. Do you think that is fair? \_ How can you include hard work in ability? If someone decides to work hard at writing a book nobody wants to read should he get the same as the guy who is a bestseller? --foo22 \_ Just for sake of argument, what if the 2 hour guy gets lucky and strikes oil and the 16 hour guy never does? Tough luck? That's my answer, but I'd like to hear yours. \_ In my experience (with commercial fishing, not with oil specifically) the two hour guy probably did not just find the valueble stuff because of luck. The same skippers get "lucky" or "unlucky" way too many times in a row for it to be luck. If one guy takes the time to read up on the behavior of the fish they're hunting for and catches all the fish he certainly earned his massively larger keep even if there was some luck involved. I think the same thing is almost certainly true in the oil industry. Why do you think that Monkey Boy was unable to find any oil in texas with Arbusto? it wasn't luck. \_ You think oil company executives personally choose where to drill? \_ Them's the breaks. Maybe we can create a government entitlement system for oil hole diggers who never hit it big? Or maybe the 16 hour guy was just stupid and didn't know as much geology as the 2 hour guy so education wins out? Or maybe the oil just wants to be free so we should tax both of them at 100% and take the oil by force and just keep it for the rest of us because after all we stand on the shoulders of (oil digging) giants and without the guys who came before us to invent shovels we wouldn't have any oil today. \_ Mmmm, socialism. You do realize that this is all well and good until someone loses an eye, right? \_ It's easy to give something a label and dismiss it based on that label. It's easy, but all it is is intellectual laziness. that label.It's easy, but all it is is intellectual laziness. Propose your model of fairness or attack mine, if you can. \_ I'm not the pp, but, that pretty much sounds like Socialism, man. The reason it doesn't work is because it removes incentives. \_ I said "aproximately the same level of post-tax \_ Do you know anything about Europe? There is very little downward/upward mobility in Europe. The rich have always been rich and will always be rich. The poor and middle class have little chance at being rich. My whole family is European and this is what Europe is like. Do you really want that? In the US, most uber-rich families are back to the mean in about 3 generations and there are all \_ Good post, dim. One serious difference tho--a lot of the immobility in Europe is the way the educational systems and vocational training are structured (there's also not as much sideways professional mobility as in the US.) -John \_ Yes, but this ties into it. If your parents went to a certain school or had a certain vocation then you have a much better chance at it. I know, for example, that science positions in France factor in who your parents were and your age. That's ridiculous and it is why so many foreign students come to the US to study and perhaps even to stay. --dim \_ Not with the Bush tax cuts. Goodbye estate taxes, goodbye investment taxes. This is the most disturbing part of Bush the younger's policies. --scotsman \_ But you ignore the other side of the coin where the poor stay poor in EU as well. You seem more interested in tearing down the rich rather than raising up the poor. \_ I haven't said anything to the other side of the coin. That's not to say I ignore it. Are you suggesting that Bush's tax policy raises up the poor? How 'bout his other economic policies? His environmental policies? --scotsman \_ Haven't said = ignored. Anyway, Bush's tax policies don't hold down the poor, they allow the poor to keep what they have should hard work and/or luck lead them to being rich. What other economic policies are you refering to? What about his environmental policies is bad for the poor or worse for them than the rich? We all drink the same water, breath the same air, and get the same cancers. \_ That's not true, although it's certainly not the fault of policy at the federal level. A disproportionate number of destructive polluting industries get located in poor areas, such as power plants in cities. Of course, this problem will really only get solved by making the factories and power plants not kill people anymore, which will only come from technology. \_ Please explain how tax cuts for the rich some how oppress the poor. \_ It's a systemic effect. These tax cuts create a tendency to horde. Wealth begets wealth, and humans are horders. I don't want to see a pure plutocracy in this country. There's also the direct effect of massively shifting the tax burden onto income tax. When it comes to paying of the current deficits it will be much harder politically to make the case for restoring those cuts than to tell the public "we all have to tighten our belts..." -scotsman \_ So you think making people have less money will make them spend more absolute dollars of those they have left? This makes no sense. By your reasoning, the richest person would spend near zero absolute dollars and the poorest would spend more absolute dollars than the richest person. This is clearly false. People who have more money available to spend will spend more money. I don't understand how anyone could claim the opposite. As far as hording goes, so what? If someone somehow makes a billion dollars and doesn't spend any of it, hordes it as you say, so what? It is their money to spend or save as they choose. The government sure as hell won't spend it more efficiently. If the government were more efficient then communism would be the most efficient economic system which we know to be false. So, how exactly is it that rich people keeping more of their money is bad for poor people again? sorts of rags-to-riches success stories. Hard work here can get rewarded. The person who mentioned incentives is exactly right. --dim income". You can go a long way to reduce the min-max spread in American income distribution (the European spread is, what, an order of magnitude or two less?) and improve fairness without eliminating incentives. \- i havent read the entire thread above however if you look at say the bottom quintile in the US, they are essentially at the same place as the bottom 20% in sweeden in terms of purchasing power, or absolute terms. in relative terms, the top 10% here is a lot wealthier than all the other normal countries. which make "inquality" in the narrow statistical sense greater. as a crude measure you can see if you can find a number called the "gini coeficient" for the national economies you are interested in. --psb \_ So, a heavier margin-based tax rate with a higher exemption? I can get behind that. But i'm deeply bothered by the european VAT taxes. \_ Wow, so you're definition of "aproximately" is "within 2 orders of magnitude?" I guess it kinda works on an astrophysics scale. \_ You need to work on your reading comprehension. You also need to learn how to use quotation marks. \_ So taxing the rich at a really high rate is really about bringing them down, not about bringing the poor up. |
2004/8/5 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:32716 Activity:high |
8/5 Berkeley homeowners: what are the bad things about owning in Berkeley? -brain \_ I have some friendss whose property splits thhe oakland/berkeley border, which made them happy because they could get a number of permits cheaper in oakland. --scotsman \_ your friends should be happy, nay, *proud*, to pay the higher berkeley fees because those fees support the community. \_ Socialism. \_ You can't rent it out without dealing with the city rent control board. \_ Anyone live near the N. Berkeley BART station? How do you like your neighborhood? We're thinking of buying there, within a few blocks (walking distance). Thoughts? \_ n berkeley is great, by n berkeley bart \_ Used to rent a few blocks east of there. Nice neighborhood but busses and emergency vehicles favor taking MLK to I wouldn't want to buy a place on MLK or Sacramento. \_ Property taxes are thousands more per year than neighboring cities. \_ 1.8%/year, versus 1.2% in many other cities. This adds $50/month This is based on the figure that mortgage,taxes, insurance and maintainance run you about $750/mo/100k per $100,000 your house costs over neighboring cities. So a house in Berkeley is about 7% more expensive to own than a house that has the same price but is in a different city. \_ A $500,000 house will cost $3000 more per year in property tax. This is significant. What do you get for the extra money? \_ Probably the biggest thing is public schools; Berkeley's one of the better districts in the state, Oakland's one of the worst. \_ wildly inflated profits when your house appreciates? - danh \_ does berkeley house prices appreciate faster than the surrounding cities? \_ A cable-access show where a bunch of hippie retards do naked interprative dance and show off their wrinkles. \_ I could do without http://www.eroplay.com too. - danh \_ What's your point? If you can afford a half million dollar house, you shouldn't complain about paying extra $3k in property tax. We should have a graduated property tax schedule so that expensive houses pay a higher rate of property tax. \_ not necessarily, some people might have come across a large wad of cash (inheritance for instance) but do not have a high income. \_ The homebuyer should know how much property tax is owed for the house and should plan according. If he spends his windfall in one wad and does not plan for taxes, insurance, and other fees, then he's an idiot. \_ Hey asshole: maybe the homeowner did plan for taxes. The question was what sucks about Berkeley. Paying more taxes sucks. STFU. \_ If you planned for the higher tax, then you shouldn't complain you can't afford to pay it. Buy a cheaper house, or buy it in another city than Berkeley, if you can't afford the tax here. \_ This is the most stupid reply I've seen, I mean really, STFU. -!op. \_ I take it you're another selfish property owner who doesn't want to pay his fair share? But you'll vote Kerry and go to bed at night with a clear conscience because you've done your share for democracy. You make me sick. \_ I agree. Vote Bush! \_ Ermm. what does Kerry have to do with local property taxes? \_ The point is that its $3K less in the city next door. What am I getting for that extra money? By the way, why the hell should more expensive houses pay a higher % of property tax? Property tax is beautiful in that it is FLAT. People pay more if they buy a more expensive place. Why raise the RATE? \_ Because it would be *fair*, the same way the regular income tax is graduated, despite what some Republican zealots would like to do otherwise. Those who have more money, who can afford the big expensive houses, should pay their fair share to maintain the community. Instead of making the poor family who can barely pay the mortgage for a broken down house in marginal neighborhood pay more taxes, why not make the fat cat who can afford it pay more? Sounds reasonable to me. \_ Fair share? The most fair system is the same tax rate, be it the income tax or the property tax. With income tax, people who makes more have the luxury (most of the time) to pay a slightly higher tax rate. With property tax, most home owners in the bay area do not have the luxury to pay a higher property tax rate. Ask most working family in the bay area, do they have extra 10k to burn on property tax each year? This has nothing to do with fairness. I worked hard to save up the money to buy the house while at the same time paying my share of taxes. With income tax, we are talking about the top 1%, with property tax, you are talking about 50% of the home owners (higher than the medium price). With income tax, you only pay when you make money, with property tax, you pay no matter what. Do you think it's fair that older people who have worked all their life has to move out of their homes into a dirty shit area because now they cannot pay the higher property tax rate you proposed? And what does this have to do with Kerry or Bush you troll? \_ Actually, in CA property tax is largely regressive. Because of Prop 13 the peopel who bought their houses earlier are paying tax on a price far below market value. They are paying a lower tax rate even though they have seen more appreciation and have more equity than a recent buyer. There are legitimate public-policy reasons for progressive taxation, and instituting it in property taxes would not necessarily raise the average rate, though it *would* raise it for people with more expensive houses. poor family who can barely pay the mortgage for a broken down house in marginal neighborhood pay more taxes, why not make the fat cat who can afford it pay more? Sounds reasonable to me. \_ Even better, how about we do this? Keep the property tax rate as it is for houses under some kind of state or regional median price. Have a graduated property tax schedule for houses more expensive than the median, and use the additional tax revenue to fund schools and other projects in poorer neighborboods. \_ You obviously are not a home owner. Keep dreaming. \_ I am obviously not a selfish hypocrit. \_ Have you ever lived in a poor neighborhood? Do you think more money is the solution? I for one have lived in one and a bullet is a much better solution for some of those fuckers. \_ I don't like the idea of a high property tax at all. It discourages savings. It discourages home ownership. It forces people to work forever. For instance, I have a good job and is earning big bucks, and already bought a nice home. Now I want to devote the last 5 years of my working life to charity work, but can't because I want to keep my house but charity work job pays very little and high property tax would be a big hit. High property tax is also bad for older people and retirees who labored all their life and should now enjoy the fruits of their labor in the form of a nice house. A home is important part of one's life and highly illiquid in that one can't just move on a whim; but life circum- stances changes, and a high property tax (a recurring cost) would force people to move when they suffer a bad break. I don't mind a graduated income tax and inheritance tax, but property tax should be low (we are already taxing rent income). \_ You have no right to save money. You have no right to live in a nice house. You have no right to stop working when you can't afford to. \_ Very well said, thank you! \_ I don't think it's a good idea to just tax income and leave assets (like a house) un-taxable. Your house needs police and fire protection whether or not you are retired, and I think you'd still like schools to run and roads to be repaired irrespective of how many of the homeowners are working. For people who are retired or in your situation, there is something called a "reverse mortgage". In any case, you still need money for food and clothes, so you should just budget for your property taxes too. \_ I don't think housing price necessarily reflects the income level. If you really want the fat cats to pay more, then increase income tax on the rich people. Housing price reflects more than just the income level, it reflects years of hard working, saving up, sacrifice, family contribution, etc. People should not be punished for that. If you and I make the same amount but I saved more than you do and I bought a more expensive house, then why should I cover your share? Home is not a luxury, it is a necessarily. \_ A house is a necessity, but a $750k house is a luxury. \_ Your 1500 sq. foot half million dollar house in Berkeley is certainly a luxury and not a necessity. Come back to me with that necessity line when you're in a 10' x 10' hut. \_ WTF? Can you find ANY DECENT HOUSE under half a million now a days? shut the fuck up! \_ Berkeley Hills homes are very nice. You just have to worry about hill fire. |
2004/7/19-20 [Reference/Tax] UID:32359 Activity:high |
7/19 How much roughly does H&R Block charge for preparing an individual tax return for a couple with two income, a few ESPP sales, a few stock dividends, and a newly-purchased home under mortgage, with all documents available? \_ H&R block is for people with very small, simple tax returns who want to reduce their hassle from epsilon down to zero(me). If you actually expect to have your return done right the first time, with all the deductions you should get, and this adds up to real money, just forget it. \_ Call them. \_ As of 4 years ago, they charged by the forms filed. 1040EZ alone was like $30. Schedule A costed extra, and schedule C and etc... |
2004/5/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:30033 Activity:high |
5/5 Does apple education store charge sales tax/shipping for CA? thx. \_ When I bought an iBook, shipping was free, but I did have to pay tax. \_ Yes, for recent G5 purchase. Funny, while you are filling out your order, sales tax doesn't show up, but after you click the "buy" button, it's all tacked on to your bill. I ended up going over my apple loan limit. It makes one appreciate http://amazon.com's checkout process. \_ This happened when I bought a refurbished G5. I'd managed to talk my wife into the expense, and then the bill showed up with an addition couple hundred tacked on. That really pissed me off. |
2004/5/3-4 [Science/Electric, Reference/Tax] UID:29957 Activity:insanely high |
5/3 This is what should be taught in schools: http://www.fixedearth.com As a real conservative, I want to save tax money by not funding this current "secular science" education. \_ Mm... a crank as well as an anti-semite. \_ Grade school should be nothing more than the 3Rs. |
2004/4/23 [Reference/Tax] UID:13362 Activity:nil |
4/23 TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) seemed like a good deal until I found out you have to pay taxes on inflationary adjustments on the PRINCIPAL when they happen. So let's say you buy a $1000 TIPS and inflation is 10%, and you get 12% return because of that. Your principal would be adjusted from $1000 to $1100, and you would have an interest income of $120 but pay taxes on $220 ($100 principal adjustment + $120 interest). Numbers are approximate. This doesn't seem like a good deal if you are interested in having a steady inflation protected income... |
2004/4/19-20 [Reference/Tax] UID:13268 Activity:nil |
4/19 Bush makes $700k last year, pays about $200k in taxes. Cheney makes 1.5 million, pays $200k in taxes. How does this work exactly? Seems like this directly contradicts what even the Cato Institute calls the "bedrock principle of taxation" in America. \_ Because different income sources are taxed at different rates. I'm stunned that no one on the motd seems aware of this trivial fact and instead prefers to go off on conspiracy theories and pseudo marxist drivel. Put away the tinfoil. \- Once again, read this book "Perfectly Legal": http://csua.org/u/6yv Written by a Republican, not a Marxist. --psb The different sources of income is partly a non-issue because the people we are really talking about are making the big bucks on some form of investment income [i.e. trading risk and time for reward] not wage [trading calories and time for money]. In other words we *are* talking about differential tax treatment of income. And we are challenging the equity and efficiency of the current system. We're talking about examining the descriptive consequences and considering normative issues. --psb \_ What's wrong with trading risk instead of calories? Is the sweat of one's brow the only worth a person has? How about other ways of measuring value such as the fact that a person with a higher education will have a higher earning capacity than one with a lower education? Or smarter vs. dumber? Or any number of other ways? Calories are not measured evenly across the economy. Is that unfair? I don't think so. Some calories are worth more than others. \- i'm not saying everyone should make the same hourly wage. the issue is the tax exemptions not the tax schedule. --psb \_ Your argument might hold water if income from calories burned was taxed at an equitable, or even an equal, rate as that from risk. "Risk money" has had its taxes reduced immensely over the last few decades, and very wrongly so. The estate, dividend, and capital tax reductions tend toward consolidation into massive hereditary fortunes that look suspiciously like the monarchies we threw off more than 200 years ago. \- because wage income is deducted from your paycheck so it is harder to hide. next, companies are less willing to play games to the tax advantage of the avg shlub making $150k/yr, but probably is for the person making $15m. a bus driver obviously cant arrange to be paid minimum wage and then fly off to bermuda to give a talk as a "transportation consultant" in a bar over a red stripe or two and get paid $25k which goes into a bermudan bank which then gives him a visa card to access that account ... all invisible to the IRS. --psb \_ How come sometimes you can't spell? \- because english is my second language. \_ BS. This post was well-thought and spelled perfectly. Other times you barely deign to press the space bar. It's odd. Are there 2 of you? \- my brother, esb, helped me compose that entry. he is knowing much english than i. --psb \_ Extra Special Bannerjee? \_ Wait a minute. You've been regularly reading psb's posts on the motd, and that's the only thing you find odd? I think you're pretty odd for thinking that. |
2004/4/14-15 [Reference/Tax] UID:13198 Activity:nil |
4/14 Has anyone not done their taxes yet? \_ I'm doing them tonnight and I have a question 'cause my W-2 isn't in front of me. On the CA form 540 where it says "Total wages (W-2 box 16)" is that gross wages, or wages after witholding? Where it says "Total tax withheld (W-2 box 17)" is that all witholdings, or just the state witholding? I don't need a tax expert, just someone with their W-2 at hand. \_ gross wages before withholding; just state withholding. \_ Thank you. \_ I did mine last night. I use TurboTax, and they annually have clogged up servers for online filing on the last night. \_ ED! ED! ED is the STANDARD!!! Tax Editor. \_ ED! ED is the STANDARD UNFUNNY JOKE! \_ I started learning/using ed recently. It's actually a very enlightening process. --darin \_ A good friend uses only ed. It works for her and apparently she's too lazy to learn anything else. \_ If she was serious she'd use sed and cat. ed users are weak. SED! \_ Taxes? Didn't I just do those last year? \_ Bear tax? Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax! |
2004/4/11-12 [Reference/Tax] UID:13133 Activity:nil |
4/11 Turbo Tax imported my previous year's tax return, which i have $XX state refund. it considered it as income. but I also received a 1099-G from the government for the same money. If I type in the 1900-G, my tax is increased. Is this right? I feel like I am being counted twice for the tax refund. If I don't report the 1099G, am I at risk of being audited? thx. \_ No one here is a cpa. \_ Did you try looking it up in TurboTax? That's part of the point of spending money on it, it's supposed to answer small questions like this. \_ 1900-G? The 1099G is for unemployment insurance. And yes it is taxable by the feds. \_ I got a 1099G for my state return, too. \_ My boo-boo. It covers the state returns too. The money is federally taxable. TT automatically adds it as income. You don't need to send the 1099-G form. \_ Wasn't the money already taxed by the Fed govt in the previous year? Why would the refund be taxed again the following year? http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw217.html \_ Thanks! |
2004/4/2-5 [Reference/Tax] UID:12997 Activity:nil |
4/2 So some guy decides to try to jump off of the bay bridge and holds up traffic for hours while police try to negociate with him. He's already cost the state far more than he'll ever pay in state taxes, so why not just shoot him or push him off already? \_ or better yet, since people will get pissed about killing the guy, just put a safety net below him, then push him off. police do not solve problems the same way engineers do. usually this is probably for the better. \_ Because people are not potatoes. \_ Tell me about it. Potatoes are useful before and after falling 200 feet into water. \_ we have enough people on this planet already. \_ that's why we should stop tax breaks for people who reproduce like pigs. \_ pigs are over breeding? eat more pork. the other white meat. \_ "Think of the children!" \_ Did he eventually jump of get down? Wussed out didn't he? \_ At 11:30pm he had moved off the edge to an alcove and was acting groggy. The CHP SWAT team, wearing safety lines, rushed in and "subdued" him. \_ clubbed him into submission or tasered him? \_ This isn't what SWAT is for. Complete waste of money. Even if he should be saved, a social worker would suffice. \_ since when does the CHP have a SWAT team anyway... \_ CHP _DOES_ have a SWAT team, they are for Govn'r protection and SWAT situations on state propert'y. In most cases however they defer to the local county SWAT team for tactical responses. \_ Hopefully it'll be you up there next time and they'll just push. \_ Personally I'm taking notes, and figure that I will use this to stop traffic in SF next time I have need for such a distraction. \_ youll get arrested and at a minimum spend 72 hours in lockup being 'evaluated'. if some state paid doctor decides he has a spare bed and he needs funding, he'll declare you insane and keep you there until he retires or you die of old age. i say go for it! |
2004/3/26-27 [Reference/Tax, Reference/Military] UID:12888 Activity:kinda low |
3/26 After opening a new phone line, I have been using a calling card for long distance exclusively, but I also want to have a long distance carrier as a backup in case when the fone card's system fails. Any long distance carrier that does not charge a monthly fee/tax/surcharge and is not exorbitantly expensive? \_ I think you mean 'exorbitantly'. \_ yeah thanks and corrected \_ don't worry...some long-distance provider will call you soon enough with a "courtesy call" and would love to be your provider. \_ Why not just get a backup phone card? \_ Different type of systems. \_ or use 10-10 numbers for backups? I was using http://WALD.com for LD for 6 months because of their free deals, but then when they mis-billed a int'l call at $4/min I disabled LD on my phone, not worth the hassle. Onesuite, and http://10-10phonerates.com \_ I wanted exactly this. SBC had some deal that's no-fee 5M-"/minute. \_ I wanted exactly this. SBC had some deal that's no-fee 5¢/minute. Works for me. --dbushong |
2004/3/26-27 [Reference/Tax] UID:12887 Activity:nil |
3/26 For a home-based small business, is it required to have a business phone plan for its charge to be counted as biz expense for tax purpose? Is biz plan much more expensive? \_ dunno. yes. \_ not really, and yes generally if you are sole proprietorship there are basically no restrictions the usual corporate veil issues pertain to the S-Corp/LLC case \_ No, but you have to have a separate line (you can't say "I use 40% of the single line to the house for work) |
2004/3/24 [Reference/Tax] UID:12829 Activity:nil |
3/24 Are you having trouble with TurboTax and TurboTax State? \_ efiled everything over the weekend. no problems. \_ my stock losses actually helped me this time. |
2004/3/23-24 [Reference/Tax] UID:12821 Activity:nil |
3/23 Self-employed sodans, is there any advantage at all in getting a Fed Tax ID when you are not required to, i.e. when you don't employ anyone else? I know the obligatory "it's beyond stupid to seek * advice on the motd" but I have done some research and I do think there are sound advice from the motd, sometimes, and advice for which I pay $$$ is not always reliable. tia. \_ I should add that one lawyer claimed on his web page that getting a Fed Employer Id can protect your asset even when you have no employee but I cannot verify that claim on any IRS regulation. \_ It would help if you decide to incorporate (not a bad idea) or if you MIGHT employ somebody. The IRS calls these Employer Identity Numbers (EIN). Look up: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1635.pdf \_ "me too" - making yourself a closely-held corporation is easy and the taxes are easy to do yourself too- look into the S election for small corporations. -brain \_ Really? Did you get a lawyer when starting up? Some books claim paperwork would be onerous. And what about double taxation? \_ the paperwork is not bad; I recommend one of the Nolo books... the hardest part is drafting your articles of incorporation. In my case, I did hire a lawyer, but most of my friends said I was a sucker for doing so! -brain \_ S-corps are for small businesses. some berkeley printing company makes do-it-yourself books for this kinda thing. S-corps are pass-thru income like LLC's and partnerships. the regular corps (C-corps?) you can get double-taxed. \_ See http://nolo.com for books. \_ if you are the owner there is no reason you should get double-taxed in a C-Corp even... there is no dividend tax until 2006 ! Yay evil republicans! \_ The best thing is that you can protect your assets if something terrible happens to or at your job. |
2004/3/16 [Reference/Tax] UID:12699 Activity:high |
3/16 Bring back the car tax: http://csua.org/u/6g5 \_ Great! Ride Bike! Use Linux! \_ No no no! We must lower all taxes to 0% and only then will we be able to spend infinite amounts of money on combatting terrorism! \_ It's too bad that you're trying so hard to destroy what could be a good discussion. The tax rates, what gets taxed, and how the money is spent is a core issue that matters to everyone on a daily basis and you're pissing all over it like a baby. Oh well, this topic is dead. thanks. \_ Have you ever seen a political debate on the motd that didn't degenerate into garbage? I think he was just saving us all some time. \_ I have seen lots of good political debates on the motd. Some of us are interested in that sort of thing, you know. \_ Really? Are you reading a different motd than me? There may have been one or two but 99% of them quickly degenerate into (or even start with) name calling. \_ Why is this an issue? The car tax was like that for most of the time. |
2004/3/15-16 [Reference/Tax] UID:12683 Activity:nil |
3/15 Turbo Tax or Tax Cut? Now that turbotax does not include copy protection this year, is anyone switching back to turbo tax? \_ Yeah, I'm using TurboTax, and I used it for the last 4 years too. But geez, Norton AntiVirus added product activation, and they also charge $19.95/year per computer for virus updates. \_ their stuff doesn't work. still get hit by viruses that other shareware can easily find and remove \_ TT. TC was crap last year. \_ I fully agree. I ended up having to buy TT after finding that TC had no capability to handle my situation. |
2004/3/11-12 [Reference/Tax] UID:12633 Activity:low |
3/11 Probably haven't seen one of these since before the bubble, but does anyone have a particular strategy for exercising options that they advocate? I don't need the money immediately and am trying to minimize my tax liabilities. I can afford to pay the exercise price if that will help. -saarp \_ to avoid risking AMT, just sell as soon as you exercise.. \_ you should pay what you owe and stop looking for loop holes to avoid giving back to society. \_ What kind of options? ISO or NonQ? \_ NQ -saarp |
2004/3/10-11 [Reference/Tax] UID:12609 Activity:nil |
3/10 I hope that the large number of sodans who paid AMT in 99-00 understand that they now have an AMT credit that should be helping lower their tax bills. Use it or lose it: http://www.fairmark.com/amt/credit.htm \_ fuck that, they should be paying amt every year! tax the rich til they aint rich no more! |
2004/3/9 [Reference/Tax] UID:12581 Activity:high |
3/9 GREEN! : . PURPLE! : . \_ This a lightsaber color poll? \_ No \_ Are you the Green leader? \_ Why do motd polls always lack the right answer? Everyone knows RED! is the right answer. I want to see a url from a source I approve of before I'll even consider discussing these other useless \_ Red Five standing by. \_ Green must fight purple, purple must fight green. Is no other way. \_ Cut the chatter, Red 5. \_ It's not a Star Wars reference --op \_ Why do motd polls always lack the right answer? Everyone knows RED! is the right answer. I want to see a url from a source I approve of before I'll even consider discussing these other useless options. options. RED!: . \_Green must fight purple, purple must fight green. Is no other way. |
2004/3/3-4 [Reference/Tax] UID:12503 Activity:nil |
3/3 When calculating the net worth of a person far from retirement, why is the balance in his/her 401k account included? That money hasn't been taxed and can't be withdrawn without a penalty. Thx. \_ Because it is part of your net worth? If you have $30 million in your IRA but no other assets should your net worth be $0? \_ With penalty and taxes, there's still a net worth. It's not like penalty and taxes would negate everything you have. \_ No, just most of it. \_ penalty shouldn't be deducted, taxes should, in my opinion. \_ Why? If you own $4 million in stock or in property or cars or any other asset it is still $4 million worth. You might pay tax when you sell and you might pay transaction fees, too. That has nothing to do with the worth of those assets. \_ I should say the part that's the deferred income tax. \_ How do you know what they may be? It could be zero if, say, capital losses offset it when you withdraw. It could be much more than now if your income goes up a lot. Net worth is net worth and figuring out the best way to get income out of that is a different problem. \_ It's an ever-changing number, genius. If your stock has a certain value on the market today, that's the value today and part of your networth today. If tomorrow your stock tanks and goes to zero, then you recalculate your net worth. Please tell me you're not a Cal student or alum. \_ Please tell me where what you said contradicts what I said. Obviously, net worth is calculated at a given point in time, genius. \_ I didn't. Someone has been maliciously editing and moving stuff. \_ how exactly do they calculate capital gains and income tax when one starts withdrawing at retirement? can one withdraw everything at one go? \_ if you want to pay the highest taxes possible, yes |
2004/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Reference/Tax] UID:12492 Activity:high |
3/2 I'm a little confused. Does it make any sense to vote Yes on 58 but no on 57, or vice versa? What's the alternative to 57-- bankruptcy? Higher taxes? Ending school lunches? \_ 58 can only pass if 57 does. I am not sure if 57 can pass without 58, but I think so. \_ You've got it backwards: !58 => !57 http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop57-title.html \_ both are needed to pass to have any effect. I wouldn't mind 58 and 57 so much *IF* Arnie decided to raise just a bit taxes 58 and 57 so much *IF* Arnie decided to raise just a bit taxes n and didn't cut car taxes. \_ What if he decided to only raise taxes for people in *your* tax bracket? Would that be ok? \_ good point, and the answer is no. this bond is about as regressive as sales tax, where the wealthies pays a much less portion of the burden than they should bear. |
2004/3/1-2 [Reference/Tax] UID:12469 Activity:low |
3/1 a few weeks ago someone posted recommending against TurboTax on the Web this year (even though they liked it in the past). What exactly is different/bad this year? \_ Search in ~mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v with your favorite text editor. \_ I'm trying to ask for more info than was originally posted, not to read the same info again, so the archive won't help. -op \_ Oh, sorry. \_ I believe it's got this goofy product activation thing which causes problems for some people (link for 2002-related thing): http://www.blocktax.com/turbotax_2002_boycott-original.htm -John |
2004/2/26-27 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12416 Activity:nil |
02/26 Brookings Institution on whether Bush's tax cuts should be permanent: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/gale/20040308.htm \_ There you go: Dog bites man, no story; man bites dog, front page. \_ Huh? \_ It's on http://brookings.edu. Go post there if you care. |
2004/2/20 [Reference/Tax] UID:12325 Activity:high |
2/20 I exercised my options last year. According to the etrade form, the sale price was $25,600, the option price was $13,7500, and the total gain was $11,850. Of the total gain, etrade already calculated taxes, social security, state, etc, which came out to be $5077.73. So actually I only got back around $6700. Here is my question. Since I already got taxed, do I have to report a net earning of $6700? The etrade form says "W-2 Income: $11850.00". If I tell them that I made extra $11850, wouldn't I get taxed twice? \_ Etrade already withheld your taxes. You should report it as a W-2 income. \_ The very first question is: Are they NQ options or ISO? The tax ramifications are different for the two. \_ I've never dealt with any stock options, but I think you're supposed to report the full 11k income, but also report the $5k you paid in taxes So you won't get taxed twice, but the $5k you paid in taxes may be adjusted depending on how much your other income was. \_ Yeah, what he said. \_ Ok, so I had a temp job and I made about $3000. My total income last year was $11,850 + $3000. Approximately how much tax will I have to pay back/receive? I'm asking because this is such an insignificant amount (I'm taking a leave of absence) and I'm thinking of not reporting the $11850 income at all. I know this is not right but I will do it if I can get away with it. -op \_ Don't be a dumbass. File and you will get most of the $5k you already paid back as a refund. The IRS already knows you made the $11k. Don't think you can outclever them. \_ Actually, if you only made $14,850 last year and no one else can claim you as a dependent, you'll get all of it back. File. You're only penalizing yourself if you don't. \_ how do you know this? \_ etrade calculated your tax and withheld assuming you have certain level of income. Since you made almost no extra income, you're in a lower tax bracket for the year. Don't know if you'd get all of it back as above said, since taxes laws for stock options may be differenct, you should get at least some money back. It's in your favor to report it correctly and get what you deserve. And as someone said above, etrade reports your income directly to IRS, so don't try to "get away with it." \_ In addition, it looks like you might have been taxed at the "old" rate of 28%. It was changed to 15% at some point last year. You might be owed money thanks to BushCo. \_ Buy lots of fire extinguishers to help offset the closure of your local fire department due to lack of funding. \_ Wrong. Why do people who have no idea what they are talking about love to confidently state their opinion on the motd? Check out one of the tax calculators on the web. You will owe something like $600 in total tax burden. If you have paid $5000 already, you will get $4400 back. |
2004/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Tax] UID:12320 Activity:low |
2/20 http://www.consumerfreedom.com/petaPetition.cfm \_ interesting, there are lots of articles about the total slime (but probably Hero Of The Revolution to a strict 100 percent Let Corporations Do Whatever The Fuck They Want In All Case, Common Sense Be Damned You Smelly Socialist Hippie free market guy) who runs the network of shadowy tax free industry lobbyist front groups behind http://consumerfreedom.com and other sites, Rick Berman, NO NOT THE STAR TREK GUY, ok let's begin: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Berman_%26_Co http://www.prwatch.org/improp/ddam.html http://www.consumerdeception.com http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/tobacco.cfm http://www.theecologist.org/links.html?section=32 http://ngin.tripod.com/190502b.htm So I find it fascinating that this guy, who is VERY well paid, in millions per year, to head a trio of non profits, that are directly funded by Phillip Morris, to cry and whine about the funding of PETA. Give me a break. The deeper argument here is not at all about PETA, but why don't assholes like Rick Berman get pancreatic cancer, the world would be much better off. \_ also I bet Rick Berman was the inspiration for a lot of the really funny book "Thank You For Smoking" \_ oooh, you're so sexy when you wear your tinfoil hat and use "shadowy" to describe someone that any ninny like you can find out everything on using google. sheesh. even if berman is a total asshole and is better off dead that doesn't mean peta is anything but a bunch of cocksuckers and better off dead either. \_ kinney? is that you? \_ This petition is idiotic. First they say PETA is engaged in all sorts of nevarious criminal activity, which may well be true, but then they say that this means that they shouldn't be tax exempt as a non-profit, which is what their petition if for. That's just dumb. If they're criminals, call for them to be investigated as such, but unless they're atually in danger of turning into a for-profit corporation, this is unfounded. When a cult religion decides to go nuts and kill a bunch of people, we don't go round saying they're not really a religion and take away their non profit status, we convict the leaders of crimes. \_ you know all those urls I posted detailing the background of the slimebags behind http://consumerfreedom.com, they weren't that foaming at the mouth and were actually quite well thought out, i think it's important to understand the context of who writes this crap, i hate you selective motd censor. \- your petition has been heard. restored. \_ I do not think you understand how the legal system operates in this or other law based country, and you are mixing sentiments, which I share, with legal tactics. You go after the bad guys with EVERY legal arsonal. Like you attack terrorists on financial front as well as military front (and yes if terrorists are using non-profit foundations then their tax-exmpt status should be revoked - that will cripple them faster). \_ Ok, mister legal scholar. Name one case where this "legal tactic" was effective. \_ There are legion. Some of the mafia cases were cracked first with an IRS violation. Illegal income are rarely reported to IRS. Usually it is easier to prove that you failed to report an income than to prove that income comes from murderous activities. I can't recall any precedent involving non-profit but it would be in the same vein. \_ Which mobster was it that went down on a single IRS conviction for failure to fully report his income yet got away with untold numbers of other crimes including murder? Was it Capone? \_ PETA is cool. It's Malthusianism taken to it's logical extremist conclusion. I wonder if people who are activily involved in PETA are clinically insane. \_ I've known some PETA people and they all seemed sane enough to me. One of them is now wanted by the FBI for bombing some animal research labs, though. Another one is a lawyer for Wilson and Sansini now though, so whattya know. \_ Now aren't you morally obliged to turn that bomber in? \_ this is a different poster, but no one has seen the guy in months, either in real life or online. critical path was just full of freaks! \_ people eat tasty animals. \_ Anyone rememeber back in the day when http://peta.org was registered by the group People Eating Tasty Animals? Probably back in 1997... \_ Yeah, those were the days, I remember them fondly. WTF?! Who cares who owned which random fuck domain 7 years ago? \_ I am a fruitarian and I believe vegetables have a life force and the peta people are killing innocents.. PETOV \- the nature conservancy as also been corrupted by liberal hypocrites ... http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/A17879-2003May5.html [sovereignty.net might be a whacko organization but much of this was unearthed [NPI] by the washinton post ... i couldnt find the story in their "deep web"]. --psb \_ Soylent Green Fuel and Soylent Green Battery. \_ Meat is murder! Salad is slaughter! Jainism or bust! |
2004/2/19 [Reference/Tax] UID:12311 Activity:moderate |
2/19 So much for benefits of e-commerce: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/09/pf/taxes/nys_sales_tax/index.htm?cnn=yes \_ the state gov'ts are desperate, but this is not yet enforced. If it is, there will be massive tax revolts. \_ Why? Why should an online business not pay taxes? It'd better if they simply started collecting taxes correctly, but still... |
2004/2/17-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:29812 Activity:nil |
2/17 I have used TurboTax on the Web for 6 years now. I have to say 2004's version sucks. It skips many interview questions because it thinks it doesn't apply to me, and there is no way for me to force it to go through these missing sections. And online helps sucks. "What is the gross income test?" and "How do I claim tax credit for worthless stocks?" yield no search results. Word of advice: Don't use TurboTax on the Web this year. |
2004/2/16-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:29805 Activity:high |
2/16 Where can I find information on how tax money is spent in different countries? For example, what % of the U.S. tax money goes to defense, home, commerce, etc? How about Russia? Japan? Canada? \_ <DEAD>www.nationmaster.com<DEAD> |
2004/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Tax] UID:12276 Activity:kinda low |
2/16 I totally support gay marriage. I'm single and straight but don't have a gf, but I would like to have all the tax advantages of being married. My roomate and I discussed it and we think it would be cool that we sign marriage papers for the sake of tax benefits. \_ For many couples, there's a significant tax "marriage penalty". And are you sure you want to assume all your roommate's debts? You get married, that's what you do. \_ You haven't been paying attention, have you. \_ To what? The elimination or reduction of the marriage penalty will, at best, make being married not-a-penalty for tax purposes. It is never better and there are no laws coming up to make it better. \_ Right now, it it is a tax disadvantage to be married, if both of you are working and making decent money. Perhaps this will change, but it has not so far, in spite of Republican promises. spite of Republican promises to fix it. http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html \_ If all married gay, there would be no kids to power the economy and pay taxes. Since this would destroy our country, this should be discouraged. \_ wacky troll \_ Our economy is doomed once the prime ingredient, cheap oil goes away, anyhow: http://www.peakoil.net \_ ASPO! |
2004/2/14-16 [Reference/Tax] UID:12262 Activity:nil |
2/13 Ok it's that time of the year. How do I claim Lifetime Learning Tax Credit? -grad student \_ It's one of the supplemental forms when using one of the 1040 forms. Not sure if you can claim using one of the EZ forms. This saved my financial butt last year. \_ Don't fill out forms. Use <DEAD>taxactonline.com<DEAD> to fill them out for you. Just answer the questions and all the forms will be filled out automagically. It costs money to submit your tax return electronically, but free to print them out and mail them in old school. Super-easy and efficient. - not affiliated \_ Is this a new thing? Didn't know this when I was a grad 5 yrs. ago. |
2004/1/31-2/1 [Reference/Tax] UID:12055 Activity:nil |
1/31 Is the economy picking up? 4 job postings on the motd. Not quite 1998, but not bad either. \_ i was thinking the same thing. of course, i've been hearing talking heads and economists say shit about economic recovery, but until job postings on the motd picked up i have to admit i didn't believe it. I guess this relates to the above poll. \_ This despite Bush's tax cuts oppressing the poor! \_ No really, are you an idiot? [restored] \_ OMG! WTF! LOL! No. Are you? \_ because if they didn't hire the rest of us would just keel over and die and then they'd have to hire and have no one to train the new people. having a job has been nice but it isn't 1998 nice. \_ Amazing it took this long considering how much money is being pumped into the economy via tax cuts and big federal spending increases. I guess it takes a long time to "trickle down" from defense contracts. \_ Bush' claim to fame is that this is one of the shortest recessions ever. nice troll though. \_ Actually neither are true. The recession started during the Clinton admin. and the official length of time is about the same as any other since these things were tracked. And no, it wasn't a very good troll, just standard lefty noise. As a middile class person who got a useful amount of money back on my taxes, I'd be really fucking pissed off if all those "tax cuts for the rich!" got rolled back. \_ See, that's funny, because I'm a "middle class person" likely in the same upper five figure income bracket as the rest of you, despite what Mr. I'm A Big Adult seems to think. And I got a whole $40 a month extra out the tax cut. Is that what you call a "useful amount of money?" Its half a good pair of pants! Or a halfway decent meal out! \_ It was a one time boost. Already the economy is starting to turn back down. \_ nothing goes straight up or straight down. when it was going down there were plenty of 'ups' along the way. \_ Uhm, a lot of us haven't gotten our first full refund yet. If you earned a pay check you'd know that. Come back when you're taller. Thanks for joining us for today's grown-up topic. The kids' topic for tomorrow is "pokemon or yu-gi-oh, which is right for you?" \_ Hey look, its Mr. I'm A Big Adult! You're my favorite motd asshole. Seriously, you need a new line. \_ When the kids leave, I'll stop using it. I think Pokemon is more your speed. Would you disagree? Are you more of a Yu-gi-oh kid? \_ Keep on trollin'... \_ So you're a "Heart Of the Cards!" guy, huh? \_ I think he's a Pokemon guy. \_ There was an article in the paper (either Chronicle or WSJ) that mentioned that there was this guy that either turns around your company or liquidates it. He moved from San Diego to Silly Valley because there is lots of liquidation business...and this was very recent. The big tech turnaround hasn't happened yet, and probably won't until the next big innovation happens. There are still too many ppl looking for too few jobs. If you don't have the skill set, experience, exceptional talent, and/or bow to a company's every wish, expect to be out of circulation for quite some time. \_ I read that article. It was just his high hopes and free advertising. He moved here years ago, not recently and it was from LA, not SD. many ppl looking for too few jobs. |
2004/1/30-31 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12038 Activity:kinda low |
1/30 States that pay out more in federal taxes voted for Gore, states that take in more in welfare benefit than they pay in tax voted for Bush: http://tinyurl.com/2zswk (nytimes link) \_ 'Cos if you're looking for sense, don't ask an American voter. \_ Democracy is two Republicans and a Democrat deciding who is for dinner. |
2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Reference/Tax] UID:11869 Activity:nil |
1/20 [18-hour rule for debated threads enforced: political thread restored.] Finally a tax cut the Republican's don't like: \_ The apostrophe doesn't mean "an s will follow" http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif _/ One that helps the middle class most, of course. http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003060.html \_ typical... the rich & poor are taxed the same amt of SS due to the $88k+ cap, so reducing SS tax helps all $80k earners the same dollar amount, but of course $6k is pennies for the millionaire while it's 2 months mortgage for normal folks. \_ If you're paying $3k/month mortgage and/or making $88k a year, here's a big fat fucking hint: YOU'RE NOT POOR! \_ And that cap used to be $70k not that long ago. \_ Yeah, let's kill social security sooner. Funny how it isn't called a tax, but rather SS when it's supposed to be put into a 'lockbox'. But when we want to shift the tax burden even higher it's called a tax. -emarkp \_ Did Bush raid the "lockbox"? Yes, he did and he used it to handout tax cuts for the rich. \_ Sh. Maligning the Pres. isn't allowed in Del Paso Manor. \_ Pyramid scheme. \_ Last I checked, my SS rate was still the same. -emarkp \_ Rate, yes, funds available, no. \_ Are the funds available >= the funds needed? -emarkp \_ Well they would have been, if they had not all been spent. Good enough until 2038 at least. \_ So you're claiming that we're deficit spending for SS? That is, that outlays of SS are higher than collections? If so, I'd like to see something to back up the claim. -emarkp \_ No, I am claiming the opposite. Though the outlays are projected to pass income in 2013 or so. \_ So what precisely is your objection to moving SS money around if there's a surplus? -emarkp \_ I think the money should be used to pay off the debt, not pay off GWB's campaign contributors. Silly me. \_ I don't see why any of you give a shit about SS. Not one of us is likely to see so much as a penny from it after paying into it for decades. People are living too long, getting too much out, and not putting enough in to cover any of us. \_ Hear hear... SS will be bankrupt long before we retire, probably after the substantially increase taxes and retroactively tax retirement savings. \_ http://csua.org/u/5mh "As critics have long noted, that means that someone earning [$87,900] pays the same Social Security payroll tax as Microsoft's Bill Gates." "For example, a filer earning between $40,000 and $50,000 pays 12.2 percent of his income in payroll taxes and 8.5 percent in income taxes, according to a study by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, a worker earning more than $500,000 pays 3.5 percent of income in payroll taxes, and 27.3 percent in income taxes." \_ Worse than that, the combined rate is higher for people making $87k/yr than it is for people making 88k-300k. Guess how much I make? \_ You do understand that federal income tax and social security are wildly different things, right? The only thing they have in common is that they're deducted from your salary (SS even deducts from your company equal to the amount from your salary, so you're really getting twice the shaft). \_ They seem the same to me. The federal government takes a bunch of my money and spends it. What is "different" about them? \_ You understand that people get the same amount out if they put the same amount in? BG is not going to get more out of SS than someone who made exactl $88k every year. If you think SS taxes are so unfair to the poor then let's let the max contribution rise all the way up and then we can pay BG a billion or two a year when he hits 67 (or whatever) because he'll have put so much in over the years. That makes sense, right? \_ you're an idiot. \_ thank you. now I know I've hit a nerve when that's the only response to a factual description of how the world works. \_ You are wrong. Say two guys pay the same amount in and one dies at 65 and other lives to be 100. They do not get the same amount out. Your statement goes downhill from there. \_ here's where I get to say "you're an idiot". Must I also explain why the sky is blue? Please take your anal retentive self and find a rock to crawl under. You're the only one here who didn't understand the very basic gradeschool concepts being applied here. In this case, there is nothing the government can do if you drop dead too early, however, it is obvious to any child that if you live the same length of time you'll get the same amount out as BG, assuming you're the same age, start drawing at the same time and have been making at least $88k for most of your working life. There, I did it. I fed the Mighty Troll Of Anal Retention. Have a cookie. \_ Thanks for the cookie, but you are still wrong. There are thousands of scenarios where people who pay the same amount in get differing amounts out. Your payout is based on your highest five years of earnings, so someone who makes 30k/yr his whole life gets less back than somone who makes 10k/yr his whole life, except for that 5 year period where he made 100k. Is this fair? I dunno, maybe you have an opinion. There is no way to design the system that is not "unfair" to somebody or other. \_ As an aside, I think the name "Social Security" should be changed to "Welfare for Seniors". That way people wouldn't think it was a retirement plan, we wouldn't have this nonsense about privatizing it, and people wouldn't think that you should get out an amount proportional to what you put in. If you're intelligent, lucky, or thrifty you can prepare for retirement far better than Social Security. The reason I support SS is that I don't want to see stupid, unlucky, or spendthrift seniors starving living in poverty. Finaly, naming it "Welfare for Seniors" would probably make people realize the stupidity of making SS a regressive payroll tax. \_ What's the rationale behind the government providing MANDATORY retirement plans to all US workers? I can understand rationale for providing welfare type benefits(Redistrib. of wealth, etc.), but SS has the guise of a "retirement plan:" you pay in young, you get back when old. Firstly, anyone with income above $50k should be able to provide for their own retirement, esp. with federal tax savings plans like IRA's, Roth IRA's, 401k's, etc. Secondly, anyone who is forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck belongs in the poor category eventually, and will end up on welfare or some other government freebie. |
2004/1/20 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:11848 Activity:very high |
1/20 What do you liberals think of the following: a big chunk of the state budget is in pension funds for gov't employees. How about we stop new enrollment in these state run funds for new govt employees and offer 401K plan instead? Also give incentives for current employees to convert to 401K. The idea is to scale back govt run programs. Empower each individual to think about his/her own retirement and let them manage their own retirement money instead of asking the govt to take care of this. We can grandfather the program and keep everything the same for current employees to keep them happy. But the new teachers or prison guards or other civil service workers will only have 401K instead. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." \_ Out of curiousity, can anyone speak to the tax incentives for a business for setting up a pension fund versus a matching 401k? Or give me a pointer for where I might read up on this. I've been curious about the widespread disappearance of pensions. -scotsmaan \_ Imagine it was this: "A big chunk of the company budget is in the pension plan. How about we stop offering a pension and in stead offer them a 401K. Also encourage everyone in the pension to convert to a 401K. The idea is to get the pension plan off the books." I guess I don't know how I feel about this. What kind of 'encouragement' will you give current and former employees to switch? The fact that the state, as an employer runs a pension for its employees doesn't really seem overly socialist, just standard business practice. \_ Imagine? Those of us with jobs don't have to imagine. What universe do you work in where people still get pensions? Most of us don't even get 401k matching. And more importantly, how do I get a ticket to your universe?? Why should government employees get special benefits the working stiffs don't? Imagine that. The obvious method of conversion is offering 401k matching. It is what the rest of us get (if we're lucky). Pensions are not standard business practice anymore. Not for a long time. \_ that's because "standard business practice" is "fuck the employees" The fact that the state, as an employer \_ Get a better job. My mom's company has both a pension and a 401(k) (which they match 6%). My gf's company has both a pension and a 403(b) (but no matching). Neither work for the government in any way, shape, or form. \_ Many govt. employees (like myself) are paid much less than private sector salaries, live in constant fear of being laid off due to the current fiscal crises, never get bonuses or stock options, and do not get raises when there's a deficit. It's quite a trade-off. \- you dont have a 403b? i dont think the working conditions at say the port of oakland is the same at say lbl or ucb. --psb \_ You think people out here don't have the same fears? Our fears are much much much greater than yours. There have been *millions* of jobs lost in the last few years alone in industry. How many government jobs in the same time? Industry jobs can even go poof during good times. And I've yet to receive a single penny of bonuses, an option worth more than the paper it was on, and it's been a long time since anyone has seen a raise. You get raises in good times, eh? Most of us only get raises by quitting and finding a new job. I've done government work. You basically don't. I have very little sympathy. \_ If you're looking for ways to solve the current budget crisis, how about demanding the billions owed to us by the energy industry? \_ It's in court. |
2004/1/19-20 [Reference/Tax] UID:11832 Activity:very high |
1/19 Stock market is bouncing back so I'm polling people here with stock options and ESPP that are worth something. What percentage is your vested stock options and ESPP as a portion of your total liquid assets? I'm thinking of cashing out some of my options, but the tax implications are quite significant. The percentage of my liquid assets in company's stock is about 50% right now. Quite a lot since it has gone up a lot in the past year. I know I should diversify but I hate paying a shit load of taxes also. Just wondering about what the rest of you are doing. Thanks. \_ My opinion: do the AMT calculations and sell enough to put you just under AMT if AMT would have you paying more. You should really talk to an accountant/tax expert if you have significant bucks floating around. Find one now because by tax time they'll all be too busy. \_ You might want to look into http://derivium.com, if you are interested in hedging your bets or just deferring taxes. Make you understand all the tax implications before you do it. I did not, but it worked out in my favor anyway, since Bush lowered the long term capital gains rate. -ausman |
2004/1/17-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:11817 Activity:nil |
1/16 http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/09-26-03.pdf See how taxes have changed over time. From this, it looks as though 2001 taxes effectively shifted some burden from the very rich to the sort-of-rich, leaving the poor untouched. \_ actually if you look at that report, the super rick more than doubled their share of income, while their tax rates only raised by 50 percent. Also that seems to be income tax alone. Does that count for such things as capital gains or property taxes? Stuff that has some pretty significant cuts over the years? \_ This chart does not include "payroll" tax, which is almost as large as income tax, and has regressivity. Nor any of the other taxes, which hit lower income people harder (percentage wise). \_ Sorry OP, but it looks like people on both ends of the spectrum \_ Sorry OP, but it looks like people both both ends of the spectrum think your chart is a load of crap. Maybe next time.... |
2004/1/16 [Reference/Tax] UID:11812 Activity:nil |
1/16 Related tax thread. I bought this up before and I couldn't find a single convincing argument against it. Everybody pays a base tax for all gov't projects and services. Those who use that particular gov't service should pay more for the simple reason that they use it. E.g., everybody pays some base amt to build a bridge. But the people who drive across it pays more in the form of a toll. Same for education. Everybody pays for public education. But people with a lot of kids in public schools should pay more. You get the idea. I think this "pay more tax the more gov't service" you use is the only way to get the state and federal deficits under control. \_ this is one of the stupidest things I've seen on the MOTD. -tom \_ The problem with "pay-more-use-more" is that it may be in the state's best interests for people to use services even if they can't afford to pay more. What if people 'oops' and have another kid but can't afford to send him/her to school? What about an indigent drunk bum? They use tons of services and theres no way they can pay \_ There is a mechanism for this already, it's called garnishing wages. Yes, sometimes someone would die or something or otherwise be unable to pay, which will result in some deficit. However, I have this impression the resulting deficit will be far, far more manageable than now. \_ Saying you'll garnish their wages is no different from plain old regular income tax. If you just blindly increase their tax, what happens if they can't afford rent or food? It seems like you're just advocating making the tax code way more complicated in way that will make taxes over all much more regressive. \_ the base tax that everybody pays should be enough to cover these things. I'm not suggesting that the homeless pay for their homeless shelter. That's stupid and unreasonable. \_ Schools are a good counterexample. Families have children typically long before their earnings peak, yet educated children will have a better chance of higher earnings and greater contribution to society. Hence it makes sense to give young families help to grow with help, so they can then help others later. That being said, the school systems in many places suck now, so it's not such a good example any more. \_ what you are suggesting isa regressive tax. The poor end up paying a much higher percentage of their income to pay the taxes. And it doesn't take into account that the wealthy get a lot of advantages out of having functional government services. For instance our infrastructure and education system have MADE the country one where wealth is so attainable. Make those paid by regressive taxes and it won't be the case. Do you really want to live in a third world country? \_ I think the issue is this 'base amt' that I'm suggesting. If this base amt is enough to pay for 2 kids in public school, and you pay more if you have more than 2 kids, why would that destabilize society? It would make people think twice about having 5 kids. \_ You are still making a regressive tax. And in this case the poor are maying the same amount (or more) for the same services, services that end up improving the life of the rich more. Think about how hard it would be to have the industrial base the us has if we didn't have say, roads. \_ China had the same thing. The US called it a violation of human rights. \_ progressive tax >> flat tax >> regressive tax As much as conservatives like the principle of an overall flat tax or regressive system, I believe the majority support an overall progressive tax system -- just not as progressive as the liberals would like it. Your proposal is for a regressive tax system: a fair sounding idea, but not humane in practice. What do I mean by humane? People (conservatives and liberals) believe if you're rich, you should pay more than the poor person. Humane people want to provide a safety net for the poor or those who run into unexpected circumstances -- thus, the rich, having the extra buffer to pay, do pay. \_ To OP: If I want to beat you up and take your stuff because I think you're a dumbass, should you pay more because you're using the protection provided by the police? :) Seriously, though, I think a flaw in your proposal is that many things are difficult to charge for fairly. For example, there is a class of goods often referred to as "public goods" in economics which benefit everyone beyond just the user. Some classic example beyond police protection and the military are roads, schools, enforcing environmental regulations, and emergency services. I don't think your system would work for many public goods. \_ You're ascribing a level of rationality to the libertarian motd that simply does not exist. They figure they'll protect themselves from criminals with their gun collection, fight off invaders with the local militia, and that all environmental concernes are part of a vast liberal conspiracy to undermine the free market. Roads? who needs 'em? I'll just drive an SUV over the decaying dirt strips that used to\ be roads. Schools? Fuck 'em. I learned PERL from a book, not a school, and look what a useful member of society I am! \_ You are ignoring where a majority of Federal expenditures go - Medicaid and Social Security. These are unconstitutional bureaucratic monstrosities that misallocate funds and whose industries basically extort rent from the economy. This nation survived quite well for 150 years without an income tax and socialized medicine and retirement. Our system has devolved into capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor. Its obvious we are failing the poor. \_ Do you have any idea what the poverty rate was amongst the ederly before Social Security? Social Security is the most successful povertly elimination program ever invented. And no way is the "majority" of federal expenditure on Medicaid and Social Security. A plurality perhaps, not a majority. |
2004/1/16 [Reference/Tax] UID:11808 Activity:nil |
1/15 Related to the post below, one of my friends from Singapore says the government tries to mold the society using strict laws and tax incentives. For example, he says that well educated people have tax incentives for having kids whereas the less educated people (this is supposedly aimed at the Malaysians and others) have penalty for having kids. Is this really true, and if so, is it ethical? \_ What you have to understand about Singapore is that their situation is much different than ours. They're a very small nation surrounded by some not-so-peaceful-nations. Their survival depends having well educated people and a stable society so they develop laws centered around that. And like Israel, they also have a required National Service for men. \_ Ethics isn't the issue. What sort of society do you think is going to do better in the long term: one which penalises the uneducated masses and promotes education or one which does the opposite such as ours? Governments don't have ethics or morals. They have goals and self interest. Never make the mistake of thinking of any government in human terms. Governments are not people. \_ Ah, the lucky ducky arguments... |
2003/12/30 [Reference/Tax] UID:29738 Activity:nil |
12/29 What's the tax rate for new car purchases in the Bay Area? Thx. \_Depends on where you live. \_ Fremont. |
2003/12/23 [Reference/Tax, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:29732 Activity:nil |
12/23 Okay. Let's try this again before we all get coal in the old stocking. motd nuked. Play nice. \_ God bless us, every one! \_ Nah, I've got a hard-on for this $2,000 per average family tax increase the nuker keeps prattling on about. |
2003/12/23 [Reference/Tax] UID:11571 Activity:nil |
12/23 I just bought the cheapest CD burner I could buy at Fry's. Is it going to break inside of 24 hour's time? \_ If it breaks within 30 days, it doesn't matter. @@@ @@@ @@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ @@! @@! @@@ @@! @@@ @@! @@! !!@ @!@!@!@! @!@!@!@! @!! @!!!:! !!: !!: !!! !!: !!! !!: !!: : : : : : : : : : :: ::: @@@@@@@ @@@ @@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@@ @@@@@@ @@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ !@@ @@! @@@ @@! @@@ !@@ @@! @@@ @@! @@! @@@ @@! @@! !@! @!@!@!@! @!@ !@! !@! @!@ !@! @!! @!@!@!@! @!! @!!!:! :!! !!: !!! !!: !!! :!! !!: !!! !!: !!: !!! !!: !!: :: :: : : : : : :. : :: :: : : :. : : ::.: : : : : : : :: ::: . . ________________ . . . ____/ ( ( ) ) \___ . /( ( ( ) _ )) ) )\ . . (( ( )( ) ) ( ) ) . . . ((/ ( _( ) ( _) ) ( () ) ) . . ( ( ( (_) (( ( ) .((_ ) . )_ ) ) ##### #### ### ### ###### ( _) #### # # ###### ##### # # # # # # # ) # # # # # # # # ### ###### # # # ###### ) ( # # # # ###### ##### . # # # # # # # # ( _ # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # ###### _ ) #### #### ###### # # _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . (_((__(_(__(( ( ( | ) ) ) )_))__))_)___) . . ((__) \\||lll|l||/// \_)) . . . / ( |(||(|)|||// \ . . . . . . . ( /(/ ( ) ) )\ . . . . . ( . ( ( ( | | ) ) )\ ) . ( /(| / ( )) ) ) )) ) . . . . . . . . . . ( . ( ((((_(|)_))))) ) . . . ( . ||\(|(|)|/|| . . ) . . . . ( . |(||(||)|||| . ) . . . . . . . ( //|/l|||)|\\ \ ) . . . (/ / // /|//||||\\ \ \ \ _) \_ that might have been funny if you hadn't deleted my calculator troll. why don't you go send some commie messages to your friends using your TI-85, jackass? \_ Is Arvin Hsu REALLY a commie? That's what we'd like to know. \_ of course I am. Fuk'n capitalist. -nivra \_ So, what you're saying is, you can't explain how the average family suffers a $2,000 per year increase in their tax burden if the Bush tax cuts are repealed, and you have no clue what kinds of chocolate are really good. |
2003/12/23 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Tax] UID:11567 Activity:kinda low |
12/22 The UN Tax? http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11424 \_ Except for the gratuitous slap at Dean, this is pretty amusing. \_ look at the other articles on the site. at least a third of them are bullshit "news" stories primarily focused on why Dean is part of some evil conspiracy or another. here's a direct quote from another article on the site "Any of these candidates who hesitates in even the tiniest way to declare unwavering support for our Commander-in-Chief in the face of another 9-11 terrorist attack will have demonstrated an unfitness and unworthiness ever to be President." \_ "...he would repeal the Bush tax cuts -- even though this would boost the average family.s tax burden by nearly $2,000." When did the richest 2% of our population become the average family? \_ Must we go through this one again? Nevermind, just go back and retake Math P. Thanks, troll. \_ Go for it, explain to me what the average family makes, and how much the Bush tax cuts saved this imaginary family. If it's $2,000 or so, I'll post my apology. If not, I want you to post yours. |
2003/12/19-20 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/Tax] UID:11518 Activity:moderate |
12/18 Most of people in California don't like the car tax. Just curious, do you guys support the repeal of that car tax at our current financial crisis? \_ One thing that was conveniently forgotten: 3 years ago, the car "tax" was reduced by 66% because we were flush with revenue from other sources. Restoring those pre-boom levels can hardly be called a tax increase... But it was a very effective marketing term. As was the heretofore nonexistent term "Car tax." --scotsman \_ That's right. I used to be paying $400, but now i am paying $250 for a car that is twice as much as my old car. \_ FUCKING WATCH YOUR DAMN OVERWRITES. TWO POSTS RESTORED \_ I guess I'm not most people. I think a tax based on the value of one's car makes a lot of sense. -- ulysses \_ You must really hate America. \_ I bet you'd love socialism, too. -- anonymous coward \_ We should base criminal penalties on the value of your car, too. \_ I bet you'd love socialism, too. \_ Hmm, we're spending way more than we're making.... Oh well, maybe it'll get better on its own.... Oops, it didn't. I don't want to spend less, though.... I heard CA has one of the highest car tax rates in the country _even_before_ the tripling. \_ you heard wrong. http://www.njpp.org/gastax_compare.html \_ I would prefer not being taxed over being taxed, but I don't think it makes sense to get rid of a tax before figuring out where the money will come from or before getting rid of the items being funded by the tax. \_ Our current financial 'crisis' is due to over spending not lack of taxation. After the state level morons cut a few billion in pork everything will be fine. \_ may be we can resolve the financial crisis at federal level by stop issuing bonds. after the federal level morons cut a few hundred billion in pork, everything will be fine? \_ There isn't a financial crisis at the federal level but yes there's a few hundred billion in pork that should be cut and taxes lowered by the same amount. \_ there isn't ??? hello the federal financial crisis is way worse! The fed govt' is already in amode of borrowing to pay for the interest on its debt. Can you say federal debts over 10,000 per capita? The only difference here is there is already an established pattern of borrowing at the federal level, while there is none such for the state level. \_ No, the biggest difference is that the Fed can just decide to mint money and inflate their way out of any debt problem. The State cannot. \_ This is all really very easy. Davis increased the # of gov't employees by 30% during his reign. Fire them and cut the budget 10% across the board. \_ urlP \_ why didn't Arnold doing so? \_ probably the same reason your grammar sucks. laziness, or perhaps sheer stupidity. \_ if you are so smart, then, tell me why Arnie is not firing state employees. \_ what does knowing what goes on in arnold's head have to do with being smart? \_That's easy, fire people = less votes \_ How many of those 30% were school teachers, mandated by the voters? Not a rhetorical question, seriously interested in the answer. \_ I don't have the answer, but this is the general problem. Voters have such little trust for the state legislature, that we've passed measure after measure to control their spending. As a result, decreasing the budget without breaking a law is hard. Other than school teachers, there are also the huge pensions given to prison workers, which can't be taken away, etc. -emarkp \_ Americans don't pay for the full social cost of driving anyway, and the car tax still doesn't come close to what Europeans and others pay in terms of gas prices, etc. The tax should be more of a user fee rather than money for local jurisdictions. \_ Europe is a lousy god forsaken place full of socialists and communists who never want to do an honest days work. Using Europe as a benchmark is stupid and foolish. \_ I love how you there's basically no difference between trolls and people being serious on the motd. \_ What'd he say that isn't true? \_ Actually I think you have it backwards. It is the US that pays a disproportionate amount of costs for a stable supply of oil in the Middle East. It is the US military that provides security in the area (eg. Fifth Fleet). Much like pharmaceuticals and host of the other products Europe is a parasite on the US - we subsidize their lazy social welfare \_ Europe is a lousy god forsaken place full of socialists and communists who never want to do an honest days work. Using Europe as a benchmark is stupid and foolish. and people being serious on the motd. state. \_ car tax on my 10-year old honda was tiny anyway ($65 for the total DMV registration for the year) - triple that puppy! Punish the SUV buyers! \_ why single out the SUV owners? Heck, why single out car owners when the real social cost is on the USE of cars. A gas tax would be ideal here, and be far less noticeable than a several hundred dollar a year hit in registration fees. Plus it will disproportionately hit the heavy gas users like SUV owners. \_ I prefer gas tax over car tax too. The more you drive, the more of the purden you pick up to maintain the roads. Plus that'll encourage people to carpool and take public transit. BTW I drive an SUV. \_ Is it accurate to say that most expensive cars (= high car tax) also have lower gas mileage? E.g. sports cars, large trucks, ...? Still indirect, admittedly, but doesn't it have roughly the same effect? (not the case with old vs new cars, though) \_ car tax on my 10-year old honda was tiny anyway ($65 for the total DMV registration for the year) - triple that puppy! Punish the SUV buyers! would be ideal here, and be far less noticeable than a several hundred dollar a year hit in registration fees. Plus it will disproportionately hit the heavy gas users like SUV owners. \_ I prefer gas tax over car tax too. The more you drive, the more of the purden you pick up to maintain the roads. Plus that'll encourage people to carpool and take public transit. BTW I drive an SUV. tax) also have lower gas mileage? E.g. sports cars, large trucks, ...? Still indirect, admittedly, but doesn't it have roughly the same effect? (not the case with old vs new cars, though) \_ More expensive cars tend to have much worse gas mileage because the vehicles are heavier, have more power, bigger engines, more toys, etc. Anyway, as someone with an expensive car I only drive a short way to/from BART every day I don't see why I should have to pay a huge tax on it. \_ It's always been high. What the tax paid for was covered by state taxes when they had enough in the kitty. With the econ down and the state can't cover, the taxes returned to their former high level. In the spending spree and 0% financing frenzy of the last two years, people have been buying lots of new cars (enough to float the US economy past a recession) for big bucks thus high vehicle taxes. It's the same sort of whining gas prices get "too high" and people who bought low MPG cars start crying or when people buy property and whine about high taxes. You're fucking rich enough to buy it stop whining about the relatively small taxes associated. |
2003/12/17 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:11502 Activity:nil |
12/17 http://www.fuh2.com |
2003/12/11 [Reference/Tax] UID:11407 Activity:kinda low |
12/10 If you itemize deductions, you can deduct your total state tax paid, or just the amount withheld from your paychecks? \_ The amount withheld during 2003 for 2003, plus any payment (not total) you made during 2003 for 2002. Any payment you made during 2004 for 2003 will be deductible on your 2004 federal return when you file it during 2005. BTW, personally I think it'd make things simpler if we just lower the fed and state tax rates by a little instead of making fed tax state-deductible and state tax fed-deductible. \_ Thanks. But why do they do this? Why not just make your total state tax deductable? \_ Because you need to finish your fed return before you start your state return, and you don't know your state tax amount until you finish your state return. So you can't deduct your state tax of a year in the fed return of the same year. \_ I think you are wrong. They do it because you should only get a deduction for the atual year that you made the payment in. If you paid your state taxes on Dec 31, you would get the deduction. \_ Do you indeed need to finish your fed return before you start your state return? If so, then it could be both reasons. \_ The fed tax is state-deductable too? Does someone make this up for the purpose of giving CPAs job security? \_ Oops! I made it up. I just checked my 2002 state form and fed tax was not state-deductible. Sorry. fed tax was not deductible. Sorry. |
2003/11/19 [Reference/Tax] UID:11131 Activity:moderate |
11/17 Dean is supposed to be pro-worker/pro-union, but he wants to raise the retirement age to 70. how is that pro-worker? -dem \_ Well, it kinda screws the baby boomers, but in return you don't have to raise taxes on current workers as much to pay for baby boomer's returements. It's kinda fair in a way. The boomers paid low SS taxes because they only had to support the previous generation. If we want to give them the same benefits their parents got, the gen-X and later workers will have to pay a higher SS tax than the boomers paid. \_ there aren't as many genxers but there's a lot of echo boomers. let the echo boomers pay for their parents but keep my taxes low since all i got from the baby boomers was fucked. -genxer \_ hmm... you like them old ladies do you? \_ You know there could never be an age-based tax like that. The closest you could get would be raising taxes later... which is probably what will happen. \_ Yeah I know it but I can hope. A constitutional convention could change the rules to make it ok. "And we hereby decree that the genxers with the help of the feeble minded drug addled, poorly raised echo boomers shall fuck the baby boomers who did so much damage to this country and gave nothing in return". It could happen. I have hope. \_ fucking old people, leaving deficits for me. i say kill off social security. damn reagan worshipping bitches. \_ Eli, is that you? \_ reagan? what's he got to do with it? \_ There are trillions of baby boomers. So if it screws them, how is he gonna get elected? \_ He's not going to get elected anyway so it's academic. \_ And he has a "A" rating from the NRA. Which makes him easily the coolest Democrat. |
2003/11/8 [Reference/Tax] UID:29627 Activity:nil |
11/7 Here's a nice little story about a county kicking some senile old woman off the farm she's owned and lived on for 50 years over a questionalbe $572 tax bill. http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1068201024262541.xml |
2003/10/28 [Reference/Tax] UID:10825 Activity:nil |
10/27 U.N. Collecting Taxes in Kosovo http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/2003/RE2003_23.pdf |
2003/10/27-28 [Reference/Tax] UID:10823 Activity:nil |
10/27 http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20031027/mdf393542.jpg \_ pretty insane huh? I haven't seen blue sky in 4 days. For full picture, go here: link:csua.org/u/4tg -nivra \- it's ze END UF DAYS! -ahnold \_ Well, I guess when he takes over it really will be the end of the world. Say your prayers everyone... \_ At least he won't be creating a fire tax, a death tax, a your-home-got-burned-down tax, and a no-blue-sky tax. I didn't vote for him but it's still better than what we had. \_ Yeah, no kidding. Has anyone else renewed their car registration yet? Mine was $612. |
2003/10/23 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Reference/Tax] UID:10746 Activity:kinda low |
10/22 Stupid question. We've dropped 150 billions on the War on Terror. Where are these 150 billion (in 2 years) come from? \_ Start with 260 million Americans. Figure number of taxpayers, average annual income, average tax rate, ... \_ Good thing you dont run the country because it doesnt work like that at all. \_ sure \_ much of the budget is fixed. There isn't exactly an emergency "trust fund" that I am aware of, and that is why I am confused. \_ I think Bush might have thought the same thing. \_ 300 billion in 4 years -> about $4500 per family of 4. For Berkeley grads, probably like $7000 per family of 4 given that they usually earn above average income. \_ It would be except most Berkeley grads don't earn that much above the average if at all. Not everyone got an eecs degree and went on to found a company. \_ hmmm. i'd like to see the actual numbers. the people i know from cal all have some kind of middle class job at least. the people i know from highschool mostly went to college, then came home to live with their parrents and work in retail making barely over minimum wage. \_ Treasury bonds and Social Security. The Feds prints up promissory notes which people (countries, corps, etc.) buy with a bit of interest. However, it takes a long time to sell $150B, so the Feds loan themselves the money from SS, and slowly pay back SS with the money trickling in from selling T-bonds. Oh, and yes, taxpayers are on the hook for paying off the T-bonds plus interest. \_ Yet, 70% of you stupid Americans approved of this. \_ You really think the Federal government runs on nothing but personal income taxes? What do you think they did before we had income taxes? And who is paying most of those income taxes in raw $$$ terms anyway? Hint: it isn't 70% of Americans. Carry on. \_ Income taxes contribute 49.2% of the fed revenues. And SS, 33.1%. \_ Yes, and what percentage of people pays the bulk of that 49.2% or that 33.1% due to the way income taxes are distributed? \_ no. but the people are taking most of burden. \_ Yeah, you know who oughta be taking the burden? Those OTHER people. \_ Yeah! Let's fuck those *other* people instead! \_ In short, a fucking huge, taxpayer support ponzi scheme. |
2003/10/11-12 [Reference/Tax] UID:10595 Activity:kinda low |
10/11 Someone posted this earlier regarding income tax: \_ Why is it an abomination? It needs to more progressive, especially the SS payroll tax, but other than that I don't see it being worthy of that particular adjective. Besides, John, aren't you in Europe, home of the VAT and the 45% marginal rate? No, I live in Switzerland, home of the VAT that's less than CA's (7.6%) the approx. 15-30% of income taxes (including local/state/federal and social security, such as it is), working trains, nice highways, and functioning schools. You're thinking EU, which this country is not a part of (and hopefully won't ever be.) -John \_ Can I move there? -- ilyas \_ No, you can't because you're a dirty foreigner and the Swiss would never let you in the country for longer than a reasonable length vacation. You'd never be allowed to legally work and would be immediately deported if you managed to get a job and were caught. \_ I was in Europe once, so I am almost domesticated. -- ilyas \_ Sure you can. Just need a job and someone who's willing to sponsor your permit. By the way, the reason I post all this stuff is the same as why I keep telling people here that no, you won't get shot in the US, and we don't eat spam. -John \_ Switzerland is lower than the EU, but higher than the US: http://www.switzerland-4you.com/pdf/fiscal_burden.pdf \_ (a) social security only counts as part of tax burden if it's not considered "yours", i.e. if you see it as a tax rather than a countribution, (b) the chart is skewed because the equivalent of a (voluntary) IRA in the US is state mandated here, but privately run (so even stupid people get some kind of pension) --I don't believe that's counted towards the US portion of the tax burden (don't forget that you can withdraw it as a foreigner leaving the country, or if you build a house or something), (c) the US has a vastly higher rate of companies moving offshore to declare taxes (why do you think rich people/companies move to Zug and not to Minneapolis?) (c) that's for overall GDP rather than income tax. As I understand it, Japan has fantastically high income taxes, yet ranks below the US in this chart. Explain? -John \_ Overall tax burden is more important than any particular tax rate. If the top tax rate is 90%, but only falls on 100 people, it is not significant to talk about it. \_ Unless you're one of those 100. \_ no third-world immigration and tons of money/art stolen from Jews. 100 people, it is not particularly significant to talk about it. |
2003/10/6 [Reference/Tax] UID:10485 Activity:moderate |
10/6 Does anyone else remember back a couple of years when they lowered the "car tax" by 2/3s? And all the statements that this would probably have to be revisited in times of a shortfall. Davis didn't "triple the car tax." He gave relief when we could, and asked us to tighten when we couldn't. How short memories are. \_ yep you're right, but that doesn't make a good sound bite \_ Yeah, just like "temporary" tax increases. \_ I remember. I also remember when sales tax was 3.5%. When does it end? --dim \_ I remember when the bridge was $1 and BART parking was free and it cost $2 to cross the entire length of BART. I'm not sorry that the people finally got some of their money back. \_ BART parking is not free? When did this change? I think it still is free. \_ There are free and pay sections of BART parking. \_ The original promise when BART was created was there would never be a charge to park at BART. Another broken promise. So now they charge and the lot where I live has v promise. So now they charge and the lot where I live has 1/2 to 1/3 as many cars in it as it did when it was free. they gained a few $1/day parkers at the expense of many more $5/day riders. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I didn't have to pay for parking because there's always room in the free lot. I just walk further now. \_ Oh yeah? Well I remember when we had to walk to school, in the snow, uphill both ways! And we liked it! \_ You had legs? We didn't have legs. \_ Yeah, I remember this, too. No good deed goes unpunished. \_ i was bitching about the tax relief at the time. Any tax relief, including this stupid car tax, is benefiting the wealthy. I don't pay that much car tax on my $19k CR-V. \_ What are YOU complaining about. I drive a 13.5-year old Civic. I still get 30+ mpg, too. I still get 30+ mpg, too. \_ Buy a new car you loser! Help the economy! \_ Are you a complete idiot? The registration fee (car tax) is regressive, like sales tax, etc. \_ Do you mean that it taxes poor people more? How so? It's definitely not progressive, but that doesn't actually make regressive. \_ Yes, it is. A poor person buys a $15k car and pays a much higher percentage of their income in tax than a rich person buying a $85k car. Anyway, this is all backwards. Tax reduction don't benefit anyone. The original tax was designed to punish the wealthy in the first place and getting rid of it just restores fairness. Being rich isn't a crime... yet. \_ Fair is subjective. Those who benefit the most from society bear the greatest interest in supporting it via their taxes. That'd be fair. Rich fucks complaining about taxes make me sick. Like they would be junkies if the marginal tax rate was 70% like it was before. Wow, you mean they might WORK LESS? After making 40 million? Wow, what a fucking bad thing it would be for them to spend time with their kids or working with their community. \_ Or producing jobs and growing the economy. Yeah, \_ Less tax on profits stimulate jobs... Really? Someone better call the economy and tell it it's been stimulated. \_ Indeed. Say I'm a business owner. Suddenly I'm making more profit on the same workforce and my production isn't slacking. I'm going to hire more workers... why? that would suck! Tax the rich til they aint rich no more! The poor already get more in services than \_ Or they simply leave the state. they could possibly afford to pay the real price of. Police, fire, emergency medical, 911, paved roads, garbage collected, electrical and phone and housing at rates *well* below market value, etc. This is the 5 second short list off the top of my head. If you're poor and not taking advantage of the free education offered in this country to improve your lot in life then I have absolutely no sympathy for you. I'm neither rich nor poor. I work 40-70 hours a week based on company need and it sucks and I don't whine about how the gub'ment *owes* me anything or that I'm *entitled* to anything. When the hell did we start refering to welfare and other social(ist) programs as "entitlements" anyway? What makes anyone *entitled* to the money I've *earned* and *worked hard* for? Fuck, now I'm pissed. I'm going to vote recall now. \_ Are you trying to say poor people aren't entitled to emergency services? Wow. Yeah let those poor people's house burn down, they didn't pay enough taxes. What the fuck is wrong with you? It's all about you! \_ Good way to ignore everything I said and focus on one tiny thing mentioned along the way. I isn't a crime... yet. see no reason to go into further detail for someone that's intentionally blind. \_ Which states have the lowest taxes? Mississippi and Alabama. Would you like California to be like them? |
2003/9/14-15 [Reference/Tax] UID:10192 Activity:moderate |
9/14 What is the hourly rate of a decent tax attorney? \_ Any type of lawyer is going to charge you a minimum of 180/hr on up. If they're charging less, you're a charity case or they suck. |
2003/8/25 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/Tax] UID:29459 Activity:nil 52%like:29457 |
8/25 Blood money funds racism at Columbia. Why does Berkeley do the same \- would you agree "american taxpayer money" in part funds the ~30,000 houses built on palestinian occupied territories? --psb thing for free? We should charge for the institutionalised racism and hatred spewing from certain departments and professors. http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4015.htm \_ nothing is free. every time one of us gets a grant to do some useful technical research the University charges overhead. your tax dollars at work. \_ and I'm sure the research never requires administrative support \_ a million dollar grant does not require 400,000 dollars of administrative support. it's a tax to support the useless departments. period. |
2003/8/5-6 [Reference/Tax] UID:29239 Activity:high |
8/5 Do I really have to give an extra 15% to the gubment for SE tax if I'm a contractor vs. W-2? This was not in formulas previously posted to the motd. I'm suing! \_ extra 7.65%, dumbass. And it's deductible. \_ i thought it was 15.3% - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p533.pdf \_ Everyone has to pay 7.65%, SE pay it twice. \_ or, to be a bit pedantic: Everyone has to pay 15.3%, but employed people have the first 7.65% taken out in the form of reduced salary which is paid to the gubmnt by the employer. |
2003/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:29216 Activity:insanely high |
8/1 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0115-05.htm How the Bush Tax Cuts really break down. \_ What an idiot. You mean people who make $1 million+ get much more back than people who make less than $10,000? Wow, what a surprise. Hey, what precisely is the average tax burden of someone making less than $10,000? Moron. \_ Do yourself a favor and actually track down the statistics of who pays income taxes and the distribution of rates. What you posted in partisan vitrol - it only reveals how irrational you are. \_ And do yourself a favor and track down who really pays social security tax, sales tax, etc. \_ Here ya go, somehow I doubt you care, you much rather demagogue and assuage your liberal guilt: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/sitemap.cfm#overview This is Brookings Inst, so it is still left of center. Exactly how do you think this country survived until Wilson had the 16th Amendment passed? One does not tax yourself into prosperity - in order to increase economic prosperity we need to make it cheaper to do business in America. This entails eliminating taxes and government restriction. \_ iraq, liberia, most of the former soviet union have no ability to collect taxes and no government restriction, you should move there. \_ You only included federal taxes. This is state tax in CA: http://www.cbp.org/2002/qh020415.htm One cannot "tax cut" youself into prosperity either. Look at the countries with the lowest tax rates, they are hardly examples of prosperity. I think we can agree there is a golden mean, somewhere between nothing and everything, that the State should take. \_ Yes but you're making the common mistake of seeing causality in cases where there is none. There are many countries with low taxes doing very well, but one assumes a minimum degree of economic, social and political stability before this is applicable. Monaco, Luxembourg, the UK (compared to Germany and France), and Switzerland have at least relatively low taxes and show higher degrees of growth and investment than their neighbors. Germany recently cut both business and personal income taxes and noticed a strong surge in growth and job creation. -John \_ The fastest growing economies in Western Europe, Ireland, Norway and Luxemborg, are all high tax states, at least for individuals. They all have low corporate tax though, so there might be something there. \_ Don't forget to lower minimum wage! Also, make sure to let the largest corporations import their work force and set up tax shelters so we don't have to deal with those pesky unions and accountants. \_ In order to prosper in America, we need to round up all the scared little white men like you and castrate them. \_ Hmm lets consider the contributions to modern civilization. I sense race envy. Your very presence in this country exposes your hypocrisy. \_ How do you know? Perhaps its a part of a nefarious plot by the Elders of Zion to infiltrate your country and impregnate your women. \_ Yes, but that's stupid, so I'm not overly worried. \_ You are far to easy to troll, but then that may be because you too are in fact a troll. \_ Having done plenty of fact-checking on Ivins, I can't believe anyone listens to her anymore. She's her own little New York Times. \- ivins is a dumb cow. she's certainly not politically insightful but the amazing thing is she's not funny. she and andy rooney should be tied together and floated out to sea. ALFRANKEN at least can be pretty funny. --psb \_ The Mobile Uplink Unit finds truth where others fear to tread. -John |
2003/8/1-2 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:29208 Activity:insanely high |
8/1 Regarding stimulating the economy, how about creating new infrastructures like super highways, subways, dams, and other things that we have not been building since the 30s and 40s? It will create a LOT of job opportunities for the poor. I mean, this whole tax cut thing does nothing for people who are laid off, and the only people really benefiting from it are the people who already have a lot of money or people who have stable jobs. \_ why work so hard when we'll get it for free soon enuf \_ And who's going pay for this? local gov't? According to Davis we're broke. Anyway, the public works programs of the 30's have been largely discredited by economists as failed social experiments. Dams, btw, cause major ecological disasters for people living downstream. Also, remember that there's a long \_ and upstream term cost to junk like subways and highways. If they're not maintained they break down, and it only makes sense to build this if there's a need for it. \_ Germany dithered for years about building the Transrapid (look it up) citing ecological damage, economic necessity, (their train system is in chaos compared to 10 years ago), labor problems, bla bla bla. The Chinese, meanwhile, told Siemens to go ahead and just do it, and now have a working super-high-speed rail corridor near Shanghai. In the 1930s, before people knew the damage dams did, FDR went ahead and blew wads of cash on big prestigious projects, giving the US a massive boost in electrification, as well as a ton of jobs that helped kick-start the economy, critics be damned. Now for 10 points, what's the lesson here? -John \_ Which economists? Milton Friedman maybe. Many (most?) economists disagree with your statement. \_ bush does not care about the poor or what's really good for the economy. fuck the republicans. All they want is $$$ for themselves. They don't give a fuck about people who gets laid off or otherwise have no money. Short of a revolt, there's nothing to be done. wait for the next election. \_ I think you should step forward and kill him to save us all. Afterwards I'm sure everyone will understand when they have jobs and stuff from the policies you implement such as...? \_ building infrustrature, pump $$$ into the economy (instead of tax cuts, wars), there are a billion things to do. \_ How about tax cuts for the middle class? \_ remember how shitty the economy was when Clinton took over? guess you are too young to remember those times. There ARE things to be done. It's just Bush has his own agenda and is not doing any of it. Rich people don't give a shit. Actually rich people does not like booming economy because it makes them less 'rich' compare to the rest of the people. \_ Clinton inherited 2 quarters of 4% GDP growth, lest we make up facts. The first act of his presidency was to RETROACTIVELY raise taxes. This depressed economic for quite some time, to the point his 1996 reelection was in doubt. Don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. \_ I actually think you are right. "Old money" gets annoyed when there are too many new millionaires sniffing around. \_ Clinton didn't actually do anything. It was all cyclical, with some perception mixed in. -John \_ here's an idea, instead of giving the poor people a break (e.g. creating jobs for them), how about substantial tax raise for the rich? I mean, 90% of US is owned by 5% of the US population anyways. Oh wait, they also control (via lobby, SIG, etc) our politicians. Nevermind. \_ You are amazingly stupid. The rich who get more $$ in their cut do what with the money? Put it in mattresses? No, moron. They invest it, create business opportunities, etc. That creates jobs, without corrupt Gov't middle-men (re: The Big Dig). \_ All those Coach handbags, Cartier watches and Tiffany Diamonds don't really do much for the economy. I am not convinced "the rich" are any wiser investors than bad ole' gubment. \_ Ah yes, because no one is employed manufacturing, shipping, or selling those things, right? Enough with the class warfare. \_ Amazing how tax cuts for the rich are called "returning the people their money" while tax cuts for the middle class are called "class warfare." You can tell when the other side has no facts to back up their position. They have no other choice but to turn to ad hominem attacks. \_ Hello Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle. I didn't call tax cus for the middle class class warfare. The claim that rich people spend all their money on luxuries is class warfare. How you can have a tax cut for the middle class that does not benefit the rich more? \_ Cutting payroll taxes for instance, since income above $78k is not taxed. The claim that luxuries do not stimulate the economy is not class warfare, simply an observation that you do not have any reply to except to charge "class warfare." \_ you're a few years behind, dude. Try 87k, and that is because Social Security pays based on how much you put in. Hence, a max. |
12/25 |