| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2013/9/2-11/7 [Reference/Tax] UID:54736 Activity:nil |
9/2 I'm young, and stupid. Does the IRS want reporting on 401K, IRA,
Roth 401k/IRA? I am decades from retiring, and no plan to withdraw
anything. But, I just realized that I haven't reported any of my
retirement plans to IRS for several years, now wondering if I'm
in big shit...
\_ The account custodian (bank/brokerage/mutual fund) reports it to
the IRS anyway. Just start doing it from now on.
Use TurboTax or a professional. Not a big deal like misreporting income
or failing to pay tax.
Use TurboTax or a professional. Not a big deal like misreporting
income or failing to pay tax.
\_ ok cool THANK YOU! You're right, it's not like I'm failing
to pay taxes. I'm guess this kind of stuff is more important
as I approach retirement in a few decades. |
| 2013/3/24-5/18 [Reference/Tax] UID:54637 Activity:nil |
3/24 Has anyone put money into annuities? Any good/bad stories?
I'm thinking of putting my parents' money into it (they're way over
59 1/2 so they quality) since it has significant tax advantages.
\_ My parents just did, so I can't really say anything about the
long term effects. I'd say it sounds like a good idea just to avoid
future problems with dimentia.
\_ Do you have to be 59 1/2? Annuities are probably a Good Thing,
but I would ladder into them in this low-interest enviornment. |
| 2012/11/5-12/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Tax] UID:54521 Activity:nil |
11/5 "Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study":
http://www.csua.org/u/y7m (finance.yahoo.com)
'A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed "geeks" ...
found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he
had made on individual tax reform .... It concluded that Mr. Romney's
plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them
for everyone else.'
I guess Obama is right when he said during the debate that Romney's
plan is "mathematically impossible". |
| 2012/7/31-9/24 [Reference/Tax] UID:54448 Activity:nil |
7/31 Is it possible to gift stock options or even cash to toddlers?
Can they accrue interests? What is their tax rate?
\_ Look up the gift tax rules. You can gift up to $13k/year
to anyone.
http://www.axa-equitable.com/plan/estate/gift-tax.html
(you can gift more than that, but you are supposed to report
it to the IRS and it will eventually reduce the size of
your estate that passes on tax-free)
\_ can I actually open up a bank account for an infant?
How about someone who's not born yet?
\_ I think you need a SSN.
\_ what proof do you need to get a spanking new SSN?
\_ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+i+get+a+social+security+card |
| 2012/3/7-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:54331 Activity:nil |
3/7 "Michigan woman still collecting food stamps after winning $1 million
lottery"
http://www.csua.org/u/vp3 (news.yahoo.com)
`"I feel that it's OK because I mean, I have no income and I have
bills to pay," she said. "I have two houses."'
\_ My first reaction was pretty hostile to her, but then, I
thought about it some more, and, well, she did win the
lottery fair and square, and she did immediately pay half
million dollars in taxes from the lump sum payment, right?
She'll likely be broke sooner than later anyway.
\_ lottery is a form of tax for dumb people.
\_ "UPDATE: The Michigan Department of Human Services announced
yesterday that they have taken Amanda Clayton off the Michigan
Bridge Card program. "
Yay, responsive government! |
| 2012/3/5-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:54327 Activity:nil |
3/5 My dad is retired and has no income. My income tax bracket is
pretty high. If I open up a joint high interest CD account with
him and the INT-1099 comes, is it possible to file it under him
100% to take advantage of the lower tax?
\_ IRS says the interest is allocated according to who allocated
the assets. Do you think it will generate enough interest to
really matter that much? Even with $100K in there I doubt it given
current rates.
\_ do a little bit of math. It's not insignificant.
\_ Are you married? If not, maybe you can file as a head of
household. It's fair and square and the benefit is not
insignificant. For parent(s), you don't even have to live
together, although they bother you about it.
\_ You can just gift him the cash, if you can trust him.
\_ Thanks, Andy Dufresne.
\_ Depends on the amount. You can only gift $12K/year. If you are
married you can gift $24K/year (you and your spouse).
\_ Not true, you can gift as much as $1M without paying
taxes, but you have to file with the IRS if you gift
over $13k a year. I am pretty sure it will then count
against your inheritence deductible when you die but
am a bit fuzzy on that part.
\_ "Paying the taxes" is not the same as "owing the taxes."
\_ What does this mean? You can give someone up to $1M
without either owing or paying taxes. |
| 2011/12/16-2012/2/6 [Reference/Tax] UID:54262 Activity:nil |
12/16 If a couple contributes to their child's 529 Plan of $26000,
is that amount tax sheltered (as in, your taxable income is
reduced by $26000?)
\_ No, but the gains are tax free when you use it later. It is
similar to a Roth IRA, if you know how those work. |
| 2011/10/14-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Reference/Tax] UID:54197 Activity:nil |
10/14 "SimCain? Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan resembles the tax code in SimCity"
http://www.csua.org/u/uh9
\_ "The Tax Reform Act of 1986: Should We Do It Again?"
http://www.csua.org/u/uiu
"Reagan built on their efforts and put forward a very detailed plan
for tax reform in May 1985, based on several years of work by the
Treasury Department, that identified a long list of tax provisions
needing pruning from the tax code, along with supporting analysis
and documentation.
Today, Republicans like Mr. Cain put most of their efforts into
devising catchy slogans and almost none into providing details of
their tax proposals."
\_ Maybe we can dig up Reagan's corpse and have him run for
President as the Zombie candidate. |
| 2011/10/10-25 [Reference/Tax] UID:54192 Activity:nil |
10/10 My property tax breakdown is this in the LA county, how about yours?
General tax levy all agencies: 1.000000
City-Los Angeles .038895
Metro water dist: .003700
Commnty college: .040310
Unified schools: .186954 |
| 2011/4/17-7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:54087 Activity:nil |
4/17 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes "The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all." And people are still complaining about taxes being too high. \_ yeah but only 3 out of the 5 people who aren't rich but complain are actually counted. |
| 11/26 |
| 2010/11/19-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:53989 Activity:nil |
11/19 "Millionaires to Obama: Tax us" - Yahoo! News:
http://www.csua.org/u/s1d
\_ People to Millionaires: "You can submit as much tax as you like!"
http://www.fms.treas.gov/news/factsheets/gifts.html
\_why pay more into SS if you are getting the same out of it as the other guy?
\_ Your reading comprehension sucks. If they want to be taxed
more, they're free to pay more in taxes without forcing other
people to do so. I don't see anything in the original article
about SS, do you?
\_ That's about as clever as "if you don't like abortion,
don't have one" or "gays can marry, they just can't marry
people of the same sex." Actually, it's not even that
clever.
\_ What the millionaires mean is: "Tax *other* millionaires"
\_ No, they mean tax all millionaires, including us. |
| 2010/10/21-2011/1/13 [Reference/Tax] UID:54005 Activity:nil |
10/21 Do no evil? More like pay no taxes:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html |
| 2010/8/23-9/7 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53934 Activity:nil |
9/19 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/bell/la-me-city-property-tax-table,0,5895218.htmlstory Poor cities pay more % of prop tax than wealthy cities. Compton pays 1.5% prop tax. \_ poor people also pay more for groceries. and taxes and in general everything. It's why rich people stay rich. I love $2 country club burgers! \_ Maybe it's because the average property value in poor cities are lower than those in rich cities, such that a higher prop tax % rate doesn't translate to higher proper tax dollar? And maybe it's also because poor cities need to provide more service per capita than rich cities? \_ it's ok to make fun of the poor again. Just call them The Offline. remember you're at the top of Digital Darwinism, you're online with your iphone because the Digital God gave you the best genes. |
| 2010/7/27-8/25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:53900 Activity:nil |
7/25 Is there a polite way to tell a recruiter "too busy at the moment
but keep me in mind for future stuff." Or "not in that field at
this exact moment but am switching positions over the next few
months for your role, keep me in mind" ? Thx.
\_ You know what, recruiters have thick skins. You won't hurt
their feelings. Go ahead, try, you can't possibly get them down.
Tell them you have a job, and you'll keep them in mind next
time you are unemployed.
\_ I think you have it right there. Recruiters in general don't mind
it if you are direct with them.
\_ I had THREE different recruiters from Amazon at different
quarters. Each time, I tell them "Sorry I have no interest
in going to Seattle." The third time, I told them "I hate
Seattle and if you want to attract real talent, setup an
office in Silicon Valley. Stop bothering me." I finally
got them to stop.
\_ A co-worker of mine requested to be transferred from here to the
Seattle branch of the company in the '90s so that he could avoid
paying state income tax and maybe state capital gain tax on his
huge stock earnings.
\_ Word. Not to mention stupid CA laws.
\_ I know a few people who moved to .ca just for that reason too. |
| 2010/5/28-6/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:53846 Activity:nil |
5/28 Libertarians: yes yes yes charities do work! Screw government
and taxes, rely on charities!
http://media.npr.org/assets/blogs/planetmoney/images/2010/05/giftsdebt.png
\_hun? What is your point here?? People haven't voluntarily
donated a lot towards paying of our 13 trillion dollar fed. debt?
This is directed at libertarians why? (I can assure you that they
are not surprised at this fact). Do you think I should be
donating to pay for your war/corporate welfare/etc.? The
gubmnt has stolen enough from my children without me volunteering
more of their money. Really, what the hell are you thinking?
I don't get it.
\_ Charity != voluntary overpayment of taxes |
| 2010/4/19-5/10 [Reference/Tax] UID:53790 Activity:nil |
4/19 "Tax Day rhetoric aside, Americans' bills are lower"
"Americans paying less taxes this year despite Tax Day rhetoric,
increases by struggling states"
http://www.csua.org/u/qlk
\_ Of course they are. Half of people don't pay any.
\_ That would be true if the only tax that existed was the income
tax. |
| 2010/4/12-5/10 [Reference/Tax] UID:53782 Activity:moderate |
4/12 My gf did her taxes. She was unemployed most of last year and only
paid about $500 in federal tax. She is getting a refund of $1300.
We are both rather annoyed at this. How can you get a refund of
more than you paid in?! (This is a rhetorical question. I know
how.) Another acquaintance of mine makes less than half of what I
do, but her take home is only 20% less. Even though I put money into
my 401k (to shelter the income) and have a mortgage interest deduction
(she does not itemize) she just got a huge refund. I got a (little)
bill. I paid about 15x in taxes what she paid. I cannot believe there
are goobers who want to raise taxes. 50% of people aren't paying any
as it is! You want to raise my taxes? Eliminate some bogus credits
first! Those with more income should shoulder more of the bill,
but these free rides are ridiculous. You can't have half of the
country not only not paying taxes, but getting refunds on top of it!
"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal
income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they
would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government
sends them a payment."
\_ It's call the erosion the middle class.
\_ I made several billion less than GE and apparently paid more
US taxes than they did: http://tinyurl.com/y5tpaoy
\_ Did you also put 323,000 people to work, paying payroll
taxes for all of them and likely millions in sales taxes
and other taxes? If you did then I'm in favor of refunding
any income tax you paid.
\_ It's called the erosion the middle class.
Really rich makes the rules, or at minimum, controls how
the rules are applied, so they don't pay all that much into
the system. No matter, the system is designed to fall
apart eventually because with enough discouragement of the
right thing to do, no one will do the right thing. No
empire lasts forever. As the joke goes, "make your time..."
I only tolerate it because I think of it as paying for my
Mom's benefits in a very indirect way. If you don't have
anyone in your family who can draw from the broken system,
what can I say. Switch to cash business, hide it away, and
retire as soon as possible and become part of the leeches.
I plan to retire fairly early and stop participating in the
broken system, as much as I can, anyway.
\_ Look what I found through Google:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html
"These findings raise serious questions about the future of
the U.S. income tax system...."
\_ If you include all taxes, not just income tax, everyone pays
taxes. Overll tax rates including FICA and Sales tax are pretty
flat above about the bottom quintile. Income tax is pretty
progressive (high earners pay more) but most other taxes are
regressive (poor people pay more, as a percentage).
\_ percentage of income, or
percentage of the
particular service or good
or whatever subject to
that tax?
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
\- leonhardt should have also mentioned the giant mortage
interest dedection [~$100bn]. do you think the OP is
stupid or disingenuous?
\_ Is that a rhetorical question?
\_ Rebuttal to some points he makes:
1. I wouldn't call myself "very wealthy". I think the perception
of who is "very wealthy" has changed. I am middle-class,
_maybe_ upper middle class if I lived somewhere less expensive.
Let's be realistic. People who make over $52100 are not
all "wealthy". Saying that $52100 is the statistical
middle class may be true, but you cannot live a
traditional middle class lifestyle on that salary in any
urban part of the country. That doesn't mean people who
make less should pay no tax and it doesn't mean that
people who make more should shoulder the burden of all of
the tax revenue. If you make $100000 per year you are not
John D. Rockefeller.
\_ You can live a middle class lifestyle on $52k/yr in most
of the country. Just not in expensive areas. That is quite
a bit of money in San Antonio, for instance.
2. "It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise
would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts
in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the
other large (generally popular) federal programs."
I would lobby for either of these options. I think some
deep cuts need to be made and I also think that people
in the bottom 50% need to start paying more than they do
now, even if that means the top 50% also sees an increase.
One cannot just raise taxes on the top 50%. Everyone has
to share in the pain and right now that's just not true.
3. Focusing on payroll taxes is a distraction unless you
own a company. This is not money coming out of my (or
your) pocket. In fact, this is another way of saying that
the wealthy (who own the companies) are also bankrolling
other benefits for the poor. State tax is a red herring. Some
states have none at all and we can choose to move there if we
wish. Mortgage deduction is also irrelevant. If the bottom
50% had huge mortgage deductions they would still pay 0 (or
get a refund). It's just a way for homeowners to keep from
getting _really_ reamed compared to the bottom percentiles.
Without it the gap would be even worse.
\_ you're a (wordy) idiot.
\_ Nice rebuttal. You obviously have no counter.
\_ you obviously have no clue, so why bother?
\_ Pathetic.
\_ You don't understand what "payroll taxes" are. This is
another name for FICA, which everyone pays, though it is
only taxed on the first $100k or so of income.
\_ Everyone pays less than _half_ of. (Example: only
the employer contributes to FUTA). Further, money that
"you pay" (the other half) is mandated by law to be
withheld by your employer. Since it is mandatory
and it comes out of your paychecks (and not out of,
say, your capital gains on stock or other income
you make outside of your employment) you could make a
good argument that it's really your employer paying all
of it. This is slightly different from income taxes
(which you pay out of your salary also) because with
income taxes some people pay more and others pay less
depending on their situation. So that's money that, if
your tax situation allows, you may get to keep. Not so
with payroll taxes (unless you switch jobs in the middle
of a year and overpay). It's never really "yours" to
begin with unless you are an independent
contractor/business owner. For example, I cannot lower
my FICA withholding, invest it for the year, make a
profit on it, and pay the amount due at the end of
the year. So how is this money really "mine"? What
it is is money paid by my employer on my behalf.
\_ It's yours because it comes out of *your* salary.
When someone gives you a job offer and says you'll
be paid $100K/year, you will claim your salary is
$100K/year, it will go down as $100K/year on your
tax forms, but the amount you get to spend is
less FICA. Sales tax is mandatory, too, that doesn't
mean it's money paid on your behalf by the business
you're buying from.
Returning to: you're an idiot.
\_ Semantics. It's your employer paying it. As
I said, you have no chance of retaining your
_half_. Sales tax is not at all mandatory in any
way. I can live a lifestyle in which I pay no
sales tax at all or I can end up paying 100%
of my salary in sales tax depending on my
situation and my choices. Not so with "payroll
taxes". Instead of calling me names, realize
that "you" are not paying these payroll taxes.
These are employer contributions in your name
under the guise of salary.
\_ Guess what: If you don't have a salary, you
don't pay payroll tax.
\_ True. This is just another way of saying
that employers always pay for it. If
you don't have an employer, you don't
pay it. Ever. Not so with income tax or
sales tax. The evidence is strong that
this is a tax employers pay. Employees
may pay it in legal terms, but the
reality is that employers pay it all
unless you are an independent contractor,
which 90+% of people are not.
\_ There is no such thing as "employer
paying for ***" as they'll just pass
the cost to the employee. There is no
such thing as free beer. !op
\_ I would argue the opposite. There
is no such thing as "employee
paying for ***" as it is because
of the employer that the employee
has any money at all. Of course,
the employer also relies on
employees, but it's much easier
to find a janitor to work at Microsoft
than to found Microsoft.
\_ Do you think your employer pays
for your health care because it
comes out of your paycheck? How
about unemployment?
\_ How do you get the money to pay
for it if not from your
employer? And if you quit
your job you will stop
paying unemployment and
_really_ start paying for
your health care in earnest.
\_ What kind of insane logic
is that? You got the money
from your employer, therefore
your employer paid for it?
Your employer gives you
a *salary*. That salary
belongs to *you*. Deductions
from that salary are things
that *you are paying for*,
just as surely as if you
spent the money on a
cheeseburger. -tom
\_ Some deductions, yes.
Others, no. You are
forced to pay for
unemployment insurance.
In fact, not only are
you forced, but your
employer hands the
money over for you. You
are not forced to buy a
cheeseburger. If my
employer took out $3
of my salary every
month and gave me a
cheeseburger instead
and I could not
change this then I
would say that my
employer bought me a
cheeseburger, not
that he paid me $3
with which I bought a
cheeseburger. I
might be vegetarian
and I don't even want
that cheeseburger. I
just want my $3 to go
buy a nice salad, but
no dice. So how is
that $3 mine? In the
case of health
insurance, I can opt
out of that and go
get my own if I wish,
but most employers heavily
subsidize health
insurance and if you
opt out you do not
get their subsidy in
cash, although I worked
somewhere where I did.
\_ Let me put it this way:
if tomorrow they
stopped requiring
employees to pay
unemployment taxes,
I'm pretty sure you'd
expect the money saved
to go to you rather
than your employer.
Because it's part
of your salary. -tom
\_ I see your point.
Do you see mine?
If you quit your job
to live off of
your large
inheritance do you
still owe the
payroll tax?
How can that be
if you're the
one that owes
it and pays it?
It's a payment
on your behalf.
If it's no longer
mandated you may
see a gain at first,
but I would argue it
would be mostly
competed away
long-term as people
were willing to work
for just a little
more take home than
before even if
it means a smaller
salary. E.g., Joe
who made $50K and
took home $40K
(but now takes
home $50K) is now
finding his job at
risk from the new
college grad willing
to work for $45K (and
take home $45K).
The new equilibrium
will see some of the
windfall with the
employer and some
with the employee
calling into
question whose it
was to begin with.
\_ there's really
no question
whose it is.
The fact that
you can avoid
payroll tax by
not being on
payroll doesn't
mean that someone
else is paying
it. You can
avoid sales tax
by not buying
anything, but
when you buy
something, you're
still paying
sales tax. -tom |
| 2010/3/5-30 [Reference/Tax] UID:53741 Activity:nil |
3/5 A while back, I mentioned the possibility of hyperinflation in the US
Looks like I'm not the crazy one:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1969231,00.html
\_ Stands to reason it will happen. We want a weak dollar to pay
back debt with devalued dollars and we printed a lot of them.
I invested a lot in TIPS.
\_ Yawn. Right now the problem is deflation, not inflation. That
article says that taxes are going to go up instead, and I tend
to agree.
\_ Taxes will probably rise, but inflation is inevitable given
how many dollars we printed and scarcity of natural resources.
I would (and did) bet heavily against deflation.
\_ How do you explain Japan's two decade long experience with
deflation then? They printed lots of money, have ran massive
budget deficits, have a scarcity of natural resources and
have not been able to shake the deflation bug.
\_ "As Washington ponders its taxation options, it might also wish
to cast its gaze toward the NYSE and Nasdaq, whose companies add
very little to the public till."
Only if you completely ignore the payroll taxes and sales
taxes these companies pay and the taxes their employees pay
out of their salaries. |
| 2009/11/2-9 [Reference/Tax] UID:53492 Activity:very high |
11/1 Where the Bush tax cuts went:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdo32e
It sure would be nice to have that $2.3T back, wouldn't it?
\_ If you pray hard enough, much of that wealth will be trickling down
to everyone soon! Keep praying!
\_ Since the money stayed with individuals like you and me we
already "have it back". Or do you mean that you wish the
government had kept $2.3T in wealth that belonged to the
citizens?
\_ anyone with HS education understands the point of the
graph. The rich have the biggest dot, and hence they
got way more than everyone else. The point of the
graph is to conjure up knee-jerk actions from the poor
and socialists alike. Did you graduate from Berkeley?
\_ What the rich "got" was their own money! Good point
in your next-to-last sentence.
\_ What did they do with it? It seems pretty clear that the people
who got the tax break just blew it on a big housing bubble.
\_ personal responsibility. self reliance. yadda yadda
yadda. Read Ayn Rand.
\_ to understand better how idiots think about the world?
\_ No, what really happened is that Bush borrowed $2.3T from the
Chinese and indebted future generations (like you and me) to
pay it back and then transferred that money to his wealthy
supporters. If the government had been running a surplus during
that time, you might be right, but we did not, we ran huge
deficits. I sure wish we hadn't borrowed all that money to
pay for the Bush tax cuts, don't you?
\_ Put another way:
Bush screwed the Chinese, because they aren't ever going
to see that money again. I can't pay it back and I'm
declaring BK, baby. Let's watch the Chinese try to collect.
The wealthiest Americans stole $2.3T from the Chinese.
They are so gullible. If I owe the Chinese $100K I have
a big problem. If I owe the Chinese $2.3T they have a big
problem.
BTW, these "future generations" who will pay the bill
back are the same "rich people" the money was "given" to
to begin with. "You and me" aren't going to pay it back,
because we don't pay that much in taxes anyway. Anytime
you can borrow cheaply and earn a higher return on the
money you borrowed you should do so. Consider this a
low-interest loan from the Chinese to wealthy Americans
who then invested the money. In that context it makes a
lot more sense.
\_ Who has gotten a higher return on their investment
lately? I don't think it was anyone investing in the
US real estate or equity markets. Though the dollar
weakness must make US Bondholders nervous as well.
We will all be paying it back, with higher taxes and
less services.
\_ You don't think anyone investing in the real estate
markets made money?! Don't let the recent crash
obscure how much money was made. What are those
T-bills paying lately? Also, I hate to break it to
you but we won't all be paying it back. Plenty of
people don't pay any (or hardly any) tax at all.
\_ Reductions in services are a form of payment.
\_ Depends on if I use the services or not.
\_ 1) The people who don't pay any tax at
all tend to use lots of
services (for example: buses,
public schools, public health
clinics, etc.) that self-satisfied
over-priviledged geeks don't use.
2) Even if you as a self-satisfied,
overpriviledged geek don't use those
services, their reduction is a cost
to the society in which you take part.
A good public transportation system
reduces traffic on the roads; a good
public school system reduces crime and
increases the quality of the labor
pool, a good public health system
reduces the incidence of communicable
disease, etc. -tom
\_ Completely depends on which services
are cut. Not every service provides
some noble service to society.
\_ OK, well, considering that
education and health services
represent over 80% of the
state operational budget, where
are the cuts going to come from?
They're going to come from
services the state's poor need. -tom
\_ We're talking about the federal
government borrowing from the
Chinese. There's a big part of
the budget that could be cut
which is defense.
\_ Defense is the one government
service that the rich enjoy
more than the poor. -tom
\_ That's not necessarily
true, but if it is then
you just proved my point
about how "we" may not
pay back the money that
was borrowed and "the
rich" will.
\_ It is an interesting way to look at it. Let's see
who ends up getting their taxes raised to pay it
back.
\_ You must pay a lot less in taxes than me. "We" will
certainly be paying it back.
\_ I am not in the top 1% ($400K+), but if you are
then congrats and sorry to tell you that, yes, you
will be paying it back. I'm sure you don't
mind given all the money you made as a result
of the tax cuts, though.
\_ Not quite top 1%, but top 5% for sure. I am
still thinking about what I think of the govt
borrowing money on my behalf. It is true that
I did all right investing with it. I wouldn't
mind seeing my taxes go up, especilaly if it
went to something worthwhile, like the UC.
\_ what'd be nice is a bit next to it showing the tax burdens
and incomes as well for comparison. We already know they pay a
larger share of the taxes as well.
\_ Overall tax burden is pretty flat from the 4th to highest
decile:
http://tinyurl.com/yjxoknd
This includes all taxes, not just income tax, which is what
the cheerleaders for the wealthiest like to focus on.
\_ Does not include property tax, sales tax, or local taxes. |
| 2009/10/1-8 [Reference/Tax] UID:53419 Activity:nil |
9/30 It's 9/30 people! Wake up!
Anyway, I have a lot of rewards points from my bank which I can
redeem for cash and this got me wondering if I owe tax when I
redeem points for rewards. Knowing the government, I do. Anyone
know? I guess it depends on whether they are considered coupons or
rebates versus income.
\_ Blow it off like everyone else. Get drunk. Enjoy yourself. |
| 2009/9/9-15 [Finance, Reference/Tax] UID:53350 Activity:nil |
9/9 Tax question: I have lots of long-term capital gains and some
short-term capital losses. I'd like to use the losses to offset
the gains. However, since the long-term cap gains rate is lower,
should I wait until I have some short-term cap gains to claim the
loss? (I have no short-term cap gains right now.) |
| 2009/8/6-19 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/Tax] UID:53249 Activity:kinda low |
8/6 http://money.howstuffworks.com/5-great-depression-events-videos1.htm Excellent video of the Great Depression. Low corporate tax, little regulation... any of this sound familiar? \_ The Libertarians have surrendered the field. \_ just decided it wasn't worth arguing with y'all \_ it's ok you'll just be marginalized and then forgotten like the Federalists \_ When's the next world war? \_ ask putin, or north korea \_ Putin is too busy having skin-to-skin contact with his horse. \_ then ask his horse. \_ ask the Isralies \_ ask the Isralites |
| 2009/7/5-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:53113 Activity:low |
7/5 Job A is completely unrelated to Job B. Job A is my main job, and
job B is what I do for fun but can't make a living out of [yet].
Let's say job A provides me with 99% of my income. I just invested
$20,000 for job B which currently makes only 1% of my income,
but I hope to recuperate most of that in maybe 1-2 years. Is there
any way deduct my tax rate that I make from job A using expenses
from job B?
\_ You can carry forward your Job B losses for 3-10 years.
\_ why the nebulous 3-10 years? What determines that?
\_ So that you look it up or talk to a tax advisor. motd is good
to point you in the right direction, but you really shouldn't
make tax decisions based on it.
\_ you can also incorporate Job B and be a sole shareholder.
I recommend Nolo Press.
\_ I recommend you do not incorporate unless you like lots of
expenses like taxes. For example a C corporation in California
pays a minimum of $800 in franchise taxes. This is true if
you do business in California, even if you incorporated in
another state and even if you operate at a loss. I setup a
corporation "just to learn how" for a hobby I did and it
turned into a gigantic fustercluck. I am working to have it
dissolved now. Please make it go away.
\_ He wouldn't do a C Corp, he'd probably do an S Corp, which
avoids double taxation and other issues with S Corps. But
the Nolo books explain all of this.
\_ S Corps still pay the greater of ($800 or 1.5% of
net income) in franchise tax and are still double
taxed in California. Do not incorporate unless you
like paying money to lawyers, accountants, and the
government and the laws change seemingly each year which
means you will spend a lot of time figuring things out and
ignorance is not accepted as an excuse. It makes a lot of
sense to incorporate in some instances, but for a hobby I
wouldn't do it.
\_ wrong.
\_ 100% correct. Please to be highlighting the part
you think is wrong so that I may educate you. |
| 2009/4/24-29 [Reference/Tax, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:52907 Activity:low |
4/23 Let's say I design a web site for my mom's friend who paid me $100
for the job. I'm fine with paying tax on my extra $100 income as
my side job. Can I deduct tax for buying a $2000 computer + monitor?
Do I have to do the LLC thing, and is there anything else I have to
do to deduct for buying equipments?
\_ You can't deduct more than you made. But if you make $2K on the side,
you can deduct $2K.
\_ I don't think it's quite so simple. I think you can only
deduct the fraction of $2k that you've devoted solely to
your side business. I.e., you can't deduct your 95% gaming
machine as a 100% business expense, but you could deduct
5% of it. In practice, I don't know how they could possibly
enforce this, and I could be completely wrong about this:
what I advise is that you look into this carefully and
perhaps consult an actual professional.
\_ They enforce it by auditing you.
\_ And how does that work? "Of course I used this
computer 50% for work!" "Did not!" "Did too!"
\_ 50% maybe. But if you deduct a 2k expense on
a 100 dollar job and you get audited they will
tell you you are full of it and make you pay.
It's blantent dude.
\_ No, you can lose money "consulting" for at least
three years before the IRS starts to get riled up.
They understand that new businesses often don't make
any money for a while.
\_ My accountant wrote this to me: Expenses related to job are summed
up, and if the total exceeds 2% of income, the "excess" amount is
included in "itemized deductions". Also, you can only report the
"business portion" (generally 60%) for tax purpose. And in the case
of a computer, it has to be depreciated over 5 years. So, it may
not be as useful as you've heard." So I have no idea what the
last portion of 5 years means...
\_ it means you can only deduct 20% of the business percentage
of the computer's cost each year. So a $2000 computer used
50% for business, you can only deduct $200. -tom |
| 2009/4/20-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:52877 Activity:nil 66%like:52873 |
4/19 Corporate profits yoy
link:tinyurl.com/cr5a7w (blogspot)
This means there should be MORE tax cuts for corporations! -conservative |
| 2009/4/6-13 [Reference/Tax, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:52808 Activity:high |
4/6 Alameda sales tax is now 9.75%. that's pretty rough. sales
tax is regressive. Some boneheaded Oakland city council member
wants to raise Oakland sales tax even more, in this
recession. - motd liberal
\_ Yes, the sales tax, car tax, and income tax increases enacted by the
state legislature are the largest in history, and massively
regressive. Add in the federal tobacco tax increase and the poor
have been hammered.
\_ I'm going to give the legislature a break on car taxes. Arnold
shouldn't have used that issue to get into office.
\_ Irrespective of Arnold's tactics, a doubling of the VLF is
still a huge hit for many low-income families.
\_ Compared to all the other costs of car ownership
car taxes are pretty damn tiny, especially if you
own a junker. (1.15 percent, or about 33 bucks/year on
a car that costs 3000 dollars) In the mid/late 90s VLF
fees were about twice what they are now.
\_ Regressive taxes are good. Tax the poor right out of existence!
It's their own fault for being poor!
-- Typical conservative whackjob
a car that costs 3000 dollars, so an extra ~$16 a year.)
In the mid/late 90s VLF fees were about twice what
they are now.
\_ Car drivers are still massively subsidized by non-drivers,
who tend to be even poorer.
\_ I doubt it, since non-drivers are a small portion of
the population and have small incomes. I think you
could eliminate non-drivers from the country completely
and it would hardly affect drivers. What gets
massive subsidies is public transit.
\_ That's only true if you ignore most of the costs
of driving.
\_ Public transit gets less subsidy per rider than
automobiles do, actually. Many non-drivers are
old and not poor.
\_ Old generally means lower income. In 2000 87%
of the "driving age population" had a license.
(Driving age population basically excludes kids.
There is no upper age.) How much do you think
that other 13% is contributing? It's probably
much less than 13% of the tax base. There is no
way car drivers are subsidized by non-drivers.
\_ That doesn't mean driving isn't subsidized.
It just means that the subsidizers are often
also the drivers. That both hides the true
cost of car ownership and makes it so it's
not cost effective to opt out.
\_ How do you subsidize yourself? You are
being ridiculous now.
\_ Say I have to pay a lot of taxes
to build roads/clean up after cars/
spend money on traffic enforcement/
etc. That's a subsidy. Yeah I get
services from it, but it hides the
total costs of car ownership. And
total costs of car ownership. And if
I chose not to own a car I still have
to pay thoses costs so there's much
less incentive to use alternatives.
\_ I think there is a strong case that those
that drive less (or not at all) subsidize
those who drive more. If something is
subsidized so that users of it don't see
the true cost, it tends to get over-
consumed.
\_ Has a license does not mean has a car. Has
a license does not mean drives regularly.
\_ No, but has a license = driver. Drivers
sometimes walk, bike, or take public
transit, too, but we're still drivers.
Roads benefit everyone. Emergency
services and firefighting, transport of
goods, and even buses and bikes benefit
by roads. However, not everyone benefits
from public transit.
\_ take the million-plus trips that
go by public transit in the Bay Area
each day and turn them into car trips,
and you'll see how public transit
benefits everyone. -tom
\_ No, that just benefits Bay Area
commuters.
\_ Everyone benefits from reduced congestion,
cleaner air and fewer people injured on
the highways.
\_ Almost certainly my last post
on this subject: Having a
transportation network capable
of moving lots of people from
place to place in the region
is a benefit to everyone.
Employers, for example, are
benefitted by having access
to their employees. Public
transit moves more people per
dollar or per unit of land use
than roads do, which gives the
overall infrastructure greater
capacity at a lower cost. -tom
\_ It's only efficient if you
happen to need to go exactly
where public transit takes you.
You have a point if you want
to go from A to B, but not if
you want to go from A to [A-Z].
You can replace all roads with
rail and build a thousand new
train stations if you want to
achieve the effect you desire
but that seems horribly
expensive given the roads are
already in place and the
logistics are nasty for cargo
(which is why trucks are used
more often than cheaper existing
rail in many cases). We aren't
talking about building some
utopian society from scratch,
but leveraging off of what
exists and there is no way
replacing roads with rail
makes sense at this time in
I'd say 98% of cases.
\_ Have you ever been to
Europe?
\_ I have. I noticed the
startling existence
of roads.
\_ Far fewer than here,
per capita. How do you
think they do that?
\_ Mash 4 million
people into a
closet? Per capita!
How about per square
kilometer?? It's
about the same as
here.
\_ Keep beating that straw
man, I'm sure you'll get
him at some point. -tom
\_ Is that your new nickname?
\_ Everyone benefits from reduced
congestion, cleaner air and fewer
people injured on the highways.
\_ I would say that the cost/benefit
ratio is high for the typical
American who is not living in a
crowded city. Why should they
subsidize commuters in SF and NYC?
\_ Who is this typical American who
doesn't live in a crowded city?
However, I think it's clear why
those in SF and NYC should still
pay for roads in middle America.
Let me make this more clear: We need
the roads. We cannot eliminate them.
Claiming that they are subsidized
(or not) misses this point. We have
to pay for them. We do not need rail
(distinguished from buses because
buses also need the road) at this
time in most of the country and
even in the areas that we do we still
need roads. It's a luxury that makes
life better for some people. Like
all luxuries, it should be paid
for by those who use those services.
You can argue that we should be
building a rail infrastructure to
handle future population increases,
but you will *still* need the roads
so that just means increasing total
transportation costs. You will
not get to a point where rail is
free and all the roads are toll
roads and even if you did you
would just be shifting the costs
around so that you'd pay for them
with higher prices for goods,
emergency services, and so on.
You (the non-driver) will not be
able to escape paying for roads
unless there are no roads and
that is unlikely in my lifetime.
\_ No, we don't need all those
roads. We could easily get by
with 1/4 the road network. Why
should urban commuters subsidize
suburban commuters? You have no
explaination, other than "we need
it." We only need big interstates
like I-5 and I-10, we don't need
all the commuter beltways, like
580 and 24. If we didn't have
commuter rail, we would have to
build even more freeways, which
cost more per passenger than rail.
\_ You needs roads almost
everywhere because goods ship
to/from almost everywhere
and you need to be able to
provide emergency access to
almost everywhere (firefighters
and ambulance). In fact, I
would argue you need those
local roads *more* than you
need roads like I-5 and
I-10, which could more easily be
replaced by rail for transport
of goods and people, too.
Drive I-5 and you will see
it's hardly used for local
transit and transport.
\_ There is no need to provide
goods and emergency access
to low density regions. I
lived in Wyoming and it would
be stupid to build paved
roads to every house. Why
should the taxpayer support
someones desire to live out
in the middle of nowhere?
\_ I agree except I suspect
you have a weird idea of
what "low density" means.
Everything not in the
largest cities is not "low
density". If you want
to argue against Alaska
highways (Bridge To
Nowhere) I am with you on
that, but not if you
are talking about
roads in places like
Stockton.
\_ It is fine to build a
small two lane road in
places like Stockton,
sufficient for goods
delivery (and what we
had in the 50's) but
that is not what we
have now.
\_ What was the
population in the
50's compared
to now?
\_ If the people who
want to use all
that extra
infrastructure
want to pay for
it, that is fine,
but if they don't
let it go back to
weeds, like
Detroit is doing
today. No use in
throwing good
money after bad.
People who live in rural areas get
all other kinds of subsidizes as
well, which we should phase out.
It is inefficient to live so widely
spread out and rural people (other
than farmers) don't really
contribute that much to the
economy. All those big yards are
luxuries that you should not expect
others to pay for. If we got rid
of all those inefficient freeways
and replaced them with more
efficient transportation methods,
prices would go down, not up, like
you claim. |
| 2009/4/3-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:52789 Activity:moderate |
4/3 Tax on a pound of roll-your-own tobacco will go from $1.10 cents to
$24.78 -- about a 2,200-percent increase. Large cigars jump from 5 to
40 cents. And a pack of cigarettes spikes from 39 cents to $1.01.
\_ Who buys a pound of tobacco?
\_ Uh, people you roll their own. Like it says there.
\_ Uh, people who roll their own. Like it says there.
\_ I know plenty of people who roll their own. A pound is
a fuckload of tobacco.
a fuckload of tobacco. A pack of drum is 40grams (tax of
about 2 dollars) and makes about 2-3 packs worth of cigarettes.
\_ I know plenty of people who roll their own. A pound is a
fuckload of tobacco. A pack of drum is 40grams (tax of about
2 dollars) and makes about 2-3 packs worth of cigarettes.
(Often more because people who roll their own tend to make
tiny ass cigarettes.)
\_ Who cares how many cigs a pound makes?
\_ Because $25/pound sounds a lot more unreasonable than
less than a dollar a pack. Just the other day I spent
90k a pound of some medication! Of course since they
are 5mg a pill, that's only 1 dollar a pill. See,
context matters.
\_ It's the delta in the tax that's interesting. Fed Tax on
cigs more than doubled, but this is just insane.
\_ It's the delta in the tax that's interesting. Fed
Tax on cigs more than doubled, but this is just
insane.
\_ ...or it implies that the tax on a pound was
inordinately low before. -!pp
1 pound ~= 450 grams = 11.25 drums = 22.5-33.75 packs
1 pound ~= 450 grams = 11.25 drums = 22.5-33.75
packs
packs (thnx 80 col re-formatter!)
Tax increase per pack: $.39 -> $1.01
22.5-33.72 packs = $8.78-$13.16 -> $22.73-$34.09
1 pound = $1.10 -> $24.78
Sounds like they're bringing it in line. And since
the point of the tax is to discourage smoking,
it makes no sense to encourage a tax break for
it makes no sense to offer a tax break for
buying in bulk. This isn't competitive pricing. |
| 2009/3/19-23 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:52732 Activity:high |
3/19 Communist/Socialist House reps pass bill taxing bonuses at 90% for that
portion of the bonus that pushes you over, for individuals, total AGI
> $125K ($250K married) working at an entity which took >= $5B in TARP
money. A disgrace to meritocracy. Cost of living in Manhattan is
expensive you know?? It's a good thing it only starts for the 2009
tax year!
\_ ha ha you're stupid
\_ I think it's not fair to be based on household income. I think it
should be based on the income of the person (married or not)
getting the bonus.
\_ It's an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
\_ That's not obvious.
\_ corrected again after reading the bill
\_ It should have been 99%. Seriously, the people owed bonuses should
become third- or fourth-tier creditors; if there's anything left
to pay them after paying back the govt., fine. If not, tough.
\_ "While the House legislation calls for a 90 percent tax, Rep.
Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways
and Means Committee, said he expected local and state
governments to take the remaining 10 percent of the bonuses."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aig_outrage
\_ what is your suggestion? continue to let those free-market
guys run the banks and continue their practice of leveraging
35:1 ? let me know.
\_ Rent a cheap condo in Brooklyn and take a train to work. $250K
is plenty to live in Manhattan too. Just find a cheaper place to live
take the kids out of $30K/year private school.
is plenty to live in Manhattan too. Just find a cheaper place to
live take the kids out of $30K/year private school.
\_ If 250K/year isn't enough for you to live in a nice condo
in Manhattan you need to stop doing 10k of coke a month.
\_ A 3 BR apartment is about $5-7K/month. $12K/month doesn't
seem like much with those prices. I think the guy who
\_ A 3 BR apartment is about $5-7K/month. $12K/month (after
tax) seem like much with those prices. I think the guy who
said Brooklyn or Jersey was more on the money.
\_ And really, who can live on just 7k a month?
\_ Slippery slope. I bet you can live on a lot less
than you make, too. Most people can. Once you start
trying to define a "minimum livable wage" you have
already lost and might as well embrace communism.
\_ You are really bad at this reading comprehension
aren't you. Are you the same person who was mad
because those dirty poor people don't live
on potatoes and milk? |
| 2009/2/27-3/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:52655 Activity:low |
2/27 CA unemployment increases from 9.3% to 10.1% for Jan
\_ Good thing the legislature passed the biggest tax increase in
history! That should solve it.
\_ because cutting taxes has done such a great job so far!
\_ it has.. giving mortgages to poor folks did us in
\_ 100% horseshit.
\_ Find me an economist who thinks raising taxes will help
grow the economy.
\_ States can't run a deficit AND because of our fucked
up initiative system CA spending is pretty locked.
There's not much choice.
\_ I guess States need some of the stimulus money then
because the Feds can run a deficit. Raising taxes
right now is stupid.
\_ Raising taxes might hurt the economy less than cutting
services would.
\_ Those are not the only two choices.
\_ Once again, 100% horseshit.
http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/?p=845
"Drawing upon economic theory, we believe
reducing government spending will have a more
deleterious effect on Washington s economy than
would increasing revenue. Although both cuts in
government spending and tax increases have the
potential to slow economic growth, cutting
government spending would likely have the most
immediate impact by directly reducing
consumption. Tax increases are less problematic
because individual consumers, especially those
with higher-incomes, are unlikely to reduce
consumption by the full amount of the tax
increase." (First hit on Google.) -tom
\_ You do realize that all but a small handful
of the economists who are urging for higher
taxes rather than reduced government spending
in that letter are government employees,
right? 100% horseshit indeed.
\_ You asked me to find you an economist who
thinks raising taxes will grow the economy,
and I found you 20+ on the first Google hit,
\_ Uh, no. Those 20+ economist merely *said*
raising taxes would grow the economy. Whether
or not they actually *think* it will is
completely different. As I pointed out, they
were arguing for raising taxes in favor of
cutting state spending. Just casually looking
at where these people worked, all but 3-4 of
them were easily identifiable as state employees.
Do you want me to spell it out for you?
\_ Well, gee, pretty much all the economists
who say that raising taxes is bad are
wealthy taxpayers, so I guess we can ignore
their opinions. -tom
\_ Before you were just dense. Now you're
making imaginary arguments.
\_ How is it any more imaginary than the
argument that we should discount
economists who work for the
government? Economists who don't
work for the government directly
benefit from lower taxes; by your
"logic," we should discount their
opinions due to conflict of
interest. -tom
including several who are not government
employees. So, yes, 100% horseshit. Want to
try moving the yardsticks again? OK, here are
some more:
\_ These economists are comparing raising
taxes versus cutting spending, which is not
really the issue. Cutting spending right now
would be suicide. The alternative to raising
taxes is not cutting spending. It's running
a deficit, which makes sense to do during
lean economic times. During a Depression is
not the time to balance the budget.
\_ Nice job moving the yardsticks again. -tom
\_ You have a really low hurdle for
success if you want to take the
original statement literally.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/socialstudies.php
\_ This article says nothing at all about taxes versus economic
growth, but it does point out that federal spending as a % of
GDP is higher than historical levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/business/economy/25leonhardt.html
Please discount those, too. -tom
\_ The guy in this article notes that the economy grew the fastest
in the late 1990s when Clinton "briefly took federal taxes to
20% of GDP". There is no correlation between the taxes being
high and the <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> growth. I think raising taxes during boom
periods is a smart idea, but the taxes were not the cause of the
boom. At the article points out, when you raise taxes on
cigarettes, consumption decreases. When you raise taxes on oil,
consumption decreases. You think raising income taxes will not
decrease consumption? Herbert Hoover raised taxes during the
Depression and it was a horrible blunder. Read up about it.
Let's not do that again.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm
\_ Do you understand the difference between income tax and
sales tax?
\_ Do you understand the similarities? |
| 2009/2/14-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:52575 Activity:moderate |
2/14 GOP votes against biggest tax cut in history, after voting repeatedly
for Bush's tax cuts for the rich. The campaign ads really write
themselves.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016863.php
\_ but welfare is Communism! -conservative
\_ These "Tax cuts" were bundled with over $500B in spending, and
they aren't tax cuts they are payments. Getting the payment has
nothing to do with paying taxes. You can pay negative taxes
and still get a payment. Let's just be honest.
\_ Does anyone actually pay negative taxes, including payroll
and sales tax? Let's just be honest.
\_ I believe so, I have a brother in law that makes ~22k,
had 2100 and change withheld and is getting back 7400 and
change. 7.650% SSI + medicare is 1683. 7400 - 3783 = 3617.
So yes people pay negative tax, but I can't tell you how
many.
\_ Wait, getting your withholding back counts as negative
taxes?
\_ Math is hard.
\_ So are details, apparently. Has your b-i-l received
a check on this? Who's paying him, the IRS? Is he
getting a deduction or a check?
\_ I think the current tax system is way to complicated, and full
of social engineering. However, would it make sense to give a
tax cut by say raising the brackets for 2008? That seems like
a tax cut than giving everyone $600 or whatever it is. |
| 2009/2/4-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:52514 Activity:nil |
2/4 So, if the state isn't going to give you your tax refund, file an
amended return for 2008 applying the refund to this year, and adjust
your current withholdings. Don't deal with IOU's or delayed refund
payments.
\_ If you're still employeed, just stop paying tax from your paycheck. |
| 2009/2/3-8 [Reference/Tax] UID:52502 Activity:nil |
2/3 Does any democrat pay taxes? Or is it just cabinet nominees?
\_ Democrats are cheap and try to do their own taxes and
that has a tendency to screw things up, whereas Republicans
usually justs pay their accountants and "externalizes" problems
to someone else (their employees). In this respect, Republicans
are smarter, esp. with their money, as expected.
\_ With a tax code so complex, can anyone avoid being a tax cheat?
I inadvertengly screwed up my taxes at least twice in the last
10 years. One time I never got a W2 for a part-year job and
forgot to figure in that income. Another time I just screwed
up.
\_ Well, the latest one is nanny problems (uh, haven't we seen that
enough that everyone knows you have to take care of that?). The
others are people who are involved with making the laws or make
enough to have an accountant do the math. And in Daschle's case,
apparently he also claimed invalid charitable contributions.
I've never managed that one.
\_ The last one is < 1000 dollars.
\_ $298 in unpaid taxes + fines/interest.
\_ As I said, it's a fuck up. Daschel this isn't.
\_ I managed to screw myself out of $1K one year and the IRS
caught the error and mailed me a $1K check in August which I
then blew in Vegas. Good times. Anyway, IRS seems
reputable to do that.
\_ It's interesting. When it comes to money, republicans wage
wars costing billions and pockets millions, all legally.
Democratics, like most frugal people, tries to save money
by doing their own taxes, yet get burned because of a few
mistakes here and there. How far ago back do tax records
typically go? Did I fuck up my change for being a
politician because I claimed an extra $200 charitable
contribution on my tax forum?
\_ statute of limitations on this stuff is 3 years
\_ Wait, you really think Daschle does his own taxes?
\_ Plug: support the FairTax. |
| 2009/1/26-29 [Reference/Tax] UID:52470 Activity:nil |
1/26 Tim Geithner, architect of the Bear-Stears rescue and tax hero,
confirmed by Senate, 60-34.
\_ Don't forget tax cheat!
\_ tax HERO ... tax HERO ... |
| 2009/1/9-14 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:52352 Activity:kinda low |
1/9 Karl Rove's Factually Challenged Housing Revisionism
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/karl-roves-revisionism
\- why exactly would anybody except anything from KROVE
except an ideological ad? this is like "ford ad's
american car quality historical revisionism" or Preacher Bob
Jesusfreak's critiques of evolutionary theory.
[not that i am not saying people shouldnt engage with KROVE
or it's not interesting to read these links]. the dems
can definitely learn from people like grover nordquist
[interitance tax = "death tax" instead of "billionare tax"]
"billionaire tax" is far less _/
accurate than "death tax"
inheritance taxes affect people
with relatively small inheritances
\_ Technically, they're both misleading;
it's actually an "inheritance tax."
\_ Actually, as is usual for the MOTD
you don't know what the hell you
are talking about, but wouldn't
think of letting that stop you.
It is an ESTATE tax, which is
"technically" different from an
an inheritance tax. If it was an
inheritance tax besides being more
fair and reasonable, it would also
make the term "Death Tax" actually
incorrect, as opposed to now, where
it is (again "Technically") correct.
-phuqm (the death tax supporter)
-phuqm (death tax supporter)
\_ And as usual, you manage to be
informative AND an asshole.
\_ aww shucks. Now I'm going
to feel all warm and fuzzy
all day.
\_ Mission accomplished.
stuff like this "contains an egregious combination of false
statements, crucial omissions and misleading assertions."
should read "karl rove is a notorious liar" ... he isnt a fool
so he cant believe any of this ... as for journalists and
publication which present him ... we must ask about them
"are they fools, unprincipled ideologues, paid hacks, or is
something else going on". it feels good to come up with nice lines
like "you are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts"
but in cases like this a stark "kar rove is a liar" is more accurate
and makes the point better. To wit, "false coyness" in lines like
"Rove somehow fails to note the GOP controlled Congress from
1994-2006, including the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency."
if you havent analyzed the GSE article in the last Vanity Fair,
you may wish to take a look.
\- this is more like it:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/stupidest-party-alivetm.html |
| 2008/12/17-2009/1/2 [Reference/Tax] UID:52264 Activity:nil |
12/17 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aznONFlyupOI "Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $10 billion and debt guarantees from the U.S. government in October, expects to pay $14 million in taxes worldwide for 2008 compared with $6 billion in 2007. \_ Goldman Sachs cuts average pay 45 percent!! ... down to $364K. lowest compensation since 2004. oh the humanity! |
| 2008/11/25-12/2 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:52103 Activity:nil |
11/25 Should churches be taxed? Does freedom of religion mean that religion
should be free as in beer? --PeterM
\_ Churches are non-profits. Should non-profits be taxed?
\_ My contributions to the ACLU do not qualify for a tax break,
why should contributions to a church qualify?
\_ ACLU donations should be tax-deductible
http://www.aclu.org/supportaclu/taxdeductible/index.html
\_ Wish I had known that all these years...
\_ In their capacity as a non-profit, they have certain rules to
follow. In their capacity as a religious organization, they get
a much better tax break and thus have more stringent rules to
abide by. If they want to violate those rules, then they should
not receive the special treatment they would be accorded if
they obeyed the rules.
\_ Should God be taxed? |
| 2008/11/23-24 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:52082 Activity:moderate |
11/22 I just checked my 401K and it is 1/2 of what it used to be. When
is Bush's Economic Stimulous Package (tax return) going to help
out the economy again? -Go George W Bush!
\_ It's Clinton's fault.
\_ ^Clinton^Obama
\_ People who got the tax rebate were probably people who don't have
much money, if any, in 401(k) accounts. |
| 2008/11/20-27 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Tax] UID:52057 Activity:nil |
11/20 "Far from vanishing, many of GM’s assets would be quickly purchased
by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what
is the world’s largest auto market. Happily, the list of well-run car
companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long."
big FAT LOLZ there. When GM closes up, GM's factories are going to
go idle and rust and provide excellent opporunities for hipster
dumbasses who love breaking into buildings to photograph our
crumbling industrial past glory. Those jobs are not coming back, EVER.
\_ GM is a modestly profitable car company with a huge losing pension
fund attached. In bankruptcy, they will be able to dump the
pension liabilities onto the government and return profitable.
\_ which I would argue this is a sure sign of incompetitiveness of
USA as a whole. Then again, if Pension were funded properly,
shouldn't be a problem. My guess is that during the go-go days,
GM decided to use the pension contribution and count it as profit.
GM decided to use the pension contribution and count it as
profit.
\_ No, it is mostly an artifact of the fact that we push health
care costs onto private employers, while that cost is borne
by The State for GMs competitors. Even offloading all the
pensioners healthcare costs alone would make GM profitable.
The GM management (and unions) decided to forstall a bunch
of labor issues in the 70's by increasing benefits, which we
are paying the price of now, but no one could have reasonably
expected health care costs to increase at 7%/yr for 30 years.
\_ not just the 70s and not just GM. This happened with a lot
of city/county governmental orgs as well. The contra costa
county school district is going to be bankrupt due to
quickly increasing pension/medical benifits for retired
quickly increasing pension/medical benefits for retired
staff.
\_ Of course, those evil socialist countries fund health
care by TAXES on corporations. But we could never tax
corporations here, because that would make us
uncompetitive. Or so goes the corpratist line. -tom
\_ Right, because corporations here don't pay any taxes
ever. There's no way an evil corporation like
XOM would pay any tax.
\_ That statement is becoming more true every year.
In the 50s, 1/3 the federal tax revenue came from
corporations, today it's 7% and still dropping.
Assuming the corporists that run the government
continue their successfuly campaign to eliminate
taxes on corporations whenever possible, it's
conceivable that will go down to 0% in a decade
or two. -!tom |
| 2008/11/12-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Tax] UID:51924 Activity:nil |
11/11 So if the LDS church bankrolled the Yes on 8 campaign, how the f can
they keep their tax-exempt status?
\_ Because LDS is a religion and gayness isn't?
\_ Because they didn't endorse a candidate from the pulpit.
\_ Way to go, useless distinctions!
\_ *shrug* That's the way the law works. Now, if you really
want to get their funding cancelled or cost them a lot of
money, get an openly gay friend to apply for a job with the
\_ job? in church? ha ha ha
Church; when they turn him or her down, sue for
discrimination.
\_ Are you still banging Good But So Very Bad Mormon Mom?
\_ Or the gay people could start a gay religion and get
tax exempt status! How about that!
\_ The difficulty here is that the Mormons have a world-
wide congregation and a mandatory tithing system; it's
really difficult to compete, monetarily, with this.
Bogging them down in repetitive lawsuits is an easier
way to drain their resources.
\_ AFAIK the LDS church didn't bankroll it, members did. See the
difference?
\_ Technically there is a difference, but it's a useless
distinction.
\_ Someone donates to and serves at the salvation army, and also
donates to the yes on 8 campaign, therefore the SA should lose
it's tax-exempt status? Riiiiight....
\_ Is this really true? If so, this *is* a huge difference. It
means that the MSM has been kind of slandering the Mormon
Church as well.
\_ Well, yeah. You have to read the whole article, it's always
relegated to the end.
\_ Wait, what article?
\_ Yeah, what article?
\_ Not one in particular, I've read 4 or 5 newspaper
articles on the subject. This has been true for all
of them. That's all.
\_ Which is political speech?
"God hates fags"
"Vote Yes on 8"
The answer to your question determines whether a religious entity is
tax-exempt or not
\_ Sadly it was probably Mexican Americans, Black People, Catholics,
Mormons, and people who think Gays Are Here To Gay Up Your Kids
that voted for Prop 8. It's hard to declare political war on
such a huge voting block.
\_ The LDS church wasn't just a voting block, they were the main
funding source (around 80%) for the Yes on 8 campaign.
\_ Isn't it that the LDS (or anyone that opposes gay marriage) would
lose their tax-exempt status only if 8 didn't pass?
\_ No, but the ads certainly implied that. |
| 2008/11/11-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:51922 Activity:low |
11/11 lulz, AMT ratfuck finally fixed:
link:www.mercurynews.com/ci_10950780
\_ "In San Mateo, we had someone who committed suicide over this."
Well that doesn't seem like a smart move now does it?
\_ No! I want rich people to pay! -poor student/socialist
\_ Yes! Bailout stupid people! It's OK to be "unlucky"!
\_ Who else has to pay taxes on unrealized income?
\_ the people responsible for it, obviously!
\_ No on pays taxes on unrealized income except for
(formerly) people who excercised options and held them.
\_ No one pays taxes on unrealized income except for
people who excercised options and held them.
You don't know what you are talking about.
\_ An exercised option isn't unrealized income, it's
non-cash realized income. If you work for a company
that buys you a helicopter as part of your
compensation, you have to pay taxes on it, and if
you crash the helicopter, you still have to pay
taxes on it. -tom
\_ It is today, but it's stupid to think of it ass
realized income. Unlike a helicopter, you can't do
anything with your stock other than sell, and at that
point it becomes realized.
\_ But your stock is making money. Getting to
invest your money pre tax and not taking the
tax hit until you actually use the money
is a huge tax win. That's why people being
paid in stock is such a great tax scam.
\_ You can vote with it. That can be valuable,
especially if you have enough stock.
\_ I am pretty sure that the latter part of your
statement is incorrect:
http://tinyurl.com/667xlb
If you crash a car in an accident, you can take
that as a loss, for example. IANAL.
Also, a helicopter is a tangible gain, while a stock
certificate is not.
\_ You can take the car/helicopter as a capital loss,
but you still have to report the income. -tom |
| 2008/11/10-26 [Health/Disease/AIDS, Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:51901 Activity:nil |
11/10 lolz when your 401k is gone, heroin will look pretty attractive
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg23.htm
\_ Hardly, that crap's expensive! Now, crank maybe...
\_ shooting heroin leaves you VERY constipated. seriously.
sometimes when i shoot junk i don't have to shit for 2 weeks. |
| 2008/10/30-31 [Reference/Tax] UID:51733 Activity:nil |
10/29 I made a mistake on my day trade and I'm wondering how that affects
my tax. Let's say I bought 1 share of X for $10 (call it X1) and
another share of X for $14 (call it X2). When X went up to $12, I
decided to sell X1 for a profit of 12-10=$2. However, Etrade
executed my X2, meaning I have a real loss of 12-14=$-2. Let's say,
hypothetically, that X goes to $16 and I sell X2 for a profit of
16-10=$6. Is there a different tax scenario given the two scenarios?
Sum of (12-14) + (16-10) = $4 (what actually happened)
Sum of (12-10) + (16-14) = $4 (what I intended it to happen)
\_ The IRS views transactions as first-in, first-out. So they
will take the second view. If you've closed out both positions,
it doesn't make a difference; if you still held one position,
they would look at $12-$10. -tom
\_ So I can't write off the first one as capital loss of $2?
Darn I was hoping I could do something clever. Oh well.
Thanks tom that's pretty helpful.
\_ Actually, you can designate which shares you sell but this
needs to be done in writing and in advance of the sale. This
is the "specific shares" method. There is also the
double-category method where you have "long-term" shares and
"short-term" shares. The "average cost" method is when the
IRS decides long/short-term based on FIFO, but that is for
mutual fund shares only AFAIK. Consult your tax advisor.
\_ See how dumb this is? Support the FairTax. |
| 2008/10/23 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/Tax] UID:51653 Activity:nil |
10/23 say bye bye to 401ks. House Dems want to get tax it
\_ Why are you repeating yourself? |
| 2008/10/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:51646 Activity:nil |
10/23 House Dems want to remove 401K tax-break, and use proceeds for more
Social Secuirty.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php
\_ EXTERIOR: SPACE AROUND THE DEATH STAR.
The three TIE fighters move ever closer, closing in on Luke and
Biggs
The three TIE fighters move ever closer, closing in on Luke and Biggs
\_ What proceeds? It just means people will save less for retirement.
If I contribute $100/month now I will contribute $70/month then
(or whatever the math is) to make my take home about the same. |
| 2008/10/17-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:51566 Activity:nil |
10/17 Is corporate tax (tax for corporations) progressive? Does the rate
encourage mom&pop shops, or is it equal regardless of corporation
revenues? Shouldn't it encourage mom&pop shops more?
\_ In CA at least, a small company is an S-Corp. Partners in the
company divide the net revenue based on percentage ownership and
then add that to their other income. This is the most common form
of small company, so the rates are the same as personal (and hence
just as progressive).
\- the majority of corporations doing business in the US dont pay
any corporate taxes, so there is a large diff between the de jure
and de fact (effective) tax rates. you can google for the GAO
and de facto (effective) tax rates. you can google for the GAO
study on this which came out this summer. --psb
\_ url?
\_ Exxon paid $30B in 2007.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion
\- company's total tax liability != us corporate taxes. i believe
we are implicitly talkiing about us payments. |
| 2008/9/25-30 [Reference/Tax] UID:51307 Activity:nil 72%like:51301 |
9/25 How much tax can you deduct from selling a PRIMARY residence at a
loss?
\_ It's a capital loss. You can deduct up to $3K per year if
it's not offset by capital gains. (You can offset as many
capital gains as you like). You can carry forward capital loss
from one year to the next. Assuming it's not the home you live
in, in which case the rules are different. -tom
\_ All true, and I think you can carry forward for 10 years (= $30k)
\_ ALL WRONG. Will the IRS let you claim a write-off for the
loss? Nope. You can only claim a tax loss on investment
property. A loss on a personal residence is considered to
be a nondeductible personal expense for federal income tax
purposes. Most states follow the same principle. Double ouch!
http://www.smartmoney.com/tax-advice/index.cfm?story=20070405
\_ hey nimrod, the post originally said "selling property
at a loss" and didn't specify it was a primary home. -tom |
| 2008/9/25 [Reference/Tax] UID:51301 Activity:nil 72%like:51307 |
9/25 How much tax can you deduct from selling a property at a loss? |
| 2008/9/21-23 [Politics/Domestic, Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51252 Activity:nil |
9/21 700 fucking billion? Really? With no fucking oversight at all?
What the fucking hell? And people think the Democrats are tax and
spend?
\- Wall Street Welfare Kings in Pink Cadillacs having out of wedlock
children with their mistresses in Mayfair! |
| 2008/9/8-14 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:51107 Activity:nil |
9/8 Dear landlord question. If my net flow is negative (e.g.
rent - operation cost < 0), can I write off my loss for tax purpose?
Say I work a 9-5 job and make $100,000K/year, and my total
rent - operation cost is $20,000 loss, is my taxable income
$80,000K? In addition, can I write off HOA+repair+advertising+etc
in addition to my net loss, meaning a taxable income of
$80,000K - (operating costs)?
\_ Yes and yes, but you can only deduct $25k/yr. Losses roll over
though. Depreciation reduces your basis though, so some of this is
recovered when you sell. In some situations (AMT) you cannot use
this deduction and there is a phaseout over $100k, so if you make
over $150k you don't get to use it at all. Talk to a tax advisor. |
| 2008/9/6-12 [Reference/Tax] UID:51072 Activity:nil |
9/6 Lots going on with FNM/FRE bailout. You'll hear about it soon in
mainstream media, trust me. A lot of shit was stuffed into those
structures before the govt is going to backstop them. Common shares
are going to $0 - $2.
\_ Bushinomics at work!
\_ I understand Reaganomics (tax cut for everyone and wealth
will trickle down from the wealth to the poor). What exactly
is Bushnomics?
\_ wealth trickles UP!1! f4t4l1ty!!1
\_ Borrowing from future generations to pay for tax cuts to
the wealthy. Looting the public till to give money to
politically connected defense contractors. |
| 2008/8/22-29 [Reference/Tax] UID:50938 Activity:nil |
8/22 I encourage you to switch at least half your 401(k) exposure to
Treasury money markets at a local peak for at least a few years.
Don't say you never heard this advice. If you don't reallocate,
at least do the proper research.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net
\_ have fun losing on inflation and taxes
\_ ok dude. good luck.
btw, i am paying 15% of my salary into 401(k) (T money mkts),
and am still building my down payment for a house
\_ "downsides are already priced in"
\_ I always take investment advice from half-baked libertarian
syadmins. If this guy is so smart, he should be running his own
hedge fund. |
| 2008/8/11 [Reference/Tax] UID:50839 Activity:nil |
8/11 I'm thinking about getting an iPhone. The data plan I'm thinking
of getting is $129.99 700 any time minutes for 2 iPhones. I
understand that I'll also have to pay a lot of taxes. Realistically,
how much will I have to pay per month? $129.99 + (tax tax tax) =
???? Like $150? $180? I want to know the exact BOTTOM LINE
price, not some "Oh it will depend on tax rate and service
charge and usage" type of crap. |
| 2008/8/1-5 [Reference/Tax] UID:50755 Activity:nil |
7/31 http://preview.tinyurl.com/6dodgz Exxon profit slightly better than 1/3 of the taxes it paid! \_ How much subsidy does Exxon get? |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Reference/Tax] UID:50664 Activity:nil |
7/23 Your taxes will be going up significantly next year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7MCohPgkXo
\_ Does this mean Roth 401K (taxed now, no tax when withdraw) is
a better deal than traditional IRA and traditional 401K where
you're not taxed now but taxed later?
\_ It is pretty funny that all the talking heads applauding
deregulation over the last 5 years are now all complaining
that the government didn't act soon enough.
\_ Didn't act soon enough in what way? |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:50662 Activity:nil |
7/23 DNC: gas tax dodgers
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=96282 |
| 2008/7/23-28 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Shopping] UID:50661 Activity:high |
7/23 So tom, how does it feel to be rich? You're in the top 10% you know.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
\_ Where are the numbers for all the other taxes we pay, like
payroll, sales, etc? Oh yeah, just ignore all the facts that
don't advance your pro-inherited wealth ideology.
\_ So, how does it feel to be an anonymous coward? -tom
\_ I'm not pro-tax by any means, but isn't it pathetic that the
top 1% of the country earns double what the bottom 50% does? It
would not necessarily be positive even if the chart showed the top
1% paying 99% of the taxes if they also earn 99% of the income
leaving the other 99% to fight over crumbs. Also, I'd like to see a
similar chart which shows after-tax income.
\_ Why is it pathetic?
\_ No! The standard of living has improved for every segment
\_ You think this is a Good Thing?
\_ No. I just don't find it very surprising. The bottom 50%
are economically rather useless. Supply and demand...
why would a single diamond be worth more than a ton of
normal rocks?
\_ I have more respect more American workers than that.
I could see if you said bottom 10%, but bottom HALF?
\_ Everyone in the bottom half is "below average".
And "average" isn't very good in this country
(or any other country, really). I'm not saying
they're worthless. But they aren't rare snowflakes
and they're probably not even trying that hard to
improve themselves, as long as they have their
food + home + sex.
\_ I actually think American workers have a
strong work ethic and are among the best in
the world. It's interesting that when foreign
management employs US workers they can
achieve amazing results that US management cannot.
I am not prepared to write-off millions of US
workers. Those workers made us the economic
engine we are today and by continually
outsourcing, placing low expectations on them, and
taking advantage of them, we are getting what we
deserve. I'd rather have 10 poorly educated
American workers with a work ethic over 10
over-educated Europeans workers who whine all
the time and expect lots of time off. BTW,
average and median are two different things.
I am not sure that 50% of US workers are
actually "below average".
\_ Spoken like a dumb patriot.
\_ Spoken like someone who knows how hard
Americans work. Check out average
work-weeks.
\_ They are the bottom 50% lowest paid people.
Why do you think they have a strong work
ethic? Who knows what they do? Anyway,
there may be a lot of part time workers in
those statistics -- part time working parents,
or school kids with jobs. The top 50%
makes 88% and 12% for the bottom.
Without more data to go on, I don't see a
reason to get too excited. And I'm not
going to do a bunch of research right now.
\_ 1. I've actually been in the workplace
and seen that salary does not
correlate to work ethic
2. Just look at the statistics for
number of hours worked per week
3. If you don't see a problem with half
the country making 12% of the income
then there's no hope for you anyway.
You got yours, right?
\_ 1. Work ethic isn't good enough. You
can work hard but if you're stupid
or otherwise not valuable it does
not mean jack. There are billions
of people on Earth and merely
working N hours isn't very valuable.
\_ I beg to differ. If you're willing
to work hard there's a lot of
inherent value in that even if
you're stupid. Someone has to
build roads, harvest crops, work
the cash register, and so on.
\_ But anybody can work that cash
register. That's the point.
There is no scarcity of bodies
willing to do unskilled work
for a few bucks. Therefore
the value is low. Supply and
demand.
\_ Anybody can work it. Not
everyone has the work
ethic to show up on time
and do it for 8 hours
per day 250 days per year.
You can't say "well that's
without value". It is wasting
\_ If it had real value it
wouldn't be underpaid. duh
\_ You don't really
believe this do you?
The price pressures are
external to the US
markets. Think of
how much $$$ we could
save by outsourcing our
management for
lower-paid foreign
management instead
of saying that a
person making $9/hour
is overpaid because
someone in India can do
the job for $1/hour.
We could save more
by cutting that 88%
of earners versus
putting more pressure
on the 12% half.
\_ The companies are
run/owned by these
88%. You can't cut
them. The entire
point is they are
not drones being
told what to do by
somebody higher up.
They are the top.
Responsibility.
What world do you live in
which is full of fuckups
who can't even show up
to an easy job? Working
\_ The real world. I
can tell you never
managed low-level
employees before.
the Safeway cash register
is air conditioned and
they can take breaks.
You don't need one person
to do it 250 days a year
either, there are shifts.
\_ You need *someone*
there 250 days per year
when they say they
are going to be there.
Compare to Europe where
such employees make
more to do less.
\_ Why Europe? Try
a country without
a generous benefits
which make work
effectively
unnecessary.
a valuable resource in a
menial task that could be
doing something less menial
if big business realized it
and took advantage of
it. This is what US
management overlooks and
foreign management does not.
They know how valuable it is,
because they don't have that.
Addendum: Have you noticed
that as salaries have fallen
(due to global competition
and outsourcing) that jobs
that "anyone can do" are
being done poorly? I had to
call AT&T and I was ready to
praise God when I finally was
transferred to a CSR in
Atlanta versus an "anyone" in
India and the Philippines.
But supposedly this American
is overpaid and needs to
be outsourced when earning
her share of 12% of the
income in the country. BS.
\_ No I haven't noticed
that. AT&T does not give
a shit about CSRs because
you're still their
customer and their
competition also has crap
CSRs. I pick low price vs
good CSRs every time. You
should pay extra for your
precious CSRs. Also: you
are assuming that CSR is
bottom 50% -- unfounded.
But hey, they need no
education and only need
to be able to communicate.
You have a weird worldview
if you think that alone
deserves top-50% income.
\_ It doesn't deserve
top-50% income.
What it deserves
is more than 12%
of the pie.
\_ Why? They mostly
are living just
fine, and better
than billions.
2. see above
3. It's not half the country, it's half
the income tax filers. Did you go
to school? I don't remember everyone
having a strong work ethic. We're in
a globalized economy where people's
simple jobs of the past are more
cheaply done by foreigners who are
cheaper and more motivated. That said
most people in this country still live
very well even with low wages.
\_ So your argument is that there
are a lot of retirees and students
skewing the statistics? I find that
hard to believe. Regardless, those
people need to survive, too.
Just because someone is retired
doesn't mean their income can go to
zero.
\_ We haven't talked about their
income going to 0. We've talked
about their share of the income
pie. The pie is pretty huge.
\_ All the more disgusting that
the top 5% get most of it.
\_ They create most of it.
\_ You don't really
believe that do you?
Are they valuable?
Yes. Are they
generating value-added
commensurate with
income? No. How many
CEOs rake in millions
while their companies
(and share price) go
into the toilet?
http://tinyurl.com/8n8ro
I would argue McNealy
gets a pass for what
he's done for the
company, but maybe
not. Do companies pay
for past success or
present results?
\_ But look at the
long term growth.
Long term economic
growth is phenomenal
and all the drones
benefit from this.
The drones do not benefit from _/
this. The average wage for American
workers has not gone up since
the 70s. For workers with no
college degree, it has actually
gone down.
\_ I don't think wages tell the whole story. Would you
rather live with an average wage in an average town
in 1975 or now?
Does that wage figure include "supplemental
compensation" like health insurance, retirement
plans, and social security payments made by
employers? Or the quality of health care? Or
technological advancements such as cell phones
and PCs?
This report is interesting:
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2008/07%20July/D-Pages/0708dpg_d.pdf
Check out "Supplements to wages and salaries" as a
percentage of national income.
And consider:
Population went from 200M to 300M since 1970,
and the global economy is much more competitive.
\_ The gains have almost entirely gone to the top:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf
Look at the chart labled "Real Annual Income
Growth by Groups" I don't think that increases
in the cost of health insurance really should be
considered as increases in the standard of
living, though perhaps I would feel differently
if I was in bad health.
\_ Well, ok. But the population size has grown
tremendously and a huge number are foreign
born. The economy has accommodated them
and still grown. By 2050, 1 in 5 of the US
population is projected to be hispanic.
This part is interesting:
"The evidence suggests that top incomes
earners today are not "rentiers" deriving
their incomes from past wealth but rather are
"working rich," highly paid employees or new
entrepreneurs"
Massive immigration and global competition
depressed wage growth for the lower groups.
Jobs that are more independent of this type
of competition see big gains, like doctors.
The best thing for the lower classes here
would be to improve conditions in Mexico
and have a lower population growth there.
I guess this brings us back to the
global inequality/barbarians in Rome theory.
\_ I am in agreement with you.
\_ No! The standard of living has improved in every segment
of wealth and it's none of your business to implement
progressive tax, that's COMMUNISM!!! -libertarian
\_ I said I'm not pro-tax. I don't necessarily think raising
taxes solves any problems. It just seems to make
government larger. It doesn't really help anyone.
However, what other ways can we address this inequality?
\_ Inequality has never been a problem throughout the
history of empires. The Roman emperors knew that long
time ago. As long as the populace has bread (beer+pizza)
and circus (football, plasma), there will never be
issues for the governing party.
\_ So how did that whole Rome thing work out for them?
\_ It worked quite well for a very, very long time.
The US is a young nation in comparison.
\_ How can you say inequality was not a problem with
a straight face when it caused the entire
Western civilization to collapse into
centuries of Dark Ages?
\_ My point is as long as people have bread
and circuses there will not be a problem.
panem et circenses.
\_ My point is that your point is wrong,
because Rome fell and set the world
back at least 500 years, if not more,
as a result. So clearly there were some
problems.
\_ Your notion that Rome's fall was the
fault just of "inequality" is silly.
There was no one single thing. There
were huge tribal migrations, plagues,
climate changes (hey hey), cultural
turbulence with Christianity and then
Islam etc. Rome kept going in the east
anyway... if the world was set back
then that probably goes back to the
fall of the Republic and onset of
Christianity.
\_ Especially since early Rome was not
especially egalitarian, with slaves,
very restricted citizenship rights,
etc., but it flourished just fine.
\_ Actually, inequality was probably
the greatest contributor. Why?
Because the barbarians wanted
what Rome had and because Rome
consumed more resources than it
could honestly produce sustainably
except through conquest (sound
familiar?). It was only late
in the game that the Romans
started to grant citizenship
to foreigners in an effort to
prevent a total collapse as it
became more and more difficult
to defend the far-flung Empire
from people ticked off at their
inequitable treatment so that
wealthy Romans could have
gold-plated toilets. Inequality
here doesn't refer to classes
within Roman citizenry as much as
it does inequality between Romans
and the rest of the world,
including occupied territories and
Roman residents never granted
citizenship.
\_ And here I thought it was the Barbarians
that sacked Rome.
\_ I can only shake my head in disbelief at
this statement.
\_ What, you think the Romans sacked
themselves? It was the Visigoths, in
410.
\_ Forest for the trees, dude. |
| 2008/7/19-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:50631 Activity:moderate |
7/19 Hey tom, since you're employed by the state (and receive a 6-figure
salary), maybe you shouldn't be the one arguing for higher taxes in the
state?
\- I'd be happy paying Denmark tax rates for safety, security,
cleaniness, and all the good stuff in Denmark. Your brain has
been classified as: puny and selfish
\_ Having been to Denmark, I disagree.
\_ Visitors to Denmark get access to social services too?
\_ Considering that Conservatism reached a high water mark with
the Bush/Rove/DeLay/Frist team, the only real question is can we
expect 10 or 20 years of Liberal dominance. If it is 20, you
just might get your wish.
\_ It will never happen because Americans in general are
proud and self absorbed and don't see outside their
States let along their country.
\_ Why did the New Deal happen then? How about the JFK/LBJ
period that gave us a bunch of liberal advances, including
the Civil Rights act? Your knowledge of American history is
extremely poor.
\_ Get a life. -tom
\_ You don't think it's relevant that the organization you advocate
sucking more money out of my pocket pays you?
\_ No. -tom
\_ Oh, so when Exxon execs say global warming is a hoax, you
won't object? Got it.
\_ Once again, you suck at putting words in my mouth.
Practice isn't making you any better. You also should
consider outsourcing your attempts at analogies. -tom
\_ Once again sucking at putting words in my mouth.
Practice isn't making you any better at that.
You also should look at outsourcing your production
of analogies. -tom
\_ Hush tom, the grownups are talking.
\_ Not on the motd they're not.
\_ You know, Tom, the "you" you addressed isn't the
same person as the last person you said that to.
You'd be a lot more objective and less knee-jerk
if you didn't take the motd personally. |
| 2008/7/10-13 [Reference/Tax] UID:50530 Activity:high |
7/10 Prop 13 is always a big topic around here:
"Back before Proposition 13 the revenues were cyclical, with
years of big increases, then stagnant revenues," said Auerbach.
'Now you get at least a small increase even when the real estate
market slows down.'"
\_ you only get a small increase because the amount you're getting
is so depressed. I'll take 5% average return over 2.2% consistent
return any day. -tom
\_ Aren't you the one who wants to derive more revenues from
property tax because it's more consistent than income tax
and allows for better planning?
\_ no, you must have me confused with your straw man. -tom
\_ I distinctly remember someone making the argument
that relying on income tax revenue is bad because it
is not reliable. This was when I pointed out that tax
revenues are about the same now as they ever were.
Maybe there were multiple people in that thread and
you weren't the one to make that claim?
\_ it probably was a corporatist who made that argument,
if anyone. The wealthy are not big fans of income
tax. -tom
\_ So to be clear *you* support income tax as opposed to
property tax. Therefore, Prop 13 is great from
your POV as it comes closest to abolishing
property tax. You would support raising the income
tax rate if it meant abolishing property tax?
\_ They're different things. Property tax is local,
income tax is state/federal. If you were to
change property tax to local income tax, you'd
get landlords who live in places with no/low
income tax, so the city that provides the
services which support and protect that
property would have no income from it.
And my biggest problem with Prop 13 is
that it applies to corporations; there's no
reason corporations should get any breaks on
property tax. -tom
\_ Ah yes, those *evil* corporations.
\_ my biggest gripe with prop 13 as it applies to
corporations is that corporate-owned property
rarely changes hands, making it a huge tax break
for them over time. At least property owned
by a person is forced to change hands at the
end of that person's lifetime.
rarely changes hands, making it a huge tax
break for them over time. At least property
owned by a person is forced to change hands
at the end of that person's lifetime.
\_ If they upgrade the property, it gets
reassessed. The corporation pays it's
employees, so any tax savings the corp gets
goes into personal income anyway.
\_ Horse manure. Prove it. -tom
\_ Pshaw. It goes into shareholder pockets.
\_ Where it is taxed. I'm sure Tom
would be fine with rents rising
for poor people, though, when
their landlords (often
corporations) are forced to
raise rents to recoup higher
property taxes.
\_ It's funny how this money transfer
happens in only one direction.
In the crazy corporatist world,
lowering taxes on corporations
and raising them on people is
good for people, because people
work for corporations so if
corporations have more money
they'll give it to people
(despite lots of evidence to
the contrary). But lowering
taxes on people and raising them
on corporations is bad for
corporations, because presumably
the people will not use their
money to buy anything that
corporations make. -tom
\_ So I see you have no problem
forcing the poor out of
their homes.
\_ uh, what?
\_ Eliminate Prop 13 on
corps. and watch
rents rise in response.
\_ whatever.
\_ As long as you
are okay with
poor people
thrown out into
the street in
the name of
higher tax revenues.
\_ One problem with corp tax is it
hurts the competititiveness of
the company globally. Anyway,
I think the FairTax would be
preferable to either. There's
no good way to try to separate
the corp tax from individual
tax, and what that balance
should be. Why penalize or
incentivize a corp vs. a
personal business? Moving to
a consumption tax fixes the
problems. You tax the economy
at only the one point: sale
of goods and services. Then
you tune the "prebate" for
progressivity. And you promote
saving instead of wasteful
consumption. And it saves people
tax prep cost, and rich people
can't lawyer their way out of
taxes if they buy stuff.
\_ Sales tax is among the most
regressive taxes, and for
the wealthy, among the
easiest to avoid. This
is definitely an example
of how for every complex
problem, there's a clean,
simple solution that won't
work. -tom
\_ I like how you glibly
ignore all the details
and simply declare
a contrary view. How
do the wealthy avoid
sales tax? Are they
not going to live in
a house? Buy a car?
\_ Ignore what details?
All you've provided is
a statement of
ideology. The wealthy
avoid sales tax by
buying stuff from other
countries. -tom
\_ You just ignored
my house comment.
You ignored the
rebate aspect of
pro/regressivity.
Buying stuff form
other countries
doesn't avoid tax
except small scale
stuff. Look at EU:
they collect tax
on imported goods.
How do you get
"among the easiest
to avoid"? There
is no 100% anti
fraud solution
without Big Brother
tactics.
\_ Trickle down economics is a
crock of shit.
\_ Shareholders are only taxed when
they sell, and at advantages tax
they sell, and at advantaged tax
rates. Also, the tax basis of
stock is adjusted upon the owners
death, meaning that for the wealthy,
it is often not taxed at all.
death, meaning that for the
wealthy, it is often not taxed at
all.
\_ Um. Shareholders are taxed
when they receive the income.
\_ Which income? Do you mean
capital gains? Dividends?
\_ Do you know what "income"
means? It's a pretty
well-defined term.
\_ Then you are wrong.
If I inheret GE stock
that my father bought
for $1/share and sell,
I pay no taxes on the
gain. "Income" means
\_ That's a capital
gain, which has
very little to
do with profits
(directly). Savings
from Prop 13 are
plowed into profits,
not share prices
unless you consider
something like
stock buybacks.
Where do you think those _/
corporate profits end up?
Either in dividends or stock
price. This should be obvious.
Have you ever heard of
"retained earnings?"
a different thing to
an accountant than to
the IRS, btw. Do you
know the difference
between net income,
gross income and pro-
forma income? They
all mean different
things.
\_ You do realize that if properties fall to a point where
they are below the artifically low amount they are taxed
for by prop 13 then you can get them reassesed and you
don't have to pay an extra 2% a year. Prop 13 puts a
ceiling on tax rates but no floor. So yes, the increase
is more perdictable but that's only because properties that
have been held onto are so below the inflation curve that
even a long period of recession isn't enough time to catch
up. This Auerbach is talking nonsense.
\_ You mean Auerbach the LA County Assessor? I don't think
people generally worry about tax floors. What's the
tax floor for income tax?
\_ Tax floors would be the only reason taxes would
drop below current rates. And that would happen
even post prop 13. Two options, you can have
a random about of money between 100-200 dollars or
you can have 100 dollars. Which do you pick?
\_ Which are you saying happens in which case? Why?
\_ Property tax *is* a much more reliable source of revenue than
income tax. Income tax actually goes down in a recession, while
property tax just increases less. Pre Prop-13, property taxes
made up a majority of the state's tax source, now it is sales
and revenue taxes, both of which are cyclical. -!Tom |
| 2008/7/8-10 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:50494 Activity:nil |
7/7 Mother, age 70, is thinking about putting money into fixed
annuity. I have absolutely 0 experience with annuity, and
I'm guessing they should be better than CDs since compounded
interest is tax deferred. Does anyone have old family members
who have annuities? Are they good? Are there other products
similar to annuities in terms of safety and slightly higher-than-CD
interest rates?
\- general/theoretical problem with annuities is it is a textbook
case of asymmetric information/adverse selection. [FYI: The classic
paper on adverse selection was by UCB Dept Econ professor GAKERLOF.
In a bit of a coincidence, he co-won with JSTIGLITZ, the economist
two threads up].
\_ useless advice. why even bother to write it?
\_ It's not advice. It is an observation and some trivia.
I'm not going to give somebody I dont know financial advice
via the motd. BTW, if you know what "adverse selection" is,
it is pretty obvious there will be some suboptimal pricing.
(i.e. if somebody is selling you health/annuity-type
income insurance with limited medical info).
\_ Have you not seen psb's posts before?
\_ I'm not the op, but psb's posts are usually in the
following format:
"There is an academic topic related to this"
"It is interesting, I've read a little bit of it"
<Stick some material and KEYWORDS in the thread>
"I am cool and smart and if you are like me, you'd
read it too."
(optional) ok thx
\- "Results 1 - 10 of about 97,600 for (annuity
"adverse selection"). BTW, yesterday [?] the FRESH AIR
program had a short discussion about annuities and
adverse selection (without using the term "adverse
selection" i believe), and sort of spells out why
individually negotiated annuities may be "a priori"
suspect due to overpricing. |
| 2008/7/4-9 [Reference/Tax] UID:50471 Activity:nil 88%like:50469 |
7/3 Tax rebates go to porn:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/55tyk6 [alleyinsider] |
| 2008/7/3-4 [Reference/Tax] UID:50469 Activity:nil 88%like:50471 |
7/3 Tax rebates go to porn:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/7/where-the-government-tax-rebate-checks-really-went-porn |
| 2008/6/3-8 [Reference/Tax] UID:50142 Activity:nil |
6/3 You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled
record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality.
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower
tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues
can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates
encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No
thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than
compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html
-Prof Andrew Samwick
\_ But... but.. LAFFER CURVE.... neener neener I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
\_ Mocking people works much better if you don't sound like
a complete fucking retard.
\_ I sound like a complete fucking retard in life, why
change here?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Samwick
Samwick is a heavy hitter and a Republican who served as chair
of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, btw. Mankiw, who served
after him would say pretty much the same thing. |
| 2008/5/21-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:50021 Activity:nil |
5/21 The Great Lie of Supply Side Economics:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5mjhk5
\_ Econ as agenda! I love that blog! |
| 2008/5/19-23 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:49998 Activity:nil |
5/19 I have lots of student loans, all of which are in deferment
due to economic hardship (aka I'm too poor to pay them off
now). If I have a little bit of money available each money
($100-200), should I contribute towards paying them off
or is it better to contribute that money towards retirement?
Thanks
\_ Deferment as in you don't accrue any interest and you
don't have to make payments, or deferment as you don't
have to make payments but interest accrues? Also,
could you make the minimum payment if you were not
on deferment?
\_ Deferment meaning don't need to pay interest
but it does accrue interest. -op
\_ OK, if you start paying a minimal amount,
are they going to start demanding you
pay more and put you in a bind? Last,
what, of any, of this is tax-deductable?
\_ Nope, I can pay off however much I
want at any time, and it doesn't
affect anything else. But, I don't
know about the tax question.
\_ The tax question is kind of
important to answer your
question.
\_ Well if it's anything like
other student loans (and it
should be), the interest
accrued is deductible.
\_ It's better than deductible.
\_ OK, to summarize the deleted, the interest is tax
deductable. Next question: if you save your $100-$200/m,
can you make more than the interest on that $100-$200/m,
when you discount that interest by your Fed tax rate? I.e.,
when you enhance that interest by your Fed tax rate? I.e.,
suppose your effective Fed tax rate is 15%, can you make
>= .85x <student loan interest rate> on your $100-200/m?
>= 1.15x <student loan interest rate> on your $100-200/m?
\_ Or is this 1.0x? Or .85x?
If so, then you are better off keeping the money and
building up a nest-egg--from which you can pay the loan
later if the interest rate goes up, etc.
later if the interest rate goes up, etc. If you put the
money into a Roth IRA, the question is can you make >=
1.0x <student loan interest rate> on your $100-200/m?
\_ If it's accruing interest then you should pay it. Otherwise you
will be paying interest on interest, which is *BAD*.
\_ It depends on what the interest rate is on your student loans.
If it is less than 5%, you should certainly invest first, and
delay paying your student loans for as long as possible. If it
is higher than 12%, you should certainly pay if off (unless you
have some higher interest debt, like credit card debt). If it
is in between, it kind of depends on how good an investor you
think you are. You should probably error on the side of caution. -GS |
| 2008/5/16-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:49976 Activity:nil |
5/16 "You'd be taxing success here," Kevin Casey, Harvard's associate
vice president for government, community and public affairs complained
in a quote that will soon be framed and hung in my office. "Over time,
this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage, which would
drastically hurt the Commonwealth."
\_ ugh you again
\_ You don't see the irony?
\_ NO FUCKER. TELL ME WHERE THE HUMOR IS.
\_ Clearly you were Harvard-educated... Okay, do you support
the current progressive tax system?
\_ ok dude do you really think we should start
taxing the endowments of universities?
\_ Okay, so you won't answer the question. Why do you
think we shouldn't tax them?
\_ I find you uninteresting and boring, glenn beck
\_ You too e e cummings
\_ Yeah. Why should the ivory tower get a pass on
taxes?
\_ because they're non-profit.
\_ They are private and very profitable. Their
non-profit status is a legal fiction. |
| 2008/5/5-9 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49881 Activity:nil |
5/5 Comrade! "Reasonable Profits Board"
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20080429_29-KANJO_ART.html
\_ I think the US did this before, but I don't remember the circumstances.
\_ they were talkin windfall profits back in the 80's too. question is
\_ I think the US did this before, but I don't remember the
circumstances.
\_ they were talking windfall profits back in the 80's too.
question is
if you let the market ration the consumption back to the supply,
the prices necessarily go up. a lot. Who gets the money from that?
The people in control of the supply. |
| 2008/4/17 [Reference/Tax] UID:49773 Activity:high |
4/17 Obama wants to raise capital gains tax rates to make it more fair, even
if that decrases revenue?
\_ This was from the debate last night. Please stop deleting it. |
| 2008/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:49753 Activity:moderate |
4/15 Happy Tax Day! Don't forget, if you think taxes should be higher, you
can send in more than CA/US says you owe!
\_ I thin gas and diesel taxes should be higher for everyone.
\_ I think gas tax should be higher for everyone.
\_ McCain wants to reduce the gas tax in summer to "help motorists".
That reduction will help for about, um, 4 weeks as the increase
in gas prices swallow up the savings. Stupidity is becoming the
national pastime.
\_ Deficits don't matter.
\_ If you want to pay more tax, go ahead. Leave the rest of us out
of your destructive philosophy.
\_ Deficits don't matter.
\_ I don't want to pay more tax. I want people to use less gas.
--- PP |
| 2008/4/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:49648 Activity:nil |
4/2 http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/should-drivers.html?nup=1&mbid=yhp "Yet motorists in Los Angeles County might be paying an extra 9 cents per gallon at the gas pump -- or an additional $90 on their vehicle registration fees. The purpose? It would help fight global warming." Yeah. Let's do this here in the Bay Area also. |
| 2008/3/28-4/6 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49607 Activity:nil |
3/28 Consumer confidence lowest in 16 years but BUSH'S TAX CUTS
AND REBATES will rescue us!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23843931 |
| 2008/3/26-28 [Reference/Tax] UID:49570 Activity:nil |
3/26 "But the trustees warned that financial pressures will begin much
sooner when the programs begin PAYING OUT MORE IN BENEFITS EACH YEAR
THAN THEY COLLECT IN PAYROLL TAXES.
"For Medicare, THAT THRESHOLD IS PROJECTED TO BE REACHED THIS YEAR; it
is projected to occur in 2017 for Social Security."
[emphasis added]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-social-securitymar26,1,6982890.story
\_ We heard you the first time. See a few posts down?
\_ My point is that *this* year is when the problem starts.
\_ So what? Bush has been borrowing trillions, what's a few billion
more? |
| 2008/3/25-28 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:49563 Activity:low |
3/25 How much are you guys expecting from GWBush's tax rebates?
\_ $0. Combined income of my wife and me is probably over the limit.
\_ So you're the wealthy?
\_ $600, a whole lot of money for a poor grad student..
\_ $1200 tax deduction, which, since we already overpaid through
withholding, means a $1200 bonus to our refund.
\_ $0. My income is too high.
\_ How do you figure this out based on your income?
\_ More than $75K if single or $150K if married and you're
probably getting nothing. I imagine most s/w engineers are
getting nothing, like me.
\_ 75K taxable income. (Post 401k, post all deductions.)
And it doesn't go away at 75k, although it does go down
pretty fast. If you have a house you probably will get
a refund.
\_ You mean if you have a MORTGAGE with a lot of interests
to deduct?
\_ Yes I did. See you knew exactly what I meant.
\_ ...the fact that it is wrong notwithstanding
\_ No, it's based on adjusted gross income. No mortgage
(or other itemized) deductions.
\_ None of you have actually explained how I would
calculate it.
\_ Learn to use google.
\_ Nothing. We make too much. |
| 2008/3/24-25 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:49552 Activity:high |
3/24 Opinion: companies that require tax-payer funded bailouts should pay
for this privilege in advance as a kind of insurance. -- ilyas
\_ So you advocate a business tax? I don't think we need a new
business tax. I don't think we need bailouts either. Let them
take their lumps and retire with what they've already stolen.
Ban them all from every working in finance again to prevent
recycling these criminal idiots and let the markets recover
without government tampering. No bailouts. No silly taxes.
\_ No need for laws/rules, the free market will take care of it.
Requiring anything extra will stifle competition and make
US less competitive to other countries. No.
\_ It's very simple, if you want free taxpayer money in case of a
'catastrophe,' you need to pay the taxpayers a premium. This
isn't just about the latest financial meltdown, but also
airlines, farming, etc. -- ilyas
\_ Seems kind of redundant, given the presence of private insurance.
So I guess what you're saying is that companies should not be bailed
out. Which isn't very interesting but I agree.
\_ I am prepared to admit that bailouts might be necessary in
some cases, I just want to make the fuckers pay for this.
-- ilyas
\_ Yes, this is essentially what the FDIC is all about. It is obvious
that these IBs need a similar level of regulation. What pisses me
off is that the BSC shareholders are going to get billions from
the taxpayers. I was okay with a $2 (fuck you) bailout, because
I understand the risk to the financial system, but why $10?
\_ I'm fine with the shadow banking system getting a bailout, so
long as they're willing to submit to regulation and oversight
(just like ordinary commercial banks). If you want to operate
with impunity, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect the
goverment to swoop in and save your stupid ass when you mess up.
\_ The purpose of the bailout wasn't to protect the company,
but to build confidence in our financial system and to
prevent from market melt-down. Ultimately, the goal is
to protect the American dollar, hence everyone wins.
\_ It is more prudent to protect the American dollar by
regulating dangerous behavior by financial institutions,
than it is to let them screw everything up and then
bail them out. -tom
\_ I don't think anyone will disagree with you except
the it doesn't change the fact that dangerous behavior
already happened. It's as helpful as trying to preach
safe sex to people who already got a bunch of STDs.
\- "first you have at admit you have a problem^W^W^W^W
there was a bail out".
\_ What if there was no BSC bailout? Exactly what dire
effects for all of us are we trying to prevent? Dollar
devaluation, is that what you're saying? I think that
would be temporary. The broader macroeconomic policies
of the fed. gov't seem more important. In a larger sense,
bailouts undermine the entire market. The only real
accountability executives have is to their shareholders.
The only way to force that accountability is to make the
prospect of shareholders losing their shirts very real.
\_ There are real concerns of a domino effect; a BSC
failure would put liquidity pressure on all the other
institutions which hold BSC debt, which could lead to
more failures. Complete meltdown of the financial
system is not outside the realm of possibility.
Still, bailing out BSC sucks. -tom
\_ Yeah I mean, I would think they should let BSC die
ignobly, and even let a couple other dominoes fall
perhaps. Bail out when it actually does seem
necessary; let some smaller fish take over. I'm
skeptical of a term like "complete meltdown of the
financial system". I'm sure the most irresponsible
entities would like to trumpet themselves as being
key to the entire "financial system" and therefore
must be saved from their own mistakes. Just like
any corporate welfare is couched in noble terms.
\_ Yes, and this is exactly the problem with the
shadow system. Without any regulatory oversight
or standards, who really knows what is lurking
behind BSC? Maybe they really are the key!
Or maybe not...
I hate to drag out that hoary old quote from
Buffet about derivatives being "financial
weapons of mass destruction," but in this
case it seems warranted.
\_ Dire? Think of all the yachts that won't be bought
that year! My God! Think of the yacht makers'
children!
\_ LANDLORD WITH A YACHT!
\_ Go read up on the panics the economy used to routinely
experience in the late 1800's, with unemployment in
the 20%+ range and bank runs and get back to me with
any questions.
\_ http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
\_ The Financial Times agrees with you, as do I. -ausman
http://www.csua.org/u/l4i
\_ Why don't you point us to something? And also say
what your point is. |
| 2008/3/22-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:49538 Activity:very high |
3/22 So I just paid my taxes and for kicks I went ahead and calculated
what my overall tax burden is, including all Federal income and payroll
taxes and my state taxes and it is 35.6%. Anyone else care to share?
\_ On what gross income? And did you include your property tax and
sales tax?
\_ I am not going to post my gross income on the motd but it is high
enought that I am subject to AMT. But my taxe rate on my take home
enought that I am subject to AMT. But my tax rate on my take home
pay is 35.6%. I am not including other taxes, but if I did, it is
a few percent higher. Why don't you post your gross income on
the motd?
\_ It's still with the CPA. I started an LLC this year, so I'm
not actually sure what it is.
\_ Okay, I did a bit of math and our property tax rate is
3.5% of AGI and our sales tax rate is less than 3%, but
I am not exactly sure how much less, since I don't track
spending that well. I did subtract all the things that I
know I don't pay sales tax on and if the rest is taxed
at 8%, that gives me a 3% overall sales tax.
\_ So you don't buy that much stuff? Most of your
spending is untaxed items?
\_ After taxes, mortgage, savings and childcare,
there isn't that much left really.
\_ Sorry, what kind of property tax is based on income?
I thought it was based on assessed value of the prop.
Or, if you are quoting as a percentage of your AGI for
comparison: that is totally under yer control, based
on the cost of your house and where you live.
Err, just wanted to point that out. |
| 2008/3/2-3 [Reference/Tax] UID:49315 Activity:high |
3/2 Question: Can a married couple get TWO $417K conforming loans to
purchase a new home together? Let's assume they maintain separate bank
accounts, can each put 10% (20% combined) toward the down payment, have
good salaries, live together, and file a joint tax return. Thanks.
\_ No.
\_ is this an impression based on experience, or something you know?
\_ Single unit? No. If it is a condo you might be able to do
something where you each buy a unit, but the conformingness is
per unit, not per owner. If you want to spend the 400-500 an hour
a good TiC lawyer costs (which is really what you have in mind)
just to have him tell you no, feel free. |
| 2008/2/26-3/4 [Reference/Tax] UID:49267 Activity:nil |
2/26 Nick Weaver on slashdot
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/02/27/0018224.shtml
\_ Holy shit, people still use slashdot?
\_ Some even use motd!
\_ This is not totally correct. Maintenance fees are required for
patents. Similarly, renewal fees plus proof of continued use
in commerce is required to retain a trademark. There are also
filing fees for both patents and trademarks. These fees are
analogous to a "property tax," as that term is used by nweaver.
Until 1992, the same was somewhat true for copyrights. Before
the 1992 revision to the Copyright Act, a renewal was required
for a copyright to enter its 2d term of protection.
There is also the whole issue of "moral rights" that further
complicates copyright.
\_ Unfortunately most of the slashdot crowd's "solutions" to the
"patent problem" will always result in big companies stealing
the real inventions of little guys even more than they already
do today. The real answer is to grant patents only for things
truly novel. Any sort of fee/tax/money based thing will not
have any effect on Big Company(c) but will crush the little guy
every time.
\_ I believe that nweaver's comments were directed more toward
copyright rather than patent b/c patent terms are limited to
no more than 20 years from date of issue. Removing automatic
copyright renewal will remedy neweaver's concerns.
Re patents - although a stronger novelty or obviousness std
will help eliminate some "bad" patents, it will not really
do much to reduce the litigation threat. One key improvement
(or reform) that is necessary is to increase the number of
examiners (esp. in software) and to improve retention. Another
improvement would be to appoint judges with scientific training
to the Federal Circuit and to districts with heavy patent case
loads. |
| 2008/2/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:49225 Activity:low |
2/24 I'm about to buy a home in an unincorporated city, what are
some of the ramifications of having a home in an unincorporated
city? Does that men we're screwed if the road/sewage/water
need repairs? What about tax and other ramifications?
\_ I live in an unincorporated area. A lot of it depends on who
provides your services. It's usually the county. If you live in
a rich county it can be good. A poor county might mean you
don't get good services. Taxes will be less. In my particular
case, we get better police and fire services, worse roads
and utilities, more freedom when it comes to building codes
and ordinances (can be a plus or a minus), worse humane society,
and worse library system.
case, we get better police and fire services, worse roads, worse
electric utility, more freedom when it comes to building codes,
zoning and ordinances (can be a plus or a minus), worse humane
society, and worse library system. No difference with schools in my
situation (which again can be better or worse - some uninc.
areas have their own school system and others use a nearby district
and it can vary which is better). The sewer and water are handled
by my county either way. In short, the bad part is that there's no
one to complain to and the good part is that there's no one
placing restrictions on you. If you like HOAs you might not like an
unincorporated area. If you like more freedom you will. My
county has more money and so a plus is that when we want
something expensive all we have to do is convince our county
supervisor. That means we can get expensive things a small city
may not be able to afford if we can make a case for them. (A certain
amount is budgeted by the county for our district and that is not
true in incorporated areas where the county figures the city should
pick up the cost.) Essentially, we have access to a bigger
pool of funds to use on pet projects like redevelopment zones,
parks, and libraries. (Even though our library system is worse
than the nearby city that's just because theirs is really
extensive. Ours is very nice for an area our size.) Over the
years there have been many votes to incorporate or to be
annexed to the nearby city and they have all failed, so the
majority of people must like the status quo (probably don't
want to pay the additional 0.25% property tax in exchange for
being told what to do).
\_ Thanks Unincorporate City Guru! It's very very useful!
May I ask which county or city you live in?
\_ The answer is: it depends. Who provides sewer, water, power
and heating gas? Is there a chance your neighbors are going
to get together and vote you all a tax increase to pay for
more services? Read up on what a Mello-Roos is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos
\_ Communities, incorporated or not, can vote taxes for
themselves. It's not really relevant to the discussion.
Mello Roos is tangential as well. Unincorporated areas don't
necessarily have Mello Roos fees. I would guess most don't.
\_ An area without water, electricity or sewer is much more
likely to vote a tax increase to fund those things than
an area that already has them.
\_ Sure, but what does that have to do with incorporated
vs. unincorporated? Absolutely nothing.
\_ You know of incorporated areas with no sewer, water
or electricity? In America???
\_ Yes. All you have to do is leave the cities. Go to
the central coast of CA for instance and you will
find homes which are part of a city but which get
water from a well and use septic for waste. Hell, La
Canada Flintridge just got a sewer system in the last
10 years and it's a wealthy city. The residents voted
to pay for it and some people got majorly screwed.
My boss had a $40K bill for his portion *and* he
had just installed a new septic system just a few
years before. Yes, it is an incorporated city (1976). |
| 2008/2/10-11 [Reference/Tax] UID:49109 Activity:kinda low |
2/8 What real people actually pay in taxes:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p03s01-usgn.html
See table about halfway down. Note that the richest still
pay less than 1/3 in effective tax rates (including sales and property)
\_ It's ok! Hillary will bring back Socialism for all of us!
Go Democraps! -Republican
\_ People worth listening to don't use childish little schoolyard
word plays. When I see message board posters of any stripe
doing that I immediately skip past those posts. I hope you
do too.
\_ You've been trolled. |
| 2008/2/5-7 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49070 Activity:nil |
2/4 Bush's tax cuts/rebates will have beneficial effects on certian
industries like Phillip Morris, Anheiser Busch, and gambling
casinos. Pick your stocks wisely! -stock swami |
| 2008/1/28-2/2 [Reference/Tax] UID:49027 Activity:very high |
1/28 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22878539 Bush vows to veto any tax hike. How does tax raise/status-quo affect me directly as a poor graduate student? \_ It doesn't. Eventually it gets paid for somehow regardless of nominal taxes. Too bad Bush doesn't veto spending hikes. \_ When you get a real job and watch half your pay check go to other people, you'll care. Until then, no, taxes raises and hikes don't mean anything to people who don't pay them. \_ dimwit you are so full of shit. \_ I didn't write the above. --dim \_ Half? That's a fairly ridiculous exaggeration. -dans \_ Not really. Property tax, sales tax, income tax (state and federal), cap gains, SDI, FICA. I take home about 50% and that's not counting what my employer pays for me (which may as well be in my pocket as far as my employer is concerned). \_ If you make 100K per year you'll pay about 20% in income taxes. Your short term capital gains tax rate is equal to your income tax rate, your long term is less. There is now way in hell what your combined state income tax (a no way in hell what your combined state income tax (a couple points, worst case), sales tax, SDI, and FICA would be 30% of your income. Is property tax really that outrageous? Do you have some ridiculous AMT tax burden? -dans \_ Dude, you are totally out of it. Statements like "There is now (sic) way in hell your [...] tax would be 30% of your income" prove it. \_ You say that you "take home about 50%." Does that include your 401k contribution? I calculated my total overall payroll and income rate last year and it was about 1/3 and I am subject to AMT. At the highest possible rate, your overall tax rate is 35% Federal + 10.3% state + 1.5% SDI, which comes out to 46.8%. Close but no cigar. Are you self-employed? If so, your tax rate might be higher. \_ You totally neglected FICA, property tax, sales taxes, use taxes, and "fees" like VLF. \_ You totally neglected FICA, property tax, sales tax, use taxes, and fees like VLF. You also ignored the 7.65% my employer is paying for me. \_ Hell yeah, fuck all those taxes. Support FairTax. \_ So now you are including taxes that other people are paying? Yeah, if you include enough of those, I am sure you can "prove" that your tax rate is over 100%! I not not include FICA, because it is eliminated for income over $97.5k. The overall maximum rate is only for those making over $1M. The rate for the $95k guy is much less. Property tax, etc are not taken out of your paycheck, so they do not effect your "take home" pay, right? \_ Yes, I include taxes other people are paying for my benefit. My employer could give that money to me and it wouldn't matter one whit to them. Or, we could split it 50/50. The fact that FICA has a cap doesn't matter. You can't ignore it. Also, I consider "take home" to be the amount I get to keep each year, not the amount of my paycheck. I can take 59 deductions and get a huge paycheck, but I don't get to keep any of that. \_ You aren't listening very well to what I am saying. Here are the calculations for a $97.5k income with zero deductions (not very likely, but an extreme case): Income - $97.5 Fed income tax - 21411 State income tax - 6873 FICA - 7459 SDI - 693 That comes out to a 37.3% overall tax rate, which is much lower than the theoretical maximum. I calculated this from the tax tables, btw. Why stop at FICA, if you are going to start including your employers taxes? Why not add corporate income tax as well? If he made more money, he could pay you more, right? [As an aside, I realized that zero deductions makes no sense, since this guy would at the very least be able to deduct his state taxes from his federal taxable income. Doing that lowers his federal income tax by 1924 and his overall tax burden to 35.3%] \_ State income tax as stated by you = $6873. The standard deduction is $5350 for a single filer. The difference is not 2% in tax burden. \_ What do you think "zero deductions" means? Not everyone gets the standard deduction. \_ The payroll taxes are not at all similar to corporate income tax, but feel free to include them if you wish since we get taxed twice on that income. \_ Don't forge to include the income tax that the gas station owner pays on his employees, since if he didn't have to pay that tax, he could give you cheaper gasoline. \_ Huh? \_ Sales taxes can easily bring you over 40%. And property taxes should count, why not? If you live somewhere it's an expense that comes out of your paycheck in the end. - !op \_ My god. You're so dense it's not even worth reading your shit anymore !op !pp \_ :( awww. I guess you win. \_ We were discussing paycheck deductions. \_ No, only you were. Yes, I am sure that your overall tax burden can exceed 40%, since mine did one year, when I sold a bunch of stock and got bit by AMT and I didn't have any deductions. I don't think it is realistic to get to 50% and I would be amused to see your scenrio as to how it could be possible. \_ I think we are actually discussing overall tax burden. You are trying to stick with the literal paycheck but that's kind of dumb since the op clarified this already. I don't know if you can break 50%, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you could. What state has the highest income, property, and sales taxes? How much do corporate taxes affect people's tax burden, reflected in prices? How much might luxury taxes, gaz guzzler taxes, or other special purpose taxes affect someone? \_ What does "I take home 50%" mean to you? Like I said, I would be amused. Pull out your calculator and show us how it could happen. \_ To me, it means "take home at the end of the year". Like I said, I can play with deductions all over the place to affect my actual paycheck. \_ That's right, you have deductions, so you don't pay as much taxes as you would otherwise. This is what everyone does, which is why the 50% line is BS. the 50% line is unrealistic. \_ I think he means you can claim deductions for your paycheck that are bogus. What matters is what you ended up actually giving the govt after tax year. \_ That is not what take home pay means to a normal person. http://www.csua.org/u/kmh \_ Your definition is what I said and includes even more not related to taxes. \_ I earn $97000. I go over the Bay Bridge 9000 times and pay the toll. Done. Or if we include property tax all you need is a high value to income ratio. Whatever, I too would be amused but I'm not gonna do the work. \_ Amusing. It would actually take 19700 times. \_ Amusing. \_ I would bet there are real people paying >50% overall tax due to property taxes. \_ Not very many of them, which you would find out very quickly if you did the actual math. Most people paying lots of property tax have big mortgages, and therefore big deductions. \_ 1. Most people paying lots of property tax own the property and have no deduction. 2. The deduction is capped at $1M in debt anyway. \_ Prove or demonstrate evidence that 1 is true. \_ I am not sure if it is and I retract that. My original statement was overwritten and what I said (which is true) is that people with expensive homes tend to make large downpayments (>50%) and have smaller deductions in proportion to property tax than you might think. \_ Oh noes! Even if you were right and it was *only* 46.8% do you *really* think the gvt taking *almost& half your income is somehow ok? *shakes head* Or are you just living down to the anal retentive engineer stereotype? \_ I'm not the op and I just want to say your reaction and response make you seem as mature as dans. You're acting like a complete moron which doesn't help in supporting your case. \_ My case is very simple: 46.8% isn't a whole lot different than 50% when you're talking about my take home vs. the gvt's take away. If you can't see that please return your diploma. Thanks. \_ No one actually pays that rate, that is just the theoretical maximum. I would be perfectly happy with that tax rate if some decent government services came with it. The guy who is claiming that the guberment takes half of his paycheck is simply lying. \_ Why do you say I am lying? We just proved we could already be at 45% without even considering all taxes paid like FICA plus, e.g., gasoline tax, hotel tax, airport tax, etc.. Hell, property tax can be another massive chunk, especially if you own properties outside of CA like I do which I am not renting out at the moment but yet still pay taxes on. I am glad you are in a tax bracket where you keep 80% of your income, but wake up. \_ keep it up loser, you're just whining now because you don't like to lose arguments. \_ You have a weird definition of "lose". \_ 45% is for a guy making $1M+ with no deductions. FICA is an insignificant proportion of that kind of income. $1M+ guy probably doesn't spend it all, he probably invests most of it. My overall tax burden is about 1/3 btw. I don't trust you to be able to calculate your own, after what I have heard you claim so far, sorry. \_ It doesn't take $1M of income to spend 45% of your income in taxes. \_ I see my pay check. By the time the gvt is done taxing me I lose roughly half my pay check. Is it 46%? 54%? I'd say it doesn't matter and this whole thread between you two has gotten bogged down in hair splitting details. If the number was 33% (calculated any way you like), then I'm working for the gvt for the first 4 months of every year, not my family. I don't start to earn anything for me until May 1st. You think that's ok? Anyway, the original point remains. The grad student op has no reason to care until they get their first real pay check and see how much the gvt takes from it. \_ Do me a favor then. Take out your latest paycheck, add up all the taxes and then divide that into your gross pay and tell us for real what your actual tax rate on your income is. I will be waiting. \_ You're a moron. Withholdings are just withholdings. \_ Just answer the question, if the math isn't too much for you. math isn't too much for you. You can go back and get your 1040 out from last year if you want to give a more accurate answer. \_ The concept of "working for the government, not my family" is an ideological canard. Your taxes are supporting your family; the school system, the infrastructure you use, the police and fire departments, and the military. I'm sure this will start you off on a rant about how the roads have potholes and the schools aren't good enough. So tell me; what is the right amount of taxation, if the current amount is too much? (For extra credit: attempt to prove that we're past the midpoint of the Laffer Curve). -tom \_ I don't see the relevance of the Laffer Curve to this discussion. Maximizing government revenue is not a goal. \_ Why not give 100% to the government and let the government provide then? \_ I notice that instead of answering the question, you set up a straw man. There are some services that the government is better able to provide than private industry: infrastructure and security, for two obvious ones. There are other services where the societal ROI is so obvious that it makes no sense to leave it to private industry: health care and childhood education, for two. With the exception of the military, the US and California are insufficiently funded in all those areas, which is why our infrastructure, health care, and childhood education are all quite bad compared to other industrialized countries; and by extension, why our pollution, crime rates, and life expectancy compare disfavorably. I am pretty certain that lowering taxes does not improve any of those areas. -tom \_ Prove that gov't is better able. \_ Please. Do you really think a private entity could have built the interstate system? Do you see private entities lining up to put in the SF-LA bullet train? Are there *any* real-world examples of private entities providing comprehensive infrastructure or security? -tom \_ You went beyond massive projects and mentioned childhood education (why stop there btw?) and health care. And maybe that SF-LA bullet train doesn't make economic sense. Maybe the interstate system should have been a better rail system. How are you so certain that everything gov does is great? Anyway, it's pretty obvious that some things are just way too huge for there to be any realistic competition and that is where government makes sense. Education and health care are entirely non-obvious however. \_ I didn't say the government inherently does health care and education better; I said that the societal ROI (for universal childhood education and universal health care) are obvious. -tom \_ You also said it makes no sense to leave it to private industry. Ok, I misinterpreted your point. I'm just debating here part time so I'm a bit distracted. \_ If the government doesn't do it better then they shouldn't do it. \_ The government *has* to do it (provide universal health care and child education) because private industry won't. Private industry loves to cherry- pick the easy problems and claim they solve them better. -tom \_ Sorry, but I disagree. Private industry does just fine with both. \_ where? -tom \_ Private school vs. public school, for example. \_ Private school doesn't provide universal education. -tom \_ Sure it does. It's just not free. It could be if the gov't handed over the $$$ they waste. \_ ah, so it's OK to tax to pay for school. Communist! -tom \_ Only okay to tax to support kids whose parents pay no tax. Most of us just get our own money back. ______________/ That makes no sense. How about this, we'll have zero tax for income up to $200K, and 75% tax for income over that, no deductions. People who are taxed are ineligible for public school and health care. Sound good? -tom \_ No, but only b/c I find 75% rate outrageous. \_ So choose your rate; tax everyone over $200K enough to provide schooling and health care for everyone under $200K. Happy now? -tom \_ This is another straw man argument, btw. "How are you so certain..." How are you so certain that everything private industry does is great? \_ Well, private entities generally give you an element of choice in where to spend your money, unlike a pure tax-funded government program. \_ We have choices in a democracy too, but they are just determined collectively. \_ The 'fat hand' in your choice to intervene is so much 'fatter' in the gvt case, that you are either being sarcastic or disingenious. -- ilyas \_ That's no comfort at all. \_ I would be happy to pay much more, like 50-60%, if it got me cradle to grave health care, education and welfare, along with clean safe streets, good public transportation and great parks and other public places, like they have in The Netherlands and Sweden. I think 1/3 is fair, given how much the gov't has done for me in my life. \_ What has the gvt done for you that you think is worth giving 1/3rd of your life back to it every year until the day you die? Would 1/4 be fair? Would 1/8 be fair? 1/20? What about people the gvt has done less for? Should they pay less? Is it fair that some people pay more and get less? \_ They (we really) fed me, clothed me and housed me when my family was poor. They gave me a free education when I was a child and then a job in the Army out of high school when I didn't know what I wanted to do and wasn't ready for college. They provided me an outstanding university education for less than 1/10th what a private school would have cost me after the Army. They even gave me my first job after graduation, when I worked for the UC for a while. I benefit from knowing that I won't be starving and out on the streets when I am old. This lets me take more risk now, benefitting me (and society, indirectly). I am sure without all that government aid I got when I was young and needed it, I would not be as successful now. The gov't more than got its investment back in me as well. Is it fair? I don't know, is it fair that some people win the sperm lottery and some don't? Is it fair that one guy gets hit by a bus crossing the street and another does not? I think you are asking the wrong question. Life will never be "fair" but society as a whole benefits when we pool and share risk and when we have an educated populace. I think it is much more fair to tax a few people to feed the hungry than it would be to starve them. I am sorry that you don't feel the same way, but you are welcome to vote for politicians to implement your harsh vision of what a fair world would look like. \_ One thing I can say is that you don't know how your life would have been without this. You can speculate that you would have just starved. However, many people lived for thousands of years without a big helpful gov't and didn't always live like shit either. For example, the safety-net like constructs you love could conceivably be implemented by voluntary local communities/societies. There are/would be various forms of charity. You also don't know how the economy might look like without the current structure. Do you think an army is the only only possible job-provider? Could one not use loans to pay for university tuition, so you literally do pay someone back instead of handwaving and hoping for the best? Just some food for thought. \_ The devil you know, and all that. \_ I might be able to imagine it more clearly if you could provide me with some real world examples of societies that had organized themselves that way successfully. Surely in human history there must be some, right? When and where were they? \_ Why must there be? Were there societies just like the USA before the USA? Not everything has been done before, there are new technologies and ideas, and old ones that have never been tried. But think of any primitive human tribal society. They didn't generally throw the old people to the wolves. It seems like big gov't wants to replace the role of families and actual human support structures. What about my point about the army and university? Another problem here is how you indenture yourself for life, involuntarily. It is not enough to say you benefited. A slave benefits from his master's food. \_ So you want to replace a system where the poor and disabled have the right to an existence as part of the social contract with one where they have to depend on handouts given at the whims of the wealthy. And you think that this is both going to work and provide the poor with more dignity. Like I said, show me an example of this ever happening and I might not be as skeptical. I don't think a strong welfare state eliminates the need for family, though I can see how it might lessen the bonds a bit. Oppresion tends to build strong communities amongst the oppressed but that is hardly an argument in its favor. Handouts don't only come from the wealthy. _/ Right to existence != right to others' property. Unless it is a child's support from his parents. I don't think there is a right to food, shelter, and medical care. All those things require the work of others; how can you have an inherent right to that? Most rights we talk about are freedoms against others doing something to you, not rights for them to do something. Being poor != oppression. Entitlement handouts erode personal responsibility and accountability. Private charity organisations are widespread. There's no reason to assume that they would not work. They might work better than the current government programs. I don't make any claim about dignity levels as that is subjective and irrelevant. In a country where there is not enough to go around, you clearly cannot have a right to food. Therefore that right is inherently nonsensical. \_ I disagree with your notion of rights, simply stated. Mine are much closer to the UN Declaration of Human Rights or FDR's "Four Freedoms" than your Cato Institute flavor. None of your wealth exists in isolation of society and most of it is actually generated by the social fabric. To imagine otherwise is wrongheaded and naive. In those societies where there was only private charity, starvation and disease were (and are) rampant, so yes, there is \_ Irrelevant... different times, different tech, different wealth. plenty of reason to think that this model of taking care of the disabled, elderly, orphans and other helpless members of society would be insufficient. The only differnce is, you think it is fine to have people dying of hunger on the streets and I do not. \_ You must think it's fine also. You aren't donating all your assets to feed hungry people in other countries. In any case, you are creating a false dichotomy. There are other ways to address chronic poverty than chronic handouts, and there are voluntary forms of handouts. And how would you know anything about poverty? Have you ever been poor? You seem like the type who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, frankly. The evidence that handouts erode personal responsibility is thin. In Europe, class mobility is higher than here. \_ You are crazy if you think Europe has more class mobility. \_ Handouts are pacifiers which diminish people's drive to fix the underlying problems. \_ Prove it. Did your attending a publicly funded college make you dependent? \_ Most of us paid fees. If we had paid 2X as many fees (unsubsidized) I don't think much would be different. In fact, Cal is headed in that direction. \_ why, then do countries which have more handouts have fewer underlying problems than the US? Your stance is ideological and not based in reality. -tom |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Reference/Tax] UID:49004 Activity:nil |
1/24 Someone please help me understand how the tax rebates work. I just
don't have time to look into it. From what I read, these are
rebates and not handouts. Meaning, these are just tax dollars that
would ultimately be refunded anyway next year. Am I wrong about
that? If I am right, then why will it cost the government any
money? If I am wrong, please explain how it works.
\_ It's a handout to people with less than a certain income.
\_ They are called "rebates" but they are actually handouts, because
"Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get
$300 rebates."
\_ Understood, but that's probably a small class.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_go_co/economy_stimulus
\_ if you make more than $85K adjusted gross income, you get nothing.
if you're married and have three kids with combined income < $150K,
you get $2,100.
\_ I read that, but aren't you just getting $2,100 of your own
money? Or is it $2,100 you wouldn't get back otherwise?
\_ What's flawed about this is the 100B comes from... LOANS, adding
more to deficits that we will have to pay for sooner or later.
Ah, the wonders of never ending deficit.
\_ Yep, the only way this matters is if the gov't cuts spending,
then keeps the Bush tax cuts permanent.
\_ government handouts financed by increasing federal debt. Theyd
get the same result by telling taxpayers to just go spend an
extra $300 on their credit cards.
\_ Cool, we can vote ourselves money from the public treasure.
Let's keep voting for the candidate promising the most!
Let's borrow money from China to give handouts to consumers to
buy products from China to lend us the money again. Oh well,
it's just paper.
\_ you still get your normal tax refund. this is "bonus".
\_ Are you sure about that? So these work differently from the
$300 Bush rebates handed out N years ago?
\_ ack, not quite sure now actually
\_ pretty sure. weren't the $300 rebates "bonus" as well?
i think the confusion is about those who never paid even
$300 in taxes not getting $300.
\_ No, the bottom rate got lowered that year, so that your taxes
were actually $300 less. They sent you that money right away
but then deducted it from your tax refund. The new "rebate"
is planned to be a similar thing: it is basically a one
year tax cut (for those who pay taxes) and just a check
(probably a boost in EIC) for those who do not.
\_ So this is a rate cut for which tax year? 2008? And
instead of receiving the refund in 2009 they will mail
it out in advance? |
| 2008/1/17-23 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:48962 Activity:high |
1/17 Bond insurers go foom. MBI/ABK down 31%/51% respectively.
\_ What is this, Bloomberg?
\_ are you kidding? we're better than that.
\_ Geez, just http://finance.google.com, you can see it.
\_ I think he's asking why lame financial headlines are
being posted here.
\_ Yes, exactly. If you want to start a disucssion about the
state of the economy, that is fine, but up to the minute
stock ticker info is not going to do it.
\_ Oh, I'm pretty sure this is housing bust gloating. -pp
\_ As I explained to my desperate-renter-wants-to-be-a
-home-owner-waiting-for-big-housing-bust coworker:
As a home owner I don't care at all what housing
prices do except on two days: the day I buy and the
day I sell. All the ups/downs in between mean
nothing to me.
\_ That's fine, but it's obvious your co-worker DOES
care, because he wants to buy, and wants a good
deal. So why even say this to him?
\_ Because he's an ass.
\_ You have it backwards. The guy was
sending gloaty email links and smothering
lunch chats with bad housing news smirking
at the home owners. I simply explained to
him the way I and likely many other home
owners view the ups and downs of housing
prices. Are you one of the bitter-renters?
\_ I'm a renter who wants to be a home owner, but
do not yet know much about owning a home. Does
the housing price fluctuations affect your
property tax? (Don't you pay a percentage of
increase in value? What about if the value
decreases?) Also, I'd imagine it would matter
if you ever need to take out a new load against
your home. Feel free to clue me in.
\_ In CA, price fluctuations aren't really an
issue because of Prop 13. If valuations
fall below the assessed value, then yes
your tax can be lowered. However, since
increases are capped at 1% per year and
the rate of appreciation generally is more
than that, it is rare that homeowners worry
about it. It is safe to assume that your
property tax is ~fixed here in CA. Other
states do things differently.
\_ I would not be surprised to see Prop 13
modified in the next decade.
\_ No one is going to push to have other
people's taxes raised. If anything they
will push to have their own lowered. But
I seriously doubt anyone really has any
clue what their neighbors are paying
anyway so this whole line of thought is
just silly. What are your neighbors
paying in property taxes? Do you know?
\_ Yes, I know. Just look on
http://propertyshark.com. People push to have
other people's taxes raised all the
time, you just aren't paying attention.
What do you think Hillary's campaign
promise to raise the top rate to 39.6%
is?
\_ I would. Homeowners are a big voting
block. Who would vote to change it?
\_ Everyone who bought a home after 1999,
once they realize they are paying 10x
in taxes than the neighbor who bought
in 1977, for the same services. I don't
think it will go away, just reindexed
to inflation, not inflation minus 1.
\_ They won't ever know what their
neighbors are paying. And if the
taxes hurt that much they'll want
theirs lowered, not their
neighbor's raised.
\_ That's how it works. You pay
more today to get a break in
the future when you are
(presumably) retired. I don't
have a problem that my
neighbor who moved here in the
1940s pays less tax than I do.
He bought his house for less,
too. I can't worry about that.
\_ Nobody cares if they paid less
when they bought the house.
That's just pure strawman.
\_ You can worry about whatever you
like. My neighbors on each side
own many rental properties. Even
combining them all, they probably
pay less in property taxes for
much more city services than I do
Why should these multi-
millionaires get subsidized by
everyone else? In the long run,
taxes should keep up with
inflation (or even GDP), unless
you want service levels to fall,
which is what has happened to
CA over the years. The voters
are slowly coming to realize
this fact.
\_ Ah here it is: class warfare
jealousy and envy. They pay
less because they were smart
enough to get in early. You
are now locked in at your
current rate and your future
neighbors will want to know
why you pay less than them.
Think your taxes should rise
to their level just as you're
retiring?
\_ If property tax exists for
a reason, then it should
be raised if it needs to
be raised. I don't see
how you justify your
position. If you extend
the idea into the future
for all possible market
scenarios you see that it
is unsustainable. The
focus should be on keeping
the overall rate low, not
arbitrarily locking rates.
Capping the amount it can
rise per year would seem
prudent, but not making
that 0. It's not just
about fairness but market
efficiency: in my
experience people become
really "attached" to their
low tax rates.
\_ We effectively cap
property tax rates
because people should
not be taxed out of
their homes. This is
still the U.S. the last
I checked where the
people are more
important than
government revenue. If
the gvt needs more $$$
they should cut the
pork and increase
efficiency. I've
worked for both state
and federal gvt for
many years. There is
tons of room for pork
cutting. They make
large corps look like
models of efficiency.
\_ No, they pay less than me
because they were born a
generation earlier than me,
and then rigged the game in
their favor, not because they
were "smarter," as you claim.\
Property taxes should pay for
the city services required
to support them. Consistently
charging less than inflation
guarantees that this cannot
happen. Why should others
have to pay the tax burden
shifted to them? Who should
pay taxes instead of the
homeowner? Streets, schools,
police and fire protection
are not free. And even if you
did cut city services, the
anomaly of early owners
gaming the system in their
favor still remains. Why do
mostly wealthy older home
owners deserve a tax break at
the expense of everyone else?
I think the idea of a tax
break for an owner occupied
residence with a low income
senior citizen in it is great
but this not what Prop 13
does.
That's still not an argument for prop 13. Cut _/
pork, great, benefit everyone. So what.
\_ Prop 13 only caps property tax rates if you
hold on to the house. If you sell, which
most people do, the rates catch up. Property
tax revenues are plenty high and do a job
tax revenues are plenty high and do a good
job of beating inflation. BTW, it's easy to
find out what your neighbor pays for tax if
you want to know. Why should you care?
Should a family of eight pay more property tax
than a single homeowner? They use more services.
It really sucks to live in a state where the
tax is not capped. In many states property
values doubled or tripled in the last few
years. Would you like your tax to go from
$3K to $9K a year just because speculators
are moving the market? How can anyone plan
and budget for that? It has nothing to do
with the cost of services tripling either.
No, I think CA got it right. If the state
needs more revenue then tax income.
\_ Adjusting Prop 13 so that property taxes
go up with inflation after purchase, instead
of inflation minus one, would not cause
of two percent a year, would not cause
anyone's tax to go from $3k to $9k in one
year. Go fight that Straw Man somewhere else.
\_ Whose definition of inflation and why?
They are already keeping up with inflation.
$10.3 BB before Prop 13 = $35 BB in 2006.
(calculated from CPI).
Actual amount collected in 2006 = $38 BB
From Howard Jarvis:
"Despite Prop 13's restrictions,
today's government in California
collects the same 16% of personal
income in taxes, fees and assessments
that it collected before Proposition
13 passed. Today, the government in
California collects and spends per
capita in constant dollars -
that is, incorporating population
growth and inflation growth -
more than it taxed and spent per
capita in 1978."
What has changed is the distribution
of taxes:
1977:
Schools: 53%, Counties 30%, Cities 10%,
Other 7%
2006:
Schools: 38%, Counties 26%, Cities
18%, Other 18%
Any homeowners, like Tom, who feel
they aren't paying enough property tax
are free to write a check out for
more. It's easier to steal money from
other people instead, though.
\_ Right and all you have done is steal
money from other taxpayers to reward
homeowners for voting for you. The
overall tax burden is the same, it has
just shifted away from property tax, to
one that is less reliable (mostly
sales and income). Jarvis lies with
statisics, btw, since the per capita
inflation adjusted property tax burden
has gone down. You forget the per capita
part in your calculation there. Here,
\_ Presumably the increase in
population is a major driver in
"inflation" so it is accounted for.
\_ No.
I will present you with a logic problem:
Since the overall state spending per
person has stayed the same since 1970
\_ So why are the State's infrastructure
and schools falling apart? Sounds
like poor spending decisions. IOW,
where's the problem then if
there's plenty of money already?
Why abolish Prop 13 to give the
government more?
\_ That is a good question, but
Prop 13 doesn't have anything
to do with it. "Three Strikes
You're Out" is one reason.
You're Out" is the biggest reason.
The State is spending much more
on prisons that it used to. The
rest of the answer is not worth
going into as a tangent on the
motd. You abolish Prop 13 to:
1) eliminate the boom/bust that
goes depending on revenue
so closely aligned with the
business cycle and
2) shift the tax burden back to
the users of the services
where it belongs, instead of
poor schmuck third party
\_ What poor schmuck third
party is that? Everyone
uses the services. As
for boom/bust, I think
abolishing Prop 13 is
the wrong way to go
about that. You know
that what will happen
is that everyone will
pay higher property
taxes and overall burden
will also go up,
because the State can't
stop spending like
drunken sailors.
\_ I already established that
per capita real spending
has been constant, so give
up with the drunken
sailors theme already. I
would prefer to see other
taxes, like sales tax, go
down as property tax went
up.
\_ Where is your evidence
that the State spends
like drunken sailors?
As best as I can tell,
inflation adjusted per
capita spending has been
near constant, with a dip
after 1977, but then an
increase in the 90s, so
that we are back to where
we were in 1970 (and less
as a percentage of GDP,
the traditional way to
measure tax burden).
we were in 1970.
link:preview.tinyurl.com/386grn
(PDF)
\_ We are spending
the same, but doing
less with it. If
we had to do as
much as before,
then we'd have to
spend a lot more.
That's why people
want to raise
taxes - the
amount of money
we used to spend
isn't cutting it.
My solution is to
figure out what
we're blowing
money on and stop
it. Then we won't
have to choose
between services
and high taxes.
Throwing more
money at the
problem is not a
solution. Revenues and
expenditures are same
as ever and yet the
infrastructure is
deteriorating. The
Throwing more money
at the problem is not
a solution. Revenues
and expenditures are
the same as ever and
yet the infrastructure
is deteriorating. The
problem is we're not
spending where we need
to, not that property
taxes ar too low.
taxes are too low.
\_ While you're busy trying to
prove that it's better for
people if you tax people
instead of corporations, why
don't you also try to prove
that US corporations don't
benefit from the public
education system. -tom
\_ I'm just responding to
the person who wants
to tax based on
services used. A single
person also benefits
from public education,
but where do you draw
the line on which
services you use and do
not use? Therefore,
it's better to just
charge everyone (including
corporations) the same.
(in real dollars) and the proportion
of tax revenue from property tax has
declined, then the per person amount
of (real) property tax has _____.
A) Declined
B) Increased
C) Can't tell from information provided
D) I don't know
\_ Q: Why should we care? A: because we pay tax.
S: most people sell A: not if they can help
it because after a while that tax base is too
big of an economic advantage to pass up, so
it dicks with normal market forces. My family
benefits a lot from prop 13 but it also
complicates things because it adds this weird
disincentive for them to sell their property.
They just hang on to stuff because they are
more profitable for rentals. I hate when gov't
tax schemes dick with markets.
Q: like your tax to go from $3K to $9K a year
A: There are many ways to prevent someone's
tax going 3-9k in 1 year besides locking their
tax base completely.
\_ It's not locked. It adjusts 2% per
year plus whatever happens from sales.
That seems reasonable. If you are in
favor of a cap you are in favor of
Prop 13 and the only question is what
the cap is. Most states have no cap at all.
\_ What the cap is makes a huge difference.
2% beats inflation, so in some place
where the home market was flat the base
goes down in practical terms. 10% would
basically be acceptable to me. I'm not
really in favor of a cap, I'm just
saying I wouldn't really complain if
it was at least matched to inflation.
\_ I am actually in favor of a cap, because
I can see the advantage of giving
homeowners more predictability over their
tax bill. But it should be inflation and
I think it should be retroactively
adjusted back for homeowners since 1978.
Okay, I know the latter will not happen.
\_ The real scam of Prop 13 is that it was sold
to people based on the story of the aging
grandmother taxed out of her too-valuable
house, but the major dollar beneficiaries
are corporations, who own more valuable
real estate and turn it over less often. -tom
\_ To prevent corporations from getting any
tax benefits we should make sure to put
all the people on fixed incomes into the
streets. Great plan. Very humanitarian.
Perhaps you have a newsletter to which I
can subscribe?
\_ nice strawman. Hint: You could have
a law that taxes corporations
differently than homeowners. -tom
\_ Then again corporations are not
sending kids to school or using public
services to the extent that private
parties do when compared to property
parties due when compared to property
valuations, plus corporations provide
jobs which increases the tax base.
Corporations pay plenty of tax as it is.
Corporations play plenty of tax as it is.
If you make the business environment
more unfavorable to corporations then
you also hurt individuals, most of
whom work for corporations and pay
property taxes out of their earnings.
\_ That's an ideological stance not
backed by any real proof.
\_ Proof that corporations don't send
kids to school? They are paying for
a service they don't directly use.
Please explain why corporations
should pay a different property
tax rate from individuals. What
about a property that switches
from commercial to residential
and back? It's silly to base
property taxes based on use,
unless the use causes for instance
some egregious environmental harm.
Corporations pay plenty of
dollars in taxes as it is, but
they get swept under the rug
because they are "payroll taxes"
when people like to focus on
income taxes. How about we don't
tax earnings and then dividends,
too?
\_ The assertion that it's better
for people if you tax people
instead of corporations is
unproven and unsupported by
evidence. I would argue that
it's silly to cap property tax,
but if you're going to use
Grandma's House as an emotional
argument for Prop 13, it makes
no sense to give corporations
the same tax break as Grandma.
-tom
\_ Maybe grandma is a shareholder.
You have the mentality
that it's okay to screw
over corporations because
they are faceless entities, but
the reality is that we are all
shareholders and customers
of corporations. When you
raise tax on corporations
then who do you think will
pay for that? It's not
like money gets magically
created. Now, I do agree
that one major difference
between a corporation and
a person is that the
corporation will live forever
and never has to transfer
property if it doesn't
wish to. (It would be nice
to know how often this
really happens.) So maybe
corporate property tax can
reset after some period of
time (e.g. 99 years)?
\_ Who will pay for it? The
corporation. That's why
you tax them. Taxes placed
on corporations don't come
directly out of people's
pockets any more than
taxes placed on people
come directly out of
corporations' pockets.
Chevron had $17 billion in
profit last year; you
really think it needs to
be protected from property
taxes? -tom
\_ The corporation will
pay for it with the
dollars its
customers pay, which
will probably be a
regressive tax in a
lot of instances.
You don't think
Chevron isn't going
to try to pass the
costs along to its
customers? While it may
not be successful in
doing so, you're deluded
if you think they
are just going to
take the money out
of profits (which
also affects investors
like you and me and
probably everyone
with a pension and/or
401k). Or Chevron might
trim costs by laying
off employees.
Whatever happens,
you are redistributing
wealth from Chevron's
customers to the State.
You think this is a
good thing when the
State's budget is as
healthy as it has
been over the past
35 years?! Throw
more money at the State?
\_ Your connection to
reality is strongly
correlated with my
interest in continuing
this discussion.
Goodbye. -tom
\_ The State's budget is
healthy?
\_ Yes, the State
just has a
problem living
within it.
/
If your income jumped up and then
went down year to year, it might
be hard to adjust to it.
\_ Oh please. What the State does is spend every
dime the minute there is a surplus.
\_ http://csua.com/2007/10/31/#48495
\_ I hope this is a lame financial headline and that's it -op |
| 2007/12/21-29 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:48849 Activity:nil |
12/21 Anyone recommend a good accountant in SF? Mine moved to corporate
accounts and dropped me -- I expect to pay $500-$1000 for tax prep
and they need to know AMT/.com bubble stock issues. |
| 2007/12/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48832 Activity:moderate |
12/18 Can anyone explain why so many Republicans keep claiming that tax
cuts raise government revenue, even when they know it is not true?
http://www.csua.org/u/ka9 (WashPo)
\_ Because in a high-tax environment, it's true? Tax RATES aren't the
same as tax REVENUE.
\- yes, "everybody" acknowledges this may have been true
in say the eisenhower era, but it's disingenuous to imply
this holds true today.
\_ Well the relationship between tax rates and GDP growth
isn't an exact science either.
\- "we dont know what 'causes cancer' ... how can you
say smoking is bad for you?" "evolutionary theory
cant explain fainting goats ... so it's 'merely'
a theory just like ID is a theory."
\_ You are a tool for two exciting reasons! Firstly,
science is powered by scepticism, so it is never a
vice. Secondly, you seem to think economic
causal theories are as well understood as an
extremely well-studied medical special case.
-- ilyas
\_ when was the last time you took a shower?
anyone ever asked you that?
\- no, it is more like second guessing a
jury verdict .. it could be wrong, but
substituting your opinion when you dont
know any of the details of the case and
havent heard the arguments is crazy.
so maybe decrasing tax rates increases
revenue down to 10% MRT, but if 95% of
the econ profession believes revenues go
negative somewhere between 80 and 40%, it's
seems some linear combinaion of arrogant and
dumb to decide those arent the numbers you
\_ 'linear combination of arrogant and dumb',
that's a good one. I think I'll borrow it.
-dans
will operate with. even if there are a couple
of smart guys here and there who (sincerely)
disagree. i am not saying it is TRUE, i am
saying it is what you must operate on unless
you have some extremely heavyweight reason
why you dont. peter duesberg might have some
"heavyweight" reason to disbelieve the
HIV->AIDS theory but for Thabo Mbeki to
disbelieve it require some explanation
other than "well as a world famous biologist,
in my opinion, here are the flaws in the
science ...". There are some questions where
there are truely split opinions among
experts ... like say on the mechanism of
planet formation [http://tinyurl.com/37oy55]
[rumor is you are an expert on "the stars"?]
but supply side econ not such an example as
applied to the US today. you also seem to be
unaware of the different quality of certain
econ predictions. there are econ predictions
about certain equillibium conditions that
are not speculative because there are clear
forcing functions [arbitrage] ... so while
there might be lots of competing theories
about the level of exchange rates [CIP, UIP,
PPP etc] the cross exchange rate parity
prediction is a strong one.
(one more thing: yes science is powered by
scempticism, e.g. the H PILORI example, but
these pols and motd posters arent DOING
SCIENCE, they are running for office or
trying to justify a policy. they arent being
sceptical. they are usually lying and some
some small number there may be some other
expedient explanation.). -danh (the planet)
\_ That last bit is 'high priest thinking.'
You don't need to be Doing Science to be
a sceptic. Criticism isn't a privilege of
the knowledge producing class. Now it is
true most criticism/scepticism of any given
theory that DOESN'T come from scientists
themselves will generally be silly or
misguided. However, this isn't always so,
and it is very important that there remain
outside channels for challenging the current
status quo in science. This is because
science, for a number of reasons, is
particularly susceptible to 'mafia effects.'
-- ilyas
\_ This is all well and good, but it's
orthogonal to the point that supply-side
economics is believed to be bunk by the
economic establishment, and while it may
not have the imprimatur of of the COBE
experiment, it's pretty damned good
science. -dans
\_ That's pretty funny considering what
"imprimatur" means. -lewis, nihil obstat
"imprimatur" means. -psb
\_ imprimatur: Official
approval; sanction.
I guess I just can't do funny.
-dans
\_ Historically from the Pope
giving out an official decree.
\_ See also http://csua.org/u/kaa (New Yorker)
\_ It's called faith based government -- tax cuts raise government
revenues because we believe they do. Tax cuts also cure cancer
and bring endangered species back to life.
\- IMHO: "they" do it because "they" can get away with it.
\_ Post a link to your blog, windbag.
so the question degenerates to "why can they get away with it?"
well aside from "there is a sucker born every minute" [e.g.
people who believe stupid rhetoric about "death taxes" or
"double taxation" etc] type explanations [and remember, in
america in 2007 we have three people running for president
who can say "i dont believe in evoluation" and not be sent
who can say "i dont believe in evolution" and not be sent
packing on the hayseedmobile], i believe there are two
pathologies in american journalism that leads to the pols
not being called on this: 1. fear of having "access" cut off
if you say "candidate X is either a moron or a liar". 2. many
journalists are experts at "journalism", not a subject area.
so they are trained in things like "objective/neutral view
points", "presenting both sides" rather than having subject
matter expertise and being able to render judgements. now they
kind of research they may be good at is "digging up connections,
influence, following the money" ... or maybe digging up gossipy
thigns like who'se campaign is in trouble when they present the
things like whose campaign is in trouble when they present the
election as a horserace ... but they are not good at evaluating
substance in areas like climate science, economic science etc.
those are trickier areas than say evolution where the two
postions are morons and scientists ... so they probably do
positions are morons and scientists ... so they probably do
ok there. now the nice part of "america 2007" is the blogosphere
contains many people who are not journalists but ARE subject
matter experts. these people are much better at holding the
journalists and pols feet to the fire. but of course they dont
generally have the giant podium the MSM journalists have.
of course some exceptions: paul kurgman has a big podium
of course some exceptions: paul krugman has a big podium
[but he isnt a journalist. i know many journos kvetch about
the blogosphere, but to the complain about giving a plum
column to a non-journo? i am glad the NYT gave it to PK and not
some random liberal journalist.]. james suroweiki also an
exception. i think his finance coverage is really good. one
reason the e'ists science coverage is decent is they look
for "science people" who have some writing talent, rather than
a journalist to has some interest in science. i guess the one
thing that might be worse than the "silly objectivism" of
some journalists might the the ones that forget they are
journalists, like gary taubes' pronouncements about "fat
research".
\_ Why don't you ever post your name, unreadable screed guy?
-jrleek
\_ If you don't know that's partha, you have better things to
do than motd. How exactly is it unreadable?
\_ Massive wall of text, lost interest and skiped the rest
\- supply side economics -> wall of voodoo
about 10 lines in. This is the motd, not a novel.
\_ You are too short for this motd thread....
\_ I don't care if higher taxes raise or lower government revenue
over time. My goal is not to maximize government income. My
tax goal is to pay as few taxes as possible while getting the
minimum government services required to run the country smoothly
and safely. (And I didn't need an unreadable 2 page rant to
explain).
\- "what do people owe each other" merits a longer answer than
say "what is your favorite color". a personal statement of
perference is a different beast than the search for the
explanation to a normative or empirical question. you have
have offered a 6line reply, but "your tax goal" provides
neither insight into accuracy of supply side economics nor
its "cost free" adoption by all the R candidates.
\_ I think this is a good and admirable goal (and one that I
share) but I think we should have that discussion honestly,
not lie to the voters and claim that tax cuts are "free"
which is where the Republican Party is now.
\_ Ron Paul doesn't say this. It's not "the Republican Party"
it is those particular men who say this.
\_ Okay fair enough. But it is stated as true by all the
other candidates. There is some economic sanity left
in the Party, but you have to admit it is in the
minority these days.
\- Brad de Long [ucb dept econ] heavily covers the gap between
economists and pols on supply side econ. of recent postings,
see this "straight from the laffer's mouth" article:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/12/justin-fox-on-a.html |
| 2007/12/2-6 [Reference/Tax] UID:48729 Activity:nil |
12/2 Beowulf is really cool but... how did these fearless sea fairing
vikings (Beowulf) who killed dragons and monsters turn into
furniture making pussies (IKEA) in a matter of few hundred years?
\_ Beowulf was a Geat, not a Swede. And the time scale is a
milennium, not a few hundred years.
\- OP: ignorant about who is Beowulf, ignorant about Swedish history,
and ignorant about the tax scam that is ikea.
\_ tax scam? i've never heard that before. wassup? |
| 2007/11/27-30 [Reference/Tax] UID:48702 Activity:low |
11/27 I have a lot of used, but clean and high quality clothing. It's
not Prada or anything, but lots of name brands like Express are
included. I usually donate this to charity, but is there a good
way to sell it? Is selling stuff like that worth your time on
eBay or Craiglist? There's probably a couple thousand dollars worth
(retail price).
\_ My wife takes stuff like this to Buffalo Exchange first and then
gives the rest to Goodwill (and gets a receipt for tax deduction
purposes). -ausman
\_ If you have a high enough tax burden, you could donate the clothes
and write them off, getting full value for the clothes for the
writeoff.
\_ Can I really write them off at full retail value?
\_ sure, if you don't get audited. -tom
\_ I seem to recall that last year the IRS was threatening
to audit suspicious goodwill donations much more
aggressively, due to the number of people abusing the
deduction in this manner. -jrleek
\_ http://www.goodwillpromo.org
\_ My wife takes all of our used clothing to Buffalo Exchange first
and then donates the rest to Goodwill. Goodwill will give you
a receipt for their fair market value (not new value) that you
can use to write off taxes. -ausman
\_ Does Buffalo Exchange actually buy anything or is it a waste
of time? They seem picky about what they will take. I
usually donate to Salvation Army, because Goodwill in my
area is difficult to deal with (they get more donations than
they can handle and they act like it).
\_ Sure they're picky, they only buy what they can sell at a
markup, but my wife has made some money there. They usually
only take a little of what you bring it, but it's more than
you get from goodwill. -jrleek |
| 2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high |
11/19 Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
thing. No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
properties sold to pay for the tax.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
\_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
on it. Now it's mine. I should be able to do what I want with it.
Taking it from my estate upon death means giving it to other people
who had absolutely nothing to do with earning it. Giving it to my
family & friends means giving it to people who physically,
emotionally, and/or financially helped me earn it. For example,
a man who spends all his time working has less time to spend with
his family. It cost the family something. When dad/husband is
dead, the least they should get is the money he earned for them
while away from them. Neither the government nor any strangers
getting 'entitlements' are entitled in any way to his earnings.
They already got their cut when he earned it. I have no interest
in hearing from the ultra wealthy about their solutions for the
country which always seem to involve things that don't hurt the
billionaires or their families in any way. Buffet is obviously
a great investor but he is in no position to dictate social or
tax policy for the Little People. He should stick with what he
knows: investing in successful companies other people built.
\_ You say you should be able to do what you want with your
money and not be taxed on the transfer. When you buy goods from
a merchant, you pay sales tax, even though you've already paid
\_ not all states have a sales tax. i also have a choice to
buy elsewhere or not at all. death is mandatory.
taxes on the money you used to pay the merchant (presumably).
Wealth is taxed more or less whenever it changes hands; why
should it matter if the transfer is due to death instead of a
voluntary transfer? And if you think the government didn't
help you earn that money, you need to brush up on both your
civics and your economics.
\_ the government helped. they got paid the first time.
i see no reason to pay them a second time when my family
hasn't been paid the first time and it cost them a lot
more than it did some random government chosen recipient
through random vote-buying 'entitlement' program.
if you want to tax the rich, just go for it and create a
straight wealth tax. go tax buffet a few billion a year
(i think 10% is fair) just for having money.
\_ Good luck getting your ideas implemented into law.
\_ Would you prefer to return to hereditary aristocricy? This guy
is another rich guy doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes
and would rather that someone else pay it for him. What else is new?
\_ The important thing isn't income disparity (which is increasing)
but lifestyle disparity (which is decreasing). -- ilyas
\_ What does this even mean?
\_ What it means is that income differences matter less and
less. There was a thread on this in the past. Personal
computers, cell phones, reliable cars, electronics, etc.
are getting cheaper and better all the time, which means
the poor in America can afford many of the same 'bits
of lifestyle' as the rich. This is why a straight
income comparison is misleading, the rich spend more and
more of their surplus on 'brand differentiation' not
quality. -- ilyas
\_ Not so sure of this. Look at the crappy food the poor
eat. The lead-based toys and other cheap Chinese imports
from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and their
lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
eat, their lead-filled toys, and other cheap Chinese
imports from Wal-Mart. I know some wealthy people and
\_ It's a free country, people are free to eat and
play whatever/whenever. Ultimately, people are
responsible for their own actions. If they want
to smoke to death or play with lead laden toys,
that is their choice.
\_ Sure, but there are a lot of people who
cannot afford a healthy lifestyle even if
they want to live one. This isn't about
choice, but about opportunity. The poor eat
far more often at McDonald's because of the
price and they pay for it with their lives.
Many would probably prefer organic grassfed
beef burgers, but it's not an option for them.
\_ Like I said, this is a free country, if the
rich can afford more options, then they will
pick the better options. So what? It's been
like that way since the dawn of mankind.
How are you going to "solve the problem"
for the poor? Communism? Socialism?
More regulations?
\_ You're arguing against your own strawman.
I didn't say we need to do anything about
it. I am just disputing the assertion that
lifestyle disparity is decreasing even as
income disparity increases.
\_ I dispute that notion about McDonald's.
McDonald's is not cheap when compared to
home cooking using modest ingredients.
For example, just cooking rice/potatoes/
any commodity staple, cheap veggies,
and some cheap meat from Safeway is going
going to be healthier and cheaper than
McD's in all likelihood. However McD's is
fast. Maybe some of the poor have no time
to cook, because time is a luxury. But
I think it's mostly their own laziness:
most people can do better than McD's.
(You don't even need meat, of course.)
\_ You're very wrong. I cannot make a
double cheeseburger for myself for 99
cents even if I use the worst
ingredients I can find. Yes, I can eat
plain white rice for cheaper, but that
misses the point. My girlfriend and I
cook a lot - more than most people -
and it's always the same or more
expensive than eating fast food. Sure,
the quality is better, but it costs more.
It's cheaper than a good restaurant
meal, but not by much. Restaurants have
economies of scale that I can't match.
Maybe if you have 9 kids you start to
get close.
\_ In terms of actual food value the
rice is better, so it's not missing
the point.
Anyway, the 99 cent cheeseburger
uses frozen, crappy meat and not a lot
of it, and ultra cheap buns that are
mostly air anyway. The cheese is process
cheese. If you make your own you would
spend more because you'd use better
things, but you don't have to. There's
nothing else on that except condiments.
I think you can pretty easily make meals
that have more "food value" than those
burgers per dollar. If you really
wanted you could also cooperate with
other poor families to create that
"economy of scale" thing.
\_ We're not talking about "food
value". I am using McDonald's as
an example of the type of fast
food that the poor eat and
comparing it to the type of fast
food that the wealthy eat. If
you want to talk about cooking at
home, then the wealthy can live even
better. Your argument is "Don't
eat fast food at all" which misses
the point of the comparison. BTW, I
would be very unhappy if I ate plain
rice every day and I would harm myself
or others.
\_ We're not? I am. You said: "poor
people eat McD's because of the
low price... pay for it with
their lives... would prefer
organic grassfed". I'm just
saying that if they wanted to
they could eat tasty alternatives
that are healthier, or for not
much more, cook their own
hamburgers. I'm not saying
not to eat fast food. I'm saying
that it's a choice.
Many millions of people eat
"plain rice" every day.
\_ If you tried to subsist on a
diet of only rice, you would die.
\_ That's not what I suggested in
my original reply.
their lifestyle is not really extravagant, but the
quality is much better. Are you one of those people
who thinks a handmade leather Italian shoe and a
machine-made shoe made in Mayalsia out of rubber
are equivalent because they provide equal utility
and the main difference is 'brand differentiation'?
The wealthy live better and tend to live "smaller"
in that they care more about things like
environmental toxins and political issues in
faraway lands. The poor just want the cheapest shoe
possible, regardless if it will turn their toes green.
Important products that everyone used to have, like
organic food, are now only affordable to the wealthy.
Those products are more important to a good quality
of life than the fact that LCD televisions are now in
reach of the common man.
\_ It's true that some things that were more available
in the past like organic food or hand-made furniture
are less available/more expensive today, but you are
being disingenious by ignoring the VASTLY LARGER
number of things that were invented and
made affordable to the general population. Again,
it's true that premium brands tend to be better made
(although not always, for instance luxury car brands
tend to be less reliable than hondas/toyotas).
I am merely saying that the gap in lifestyle has
been shrinking for the last 100 years. If you are
truly concerned about 'the gilded age' trends,
you need to look at lifestyle, not income. Of
course, 'lifestyle differences' are much harder to
quantify and talk about, we are not talking about
numbers in a bank account. -- ilyas
\_ In general, a bigger bank account means a
\_ In general, a bigger the bank account means a
better lifestyle. A much bigger bank account
means a much better lifestyle. I don't think
this has changed very much. I know where
you're coming from (a king in 1400 lived less
well in many ways than we commoners today)
but I don't see a trend where this disparity
has really changed much over the last, say,
40 years at least. In fact, the gap seems to
be widening if you look at statistics like
home ownership.
\_ Yes, of course income is strongly and
positively correlated with lifestyle quality.
My claim of decreasing lifestyle gap comes from
the observation that mass production,
specialization, and other capitalist
institutions result both in innovation
(invention of additional ways to improve
lifestyle), and efficiency (current lifestyle
improvements strongly tend down in price).
The only way for the lifestyle gap to be
increasing is if the number of qualitative
lifestyle changes was increasing faster due
to inventions than existing lifestyle
to inventions faster than existing lifestyle
was trending down in price. But there is
little evidence for this. Innovations
to differentiate products for wealthy
consumption seem to favor premium brands as
value-in-itself, various 'intangibles'
(like hand-crafted assembly), and health
and environmental consciousness. These things
are valuable, but that the rich increasingly
turn to these things is hardly evidence of
a widening lifestyle gap. -- ilyas
a widening lifestyle gap. (I would
be surprised if long term home ownership
trends weren't strongly positive, btw). -- ilyas
\_ How about looking at home ownership or
at the number of dual income families
compared to, say, the 1950s? Even in my
own family in the 1970s, neither my mom
or dad had a college degree and they
worked entry level jobs. They still had
a house in the suburbs, two brand
news cars, and sent the kids to private
school even though my mom took 5 years
off work to help with the kids. That
still happens in parts of the country,
but the fact that it's much less common
now is evidence that the gap is
increasing, since the rich live as
well as ever and yet the middle class
lifestyle is eroding.
\_ http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
-- ilyas
\_ Home ownership has been trending up
since the 50s (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownerchar.html
\_ But if you look at the numbers
you'll notice that it's the
over65 segment which rose even
while more and more families
became dual income households. I
think that is significant. I also
don't think dual incomes have as
much to do with social norms as
with the need to make ends meet.
I think you acknowledge that
there is greater income disparity.
I think it is patently obvious that
what follows is a lifestyle disparity.
You can't point to a shrinking
disparity because of this
nebulous 'brand differentiation'
without more data that I haven't seen
you produce.
\_ So that's it? That's your
evidence? All this is evidence of
is that housing costs rose faster
than effective income. You need a
lot more comprehensive argument to
counteract the vast evidence for
my conclusion (for instance look
at the availability of consumer
electronics since the 70s, or
car quality, or power/price of
personal computers, or a thousand
other things). There is more to
lifestyle than a house, that's why
I say you need to average over
everything. -- ilyas
\_ Most households spend over
50% of their net income on
housing, so it's a lot more
important than anything else.
You can say that electronics has
gotten better since 1970, but
how does it follow that the
disparity between the quality of
the lifestyles of the rich and
the poor has gotten smaller?
I don't think the standard
of living now for the lower
classes in the US is higher
than ever, but it certainly
is for the wealthy. QED,
unless you want to make the
argument that the lower
classes (or even middle
class) are living better
than ever. From my observation,
I wouldn't say the middle class
lives a better lifestyle than
the 1950s even we now have
a lot more gadgets and the
average car is nicer than it
was.
\_ Your notion of 'better'
is strange and confusing.
-- ilyas
\_ Here's an idea to
help you understand: Look
at household debt now
versus at some point in
the past. Having more
useless crap doesn't mean
we live a better life.
\_ So cars, personal
computers, the internet,
home electronics,
medical advances, etc.
are 'crap?' Gotcha!
The number of dual income families has
apparently been trending up since the
50s, but that in itself is not
evidence of a 'squeeze' (but changing
social norms for women). Neither is
your anecdote. -- ilyas
your anecdote. Even changing percentages
for specific expenditures like housing
or healthcare is not, in itself,
evidence of a squeeze. (This is why
lifestyle is difficult to talk about,
you have to average over everything).
-- ilyas
\_ So you admit that people are working
longer hours, getting paid less and
having to commute more, but in the
face of all this, you claim that their
lifestyle has "improved." How about
the fact that crowding has increased
over the last decade? Food insecurity?
\_ Is it true the vast majority of
"food-insecure" adults are
overweight?
\- panem et circensus. lcd televisions in the reach
of the common man keeps people from boredom
and involved in petty politics and/or
revolutions. lcds and football games are like
the romans bread and circuses. feed 'em so they
dont starve, and keep 'em entertained...and you
wont have to worry about public unrest. it was
true in roman times, and it's at least as valid
today. panem et circensus
\- ps b i am gay
\- ps i am gay
\_ This is not psb's voice, btw.
\_ There is so much wrong with this I'm having a hard time starting.
1) False dichotomy
2) Are you saying we don't have a hereditary aristocrisy? I
guess the Kennedys don't exist?
3) Anyone with enough liquid assets can easily get around this
by:
- setting up a non-profit and donating money to it
- appointing their children as the board of directors and
compensate them quite well
4) I've just started my own business. The death tax would force
my kids to sell off my share.
\_ Who do you propose to pay the tax burden instead? How long
has America had an inheritance tax? This guy (and you) all
made money knowing full well what the rules are, why should
we change them in the middle of the game to favor you even
more? And isn't the first $5M untaxed anyway? Why should a
bunch of people who did nothing to deserve a windfall benefit
at the expense of everyone else?
\_ Here's a key concept: It's not your money to take away.
If I can't give my property to my children, I don't own it.
It's one thing to fund the government, it's another to be a
communist. -op
\_ I notice you have not answered the first question, nor
are you able to do so. You claim that anyone who is in
favor of any taxes whatsover is a communist? You are
a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy people.
a lunatic. I do not have conversations with crazy
people.
\_ I don't like to have conversations with stupid
people. I said "funding the gov't is one thing".
That means I understand the need for taxes. However,
once you say "why should he get money?" you're a
communist.
communist. -op
\_ So who are you going to raise taxes on instead?
I am always amused when far right wingers claim
that the position supported by an overwhelming
majority of Americans is extremism.
\_ It's not amusing when far left wingers do it?
\_ If you can give me an example of that
happening, I guess I would let you know
if I thought it was funny or not. If you
mean people like ANSWER, yeah I think they
are pretty funny.
\_ It's a bad question. The question isn't "who
should we take from", it's "if we remove this
tax, what do we do". Firstly we should
eliminate the programs that are simply wealth
transfers. That'd take care of about 60% of
the federal budget. -op
\_ So you want to eliminate Social Security
so that the wealthy don't have to pay
estate tax. I see.
\_ They're 2 separate issues. SS is going
away anyway, but yes, I'm in favor of
eliminating it. Yes, I'm in favor of
eliminating the death tax. The first is
not to provide for the 2nd. -op
\_ Which "wealth transfers" are you
talking about then? There is no way
that "wealth transfers" are 60% of
the federal budget, unless you
include SS in that 60%.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
You can quibble about the percentage
of debt payment that should be
considered devoted to "past military"
but those numbers are all up to date
and accurate. Military + VA + debt
is already half the budget. Do you
call things like the Dept of Homeland
Security a "wealth transfer"?
And the death of Social Security has
been predicted many, many times, but
so far, she is still beating strong
and overwhelming popular.
\_ Who says it's so popular? Are
payroll taxes popular?
\_ 70 years of persistance in the
face of Conservative attempts
to eliminate it speak to its
popularity. You could also google
for a poll, if you really wanted
an answer.
\_ Slavery persisted a long time
too. I could google for one,
but I thought you might already
have had a source in mind. But
no, it was just something you
pulled from your ass.
\_ You really believe that
answers the point? Social
Security enjoys upwards of
70% support in any poll you
could find. In addition,
GWB's plan's disapproval
never dropped below 60%.
You seem to be something
pulled from an ass.
--scotsman
\_ that's the 70% of people
who plan to get a lot more
out of other people's
pockets than they'll ever
pay in who have no plan
for their own retirement.
that sort of number not
only does not impress me
but worries me that this
country is turning into a
nanny state socialist pit.
\_ If you don't like
democracy, leave.
\_ Should I quote the
line about
democracy being
great until people
figure out they
can vote themselves
goodies? The motd
is full of uber
geniuses today.
\_ Quote all you
want, you undemo-
cratic, elitist
thug.
\_ I don't know but 60% is not
"overwhelming". GWB's plan
is not the only alternative
to SS. SS as implemented is
broken and regressive.
\_ It is when approval
never got above 35%.
never got above 33%.
GWB's plan wasn't about
"fixing" it. There are
broken portions, and
changes need to be made,
but the pp spoke of
eliminating it. That's
an idea that you can't
sell to this country.
\_ I love that "his fair share". Define fair share. -op
\_ Arbitrarily: 50%.
\- The only question worth asking about the Renew America columnist
is "is he stupid or does he think you are stupid" ... i.e. "is
he stupid or is he disingeuous?". If you arent interested in
speculating on that Q, not worth reading.
\_ So everyone should pay 50%? -op
\_ From each according to his means, to each according to
his needs.
\_ I am a democratic and I am opposed to the death and
inheritance tax. It should be my god given right to give my
hard earned money to my children without tax. Take 50% of
that away is just robbery, plain and simple.
\- Grover Nordquist just got his wings.
\_ You haven't done much research on this subject, have you?
\_ Odds are that if you're not the uber-rich, you will be able to
give your money to your kids with a minimum of tax.
\_ And if you are the uber-rich, you will certainly be able to
give your money to your kids with no tax at all!
\_ How? If so, what the fuck is the inheritence tax
for? The not so rich father that didn't know better?
\_ It has been argued that inheritance taxes on the rich
exist as incentives for those worthies to donate
heavily to charities.
\_ But the real reason is "because we can"
\_ That's right, the same people who fought tooth
and nail against godless communism are now
taking rich people's money because they can.
See you in the food lines, comrade.
\_ Oh boo hoo, everyone has to pay taxes and
it has been thus since Roman times. Forgive
me if I don't shed a tear for you.
\_ That's a fascinating argument. All sorts
of shitty things have been true since Roman
times. Death, for instance.
\_ I think we should bring slavery back.
It's the natural order, has been since
Roman times.
\_ I agree. MANIFEST DESTINY!!!
\_ Yes, we should outlaw death too. That
will work. Why not move someplace where
is no functioning government and therefore
no taxes? I think Somalia is a libertarian
paradise. You can have all the guns you
want, too.
is no functioning government and
therefore no taxes? I think Somalia is
a libertarian paradise. You can have all
the guns you want, too.
\_ Dailykos talking points!
\_ You are an idiot.
\_ Please give some examples of this happening.
\_ Cf. Gallo
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/k15 (PBS)
Are you referring to this? It says here that
they paid their taxes, but over a number of years.
Do you mean something else?
\_ Check out the Straight Dope article. You're right,
they didn't avoid the tax entirely, but they've
reduced it significantly.
\_ By what percentage was their tax reduced? I
am not being contentious, I am just curious. |
| 2007/9/19-22 [Reference/Tax] UID:48112 Activity:nil 56%like:48106 |
9/19 Tax-Fre
get around the tax mess and get super rich. Be happy.
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/103293/Tax-Free-in-the-Rust-Belt |
| 2007/9/19 [Reference/Tax] UID:48109 Activity:nil |
9/19 Tax-Fre
The focus of s opening edition is breasts, and there are plenty of women eager t\
o get some real issues off their chests. Kate Lawler, Big winner and presenter\
RI:, finds out what it is like to have larger breasts; viewers get a insight int\
o the life of the woman with s biggest breasts; and one brave soul takes us into\
the taboo world of chest and nipple hair, explaining why she is prepared to reveal all.
Glamour model Jordan is reputed to boast a 34FF chest, but even hers is dwarfed\
by the breasts belonging to 42-year-old professional singer Jenessa. Bra-makers\
to the Queen, Rigby and Peller, have measured Jenessa at an incredible 36L, but\
she still squeezes herself into a 36-38JJ bra! She has to wear custom-made bras\
50 a pop, gym and aerobics sessions are fraught with danger and she worries abou\
t embarrassing her son when she goes swimming.
TV presenter Big winner Kate Lawler has the opposite problem to Jenessa. Her tw\
in, Karen, has a DD cup, but s chest is much smaller. In s programme she talks a\
bout the advantages and disadvantages of her size, has her breasts digitally enl\
arged, experiments chicken in her bra and goes corset-shopping with Karen. Kate\
has been considering a breast augmentation for the past five years filletswith\
tonightKateBrotherand at BritainSEof Brotherformer Wednesdaye in the Rust Belt.\
Be smart, understand how to legally
get around the tax mess and get super rich. Be happy.
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/103293/Tax-Free-in-the-Rust-Belt |
| 2007/9/19 [Reference/Tax] UID:48106 Activity:nil 56%like:48112 |
9/19 Tax-Free in the Rust Belt. Be smart, understand how to legally
get around the tax mess and get super rich. Be happy.
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/103293/Tax-Free-in-the-Rust-Belt |
| 2007/9/9-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:47963 Activity:nil |
9/8 How much tax payer's $$$ is Steve Fosset going to cost?
\_ Less than an hour of the Iraq war, you can bet on that. |
| 2007/8/31 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Tax] UID:47852 Activity:nil |
8/31 Yesterday I bought a bra. 34GG. And of course, specialty items
cost more. After tax I shelled out $80 for the darn thing, but I
have uncovered about four inches of skin I haven't seen since early
puberty. The lady at the store tried to get me to buy this
contraption she called a "Custom Fit Bra", which to me looked like
the old fifties maidenforms. I looked like I had traffic cones
under my shirt, it was a nasty pale pink with yellowed
lace at the edges, there was NO, repeat NO elastic in the whole
garment, and before tax the thing was $94. I felt trussed up and
like I was about to poke someone's eye out. Pushy sales lady kept
harping on the fact that this torture device was featured on
Oprah. "You'll love it," she said, "It's the most comfortable bra
you'll ever own. Oh, and the cups round out after a few washings."
Not for me, thanks. Sell it to Madonna. |
| 2007/8/30-9/3 [Reference/Tax] UID:47826 Activity:moderate |
8/30 which one of you was pimping the FairTax?
Noted bastion of socialism the Wall Street Journal
says it is a Scientology plot:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523
\_ The summary isn't quite right, but I'll take good ideas from any
source. But a national sales tax is hardly a new idea. Oh, and the
article makes some pretty insightful criticisms, thanks for the
link. -emarkp
\_ Which point is insightful?
\_ Primarily the exposing of the smoke and mirrors on the
estimates. Claiming it's 23% when it's really 30%, and
pointing out that gov't agencies would be paying taxes on
things they aren't now, which would increase costs, etc. I
still think it's an improvement over the IRS. -emarkp
\_ The 23 vs 30 is an old hat red herring. Many people bring
it up but it's been covered a lot already. Do they have
to repeatedly rebut the same old arguments? It is
linked from the front page of http://fairtax.org (under "learn
about the fairtax"). The government tax issue is also
irrelevant; the tax paid shows up in the tax income.
The government ALREADY pays itself taxes when it buys
stuff; the companies selling to it pay income tax (and
government employees pay income and payroll taxes.)
Here is an old rebuttal arguing against many of the same
exact points:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_myths_factcheck
http://xrl.us/5hcg
This guy's article is really weak. There are reasonable
arguments to be made about the fairtax but most of this
guy's points are not.
\_ The comment about the 23% in that link is laughable,
because while it's true that income tax is
"tax-inclusive" sales tax is not. So when the average
Joe hears 23% sales tax, he thinks of the current state
tax and adds 23 points. This increases my dislike
because I think it's deceptive. -emarkp
\_ Who cares what the average Joe thinks? Use your
brain. It's not deceptive. Does the average Joe
have any clue at all anyway? No. Joe is watching
TV. By using the 23% number, it forces this issue
to be discussed. If they simply used 30% then
average Joe would still be deceived. How is he
to interpret that in comparison with income taxes?
(This is why I don't have much hope for this plan.
It's so difficult to even get to the point where
we're talking about the same thing, even in a
neutral environment of educated people. At the
level of politics it will be impossible.)
\_ Uh that sounds plausible? I haven't had time to read the articles
yet but in the interest of fairness I would at least take a look
at the http://fairtax.org rebuttal: http://urltea.com/1d1v
I guess you can just say anything and get it published in the WSJ.
Ok I read it. Almost every point is irrelevant or false.
\_ The rebuttal doesn't address the 23% vs. 30% issue.
\_ As a neutral 3rd party learning about the "fair tax" for
the first time, it was *very clearly explained* about
the difference between the 23% vs 30%.
\_ It's still deceptive. When you hear that the sales
tax in CA is 8.25%, how much do you expect to spend
on a $100 purchase?
\_ They usually refer to it as the "FairTax rate".
Since it is a proposal to replace the income tax
you need to use the same accounting. It's only
deceptive if you hear a soundbite and don't
actually learn about the plan.
\_ It's deceptive and intentionally so. It's about
marketing, not accounting.
\_ Yes it is about marketing. It's not deceptive.
It's about marketing against income tax.
Let's just disagree and drop it.
\_ See above.
\_ Anything that starts out with scare tactics about it being created
by the Scientologists (it wasn't, they had their own similar
sounding but different idea and are not related to the fairtax
people) isn't worth reading. That the WSJ couldn't figure out
who was responsible for what when they went on the war path just
makes me sad for the state of journalism in this country. They're
*supposed* to be the best and probably are which says too much about
how lame the rest of them must be. I don't know much about the
fairtax but it didn't take more than 5 minutes to figure out this
article is FUD and just flat out wrong on several points.
\_ To be fair, that was on opinion piece from the WSJ. Not
journalism. I still respect WSJ's journalism. -op
\_ Journalism is, by definition, opinion. What is it that
journalists do for a living? They present a narrative
for the world. Journalism isn't grounded in anything
that would make this narrative privileged. -- ilyas
\_ If you're too dense to differentiate between the
way the fuck out there on Pluto WSJ Opinion page, and
their news reporting, I have lost all faith in you.
\_ 'Facts' exist, but it's not possible to talk about
them without a lengthy 'pre-processing stage.' No
one bothers to establish common ground for a
discussion about 'facts' anymore. Certainly not
journalists, they are hostage to their business
like everyone else. -- ilyas
\_ Soon they will be part of the Murdoch empire and just as
full of crap as the rest of the stuff he makes.
\_ I don't care if it was an opinion piece. They published it
in their paper and I expect basic *facts* to be correct. If
their opinion piece writers can't get publicly available
*facts* right then what's the point of having ops in the
first place? I expect a highly respected paper like the wsj
to at least spend the same 5 minutes fact checking something
so inflamatory that I spent to find out it was just 100%
flat out wrong. This isn't the sacramento bee, its the wsj.
\_ Have you ever read the WSJ opinion page? Basic facts
need not apply.
\_ I regularly do. It isn't often that something so
inflamtory *and* easily checked is right there at the
inflammatory *and* easily checked is right there at the
top of the op screaming FUD!!! at you.
\_ I think that woman who writes about central and
south america all of the time, I'm too lazy to
up here name, spouts lies all of the time but
who cares, it's just south america. |
| 2007/8/22-23 [Reference/Tax] UID:47711 Activity:moderate |
8/22 I don't mean to keep spamming about this but I wanted to reply here:
\_ You make an interesting case
for "FairTax". With 50 states, this
could be prototyped by having 1 state
shift from an income tax to a sales
tax to see what happens. A lab
experiment, in effect. Or you could
do comparisons with countries which
use a tax system similar to proposed.
(or between states...)
Last, we could phase in a fed. sales
tax by 10% per year, and phase out
income taxes at the same rate, ...
\_ I think the problem with this is you end up with both
systems at once. That's exactly what the plan intends
to avoid (via repeal of 16th amendment). Politics being
what it is, you can't phase out the income tax in parts.
It's too complex and there are too many forms of it.
And how do you make sure it goes away and stays gone?
Plus I don't believe you could see benefits from a
halfway system. It would be worse than without: you'd
be adding to the complexity rather than simplifying.
We do have states to compare. But no country in the
world has a FairTax-like system. They have VATs on top
of income taxes.
\_ Yes, having both systems in place at once will be
clunky, but most businesses already have sales tax
handling built in, so it won't be a horrible burden.
And a gradual phase-in *will* allow the actual
consequences--intended and otherwise, to be
measured, and a reverse route to be taken if
the change is bad. Also, the whole federal income
won't be dependent on a new untried system.
Just like the opponents of abortion, the advocates
of "fair tax" might find they get more traction
if they don't push for "all or nothing". --PeterM
\_ Both together would be *more* complex than today. So you
\_ Only moderately, and most wouldn't feel the burden
because the new tax system *is* so lightweight.
No matter what, there will be pain in conversion,
why not spend some pain to reduce the *risk* that
the new system (any new system) brings? And you
*can* reduce tax compliance cost by simplifying
the damn income tax at the same time. --PM
get no drop in tax compliance costs. To really judge it
probably requires a reasonably long observation period.
And if the systems are muddled together it will be
hard to measure the real effect, when so many other
things affect economic performance.
You can obviously do a "trial run" at the logistical
level of collecting the taxes (have businesses "fake"
collecting the sales tax and submit the monthly returns
etc. for 6 months or whatever). You could gather
some statistics about that.
\_ One reason you can't do a state-by-state "test" shift to another
tax system is it would encourage too many people and corps to mess
around with where they reported their incomes vs. their costs and
current tax loop holes so you'd create an even bigger mess. I don't
know if the FT is good for the country or not but I don't think you
can gradually shift to something that requires dramatic changes
across the board to see the expected/desired results.
\_ Btw, you don't always need to do a 'test' to figure out the
result. -- ilyas
\_ Ilyas, I still think in my gut that the middle class
is going to get screwed by the so-called Fair Tax, but
the counter-arguments to my objections are enough to
make me unsure that the middle-class screwing will
actually occur. That said, I'd like more than a vague
feeling of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as an argument
against a specific proposal to clean up the mess that
is our tax system. A 'test' isn't the only way to know,
but doing a test will certainly make trying the new
system a lot more palatable to everyone. --PeterM
\_ Thanks for being honest.
\_ I just meant "read my thesis." -- ilyas |
| 2007/8/22-27 [Reference/Tax] UID:47706 Activity:nil |
8/22 who is cheapest domain registrar?
some statistics about that.
\_ One reason you can't do a state-by-state "test" shift to another
tax system is it would encourage too many people and corps to mess
around with where they reported their incomes vs. their costs and
current tax loop holes so you'd create an even bigger mess. I don't
know if the FT is good for the country or not but I don't think you
can gradually shift to something that requires dramatic changes
across the board to see the expected/desired results.
\_ Btw, you don't always need to do a 'test' to figure out the
result. -- ilyas
\_ Ilyas, I still think in my gut that the middle class
is going to get screwed by the so-called Fair Tax, but
the counter-arguments to my objections are enough to
make me unsure that the middle-class screwing will
actually occur. That said, I'd like more than a vague
feeling of fear, uncertainty, and doubt as an argument
against a specific proposal to clean up the mess that
is our tax system. A 'test' isn't the only way to know,
but doing a test will certainly make trying the new
system a lot more palatable to everyone. --PeterM
\_ Thanks for being honest.
\_ I just meant "read my thesis." -- ilyas |
| 2007/8/21-22 [Reference/Tax] UID:47689 Activity:insanely high |
8/21 Seriously, what's wrong with the FairTax plan? psb and others
I'd like to see a real criticism without vague accusations of
"it's regressive!" It seems like a complete win-win situation
for everybody. I was concerned about the possibilities of
fraud and evasion, but when you really analyze it there should
be less of this than under the current system. Since the overall
tax on the economy is about the same ("revenue neutral") when
you consider it's businesses that pay the wages that currently
get taxed under income taxes, in the long run the cost of goods
should remain similar, while our exports would gain a
competitive advantage.
I'm no expert and I'm open to an honest rational explanation.
\_ screw you rich flat tax assholes.
\_ I didn't know what the FairTax plan *was* without looking
at Wikipedia, and wouldn't you know, Wikipedia also
provides the information you wanted from psb et al.
\_ No. Wikipedia's articles have a mostly neutral presentation.
What I want to know is where the hostility comes from.
Because I don't understand it. What particular economic analysis
do people think points to FairTax being a bad idea? Was that
analysis open to review? I see a arguments in the wiki entry
analysis open to review? I see arguments in the wiki entry
that contradict what the FairTax plan proposes. (i.e. straw
man arguments)
I just read this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3428541
The statements by people opposing the plan are completely vague
and nonspecific. Look at Giuliani and Romney's answers.
The liberal think-tank quote they got is totally vague,
just saying "it shifts burden to middle class". That is false
as far as I can tell. I guess I'll vote for one of the
Republicans that support it.
\_ It's a consumption tax. Generally the more you make the
less of a percentage of your income you spend. So the less
you pay taxes. And since that means you save more you make
\_ "So the less percentage you pay taxes."
even more money. Yes eventually you might spend some of that
money, but in the meantime you have had a tax shelter for
years. Consider that 1. people spend a lower percentage
of their income when they make more and 2. you need the same
revenue as before, that means any sort of flat consumption
tax will need to shift (percentage-wise) the tax burder to
the lower wage earners. It's why sales taxes are regressive
and raising the sales taxes hits the poorest segments of our
society the worst.
\_ You're right as far as you go, however, FairTax
specifically provides for tax rebates to the poor,
making it not-so-clearly regressive. You didn't
address that point, and since you did not, your
criticism of the FairTax proposal is invalid. I
happen to agree with you that *despite* the rebate,
the middle class is going to get screwed, but I
can't really substantiate that in any quantitative
way. --PeterM
\_ A rebate may help the truely poor, but that actually
just shifts the burden even more to the middle class.
Unless the rebate is so large that it is going to
just lead to a broken tax system that doesn't work,
which may very well be the goal of the "FairTax"
(what a stupid, misleading, name) plan.
\_ No, because they get the rebate also. First you
need to define middle class, and show why the
analysis presented by the FairTax web site is
incorrect (showing that the poor have less burden
while the middle class is about the same as now.
Here's the thing: if these rich people stockpile
money, so what? Eventually it will be spent. Or if
\_ #f -dans
not it will be invested in the economy, creating
growth. Plus the economics indicate that the
\_ Also #f -dans
\_ I love your reasoning.
\_ The statements are trivially false. Thank
goodness you're smart enough to see that
too. -dans
plan would overall boost the economy.
And under the current system, capital gains taxes
are lower than regular income taxes. Plus we
have IRAs and 401ks to let people save tax-free.
The system will just be *massively* simplified.
\_ Hint: too much savings can be just as big
a problem for an economy as not enough. See Japan.
\_ I don't know if "see Japan" is useful... didn't
they have a structural problem with lack of
and/or difficulty for entrepreneurs? We are
so far from saving too much that I hardly think
that's a worthy fear. Middle class people are
probably not very savvy with their finances and
more likely to have money sitting in a non-tax
advantaged places like bank accounts. I don't
think having a bunch of poverty-stricken
seniors is a good plan. Meanwhile the existing
wealthy people would have their savings taxed
even though they already paid income tax on it:
sounds like a wealth tax to me.
\_ So you believe that on a sort of religious basis?
\_ I would say intuition rather than religion.
I'll gladly change my mind if I see convincing
analysis and hard numbers. That is not
a religious conviction. --PeterM
\_ Payroll tax is eliminated and a family gets
$20-30k of spending tax free. That sounds pretty
good to me. Plus boosting the economy as a whole
benefits everyone.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden
\_ Thanks for these URLs. I'm convinced now that
the middle class is going to take it in the ass
while the rich will get a break. The poor also
will get a break. I'm not in favor of screwing
the middle class. Look at 1st URL, #49.
I don't believe for a minute that the "fair tax
effective rate" is going to be lower for everyone
to the extent claimed--and it isn't going to
end up lower for the middle class, who will
end up worse off. --PeterM
\_ Where do you see data indicating middle class
gets screwed? #49 claims that it is lower across
the board. I can't tell you if that's true or
not but I wouldn't simply dismiss the
possibility. Everyone is supposed to get a break.
The retail sales base is larger than the income
tax base.
(pdf) http://urltea.com/1a80
http://urltea.com/1a85
\_ I specifically addressed your objection, my
reasoning is that the tax has to be
revenue neutral. So the money is going
to have to come from somewhere, and
the graphs show lower taxes across the
board. While that may happen in time
(that is hard to know), at the outset
the tax burden has to be equal. Now,
you may have a point about the tax base
being larger, but I do not see why that
should be, given that a large consumption
tax would act to limit consumption and
reduce the tax collected. --PeterM
\_ Everyone would also "have a bigger
paycheck" which encourages consumption.
Partially there will also be a shift
in costs to the business, allowing
them lower prices than otherwise.
them lower prices than otherwise (both
because they don't pay corporate tax,
and because they no longer have to
deal with paycheck taxes for their
employees).
Adminstrative costs: lower by $100s blns.
The tax base expands because you capture
everyone who buys anything, with whatever
money, not just labor income (e.g. it
taxes existing wealth and capital gains
ultimately at a much higher rate than
today).
Another problem is in the current
system, many lower income households
pay more "payroll tax" than income
tax. So replacing that with a sales
tax shifts the burden off them to
higher income brackets.
Plus the rebate is given even to
retired people who have no income.
Additionally the current system
involves tons of complex writeoffs.
That reduces the income base.
\_ You make an interesting case
for "FairTax". With 50 states, this
could be prototyped by having 1 state
shift from an income tax to a sales
tax to see what happens. A lab
experiment, in effect. Or you could
do comparisons with countries which
use a tax system similar to proposed.
(or between states...)
Last, we could phase in a fed. sales
tax by 10% per year, and phase out
income taxes at the same rate,
resulting in a 10-year changeover,
during the middle of which we could
turn in back if we didn't like it.
The income tax could be greatly
simplified along the way, 'cause it
would matter less and less. I
realize states are not analogous
and that burden on business will
increase, but as people have said,
businesses already collect sales
taxes. --PeterM
\- well since you named me specifically, i'll make a short
comment. my view is "even vaguer" than "it's regressive".
my answer is "the world is complicated and people who say
it can be magically simplified are either 1. clueless about
the complexity or 2. up to something". if you want to
\_ .ch has a very simple tax system (compared to the us).
I hope you aren't suggesting the us system is
'complex for a good reason.' -- ilyas
discuss in greater length, wall something when i am
around. in this case, for the commentators, i think the
are mostly in category #2 because they say such stupid
things like "we can get rid of the irs" [and dont mention
replacing it with state level collection and enforcement].
the heart of the tax code is "what is income" ... that's
where most of the instructions go. computing the tax owed
via tax brackets rather than a single division isnt that
big a deal. and corporate taxes [of which i know little]
is also complicated for a reason. some of this is bogus
[like claiming various pieces of IP have low values in
some contexts and high value in other contexts, playing
games with transfer prices etc] but parts of it is legit ...
depreciation, investment etc. --psb
\- this is going out on a limb but i basically think
flat tax proponelegit ...
depreciation, investment etc. --psb
\- this is going out on a limb but i basically think
flat tax proponents come on two flavors:
--weathly people who realize they will get off way easier
--upper middle class people paid via W-2+withholding who
realize this doesnt leave much scope to cheat compared
to their self-employed friends and the lower upper class
people whose employers collude to reduce taxes or can
hire tax lawyers etc
--psb
\_ See, that's a pretty cynical and hostile attitude.
Yet you admitted you don't base this on reasoning about
the actual plan or economics but on "the world is
complicated and The Man is trying to manipulate you".
That doesn't cut it with me.
\- my level of interest in "cutting it" with some
random anonymous person on the motd is pretty low.
i pointed you in the direction of my complaints
which you are free to persue or not, but ignoring
the specifics i list and focusing on "hostility"
or "cutting it" is silly.
\_ Ok so you basically think the plan won't actually
be less complex. Right? That's absurd... the
number of "filers" is reduced 90% or whatever.
Granted that saying "abolish the IRS" is somewhat
disingenuous but the underlying point appears
valid. To most people the IRS would no longer
be an entity they deal with. And the current
tax code has WAY more complexity than simple
"brackets". Hey I thought you were interested
in issues like this, Mr. Economist reader. I
guess I've learned what I wanted to learn.
\- i didnt say the current system is good.
i think the current system has massive
problems. same goes for say school vouchers.
the point again is what makes the current
system complicated is the detemination of
income and the flattax can either avoid this
question [making the the complicated simple]
or if it does address this, then this is the
heart of the proposal ... the problem isnt
tax brackets.
\_ Why not make taxes trivial for the
90% of filers? According to you,
that's an impossible motive for someone
who wants tax reform. Which really says
more about you than the US. -- ilyas
\_ Well clearly there is still some complexity
involved on the business side. But
businesses are already equipped to handle
this. The "fair tax" proposal isn't
based on the principle of flat tax
being more fair than progressive tax. That
is irrelevant IMHO.
As for motives, besides the filing hassle
(at cost in time, money, and privacy) there
is the possibility of increased economic
growth and competitiveness, plus
transparency: wouldn't it be nice to see
the federal tax rate right there at the
store or gas pump, in its entirety, and
see it go up and down instead of the
current incomprehensible mess with many
different tax sources and nobody really
knows who pays what?
\_ Those websites are pretty egregious examples of how to lie
with statistics, but I really don't think you are going to
be convinced no matter what I say, so what does it matter?
\_ I could easily be convinced, which is why I posted.
But I'm learning that a lot of people apparently are
just scared of change or something and intuitively think
it can't work. Isn't the income tax unnecessarily complex
and invasive of privacy? Don't all the analyses agree that
those near the poverty level benefit 100% from this plan?
\- what to do about the poor isnt the problem.
it's what to do about income to the wealthy:
wage incomes, return to capital incomes, complex
time structure of income, income in different
juristictions, state-federal issues, wealth and
property issues, large multiplier effects/higher
sensitivity etc. read e.g. Daivd Cay Johnson.
\_ Why is income the problem if we are talking
about eliminating personal income tax?
\-^income to the wealthy^the wealthy
\_ What is stop the wealthy from taking income here
and just shipping it overseas for all of their
purchases, dodging tax entirely?
\_ The point here is that they will not have a
large incentive to do so because prices will
not be significantly different than they are
now. This is because corporations will not
be paying income tax. For most purposes it
will not be practical to do this kind of
thing. Even if it happened, that would
have to be weighed against evasion practices
in the current system. Additionally, this
system would tax consumption by foreigners
here (e.g. tourists). Not sure how large
that is though.
Note that corporate income taxes affect
a product's lifecycle at every stage of
business; each of these adds cost to the
final product. And dealing with payroll taxes
for employees is an additional cost borne
by every company in a supply chain.
Also note that this represents an inherent
disadvantage for US products in the global
market. Here, they compete against foreign
imports whose parent companies are exempt
from income tax or VAT on exports. Abroad, they
have foreign VAT applied, on top of the
"embedded cost" of US corporate tax. |
| 2007/8/9-13 [Reference/Tax] UID:47567 Activity:high |
8/8 IRS tells guy who caught the Bonds ball you now owe 200k
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-ball&prov=ap&type=lgns
\_ The dude won a $600K+ ball. He owes taxes the income. How is
that so strange? You pay taxes on gambling income and lottery
winnings too.
\_ The ball has no measured value until it's sold. Why should he
pay taxes now? Oh, and the guy who claims there's a tax
liability isn't the IRS, it's a (surprise) lawyer. -emarkp
\_ probably under the AMT laws, just like the dot
com folks in the early crash days, who owed taxes on their
options' value at time of grant, rather than their later
real value (or more accurately, lack thereof).
\_ Which are stupid laws as well. -emarkp
\_ Some parts of the constitution and amendments are
stupid as well. What is your fucking stupid point?
\_ [pointless off topic rude stupid troll purged]
\_ What if, instead of paying you cash, I pay you in a
magic card, that you can use to get cash at any time,
that gives you intrest on the income you have on the
card, and that you can even use as collateral to borrow
money off of. Should you have to pay taxes on that?
\_ No, we should move to the http://fairtax.org system, and
eliminate personal income taxes. -!emarkp
\_ I think the only problem with fairtax is the
rebate. But it would be an improvement, and would
have the advantage that the gov't doesn't know
what everyone is making. -emarkp
\_ Consumption taxes are incredibly regressive,
rebate or no, and if you really believe they
will do anything but be a giant tax burden
on the middle class you are a fool.
\_ Well, with that kind of argument, who can
respond! We have tons of regressive taxes.
So what. Imagine the wealth freed from
dealing with tax forms and laws, etc.
Oh, and if you're going to complain about
regressive taxes, are we going to get rid of
the confiscatory tax on cigarettes? What
about the Lottery?
-emarkp
\- "The state lottery is a public subsidy
of intelligence" --WVOQUINE@harvard.edu
of intelligence" --WVOQUINE@HARVARD.EDU
\_ Sin taxes: ok if moderate, especially
if for things that cause a significant
harm to public health. I do think
cigarette taxes have gone way past
a reasonable limit.
\_ Even with the so called "confiscatory"
tax, are smokers paying for their own
medical expenses?
Sales taxes: ok if low or moderate. Yes
they are regressive, so keep them fairly
low.
Lottery: Not quite the same thing at all.
Noone makes you pay the lottery. That
being said I really don't like goverments
having a lottery monopoly.
\_ Does it matter that you're not forced
to buy a lottery ticket? Funds are
used for public spending, and the vast
amount of lottery tickets are bought
by low-income people.
Why are "sin" taxes okay? Who are you
to declare what public policy is
toward sin? -emarkp
\_ No one makes you pay the BMW either.
\_ No! YOU are the one who is fool.
It's fair is what it is, saves ordinary
people from dealing with massive bureaucracy
and removes the incomprehensible system of
writeoffs and loopholes that the rich
already exploit. Encourages saving and
earning income, and discourages wasteful
consumption that liberals are always
complaining about. If, after all this, you
still want to take wealth away from the
rich then there are other means: just
directly tax their property and such,
or set up some special total wealth tax.
The truly rich are few in absolute numbers.
90+% of people shouldn't have to deal with
income tax. Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_the_FairTax_burden
Consider the payroll tax. Consider all the
401k/IRA and flexible spending account BS.
If you think a fairtax with rebate is
"incredibly regressive" you need to show
numbers. Also, with no income tax, the
"death tax" makes a lot more sense: it's
no longer double-taxed.
\_ Ok, I'll let the rest of your blather
stand but this double-tax bullshit has to
go. We tax people when money transfers
from one individual to another. For
instance if I pay someone to clean
my house, the maids income is taxed,
even though I had to pay taxes on the
income I made to pay her. If I go and
buy something from a store the store
pays taxes on their profit, even though
my money was taxed. There is no "money
only gets taxed once" rule and anyone
who says that estate taxes are double-
taxed is either an idiot or medicious.
taxed is either an idiot or mendacious.
Which one are you?
\_ Wow, look at that big word.
Short answer: I shouldn't have brought
it up. Really it should not be taxed
either when there is no income tax.
Ultimately someone has to spend the
money and it will get taxed then.
I appended that about the death tax
without thinking about it. (Feel free
to dance in glee at this point.)
I could, however, argue that in the
current scheme, inheritance isn't
a "new production". It isn't being
given in exchange for goods or
services. So it is "double taxed" in a
way that your examples aren't. But
I really don't care about this issue.
\_ The reason politics is such a mess is because people aren't willing
to be scientific about politics. I think the reason is, there
is a low cost for believing stupid shit in politics (some economists
view beliefs are a 'good' that people 'purchase'), but a fair bit of
psychological benefit (belief as 'tribal markings' for instance, or
beliefs which reinforce convenient internal attitudes) . In other
domains (medicine, engineering, etc) the penalty for believing
stupid shit is high, so people were forced to turn to science to
make their bridges stay up so to speak. This analysis applies
to some other areas, but the discreet lexicographer does not
name them... -- ilyas
\_ I've learned everything I need to know about politics from the
motd: "My guy is Good! Your guy is Evil!" What could be more
scientific than that?
\_ Are you still a libertarian drawing a government paycheck?
\_ Libertarians are not opposed to all government so it is not
hypocritical of a government employee to be a libertarian.
\_ I no longer think 'big political theories' are productive.
What ends up happening is you spend most of your time worrying
about coherence and thinking about silly edge cases which make
no practical difference. These days I rely on 'political
intuitions' and mostly concern myself with what direction
the current state of affairs must move to get better.
Similar insight in SVMs: only points close to the separating
hyperplane matter. -- ilyas |
| 2007/8/3 [Reference/Tax] UID:47524 Activity:nil |
8/3 Here's a good idea, tax the ethnic studies dept!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={C36D653C-804B-4E35-96A0-501F3DC84FC9} |
| 2007/8/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:47511 Activity:nil |
8/2 these personal plates are totally awesome
http://www.tax.ok.gov/plates/GWOT_apr07.jpg Fight terrorism!
http://www.tax.ok.gov/plates/sp008.html Choose life
\_ http://www.tax.ok.gov/plates/sp079.html NRA
\_ http://www.tax.ok.gov/plates/sp138.html Square & Round Dancers
\_ http://www.tax.ok.gov/plates/sp004.html Adoption
\_ http://www.tax.ok.gov/plates/sp006.html Neuter your pets! |
| 2007/8/1-3 [Reference/Tax] UID:47496 Activity:kinda low |
8/1 My ADP paycheck this period shows I have $200 less Social Security
Tax deducted from my paycheck (from ~$250 down to ~$50), as well as
a new item "Rsrefund" which gives me another extra ~$200. My total
pay this period is ~$200+~$200, or $400 more than my any other
periods. Why is this happening? I don't want to call ADP in case
they realize it and revert my extra $400 pay.
\_ There is a maximum income that is subject to SS tax, somewhere
north of $90k. Did you hit that?
\_ As a matter of fact, I believe I did! This is GREAT! Thanks
guys I was getting a bit worried. -op
\_ Specifically, it's 97.5K this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#Social_security_and_Medicare_taxes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
(Hey urltea nazi, you're only saving 2 characters by replacing
this URL.)
\_ Your url isn't the same one I shortened, you are missing
the bits after the #.
http://urltea.com/147c
(wikipedia.org)
\_ speaking of regressive taxes.
\_ $90k. That's about how much fits in a fridge, isn't it?
\_ If you are hitting $97.5K in July you shouldn't have financial
problems.
\_ I don't. I'm just happy to get more back.
\_ You make $160K+ per year and you don't know about
this? How can that be? |
| 2007/7/5 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Tax] UID:47179 Activity:very high |
7/5 "All we really want is to get paid and get laid."
http://www.csua.org/u/j35 (Yahoo Business)
\_ "How much money buys happiness? A wide body of research suggests the
number is approximately forty thousand dollars a year." Uh, the
poverty line in SF is $60K/year. Maybe 40K a year will buy you
everything you need in hick states.
\_ No the poverty line is not 60K.
\_ Maybe you don't need what you think you need.
\_ Start with $40k. Tax it (fed, state, sales, etc): $25k.
Subtract rent for $1k/month dump: $13k.
Subtract $1k/month for Food+utilities+life misc: $1k.
Cool. You now have $1k in your pocket at the end of the
year. Way to live the good life. How's that retirement
plan going?
\_ 1. You are way off on your taxes.
\_ Ok, give us your numbers then. All taxes.
\_ 30K or so. Sales tax isn't fair cause it's
not part of your rent and you are counting that
into the daily living expenses.
\_ Ok fine sales taxes are in other things. Adding
5K/yr back isn't that much. I had you in a
$1k/month rental. That rental could easily and
fairly be a lot higher, it would still be a dump
and you'd be at the same post-rent level.
2. 40k in the city, you are going to need to budget, yeah.
If you are spending 1k/month on general stuff you
are probably overspending.
\_ Food+utilities+clothes+transport+whatever else you
do with your life not adding to $1k? Ooookkaaaayy.
\_ Dude right now I'm at about 1K/month for life
expenses. I get out. I do stuff, I eat out
at nice places. 1K/month is plenty for general
happiness. That goes double when outside of
the Bay Area. You do realize that people outside
of the BA buy houses with incomes around 40k.
\_ So how's your retirement plan going? What
happens if you lose your job and it takes a
month to find a new one? 3 months? 6+ months?
\_ You know that median income in the Bay Area is
less than $40k/yr, right? Somehow most people
manage to get by on an income you think is
impossible.
\_ The other person below says it is $60k.
\_ Median per capita income is $30k, household
(family) income is $62k.
http://www.csua.org/u/j3d
3. Yeah, living in the second or third most expensive
area in the country you probably need to add a bit
to the numbers given in a fluff journalism piece.
\_ I wasn't the one who said you could do it in SF for
$40k. I was only responding.
\_ 40k is journalism fluff for no frills middle
class. Not having to worry how you will pay
rent. Not having to worry about every dollar
you spend. It doesn't mean being able to buy
anything you want.
\_ I didn't say it did. I don't know where you're
going with this line of reasoning.
4. One of the points of the article is that having that
extra money, while nice, generally doesn't make
people happier. It buys people nice toys but that
doesn't really lead to long term happiness.
\- having to worry less about "if my car/kid needs
$2k/$10k in repairs" does make life better.
\_ I've lived for a long time on a lower middle
class wage. You know what, I didn't spend my
time worrying about what if my car broke down.
The only real sacrifice that I had to make that
ever bugged me was lack of health insurance for
a year, and that was something I porbably could
have gotten if I was willing to make a few cuts
in my spending.
\_ If your car or your leg broke you would have
worried a lot more about it.
\_ As I said, health insurance worried me.
The car, on the other hand, was a <5K
beater. It got me from A to B. If it
needed 5K in repairs I would have just
gotten another car. That I could afford.
\_ So you have no health insurance, a
broken leg would ruin you and when your
car breaks you're wiped out. Maybe
that's ok when you're 23 and can live on
a friend's couch for a while or your
mom's basement but that's not living.
We haven't even talked about marriage or
kids and you skipped my comments on
retirement. I don't think working until
the day you die is living. Maybe that's
ok for you, but count me out of that
plan, thanks.
\_ As I said before, lack of health
insurance WAS something that bothered
me. It just wasn't something I dealt
with. Instead I let it bug me until
I got a better job that had health
insurance.
\_ Median household income in the Bay
Area is $62k. That is how most people
have to live. Count yourself blessed.
\_ You read the part where we're
talking about $40k in SF, not $62k
in the Bay Area, right? Also, the
above person says it is below
$40k. Can you two get together on
this? I'm not going to respond to
two drastically different numbers
at the same time as if both were
true.
\_ Do you know the difference
median and average?
\_ Sorry, should have said median
fixed.
\_ In the City of SF, median
household income is even lower.
Don't get confused between
per capita and household income. |
| 2007/6/25-28 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:47055 Activity:moderate |
6/25 http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/charitable.giving.ap/index.html Americans are very generous. \- that is a really lousy article. it's a very fair criticism that comparisons of just things like foreign aid from the govt isnt fair to the US where there is larger private sector donating, it is equally true you have to consider the lower taxes here, and some other issues relating to tax policy ... if somebody donates a huge amount of money to avoid taxes, it needs to be thought of a little differently [read about the history of HHMI]. this is another case of an article where it's unclear the facts add up to the conclusion suggested [as the OP writes, "americans are very generous"]. what should have been the biggest piece of news in there is how much "charity" is sucked up by religious orgs. certainly a lot of this goes to good ends like church run hospitals [10-20% of community hospitals in the US are Catholic church operations] but a lot relig donations are sort of parochial, so to speak. also the large fraction of the donations going elite educational and \_ Parta, seriously, I could care less about the homeless people who are causing my property to depreciate. However, I've donated hundreds of dollars to Classical 102.1 KDFC. Am I an elitist? Do you hate me? \- no, i just think there is a difference say volunteering at your kids school and say doing a doctors without borders kind of thing. obviously i am not saying volunteering at your kids school is bad, but a different phenomena is going on. medical establishments and elite cultural orgs isnt really consistent with the "giving to the poor" conception of charity. [and reglig+elite educ/medica/culture is something like \_ Au contraire, mon frere! Going back well into early Europe, pretty much *every* artist, 'doctor', 'scientist', and other 'elite' was only able to produce or research because they had some rich benefactor. You think all that art was produced on the government dole? Or by selling to 'The People' in the market square? \- no, i'm generally opposed to public funding of the arts. btw you also need to acknowledge the govt had a role via their decision to enforce IP. to get middle class novelists for example, you need to have copyright enforced. 60-70% of the total, i believe]. at least some amount of this number is no doubt more of a testiment to the creativity of tax profressionals here rather than a reflection on inherent generosity. note that there have been some studies looking at attitudes changing toward in attitudes toward social welfare as there is more mixing of population groups, so the benefits are less likely to go toward "people like me", e.g. some europeans are beginning to reconsider the high level of the social safety net in the face of high levels of brown immigration. \_ Wow, partha, you are a real shithead. The issue of 'optimal giving' (e.g., if I want to go good, and I am willing to think about it, where should my money go) is completely orthogonal to 'generosity.' I wouldn't give money to most 'conventional charities' you probably wouldn't have a problem with, like the Red Cross because I think they are a very inefficient use of my money. The vast majority of people have a 'generosity impulse', but they aren't really willing to think very hard about their money and true causes of problems in the world. It's true that the results they achieve with their money aren't as good as they could be, but it sort of seems like you are calling into question the morality of their act, which is in very poor form. I am curious if, parallel to you taking a dump on the possible motives of Americans who give you might also have a spirited defense of the rest of the world (which gives a lot less). I was also most amused by the importance you place on historical conceptions of charity as 'alms for the poor.' I wonder if you will have moral objections to intentionally improving outcomes by 'counterintuitive means' (or objections to calling such things 'charity.') -- ilyas objections to calling such things 'charity.') Sometimes Franklin's view is more appropriate than Mother Theresa's. -- ilyas \_ I believe he already addressed the "citizens of other places don't give as much" when he said their taxes are higher which implies they give through their government so are morally excused from giving personally. Anyway, we know all rich people are automatically evil oppressors so it doesn't matter if they give to charity or not. They must be doing it for evil and selfish reasons. \- if i had to summarize my main point: donating $500m in paintings to a museum != donating to "help people". lumping them together clouds the statistics. as i said, the facts dont add up to the conclusions. we can probably say things like "one reason the higher educ institutions are so good here is there sucess getting private donations". by no means would i "dump" on america by saying "but that's only because of lousy public funding it is necessary." although things like tax policy has consequences [like what is the per capita spending at saratoga high school vs. an east sj high school etc]. BTW, i think "american generosity" gets the short shrift by not considering the "uncaptured" returns from medical research [antibiotics, vaccines etc], and agricultural reasearch ["green revolution"], but to think about this issue sophisticatedly, there are offsetting negatives as well. \_ Charity is ineffective because determining effects is hard. I wouldn't even go so far as to say donating to a museum isn't 'helping' -- I just don't understand what 'helps' well enough. I do know a lot of african charity is extremely counterproductive. -- ilyas \_ Some software is counterproductive. Therefore, we should stop using software. \_ Where did you get the idea that I am claiming charity is a bad thing or should be stopped? Did you even read my other post? If there's a normative undercurrent to what I am saying at all, it's that what people should be concentrating on isn't SPENDING but understanding effects, and understanding how complex systems evolve. In some sense donating is easy, but your conscience shouldn't rest just because you donated to something recently. -- ilyas |
| 2007/6/7-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:46877 Activity:nil |
6/7 I'm moving and have lots of empty binders that I used in school.
Other than throwing them out, is there any place I can donate them
to? Thanks.
\_ Do you have any friends that are teachers? I have a friend who
throws parties at her house where the "cover charge" is
donation of school supplies.
\_ I "donated" mine to my employer by quitely putting them into the
office supply cabinets, because I was too lazy to find a non-profit
organization to donate them and get a tax deduction receipt.
organization to donate them and get a tax deduction. |
| 2007/4/23-25 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:46415 Activity:very high |
4/22 What exactly is the "maler-roos" on new properties? Why is the
property tax rate close to 2% instead of 1%?
\_ A little history on CA tax:
1978: Reaganomics advocates-- "Tax cut is good for everyone! "
Prop 13 of 1978 will cut slacks for existing land &
property owners, allow self-reliance, force government fat
to be cut, and kick start trickle-down economy!
\_ Were you here in CA in 78? Your version of how this
went down has nothing to do with reality.
1979-1981: Uh, we fucked up. We lost so much revenue that we no
longer have money to fund government fat like public parks,
new transits, new bike lanes, and public schools.
\_ New bike lanes? I'll bet they stopped funding linux too!
Schools got as much/kid then as now. It is *how* it is
spent that matters, not the total number. And the *how*
is that it is being pissed away on excess administation
and fake special programs while the bulk of students get
crap education.
\_ reference for school spending, please
\_ CA state budget is higher than ever before. 40% of
budget is mandated to be spent on schools, which was
not true in 1978. Do math.
\_ Your claim was based on $/kid; please provide a
reference. (Extra credit if it's adjusted for
inflation.) -tom
1982: Henry Mello & Mike Roos-- It's ok! We'll double the
cost of property tax for *future* homeowners and since
they're not here to speak for themselves, the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act will get passed easily and save
all of our problems!
\_ Because forcing old people on fixed incomes to sell their
homes so they could eat is always a good idea and the
morally right thing to do.
\_ This is, and always has been a red herring. The largest
beneficiary of Prop 13 tax cuts is not old people on
fixed incomes, but corporations. If we really cared
about old people, we could have made Prop 13 apply
only to residences, but that's not what it's about.
Corporations not only own more valuable property, they
also resell property less often. -tom
\_ I ask again: were you here in CA in 78? I was. There
were for sale signs everywhere. People were leaving
the state young and old because they couldn't afford
their property taxes. If corporations got a free ride
along the way, so be it, they weren't the ones who
voted on it, nor were they the ones who came up with
the idea.
\_ People were leaving the state because of complex
reasons. Property tax was simply one of the
many components. Trying to fix the root of the
problem by adjusting proprety tax is like
the Feds trying to stabilize an extremely
complex & globalized economy with 10000 of
knobs and switches with this single knob
called the interest rate knob. It's absurd.
\_ Were you here in 1978? I was. When your
neighbors tell you they are selling because
they can't afford it and it's the same story
in the newspapers, tv, everywhere, I'd go for
that long before I'd accept your "well there
was other stuff too but I won't mention any of
it, just claim that your thing is absurd".
None of this stuff is a big secret. Apply
browser.
\_ You keep repeating this unverified claim
that you were here in 1978. Who are you?
How old were you in 1978? How does your
anecdotal evidence outweigh all other
input to this discussion? -tom
\_ Real estate is not a large part of expenses for
most businesses. It's labor, of course. For most
corporations it's in the noise and they are
depreciating the properties anyway. Many of them
lease, too. Do you know what the average property tax
rate was before Prop 13?
\_ Throwing a lot of stuff at the wall there, aren't
you? None of it sticks; if corporations don't
mind paying more property tax, Prop 13 is totally
stupid, since it gives them more tax benefit than
it does homeowners. And whether corporations
buy or lease their space, they receive the benefits
of the lower property tax. Non-residential
property taxes *dropped* by 5% from 1991 to 2001,
during the largest increase of property values
in CA history. -tom
\_ Who gets more of a benefit?:
Me, saving $2K of my, say, $100K salary or
a corporation saving $50K of their, say, $100
million revenues? I think it's clear I do.
I am not sure I understand your last
sentence. Are you saying total revenues
dropped? You do realize that the commercial
property market was not part of 'the
largest increase in property values',
right? It's very possible that commercial
property taxes might rise even as residential
home values fall. In fact, I predict that.
\_ You really have no idea how much corporate
real estate is worth, do you? Property
taxes on a big commercial building go
into the millions of dollars. So, you
saving $2K get hurt because you lose more
than $2K worth of services due to Prop 13
and the relief it gives corporations. Plus,
cities then do things like raise sales tax
(CA: highest in nation), which, guess what,
you pay! -tom
\_ How much do you think commercial real
estate is worth? The most expensive
skyscrapers sell new for a few
hundred million dollars. Most
buildings are far less. So even if I
own 100% of the TransAmerica building
(whose property taxes are paid for by
many tenants and not just one) then
the property tax is still only a
couple of million per year. How much
in revenues is generated there? Your
typical industrial building is only
worth a few million, which is at
most 10x a house, and yet revenues
are likely much more than 10x higher.
As for sales taxes, CA's are not that
much higher than anywhere else.
\_ No matter what the corporations pay in
taxes it will get passed down to the
consumer. And corporations doing well
isn't necessarily the horrible thing you
imply considering how much retirement
money is invested in these same corps and
how many people they employ, etc. The
anti-corpo screed is insufficient to make
an honest claim that prop 13 was bad for
the people of california.
\_ It's clearly bad for everyone who
doesn't own property in CA. It's
very likely bad (negative total
ROI) for residential homeowners. It's
not even clear that homeowners pay
less tax, overall, due to Prop 13.
It's clearly good for major commercial
real estate holders. -tom
\_ It reduces carrying costs for
real estate holders, which
means they can charge less rent
and/or develop the land more
intensely. I am guessing that this
is a net benefit to the economy in
terms of taxes. Imagine if
property taxes were back at 20%
like they were. Who do you
think would be doing business
here? What would the tax base be?
Low property taxes are even
good for people who don't own
land, because they (renters and
consumers) carry the costs
anyway, as alluded to above.
\_ Corporations don't just "pass on"
costs. They charge what the
market will bear, no more and
no less. It is important to
understand the difference between
the two ideas. -ausman
\_ I understand economics, but
property tax is a fixed
cost. It will be paid
even if the land lies
fallow. (In fact, for
this reason high property
tax encourages sprawl,
since the cost of holding
land is high.) There can
be no market at all and
yet the taxes are still
due. This is different
from most expenses. The
tax represents pretty
much the baseline cost of
holding the property. If
an owner were to lease
for less than the taxes
owed, he'd rather just let
the property go rather than
take a loss on it to hold it.
So when the tax increases, so
does this "minimum rent".
E.g., I have to rent my
house for ~$400/month just
to cover the property taxes
- $700/month if I just
bought it. This is *with*
Prop 13 if I paid *cash*
for the house.
\_ BofA building just sold for $1B:
http://www.csua.org/u/ijt
\_ Which is too expensive and unusual,
as the article says. The most expensive
building in LA just sold for $600 million
and most of the office towers are ~$300M.
But even using this ($1B) figure, it's
still just $10M/year in tax. I pay
~4% of my income in property tax. If
I bought my house new it would be
~8%. So the equivalent in revenues
is still around $200M/year. I am
guessing that the businesses housed
there will have more than $200M in
revenues per year for the operations
based in that building. I am
guessing a *LOT* more, given the
(presumably high) salaries of people
working there. Actually, doing the
math in the article (1.3M sq feet @
$75/foot) shows they are hoping to
lease it for $100M/year, which means
10% of the rents would go to property
tax. Using my own house as an
example, I pay ~$24K/year rent and
$4K/year in property tax so my
burden is higher. Why would you want
to eliminate Prop 13 when it helps
me more? (Being I have a higher tax
burden.) Now factor in that most of
the corp tenants (other than the landlord)
are probably paying much less as a
percentage of revenues in property
taxes. If you double property tax
then my burden goes to, say, 33%
(where it was in the 1970s) and the
landlords goes from 10% to 20%. Who
will be more hurt by that? BofA or me?
Now, if you want to eliminate Prop
13 for commercial buildings (as some
propose) that is something else
entirely.
\_ "You're talking a lot, but you're
not saying anything."
\_ Prop 13 benefits homeowners
more than businesses. That's
the gist. To say otherwise is
ridiculous and to repeal it
completely would be ludicrous.
1990-2007: Future homeowners paying 2X property tax-- Why the
fuck is my property tax bill near 2X my parent's rate?
\_ The rates are known before you buy your house and directly
impact the sales price. If property taxes were lower the
house base price would be higher. Your monthly wouldn't
change.
\_ Google will find you more info under "Mello-Roos"
\_ The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 was a reaction
to 1978 Prop 13's cutting of property tax for existing home
owners while not cutting back on government spending.
In layman's explanation, Prop 13 in 1978 cut taxes while gov
fat remained so money had to come from elsewhere. Thanks to
rich people like you, your 2% prop tax (w/ Mello-Roos)
benefits everyone else, including those who are only paying
1% tax on nice (but older) homes. Thanks rich guy!
\_ This is not true. Mello-Roos is a special assessment that
applies mostly to new development, to pay for things like
sewers, roads and schools in new areas. The beneficiaries
of the tax pay the tax.
\_ Yes, it is true that the beneficiaries of the tax pay the
tax. In theory, that is absolutely correct.
\_ To some extent. In the future, the bonds will be paid
off and future owners of the same house may not pay
the tax despite being beneficiaries of it. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:46372 Activity:nil |
4/19 W-4 withholding question. For those who are married with combined
salaries of 2 x $100K, about how many allowances do you put on your
W-4? It seems like the computation method on the back of the form
omits the deduction of state taxes, and I end up putting down 0
allowances and withhold an extra $9K. Let's say there is no mortgage
interest deduction or significant investment income. Thanks.
\_ Call an accountant or just run the numbers through turbo tax.
\_ ran it through turbotax, it says 4 allowances for me, 2 for her.
but i figure there are married couples here who did this before
they bought a house and wanted to verify ...
i'm also surprised the w-4 instructions could be so wrong.
\_ Remember it's a gov't agency. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:46368 Activity:nil |
4/19 Rights are being eroded left'n'right, cameras are everywhere, net
traffic is being scooped and analysed in bulk, pensions are long
gone and social security isn't far behind while taxes are scheduled
to go up further, the borders barely exist, there's only one
political party but it has two names, and the insane rantings of a
psychopathic killer are being broadcast which will only enourage
others of similar nature to attempt to 'get their message out, too'.
But at least they finally kicked Sanjaya! Whew!
\_ Small victories, my son, small victories. |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:46318 Activity:nil |
4/16 Why is the tax filing dealine 4/17 not 4/16 this year? (Not that I'm
complaining about that one extra day. :-) )
\_ DC has a holiday today. Boston does too. Since the filing centers
will be closed, the IRS decided to just back it off another day.
\_ What holidays are in DC and Boston that don't fall on 4/16 in
other years?
\_ According to Wikipedia, Emancipation Day is a D.C. holiday
every year on 4/16. Since 4/15 is usually not a Sunday or
a Saturday, this doesn't affect tax filing.
\_ Thanks! |
| 2007/4/13-15 [Reference/Tax] UID:46296 Activity:nil |
4/13 This year I had to pay a bit more in taxes than I liked. Can someone
reccomend a good tax advisor who would do something like back-and-
forth consultation over email for a reasonable fee?
Mainly looking for ways to reduce my earned income tax liability.
\- i suspect trying to do something like this via email, at least
initially, is the wrong approach. |
| 2007/3/27-29 [Reference/Tax] UID:46109 Activity:nil |
3/26 I bought a Prius last year thinking I'd get $3150 tax credit. Well
as it turns out I'm *eligible* to get up to $3150 tax credit, and
in reality it turned out to be much much less thanks to my
mortgage deductions. Oddly enough, if you make over $750K/year
you'll get the entire $3150 credit. This is the apotheosis of
Republican tax policy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/26/EDGC7N75RT1.DTL
\_ Welcome to the bizzaro world of AMT. |
| 2007/3/19-22 [Reference/Tax] UID:46019 Activity:low |
3/19 My itemized tax return will end up to be about $5000. In fact I've
been getting $4000-$6000 very consistently for the past couple of
years. What's the best way to get less taxed (per month) so that
my yearly return will be near $0? The idea of the government
holding ~$5000 of my money for a whole year is kind of weird.
\_ Increase the number of deductions on your W4. -ausman
\_ I increased it from 2 to 3 and the amount was insignificant,
maybe $500-600 or something? I'm not sure. I'm just not
seeing a big difference. What's up?
\_ Look at the worksheet. It tells you how many to claim
for every xxx dollars in deductions you expect.
\_ I actually claimed '12' in my W4 (yes, you can even go higher if you like)
and that seems to bring it down. Play around with the scenarios, increasing
from 2 to 3 isn't enough - try '6', '7', etc.
\_ I actually claimed '12' in my W4 (yes, you can even go higher
if you like) and that seems to bring it down. Play around with
the scenarios, increasing from 2 to 3 isn't enough - try '6',
'7', etc.
\_ I claim 9 federal/6 state. <--- home owner. |
| 2007/3/18-20 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:46006 Activity:high |
3/18 I will soon be graduating after many years of grad school, with
a job with a reasonable salary lined up. What strategy do you all
in the "real world" take to save money? I'm planning on taking my
monthly income, pay out rent/utilities, put a certain amount or
percentage in my savings, and then keep the rest in my checking
to play with. Is this reasonable? I know advice like this needs
to be individualized but I just want to make sure I'm not way off.
Thanks.
\_ Short GOOG!
\_ Pay off any high interest debt first, then start maxing
out your 401k now. Retirement seems like a long ways
away now, but believe me, you will be happy in 10 years
that you started saving for it now. Build up a three month
emergency fund and put it in a short term CD or savings. Then
figure out what you want next. Is it a home? If so, start
saving a down payment and put it in something relatively safe,
like a CD. When you have enough saved up, start thinking
something with a little more return, like short term Munis.
If you are looking more for an early retirement, open a brokerage
account and start investing in the stock market. There are plenty
of market junkies on soda who can give you advice on stock
picks. -ausman
\_ Good advice, but I am not sure I agree with 'maxing out your
401k'. Yes, invest in your 401k. I don't think putting
$15K/year into it is all that wise, though, unless you
are making well over six figures. A 25 year old making $70K out
of school should probably not be putting 20% of his gross into
retirement with possible student loans and (as you say)
saving for a house. I would put 'maxing your 401k' farther
down the list of priorities. Put as much into your 401k as
you need to in order to get all of your company's match, but
I wouldn't start with more than that.
\_ Owning a house is maybe a better retirement investment than
you may think. Once you own your house your rent/mortgage
is gone and all you have is upkeep, tax, and utilities.
Once my house is paid off, my biggest single need for income
is gone and I can live with much less income.
\_ How do property taxes compare with rent?
\_ Depends, of course. For me, property tax is
about 12% of the mortgage.
\_ Annually? Remaining mortgage or simply value of
your home? I pay $1k per month in rent; what value
house could I own that would cost me about the same
in property taxes?
\_ It's percentage of entire mortgage payment.
interest and principal.
Annually or monthly, what difference does it make?
I gave you a percentage. You could own approx.
$1.2M of house and pay $1k/month here (not CA).
\_ In CA, property tax rises are capped (Prop 13),
so the amount you pay in property tax is
dependent on how long you've owned the house.
It's also dependent on where you live. But
$1K/month is way, way more than most people
pay in property tax. -tom
\_ Good to know. Thank you both.
\_ In CA, property tax is about 1% of the
purchase price (annually) and is capped
at 2% per year raises after that.
\_ Homes aren't really that great an investment, the last
decade or so notwithstanding. You would actually do
better to rent and put the savings in the stock market,
if all you want to do is make money. -ausman
\_ Only if you ignore the concept of leverage and the
tax advantages of real estate. Of course, leverage
is a two-edged sword and it can beat you up
something fierce in a down market.
\_ No, even including the tax advantages. Over the
long run, real estate goes up about 1% more than
inflation. Pretending that real estate is a risk
free investment is stupid. You can leverage your
investment in the stock market too, if you don't
care about risk. -ausman
\_ Tax advantages like $500K tax free, not
interest deductions. I never said real estate
is not risky as an investment. However, go
try to borrow $500K to invest in the stock
market with $0 down and see if a bank will
make that loan. However, in real estate it is
done all of the time.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/i9r (Rueters)
"Countrywide Financial Corp., the largest U.S.
mortgage lender, on Friday told its brokers to
stop offering borrowers the option of
no-money-down home loans, according to a
document obtained by Reuters."
No one will be doing this for much longer.
\_ Second that paying off high interest debt (i.e., credit cards &
student loans that aren't deferable). If your loans are
deferable, get ready for them by putting the money that would
have paid towards paying them off in a CD so that you get the
interest anyway. 401Ks are great, but consider a Roth IRA or
other such that would allow you to contribute pre-tax and use
for a house without penalties. Also, check and recheck your
income tax wthholding; now that you're likely to owe taxes, it's
a good idea to know what you're going to owe next April 15.
Whether you feel like loaning the US Gov the amount in advance
(i.e., max out your withholding) or owing on the date is up to
you. Good luck. --erikred
\_ I am kind of assuming that this person lives in the Bay Area,
where it can be ten years or more before they can afford
a home, so waiting to start saving until the first house
is bought would be a mistake. Also, I think you should grab
as much of the tax deduction from contribution to your
retirement as you can possibly afford. I am not actually
expecting this person to max out their 401k, but if they
did, that would really give them a leg up. A Roth IRA can
have slight tax advantages, but it depends on all sorts of
complexities like what your expected tax rate will be in
retirement and the difference from a 401k is really slight,
so I didn't want to get into that. -ausman
\_ I also recommend max'ing out your 401K. Also, put 4/5K into a
Roth IRA every year. You may also wish to consider max'ing out
any ESPP program you are eligible to participate in. Most ESPP
programs give yout 15% below the lowest closing price of the
opening/closing day price of the stock, so you make an easy 15%
percent - tax by dumping the day of the purchase. |
| 2007/3/1-3 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid, Reference/Tax] UID:45849 Activity:nil |
3/1 If you bought a Prius in 2006 don't forget to subtract $3150
for the credit! Get all the forms and info here:
http://www.toyota.com/prius/tax.html#fedtaxdeductions |
| 2006/12/23-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:45491 Activity:moderate |
12/23 How does the Blue Angels pay for itself? Tax?
\_ They're part of the Navy/Marine Corps, and as such are funded
through the Department of Defense.
\_ That's interesting. Maybe they should be part of the
Department of Entertainment instead of Defense.
\_ Did you just discover that the government wastes money?
That's nothing new, and this is hardly the worst offense.
\_ Their official purpose is to serve as a recruiting tool.
Are you contending that they are ineffective in that role?
You may also be interested in one of the Army's recruiting
aids -- they sponsor racing teams (NASCAR, NHRA, motorcycles:
http://www4.army.mil/racing/flash.html
\_ Does the Air Force benefit from it for free? |
| 2006/11/8-9 [Reference/Tax] UID:45262 Activity:moderate |
11/8 Oh great... all the measures and all the propositions passed.
Urge to kill... rising.
\_ Oh, you were in favor of letting convicted child molesters live
near elementary schools?
\_ Thank you to all the urban areas that exported their child
molesters to rural areas! We really appreciate it. Now where
did I put that shotgun?
\_ I'm opposed to making these people wear a GPS for life.
That's ridiculous. Are we not even pretending to rehab
people anymore? If you're a teacher and boff a 17 year old
student then you wear a tracking device for life?
\_ For me, this depends on what genders you and your student
are. I'll scream either "Rape!" or "Hot!" accordingly.
\_ I guess my point is that if these people are still so
dangerous that they need 24/7 monitoring then maybe
we should not let them out. However, I think this law
is mostly based on hysteria. I am fine with most of
the bill, but not the monitoring. It seems like a
violation of civil rights, very Orwellian, and EXPENSIVE.
\_ Regarding that prop, I believe it adds a lot of expense for
no actual safety benefit. Plus I agree with the above poster
that it's an appeal to emotion and hysteria. Every semi-urban
area is reasonably close to a school and/or children. Why are
you in favor of letting convicted child molesters live?
\_ Exactly. Shouldn't we also be tracking anyone with
a felony conviction then? I'm more concerned about
violent criminals with long rap sheets. I'm concerned
about molesters, too, but why single them out?
\_ except all those that you know, didn't
\_ sorry I saw stuff yesterday projecting them all winning, but
the bonds are still bad.
\_ Who cares. Only the bond measures passed. The tax measures like
the stupid added parcel tax failed. Good.
the stupid added parcel tax and the ridiculous cigarette tax all
failed. Good.
\_ Do you know how much the passed bonds will add to our annual debt
service?
\_ ^^^
\_ ~2.8b in payments every year. |
| 2006/10/24-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:44945 Activity:nil |
10/24 How does property tax affect the value of homes? Is there a good
correlation between a state's property tax rate and its averaged
assessed home values? For example I've heard that Texas's proprety
tax is over 2X of CA but equivalent home values are approximately
less than 1/2.
\_ More expensive homes don't cost (significantly) more to provide
services for than cheaper ones. Therefore if two different areas
both need to collect $X in taxes to provide services, and the homes
in one area cost more on average, the area can afford to tax at a
lower rate and they'll still collect $X. Duh.
\_ No, there is not. IOW, California real estate is not expensive
simply because property taxes are on the lower side. For
example, Connecticut's property tax is just over 2% and yet
property values are higher than Texas.
\_ *IF* all else being equal, higher property tax rate will mean lower
home sale values because it increases the cost of ownership,
which (in Alameda county) will mean lower assessed values. But in
reality there are too many other varying factors which obscure the
picture. |
| 2006/10/7-10 [Reference/Tax] UID:44720 Activity:nil |
10/7 Poll:
tax is too high, cut it:
services suck, raise tax:
services suck, tax revenue is wasted, fix waste, lower taxes: .
see world only black/white: ....................
poll is stupid, weak troll, better done on a Monday when tax payers
are actually reading the motd: . |
| 2006/10/6-7 [Finance/Banking, Reference/Tax] UID:44705 Activity:low |
10/5 Are recreational vehicles tax deductible?
\_ http://csua.org/u/h4p (detnews.com)
\_ if you live in it as your primary residence, like a house |
| 2006/10/4-6 [Reference/Tax, Finance/Investment] UID:44676 Activity:low |
10/4 Just FYI, the Dow has hit an all-time high. In this crappy Bush
economy, damn him.
\_ 1. median income went down. 2. average income only increased by
something lik 0.3% while the inflation is running around 2-3%.
3. housing price is dropping and interest is raising.
For those who is making less than $200,000 a year, life is actually
kind of sucks.
\_ My life doesn't suck.
\_ And it only took 7 years...
\_ Try 5 years. And recall what happened in those 5 years.
\_ Jan 2000 - Oct 2006.. Nearly 7 years. Also, using the DOW
as your measure for "the economy" is.. stupid.
\_ As soon as that brings in taxes that cancel out the huge tax cuts
and let us stop deficit spending like irresponsible college students
I'll be impressed.
\_ The tax cuts just weren't that big. The poor don't pay income
taxes, the middle class get soaked of course and the truly rich
never paid income taxes of any note. It's a nice idea though.
Imagine if Mrs. Kerry actually paid the same percentage on her
taxes that normal people do and didn't have a zillion loopholes.
\_ The cuts weren't just in income taxes...
\_ So if they weren't big, then they should already have been
cancelled out and we should have budget surpluses and be
able to start paying off the Debt. Right? (Not talking about
mid-year surplus B.S.)
\_ Gosh, because spending went up? Waaaay up? naah. I'd
still like Mrs. Kerry to pay the same percentage of her
income in taxes that normal people do.
\_ And I'd rather that she pay a high percentage
commensurate with the increased value of the benefit
she gets from having a society that doesn't burn down
her house for hoarding wealth. -Dem |
| 2006/9/20-22 [Reference/Tax] UID:44459 Activity:nil |
9/19 Has anyone purchased an engagement ring from Amazon? Recommended
or not? Apparently there's no tax on it so it seems like a
good idea.
\_ what you don't love her enough to pay tax on her ring?
\_ If she's a libertarian, paying taxes is hardly an act of love.
\_ "I saved on taxes so I could afford to get you a nicer ring" |
| 2006/9/15-19 [Reference/Tax] UID:44394 Activity:nil |
9/15 Has anyone bought foreclosure properties? How about tax sale
properties where the government sells the property to cover
taxes not paid but not the amount of remaining loan?
\_ I have not. My (very distant) understanding of it is that there
are so many people out there bidding on these properties trying to
get rich quick that you're really unlikely to get a good deal
on one.
\_ I've bought HUD repos in LA, they were more numerous there. I
don't know that this area had any real supply. In my experience
the deals went away not because of get-rich-quickers, but because
home buyers started showing up and they were willing to pay much
closer to the actual market value of the home, which i was not
-crebbs
closer to the actual market value of the house. -crebbs
\_ Most people don't want HUD homes, not even for investments.
Like with anything else, you can get a good deal if you
spend the time looking. You will be up against a lot of
pros with a lot of cash who will know what they are doing.
When I found something worthwhile I didn't get it. If you
persevere you ultimately will, though. Don't think that
it will be easy, though. I heard you are better off buying
*before* it is foreclosed on - when the person is in
trouble. You can give them some cash to solve their
problems in exchange for a great deal on the house. The
hard part is identifying those people in advance, although
there are lists of people behind on their mortgage. You'd
have to cold call or send flyers, though. |
| 2006/8/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:44093 Activity:nil |
8/22 This is not a critical tax question so I'm not going to ask my
accountant. At any rate I used to claim "2" on my tax W2 and had
always gotten money back (a few thousand dollars a year) every year,
thanks to itemizing tax & owning my parents' properties in my name.
This year I decided that I'd get more money back immediately and
pay tax later, and decided to put down "3" instead of "2". However,
I'm still getting taxed at around 34% which is the same tax rate as
before! Below is the breakdown of my current tax:
Federal: 18.4% of my pay
SS Tax: 6.18%
Medicare: 1.44%
CA Tax: 6.69%
CA VDPI: 0.78% <-- BTW what is this?
Medical: 0.57%
Does this sound about right? Are you CA single dudes making 6
digits also getting taxed around 34% claiming "3" instead of "2"?
\_ Changing your withholding by 1 won't make a big change.
\_ See IRS Publication 15, Circular E. This has the formula
on how much each witholding does exactly. Assuming you are
paid semimonthly, each witholding means ~$137 of your salary
won't be taxed. So assumes you are at 35% bracket, you'll get
~$48 more a pay check.
\_ CA VPDI is voluntary plan disability insurance. It is similar to
SDI which is state-run. BTW, you can claim itemized deduction on
SDI but not on VPDI. |
| 2006/7/13-18 [Reference/Tax] UID:43664 Activity:nil |
7/13 So I have a silly question regarding 401K pre-tax vs. after-tax.
Suppose the tax rate now is x, and that in 20 years it'll be
increased to say, 1.2*x pay for our failing Busheconomy and our
expensive Iraq War. If I have 401K pre-tax then in 20 years I'd have
to pay 0.2x more tax than now right? Would it make sense to do 401K
after-tax instead if you strongly believe that the tax will increase
in the future?
\_ There is no way to do after-tax with a 401k, but you can do
a Roth IRA. The other question is what your tax bracket/income
might be then, even if each bracket pays higher taxes.
\_ http://www.smartmoney.com/retirement/401k/index.cfm?story=which401k050609
Be sure to check out Roth 401K (hybrid of RothIRA and 401K):
"...For one, no one can predict with certainty what tax rates will
be in the future, though the general consensus is that they're
likely to rise to help the government offset growing budget
deficits and pay for Social Security and Medicare. That's one
reason why people in the top tax brackets have indicated their
preference for the Roth 401(k)"
\_ The Trush Translation:
"No one can predict the tax rate in the future, but one thing
many people agree is that we're in a big shit thanks to the
failing experimental Busheconomy and the experimental
BushIraqWar and the experimental BushCare and experimental
BushSecurity plans. Every single one of the experiments failed,
all of which we'll all have to pay for dearly in the future.
So that's why people who are smart have indicated their
preference for the Roth 401K."
\_ If your employer offers this. Mine doesn't. Does yours?
\_ Nope. I even asked HR to provide it. -ausman
\__ So I have a bunch of money in a roll-over IRA. Can I convert
this to a roll-over Roth IRA and pay the taxes now?
\_ You need to check out your own situation, but this is
possible in many situations. |
| 2006/6/8-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:43323 Activity:nil |
6/8 GOP loses bid in Senate to eliminate inheritance tax. Two GOPers
(Voinovich/Ohio, Chafee/RI) voted against, four Dems voted for.
BTW, the credit which covers $1 million for gifts and $2 million
for inheritance is per-person. So your parents can gift out $2 mill
to the kids and $4 mill out of the estate, for $6 mill total, or
$24,000/year to each kid without counting against the gift and an
unlimited amount for tuition, medical expenses, PACs, and charities
\_ That's fine and all except it does nothing for the people who got
there by working hard instead of riding their IPO stock up. The
inheritance tax kills family owned businesses. When the parents
die the kids can't keep the business running because they have to
pay taxes on the value of the business which is a non-liquid asset,
so they have to sell to pay up. It isn't that hard for a family
run business that's been around for decades to be worth that or more
on paper but have near zero cash.
\_ The "family owned business" is the distraction. There are
relatively few legitimate hard-luck cases like this
compared to the amount of wealth turning over to
relatives. And haven't you ever heard of a "loan"? You
can use that to pay taxes and pay it back over time.
I bet the interest is even deductible as a business
expense. Second, the parents, if they're not stupid,
can put the business in a trust and shield it from
inheritance tax. The real deal here is that the Bush
administration and their republican cronies are
skewing things in favor of the wealthy, setting up
hereditary aristocracies. --PeterM
\_ And what is wrong with that? Are you jealous?
\_ A distraction? Small businesses employ what percentage of the
American population? Off the top of my head, it's something
like 40%. Please correct that if you have a better number but
it is not a trivial number. And no, trusts don't work like
that. If they did then everyone would do it and we wouldn't
be having a discussion about it. And I don't even know what
to say about the idea of dinging the kids with having to get
a loan to pay taxes on the transfer of the family business.
Why exactly should some bank make big bucks on the parent's
deaths? I'm left speechless. The truly wealthy don't pay
these taxes because their money is off shore. You think the
Kennedys or the Bushs pay these taxes? Fat chance. The
truly wealthy don't follow the same laws the rest of us do.
\_ If the concern is really for the small business owner,
the proper response is to raise the threshhold, not to
eliminate the tax. The fact that proposals to raise the
threshhold are shot down by Republicans exposes their
true motives. -tom
\_ The threshhold has been raised many times over the
years. What are you talking about?
\_ "[I]nstead of seeking a compromise that
might win over a handful of crucial Democrats,
[Frist] is pushing for a permanent repeal of the
estate tax.
Though Republican aides say Mr. Frist has not
closed off the possibility of a compromise, the
senator has pointedly refused to schedule any
floor time for debate about alternatives in the
event that his own effort fails."
Oh, and by the way, the estate tax affects less than
2% of estates even at today's levels. -tom
\_ And? Mr. Frist is not "Republicans" and as I said,
the number has increased several fold over the years.
Why should he compromise anyway? Better to kill a
bad law entirely than make yet another confusing
tax mess full of loop holes for the rich. As Diane
Feinstein said, "Death should not be a taxable
event".
\_ Yeah, that's brilliant, to get rid of loopholes
for the rich, let's just stop taxing them
entirely! My point is that the Republicans
are trying to protect the extremely wealthy,
not the hard-working small business owner.
Thank you for making my point. -tom
\_ My point is that the Republicans are NOT
trying to protect the wealthy, but to assist
their friends and family members. Thank you
for making my point you fucking idiot
\_ "A study by the CBO shows that in 2000 only 1659 farms
and 458 small business were liable for the estate tax,
almost all of which had sufficient liquid assets to pay
it. The rest can stretch their tax payments over many
years." -The Economist 6/10/2006. I am curious, since
you think the extremely wealthy should not have to pay
tax, who would you tax in their place? -ausman
\_ There is no reason for tax if everyone is self
reliant. The reason we have tax today is because
negros don't work hard and we have to pay for their
social security and welfare. Forget tax and forget
social progrems, let the beast starve. -conservative
\_ If this is a troll, it's in poor taste. If it isn't
then, uhm, wow.
\_ If you made it to Cal you're most likely smart
enough to not preach hardcore self-reliance,
racist and conservative messages, so this must
be a troll.
\_ Well, yes, that's probably right...but my time
on motd has made me realize that I can't take
that as a given. |
| 11/26 |