Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;849969]What about everyone paying the same percentage from their income minus a basic living cost? Set the basic living cost at the current poverty level, which is around $22k. So if you earn $35k then you'll be taxed on only $13k.[/quote]


It sounds like Herman Cain might be listening to you:

[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123893-503544/under-fire-herman-cain-tweaks-9-9-9-plan/]Under fire, Herman Cain tweaks 9-9-9 plan - Political Hotsheet - CBS News[/url]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=firstdown;850126]You may want to read the rules again. Its a hardship rule that allows the use of 401s for a down payment or last resort funding. Pay back is 5 to 30 yrs and can be as little as 60 days. I'll stand by my statement.

[B]Rules for 401k Withdrawal for Home Purchase

[/B]The first rule of 401k withdrawal for home purchase is that you must be able to prove to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials that you are going through a financial hardship. Secondly, you should be able to prove that it is your last resort of fulfilling your financial need. You should not have any other funds available, that could suffice your financial needs. Thirdly, you are not allowed to withdraw anything above your financial need. Meaning, if you are required to make a down payment of $10,000 and you cannot arrange for own contribution, then you are allowed to withdraw only $10,000 from your 401k account (provided you have enough balance in it.). The fourth rule is that you should have executed all other options of taxable loans, so that 401k withdrawal is your last option of raising funds for home purchase. After your withdrawal, you cannot contribute to your 401k account for a span of 6 months.

[B]How to Purchase a Home Using a 401k Withdrawal[/B]

The 401k regulations explicitly state that 401k withdrawal can be made only for a purchase of a first home. You cannot use this money to make a down payment for your second home. The money withdrawn from 401k is taxable. One important thing to remember, while applying for early 401k withdrawal is that, although the law permits the [URL="http://www.buzzle.com/articles/early-withdrawal-from-401k.html"][COLOR=#0027aa]early withdrawal from 401k[/COLOR][/URL], it is not mandatory for the employers to offer such a provision in their plan. Hence, inquire with your human resources department, to know the provision in your individual plan. Also, beware of the penalties you are subjected to, upon the withdrawn amount. A study of IRS regulations, regarding 401k withdrawal for home purchase, may give you a clear idea regarding the taxes and [URL="http://www.buzzle.com/articles/penalty-for-early-withdrawal-of-401k.html"][COLOR=#0027aa]penalty for early withdrawal of 401k[/COLOR][/URL] funds. At times, you may notice that after paying taxes and penalties, you are only left with considerably less amount than your exact need. Hence, you might anyway have to arrange for funds to cover up the difference.

[B]Implications of 401k Home Purchase Withdrawal[/B]

Withdrawing from your 401k funds is definitely not the wisest of all options. For one thing, you lose out on a large sum from your retirement funds, which can make your post retirement life less than secure. You unnecessarily have to bear the burden of taxes and penalties. Besides, you lose out on interest that would have incurred on the withdrawn amount. Hence, you should choose this option only when all the other doors have closed. Borrowing against 401k account may seem to be a good alternative, as it is free of tax and penalties. Besides, the interest accrued from your loan goes back to your account. The repayment span may be anywhere between 5 to 30 years. However, if you lose your job, you will have to repay the loan in as little as 60 days. Failure on your part may lead to penalties and taxes. The loan amount will be then considered as an early withdrawal.

Thus, you should weigh your options wisely, and choose one which can secure your future while still sufficing your current need. Hope this article on 401k withdrawal for home purchase was resourceful.
By [URL="http://www.buzzle.com/authors.asp?author=30033"][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#002277]Ashwini Kulkarni Sule[/COLOR][/FONT][/URL][/quote]


What exactly is your statement? People don't pay back the money they from their 401k? You shouldn't take money from your 401k to buy a home?


There are two ways to buy a home with money from your 401k, a) hardship withdrawal which is a taxable event along with a 10% penalty if you are under the age of 59.5 or b) borrow up to 50% from your 401k investments. Like you mentioned hardship withdrawal is a last resort because of the cost associate with it and most people don't go that route. Additionally, before you can do a hardship withdrawal you must first borrow the maximum allowed from you 401k and that's what people typically do. Now if you're borrowing money for the sake of buying a car, the money has to be paid back within 5 years, if you're borrowing money to buy a home the law allows you to payback the money within 10 years or longer. Utlimatly what's available to you is determined by the employer's plan so not every 401k plan is the same. Some plans won't let you borrow, some won't let you contribute while you have an outstanding loan. Some allow for repayment flexibility, others don't.

You are right in that the balance is due within 60 days if you lose your job. This is a risk people should be aware of before they jump in. Then again, if you lose your job you may have other issues to worry about than a 10% penalty. For me it wasn't much of a risk because I have huge amount of money in stock options that I could tap into at any point and easily pay back the loan. I could have sold those options but I choose not to because, well, my stock option value tripped since that time.

Bottom line, don't take distribution from your 401k, borrow from it....401k borrowing is a financial instrument that should be used wisely. Just like anything else in life, you aught to know the risks. If people can't pay it back, that's their own retirement money they are cannibalizing.


Here's a study on the issue:
[URL]http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR799.pdf[/URL]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=saden1;850171]What exactly is your statement? People don't pay back the money they from their 401k? You shouldn't take money from your 401k to buy a home?


There are two ways to buy a home with money from your 401k, a) hardship withdrawal which is a taxable event along with a 10% penalty if you are under the age of 59.5 or b) borrow up to 50% from your 401k investments. Like you mentioned hardship withdrawal is a last resort because of the cost associate with it and most people don't go that route. Additionally, before you can do a hardship withdrawal you must first borrow the maximum allowed from you 401k and that's what people typically do. Now if you're borrowing money for the sake of buying a car, the money has to be paid back within 5 years, if you're borrowing money to buy a home the law allows you to payback the money within 10 years or longer. Utlimatly what's available to you is determined by the employer's plan so not every 401k plan is the same. Some plans won't let you borrow, some won't let you contribute while you have an outstanding loan. Some allow for repayment flexibility, others don't.

You are right in that the balance is due within 60 days if you lose your job. This is a risk people should be aware of before they jump in. Then again, if you lose your job you may have other issues to worry about than a 10% penalty. For me it wasn't much of a risk because I have huge amount of money in stock options that I could tap into at any point and easily pay back the loan. I could have sold those options but I choose not to because, well, my stock option value tripped since that time.

Bottom line, don't take distribution from your 401k, borrow from it....401k borrowing is a financial instrument that should be used wisely. Just like anything else in life, you aught to know the risks. If people can't pay it back, that's their own retirement money they are cannibalizing.


Here's a study on the issue:
[URL]http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR799.pdf[/URL][/quote]

Your last post said it was smart to use your 401 then I showed the rules that its only to be use as a hardship use. My point was if your that hard up its probably not the best time to buy a home.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=firstdown;850183]Your last post said it was smart to use your 401 then I showed the rules that its only to be use as a hardship use. My point was if your that hard up its probably not the best time to buy a home.[/quote]

I told, most people take out a loan and there is no need for a hardship withdrawal. I said to you can't conclude the wisdom of it without knowing an individuals circumstance. Not everyone is in the same boat and I gave myself as an example. You don't have to be hitup for money to take money from your 401k.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=saden1;850105]Umm, you're required by law to pay back that money within 10 years....and the consequences for not doing so is that it will be treated as a withdrawal with you owing Uncle Sam taxes on the distribution plus a 10% penalty on top of it.

Do you have statistics that shows most people don't pay back and that you are right?[/quote]

awww ****. i took out 10k from my 401k a couple years ago . . . id did take the money out to keep the power on, allow us to move to a smaller cheaper place . . .i hope i checked off the "hardship" box.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Editorial from Aruthur Laffer on 999:

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637310315367804.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule]Arthur B. Laffer: Cain's Stimulating '9-9-9' Tax Reform - WSJ.com[/url]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

You may not like 999, but this is a really good video that explains the bigger issues with our tax code:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jneGy5tz3Io]9-9-9 The Movie - Slaying the Tax Monster - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Here is an example of " sharing the wealth" , as it looks like Great Britian is heading to a return of the 3 day week again [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-facing-return-of-threeday-week-1515307.html"]Britain is facing return of three-day week - UK Politics - UK - The Independent[/URL] . [url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908370,00.html]BRITAIN: On a Three-Day Work Week - TIME[/url] .

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;852775]Editorial from Aruthur Laffer on 999:

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576637310315367804.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule]Arthur B. Laffer: Cain's Stimulating '9-9-9' Tax Reform - WSJ.com[/url][/quote]

Art Laffer is a moron. I wouldn't listen to a word he says, in fact I'd do the opposite.

PS he still hasn't paid the penny to Schiff (1st clip):
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw]Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition) - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

^ I like Peter Schiff a lot (and not just for his first name) and hes clearly a really smart articulate dude. But Laffer was one of the many "smart" economist in the vast majority that were completely caught off guard with the economic collapse.

Im not say that makes his opinion any better, but he was wrong when everyone else was wrong. 2008 was a true "black swan" event (maybe even the originator of the term?) with more interwoven complexity then the US tax code so i cant really fault a guy for not seeing it coming. He is a of an arrogant ahole so from a personal standpoint, i dont like him either.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Has anyone been paying attention to this whole payroll tax showdown?

The payroll tax is 6.2% and is a transparent tax in the sense that its deducted by law from our paychecks. In 2010 it was temporarily reduced for stimulus purposes by 2% to 4.2% which put an extra $1,000 dollars in the pockets of a family making 50k/year. Payroll taxes directly funds programs that for the most part directly benefit the person who pays the tax in the form of SS, Medicare and stuff like that.

The Congress just sent their extension to the Senate. The Republican Congress, however, stuck some "candy" in their bill in the form of a pipeline oil project that Obama wants to put off until after the election. Its pretty much obvious that Obama is going to allow the pipeline project because the Unions are demanding it, but he wants to wait. Environmentalist dont want it because they just dont like that kind of stuff and Obama cant afford to lose the Green Vote (i just came up with that term, but im sure its not an original...)

The whole pipeline thing is just some bs waste of time. The real details of the bill are that it would be payed for the payroll tax by capping pay to federal workers, increasing Medicare premiums for those making over 80k, and by cutting out or turning off one of those "magnets" to illegals by not allowing the Child Tax Credit to illegal immigrants.

Digression: I had no idea illegal immigrants could get refundable credits!!! What the hell is going on in this country!

In addition to a couple other minor things the bill would also put in a schedule to slowly reduce the max unemployment benefits from the current 99 weeks (almost 2 years!!) to 59 weeks (just over a year!), and also allow states to drug test people that collect unemployment (bad for TW & Davis) and other crazy things like banning welfare debit cards at casinos and strip clubs, bad for this guy:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54RKcAsgJog[/ame]
(my strip club DJ voice is [I]almost[/I] as good and just as creepy, fyi)

The Democrats would rather fund the bill by having the rich pay for it. To me that would be inherently unfair. Payroll taxes directly benefit the people who pay for them (for the most part), so to have another person pay for it just seems absolutely backwards, at least to me. Good old class warfare i guess.

But heres the problem. When the 2% reduction kicked in everyone noticed it, because there was extra money in our pay checks and everyone likes that. But it wasnt much money and it came over the course of 24 or more pay checks for most of us, and by now most people take it for granted and dont really remember getting the bonus. So if people just get hit with a 2% reduction in pay starting next year there will be a little bit of a shock. People will be pissed and see it as a new tax and not just that the bonus period is over.

Its an election year for Obama and i think most people will blame Obama for not extending the bonus period even though he will end up having a chance at signing the bill. Obama will blame Congress (who is also up for election), but who knows how effective that will be. Plus the Congress will be able to say we gave Obama and the Democrat Senate a bill but they vetoed it.

At the end of the day i think the 2% reduction will continue but who knows what concession Obama and the Democrats are going to have to make?? The other option would be something thats [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/07/analyst-ditch-payroll-tax-cut-bring-back-stimulus-credit/"]may be more effective[/URL] but doesnt make our "leaders" look good. They could enact the Making Work Pay Credit (refundable too, maybe even to illegals). The problem with Credits is that people dont really understand them or attribute credit for them to the correct politicians, all they know is they got a big refund one year but not another.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;867849]^ I like Peter Schiff a lot (and not just for his first name) and hes clearly a really smart articulate dude. But Laffer was one of the many "smart" economist in the vast majority that were completely caught off guard with the economic collapse.

Im not say that makes his opinion any better, but he was wrong when everyone else was wrong. 2008 was a true "black swan" event (maybe even the originator of the term?) with more interwoven complexity then the US tax code so i cant really fault a guy for not seeing it coming. He is a of an arrogant ahole so from a personal standpoint, i dont like him either.[/quote]

In retrospect it wasn't that complex. Schiff had it pegged almost as if he was a time-traveler. So many in that industry get caught up in a mental way that doesn't allow them to constructively think and analyze. PS didn't seem to have that problem and didn't seem to think his position was very outlandish. He simply looked at the data and connected the dots...everyone else looked at the data and started drawing their own dots to support their deeply held hopes that evrything was going to be awesome forever.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

I thnk its more complex then people make it out to have been. I also think that its Peter Schiff did more then just connect the dots of data, he dug into the data and found out how wrong or poorly put together it was. However you are 100% right that so many got caught up in a way that didnt allow them to think constructively. I think our schools should teach kids to be more constructive and critical thinkers that arnt affaird to think outside the box go against the social grain and verify data before using it form their arguments. Also have you read the Big Short by Michael Lewis? Awesome book by an amazing writer.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

mlmpetert,

You'd be supprised what the illegals get. Personally all our relatives were illegal or immagrents but at this point in time there are laws against simply walking into this country with out permission and staying longer then your allowed to. For me the bigger issues are;

1- are they paying into Social Security and Medicade? If they are being paid under the table as most are so the business does not have to report them or get into trouble for hiring illegals then what happens to the illegals when they are too old to work or are in their 60', 70's or 80's and need medical attention? Who's paying that? We are. You and me. They pocketed their money early and when their too old to work the rest of us who did pay into the system will be supporting them.

2- I'm a citizen. I assume most of us here are. Whether you were born here or not you are or have gotten your citizenship. What benifits do you have over some one who is not a citizen? I'll tell you, as of right now there is only one benifit that I know of. Maybe there are more and I'm missing them but I know of one. You can vote. Woo hoo. I've always felt their was a big difference between Citizen rights and Human rights. Being a Citizen gives you all the benifits of the Constitution, Human rights simply means we won't let you bleed to death, or die due to lack of medical attention. But no, people have muddied the waters and legal or illegal you get all benifits of the constitution, except voting because you have to register which means you have to prove your a legal citizen.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Back on track, I've said it before and it was not popular but fair is everyone paying the same % of what they earn. Whether you earn $20,000 or millions, if everyone paid the same % then no one should be complaining.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Really, there will be NO end to this debate. [B]People care about being treated well first, being treated "fairly"--and there are many ways to define "fairly"-- second. [/B] Note: "treated well" is not the same a "being well", although they are tied closely together in these matters, but that's a different messy matter altogether.

Fairness could be that an "equal chunk" be taken out of someone. That could be by percentage [I]or[/I] a flat tax.

Fairness could be defined as "[more] equal" utility(happiness, pleasure, etc) derived from that extra dollar saved.

Even if everyone agrees on what a "fair" tax is, there's the other part of the system: Who gets the dibs on the goods and services produced from those taxes. Let's assume everyone pays a flat percentage of taxes and that is "fair". Folks can then debate all day about who gets that collected money back in the form of goods, services, and handouts in a similar manner.

Heck, even the whole system can be critiqued. If a regressive tax were imposed, would it really be unfair if most of the money gets back into the hands of the taxpayers' who paid them in the form of goods and services?

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Whats so funny with this payroll tax is hearing the two side flip roles. The dems are talking about how the tax cut has stimulated the economy, created jobs, etc... and the right is saying how it won't do any of that. If I'm correct it was always the right saying how tax cuts creates this and that and the left saying it won't.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

What is a fair tax?


I think the answer can be found from the same answer of "What is a fair salary?"


I you think it's fair to earn a bulk of the revenue's percentage while your employees are barely scrapping by, then I think it's rightly fair you pay a bulk of the percentages in taxes as well.


Fair is far after all. You can't claim that making billions is legit, and turn around and paying more than the lower class is unfair.

I'm referencing percentages, not overall amount.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Good read about how screwed up the current code is:

[URL="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/102-tax-rate-takes-cake-160010322.html"]At 102%, His Tax Rate Takes the Cake - Yahoo! Finance[/URL]

Also a very short but good read i meant to post a while ago.

[URL="http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2012/jan/20/tdopin02-hinkle-should-we-knock-down-romneys-fence-ar-1624822/"]Hinkle: Should we knock down Romney's fence? | Richmond Times-Dispatch[/URL]

Honestly the argument that Romney pays less in taxes is flawed and comes from ignorance to some extent. The money he gave to charity is no longer his money and taxes should never be paid on funds that go to nonprofits. But the people in his defense who try and add back the total amount he gave away are also wrong. Just the amount of taxes he would have otherwise paid on the money he gave away should be added back.

But most importantly the amount he paid out of pocket is low, only because cap gains appear low since the money is already taxed at corporate income rates. The value of the stock is reflective of the value of the company. If corporate taxes went away then the values of stock would suddenly become worth 35% more. In the meantime people have to pay that 35% (in the form of lost earnings) before paying the 15% on any gains they MIGHT get when the stock is sold IF held long term. So Romney has really payed 15% in addition to the 35%all ready payed. Obviously you have companies like GE that don’t pay taxes or gas companies that get subsidized to some extent, but that is at no fault of Mr. Romney.

Ive gone back and forth with tax treatment of capital gains and the more i think about it the more i think its unfair for them to be taxed as high as regular income. I think the only way to make things the [I]most[/I] fair (equal, not social justice “fair”) is to have something that’s extremely simple so people can understand it, make everyone pay a little something and of course make evil rich people pay a bit more too:

- Allow income deductions for all things tax related except federal and state sales taxes. So just things like property taxes and state or city income tax
- Allow dollar for dollar deductions for charities, however, tighten up the definition of charities (caps on director’s income, what/who they benefit, and strict rules on political partisanship)
- No joint, single, head of household or married filling separate statuses. Everyone gets taxed the same on the amounts they make over 20k or so. My girlfriend is a teacher and we ran into 2 of her old students from a low income high school the other day. They were clearly in a relationship, she’s have twins, he is the dad, and there were no plans to get married. You either have to be rich, religious or retarded to get married with kids on the way. The taxman doesn’t pitty anyone, except for single moms. If everyone is looked at as an individual then people will be able to get married without losing benefits.
- Allow individual personal and depedent decutions the same as they are now

Simple tax rates:

- If you make less then 20k or so - something very low (1-2%) partly just for equable purposes
- Personal income, federal sales tax, and evil capital gains– all equal (kind of like 999)
- Corporate income – also the same as the 3 above but allow C corps to reduce their income by allowing them to deduct distributions to shareholders (who are then taxed just like now). Don’t worry guys like Mr. Romney will still get double taxed, just not as doubled taxed. The public may think that Romney is only being taxed the same amount as them but in reality he will be taxed more. People may not understand it but I think most will feel like that he is at a minimum being taxed the same as them

The only reason why taxes are so unfair is because theyre so complex and inefficient. Taxes need to be simple and transparent before they will be considered fair.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;881699]Good read about how screwed up the current code is:

[URL="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/102-tax-rate-takes-cake-160010322.html"]At 102%, His Tax Rate Takes the Cake - Yahoo! Finance[/URL]

Also a very short but good read i meant to post a while ago.

[URL="http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2012/jan/20/tdopin02-hinkle-should-we-knock-down-romneys-fence-ar-1624822/"]Hinkle: Should we knock down Romney's fence? | Richmond Times-Dispatch[/URL]

Honestly the argument that Romney pays less in taxes is flawed and comes from ignorance to some extent. The money he gave to charity is no longer his money and taxes should never be paid on funds that go to nonprofits. But the people in his defense who try and add back the total amount he gave away are also wrong. Just the amount of taxes he would have otherwise paid on the money he gave away should be added back.

But most importantly the amount he paid out of pocket is low, only because cap gains appear low since the money is already taxed at corporate income rates. The value of the stock is reflective of the value of the company. If corporate taxes went away then the values of stock would suddenly become worth 35% more. In the meantime people have to pay that 35% (in the form of lost earnings) before paying the 15% on any gains they MIGHT get when the stock is sold IF held long term. So Romney has really payed 15% in addition to the 35%all ready payed. Obviously you have companies like GE that don’t pay taxes or gas companies that get subsidized to some extent, but that is at no fault of Mr. Romney.

Ive gone back and forth with tax treatment of capital gains and the more i think about it the more i think its unfair for them to be taxed as high as regular income. I think the only way to make things the [I]most[/I] fair (equal, not social justice “fair”) is to have something that’s extremely simple so people can understand it, make everyone pay a little something and of course make evil rich people pay a bit more too:

- Allow income deductions for all things tax related except federal and state sales taxes. So just things like property taxes and state or city income tax
- Allow dollar for dollar deductions for charities, however, tighten up the definition of charities (caps on director’s income, what/who they benefit, and strict rules on political partisanship)
- No joint, single, head of household or married filling separate statuses. Everyone gets taxed the same on the amounts they make over 20k or so. My girlfriend is a teacher and we ran into 2 of her old students from a low income high school the other day. They were clearly in a relationship, she’s have twins, he is the dad, and there were no plans to get married. You either have to be rich, religious or retarded to get married with kids on the way. The taxman doesn’t pitty anyone, except for single moms. If everyone is looked at as an individual then people will be able to get married without losing benefits.
- Allow individual personal and depedent decutions the same as they are now

Simple tax rates:

- If you make less then 20k or so - something very low (1-2%) partly just for equable purposes
- Personal income, federal sales tax, and evil capital gains– all equal (kind of like 999)
- Corporate income – also the same as the 3 above but allow C corps to reduce their income by allowing them to deduct distributions to shareholders (who are then taxed just like now). Don’t worry guys like Mr. Romney will still get double taxed, just not as doubled taxed. The public may think that Romney is only being taxed the same amount as them but in reality he will be taxed more. People may not understand it but I think most will feel like that he is at a minimum being taxed the same as them

The only reason why taxes are so unfair is because theyre so complex and inefficient. Taxes need to be simple and transparent before they will be considered fair.[/quote]


[quote]But most importantly the amount he paid out of pocket is low, only because [B]cap gains appear low since the money is already taxed at corporate income rates[/B]. The value of the stock is reflective of the value of the company. If corporate taxes went away then the values of stock would suddenly become worth 35% more. In the meantime people have to pay that 35% (in the form of lost earnings) before paying the 15% on any gains they MIGHT get when the stock is sold IF held long term. [B]So Romney has really payed 15% in addition to the 35%all ready payed.[/B] [/quote]

This guy is a fcking dumbshit or purposefully misleading. He already paid 35% huh? When exactly did he do that? When did the company do that? Does he know what an equity firm is? What carried interest, which discussed not to long ago, is?

GTFOH

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Even IF he did already pay 35%, Romney would have paid 40.25% total. 35% for the initial amount. Then 15% of the money he still had, which is 65% of the untaxed amount. An extra 5.25%, not 15%.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=saden1;881708]This guy is a fcking dumbshit or purposefully misleading. He already paid 35% huh? When exactly did he do that? When did the company do that? Does he know what an equity firm is? What carried interest, which discussed not to long ago, is?

GTFOH[/quote]

Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:

[quote]The profit of a corporation is taxed to the corporation when earned, and then is taxed to the shareholders when distributed as dividends. This creates a double tax. The corporation does not get a tax deduction when it distributes dividends to shareholders. Shareholders cannot deduct any loss of the corporation.[/quote]

[url=http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html]Corporations[/url]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;882836]Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:



[URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html"]Corporations[/URL][/quote]

In 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support a raise in the capital gains tax rate, even if it meant a decrease in government revenues. He said "yes," in the name of "fairness." Well that's just spreading it around for the hell of it. And isn't the intended effect of the Buffet Rule to raise the capital gains tax rate?

I think Mitch Daniels explained it pretty well in his State of The Union rebuttal. To get the rich to contribute more, you don't raise taxes- slowing economic growth. Gotta have tax reform. Close those loopholes from which the rich benefit so much, and means-test entitlements so the benefits of which are going to those who need it most. Makes sense I think.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;882836]Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:



[url=http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html]Corporations[/url][/quote]

I'm sure you're not trying to be a dick but the business structure of a private equity firm is not that of a Corporation. Typically they are structured as limited liability partnership which means the company (note I didn't say Corporation) doesn't take sole proprietorship of the income/profits and thus avoids the tax liability of a corporation. In an equity firm there is no 35% tax rate to pay much less 1%,

That is to say all income is passed on to the partners and if they don't hold the assets long term (more than a year) then each partner's take home cut of the profits would be counted as ordinary income (taxable at 35% personal income tax bracket). Of course fat cats like Romeny hold their profits for more than a year so they only end up paying the capital gains rate of 15%.

You think these a-holes would be in the game if they were paying 35% plus an additional 15% in addition to the prospect of failed investments? If it don't make a dolla' it don't make sense but neither is having Romney only pay 15% while the rest of us are look at paying a much higher rate.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=GMScud;882848]In 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support a raise in the capital gains tax rate, even if it meant a decrease in government revenues. He said "yes," in the name of "fairness." Well that's just spreading it around for the hell of it. And isn't the intended effect of the Buffet Rule to raise the capital gains tax rate?

I think Mitch Daniels explained it pretty well in his State of The Union rebuttal. To get the rich to contribute more, you don't raise taxes- slowing economic growth. Gotta have tax reform. Close those loopholes from which the rich benefit so much, and means-test entitlements so the benefits of which are going to those who need it most. Makes sense I think.[/quote]

Call it fairness or class warfare but no matter how you slice it it is a travesty that Buffet has a better effective tax rate than his secretary.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

^^ Sorry im just getting back to this. Okay so it sounds like your only beef with capital gain treatment is when it comes to the carried interest rule. I get both sides of carried interest rule but the thing to remember is that there are 2 sides to this complicated rule.

When you have partners of a private equity firm only taking income via selling long term capital gains of shares of the private companies they became vested during the course of their ownership, in the holding company their owners of, its important to remember that corporate income taxes have been, are being, or will be paid on the shares of those private companies they own. Its still a 15% tax on top of actual earnings and future earning valuations. And theres still risk in private equity, i think most would say private equity has more inherent risk then public companies, as the market is much less efficient and illiquid.

^ Warren Buffet's secretary needs to release her tax return if they want to keep this up. What they claim makes no sense.

[url=http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/]How Rich Is Warren Buffett's Secretary? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic[/url]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;882836]Im honestly not trying to be a dick, but i dont understand your comment. Forget carried interest for a minute thats a different issue, the author is speaking from a boarded view on long term capital gains in general.

Ive read before the reason Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate is because they have effectively already been taxed. Non-speculative long term equity ownership can/should be thought of as ownership on a firms future profits. Long term increases in the price of a stock are primarily driven by earnings. Speculative or short term equity ownership is not thought as an ownership of future profits and that is why its taxed at higher ordinary income rates.

Since the firm is already taxed at the corporate rate taxing profits made from capital gains is effectively double taxation. This is from the taxman himself:



[URL="http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html"]Corporations[/URL][/quote]

Capital Gaissn is the amount you make over your investment. So if I paid $100,000 for a rental property and then sold it for $150,000 then my capital gain would be $50,000. I then only pay the reduced tax rate on the $50,000 not the $150,000. The resaon I have heard for the lower tax rate was to incourage people to invest their money.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

This isn't fair:

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225493025537660.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories]Review & Outlook: Obama's Dividend Assault - WSJ.com[/url]

This also isn't right:

[url=http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/]Chart: Nearly Half of All Americans Don't Pay Income Taxes[/url]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Not worth a new thread:

Occupy Golf Movement


WE NEED TO BE HEARD!!!

I am a member of golf's lower 99%.
I am an indifferent golfer, and there's no way I could ever make it to
the professional level. I will never put in the practice time to be the
best. I will never have the shots, skills, or mental toughness to make
it in the sport. I just never felt like working all that hard at it.
However, I am a part of the golfing community and, as such, feel I
should be paid by the top 1% of golfers for what I do. It isn't fair
that those players who have worked harder, have studied the game, have
better equipment and are more skilled and dedicated should make all
that BIG money.

Where's my share? I'm a Victim!

The top 1% should pay for my club memberships and green fees and
lessons, buy me new clubs, balls, clothes and shoes, and pay me some of
their winnings. They can afford it. They are "The Rich". The whole
system should be changed to accommodate people like me. I think we
should get together and occupy a golf course and demand that those who
are better at what they do, pay for us who generally suck. Whining
should get us something - maybe we'll make the cover of Time Magazine,
garnish some public sympathy. Hell, during this election year we may
even get a law or two passed by legislators who want our votes.

PS. Don't mention this to tennis players. We thought of it first

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

Good thing taxpayer dollars are going here. WTF.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/guantanamo-detainees-get-new-750g-soccer-field/print]Guantanamo Detainees Get New $750G Soccer Field | Fox News[/url]

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=GMScud;890101]Good thing taxpayer dollars are going here. WTF.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/guantanamo-detainees-get-new-750g-soccer-field/print"]Guantanamo Detainees Get New $750G Soccer Field | Fox News[/URL][/quote]


We can't just keep them solitary confinement and torture them....whatever Obama is doing it seems to be paying off:

[quote]On Tuesday, Attorney General [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/eric-holder.htm#r_src=ramp"]Eric Holder[/URL], testifying about the [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/justice-department.htm#r_src=ramp"]Justice Department[/URL] budget on [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/capitol-hill.htm#r_src=ramp"]Capitol Hill[/URL], said the recidivism rate for Guantanamo detainees overall is in the mid-20s. But the recidivism rate for those transferred during the Obama administration is 7 percent.[/quote]

Keep doing what y'all good at...hate on haters.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=saden1;890170]We can't just keep them solitary confinement and torture them....whatever Obama is doing it seems to be paying off:



Keep doing what y'all good at...hate on haters.[/quote]

That's a fine piece of stat juggling, saden1, but shouldn't we really be looking at his promise to shut the place down, first and foremost?

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;890184]That's a fine piece of stat juggling, saden1, but shouldn't we really be looking at his promise to shut the place down, first and foremost?[/quote]

It's not stats juggling if we are dealing in facts...and recidivism stats is pertinent regardless of whether the camp is open or closed.


I would hope someone who runs a business like GScud would understand that sometimes you have to do what is best not necessary what you think is right. I mean, what is the cost of combating one terrorist? I would bet it's a lot higher than 750K. From an investment standpoint 750K is nothing if it means you get a few of these guys to not to return to battle. Who knew soccer could save lives?

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/michigan-woman-still-collecting-food-stamps-winning-1-201751693.html]Michigan woman still collecting food stamps after winning $1 million lottery | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News[/url]

their goes your tax money Alvin

[QUOTE=Chico23231;893310][url=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/michigan-woman-still-collecting-food-stamps-winning-1-201751693.html]Michigan woman still collecting food stamps after winning $1 million lottery | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News[/url]

their goes your tax money Alvin[/QUOTE]

I usually don't get into these political discussions but really?? How is that possible after winning essentially 500K

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=saden1;890246]It's not stats juggling if we are dealing in facts...and recidivism stats is pertinent regardless of whether the camp is open or closed.
[/quote]

So if the rates rose you'd agree that handling them with kid gloves at Club G wasn't the right approach? [URL="http://rpc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Blog&ContentRecord_id=4b87d358-1ad0-4ec1-9cd5-39bd8df42185"]Rates[/URL] of recidivism are higher now.

[quote=saden1;890246]I would hope someone who runs a business like GScud would understand that sometimes you have to do what is best not necessary what you think is right. I mean, what is the cost of combating one terrorist? I would bet it's a lot higher than 750K. From an investment standpoint 750K is nothing if it means you get a few of these guys to not to return to battle. Who knew soccer could save lives?[/quote]

Shouldn't everyone strive to do what is best? Using that logic we should glean as much information on or near the battlefield, execute the terrorist and move on. That would save far more than money and lives. It wouldn't be as 'hearts and minds' but that's never won a war, has it?

Soccer (or appeasement) doesn't save lives, particularly in this situation, it makes our enemy believe we are weak. Same or similar to apologizing for burning a copies of a book that prisoners were using to pass information to each other.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

I order a lot of crap from Amazon. Thats going to change:

[url=http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknewser/amazon-to-collect-sales-tax-in-virginia_b20573]Amazon to Collect Sales Tax in Virginia - eBookNewser[/url]

[QUOTE]Right now amazon only collects taxes for 5 states: Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota, or Washington. That will likely increase, shortly.[/QUOTE]

I was so upset about this i emailed McDonnell. Amazon opens up distributions centers in VA and how do we repay them? F' McDonnell.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;898660]I order a lot of crap from Amazon. Thats going to change:

[URL="http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknewser/amazon-to-collect-sales-tax-in-virginia_b20573"]Amazon to Collect Sales Tax in Virginia - eBookNewser[/URL]



I was so upset about this i emailed McDonnell. Amazon opens up distributions centers in VA and how do we repay them? F' McDonnell.[/quote]

Lame.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=mlmpetert;898660]I order a lot of crap from Amazon. Thats going to change:

[URL="http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknewser/amazon-to-collect-sales-tax-in-virginia_b20573"]Amazon to Collect Sales Tax in Virginia - eBookNewser[/URL]



I was so upset about this i emailed McDonnell. Amazon opens up distributions centers in VA and how do we repay them? F' McDonnell.[/quote]

I am a huge Amazon customer despite being a resident of their home state. They collect 9.8% of everything I buy and I have not been bothered by it. I will say this though, having lived in VA for six months last year I really enjoyed paying no sales taxes on my Amazon purchases.

The real issue though is how do you collect taxes in the era of the internet? One would think that if you setup shop in a state you should collect sales taxes on residents of the state that buy stuff from you. Remember, one of the reason states didn't enforce sales taxes on goods bought online was to spur growth in internet sales. Now we have reached a point where anything can be bought online and if you don't start collecting taxes you won't have much sales tax revenue to speak of pretty soon.

The rule is simple....if you have a presence and do business in the state of VA you pay and collect taxes. This is beyond fair and right.

Re: Whats Fair When it Comes to Taxes?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;893523]So if the rates rose you'd agree that handling them with kid gloves at Club G wasn't the right approach? Rates of recidivism are higher now.

[/quote]

If it was that simple, I would say yes. But most of these guys can't be convicted because the evidence against them is so lacking. What you should be doing is be smarter about handling their release and monitoring them. Did you read the links in that article? When you are reading what Republican have to say it's important that you read and understand the fine print:

From The Director of National Intelligence:
[quote]
As of 1 October 2010, 598 detainees have been transferred out of Department of Defense (DoD) custody at the U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) detention facility [since the start of the wars up to Oct 2010 598 detainees have been released]. The Intelligence Community assesses that 81 (13.5 percent) are confirmed and 69 (11.5 percent) are suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after transfer. Of the 150 former GTMO detainees assessed as confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities, the Intelligence Community assesses that 13 are dead, 54 are in custody, and 83 remain at large.

On 22 January 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13492, calling for a comprehensive interagency review of the status of all individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. Every decision to transfer a detainee to a foreign country under this review was made after a full assessment of intelligence and threat information. Since the implementation of Executive Order 13492 and under the enhanced interagency review process, 66 of the 598 detainees noted above have been transferred. Of those 66 individuals transferred since January 2009, 2 are confirmed and 3 are suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities [since Obama signed executive order two years ago they have released 66 and only 5 reengaged or suspected to have reengaged].
[/quote]From The Department of Defense:
[quote]
Based on a comprehensive review of available information as of mid-March 2009 the Defense Intelligence Agency reported 14 percent as the overall rate of former Guantanamo detainees confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist activities. Of the more than 530 Guantanamo detainees transferred from Department of Defense custody at Guantanamo Bay, 27 were confirmed and 47 were suspected of reengaging in terrorist activity. Between December 2008 and March 2009, nine detainees were added to the confirmed list, six of whom were previously on the suspected list.
[/quote]After reading the two reports it's pretty easy to detect what the GOP is doing. It appears that they are mixing two statistics, one from The Director of National Intelligence and the other from Department of Defense, and are trying to make it appear as though these two studies have strong Correlation with each other. In fact it's nearly impossible to conclude anything by combining these two studies and if you think you can and make sense of it I would love to hear your thoughts.




[quote=RedskinRat;893523]
Shouldn't everyone strive to do what is best? Using that logic we should glean as much information on or near the battlefield, execute the terrorist and move on. That would save far more than money and lives. It wouldn't be as 'hearts and minds' but that's never won a war, has it?

Soccer (or appeasement) doesn't save lives, particularly in this situation, it makes our enemy believe we are weak. Same or similar to apologizing for burning a copies of a book that prisoners were using to pass information to each other.[/quote]

What is best and what is right is subjective and temporal. You should strive for what is right first. Simply killing every suspected terrorist sounds like a great idea until you happen to kill innocent civilians. That is to say what is best should be the secondary option because what is right is not practical or in your long term interest.

Goldman Sachs for example does what is best. Of late what is best just so happens to be what's best for Goldman Sachs not what is right for its clients. Soon they won't have enough clients to do God's work.