(01-20-2012 01:18 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  This might be a little off topic but as someone who has never lived in a state with an income tax, I just don't know. Isn't state income tax deductible from your federal taxes?

Yes if you itemize on your federal return. Recently (bush era) they allow state sales tax deduction for states with no income tax. Real estate property taxes and personal property taxes are also deductible.
State and local taxes are in a way subsidized by the federal government.

The issue for tax payers is if you live in a high tax state (or district with taxation without representation) where the AMT kicks in. DC has close to a 9% bracket. The property tax rate is lower than Va or Md, but because of the housing value is still a lot of cash (While I am “female dogging” about the RE tax, I am glad the value held during the crash. So anyhow the AMT kicks in on me, but then I thank god I have that issue.

Most of my family on my dad’s side is scattered from TX to AL. Where TX and LA gets screwed (and probably FL and CA/earthquake riders) is that the hazard insurance is outrageous and not tax deductible.

(01-20-2012 01:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:40 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 11:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Is it right to tax my income at 25% then, when I take a chance on investment (you know putting money into the economy) tax it, again, at 25%

Yes, because it is more income.

As for the tax rate on your investment returns, I would say capital gains should be progressive and therefore dependent on income or net worth. One way to do this is simply making the capital gains rate the same as your (ordinary) income tax rate, or 25%. Obviously this would have to be tweaked because there are millionaires out there (*cough*Romney*cough*) who don't earn a salary and just make everything on capital gains, so there should be some kind of component taking into account net worth or size of the investment or such.

John Edwards, ace personal injury lawyer, cough, cough.

Edwards income as a lawyer would be taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. Exception being perhaps his value as a partner.

(01-20-2012 01:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:18 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  This might be a little off topic but as someone who has never lived in a state with an income tax, I just don't know. Isn't state income tax deductible from your federal taxes?

It is.

But I have another question: How many times does a dollar have to be spent before the government collects a dollar in taxes?

That is a good question. I would also add how much personal wealth is added during the process.

(01-20-2012 07:56 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Edwards income as a lawyer would be taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. Exception being perhaps his value as a partner.

Wrong.

Look it up. Edwards is part of an S corp and claimed most of his pay as not as salary.

(01-20-2012 09:13 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 07:56 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Edwards income as a lawyer would be taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. Exception being perhaps his value as a partner.

Wrong.

Look it up. Edwards is part of an S corp and claimed most of his pay as not as salary.

Ummmm...no...you really don't know what you're talking about.

SCorp income is treated as ordinary income on your personal tax return and taxed just like wages, rental income, farm income, etc.

(01-21-2012 02:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 09:13 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 07:56 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Edwards income as a lawyer would be taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. Exception being perhaps his value as a partner.

Wrong.

Look it up. Edwards is part of an S corp and claimed most of his pay as not as salary.

Ummmm...no...you really don't know what you're talking about.

SCorp income is treated as ordinary income on your personal tax return and taxed just like wages, rental income, farm income, etc.

I will agree I am not a tax specialist, so please correct me.

As I understand it, he receives tax benefits from taking a small salary and taking the rest as an income from the S corp because, in the very least, he doesn't pay Medicare withholding on it, and perhaps there are other tax benefits as well to this arrangement.

(01-20-2012 04:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  All that **** is already paid for by taxes the person already paid. Those services aren't the cause of a person's success; the very existence of those services are THERE because of the the person's success and people like him. This isn't some "if you build it they will come" bullsh*t.

All these are already paid for?

I did not say they were the only cause, but these servicers helped enable them to succeed.

(01-20-2012 05:37 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 04:31 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Short answer is YES!

Why? Because in most cases the profit is made possible by:

The employee’s education is funded by tax dollars

[quotePaid for by property Taxes

And some state tax, and often federal grants to help

Quote:The transportation network is funded by tax dollars

Quote:Paid for by Gas Taxes

When was the last time that the federal allocation was not greater than the federal gas tax collected? Also state and local funds are used.

Quote:The fire and police are funded by tax dollars

Quote:Paid for by Property Taxes

And supplamented by Federal and State funds.

Quote:The FDIC and SPIC insurance is indirectly funded by tax dollars

Quote:Umm.. No, its not as of at least 2006 those are funded by premiums paid for by banks

Yes, but peopel only trust these funds because of Federal backing. Would they be trusted if only corporate backing? The agencies that oversee and audit are all on federal funds.

Quote:The clearing houses and banks are trusted because Americans feel the gov will bail them out with tax dollars

Quote:With a fund that has been built on on back insurance premiums.

See above

Quote:The military and defense that makes us feel secure are funded by tax dollars

Paid for by income taxes

Quote:The dredging of rivers and ports are funded by tax dollars

Paid for by income tax and usually paid for in part by municipalities

Quote:Recovery of communities devastated by natural disasters are funded by tax dollars

Quote:Water and sewage infrastructure is funded by tax dollars

Local property taxes

I could knock pretty much every one of these half of them are local and most of the federal are nothing but GF stuff

[/quote]

The bottom lne is they are still critical infrastructures that help businesses as well as individuals.

Guy's income is income is income. We should not favor any type of income over another. A guy who puts it onthe line 40 hrs. a week shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than someone sitting on a pile of money watching the interest grow. If risk enters the equation like I have heard from righties lately. Do we tax crab fisherman in the Bering Strait at a different level? Skyscraper window cleaners pay half? Come on now!

(01-23-2012 07:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy's income is income is income. We should not favor any type of income over another. A guy who puts it onthe line 40 hrs. a week shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than someone sitting on a pile of money watching the interest grow. If risk enters the equation like I have heard from righties lately. Do we tax crab fisherman in the Bering Strait at a different level? Skyscraper window cleaners pay half? Come on now!

Actually the more risky your job is often ties in to the pay rate.

Usually those Crab Fisherman make about 1000$ per day they are out. But the point is when that guy goes to catch crabs, or wash windows they are getting paid. Each and every time.

When a person makes an investment they might now, just look at the bond holders that got screwed over in the GM Bankruptcy.

Unless you're willing to reimburse losses (which is an awful idea) then you have to treat interest income differently.

(01-23-2012 10:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 07:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy's income is income is income. We should not favor any type of income over another. A guy who puts it onthe line 40 hrs. a week shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than someone sitting on a pile of money watching the interest grow. If risk enters the equation like I have heard from righties lately. Do we tax crab fisherman in the Bering Strait at a different level? Skyscraper window cleaners pay half? Come on now!

Actually the more risky your job is often ties in to the pay rate.
Usually those Crab Fisherman make about 1000$ per day they are out. But the point is when that guy goes to catch crabs, or wash windows they are getting paid. Each and every time.
When a person makes an investment they might now, just look at the bond holders that got screwed over in the GM Bankruptcy.
Unless you're willing to reimburse losses (which is an awful idea) then you have to treat interest income differently.

Exactly.

And the greater point. If you don't treat it differently, there are plenty of places that will. And if all the investment goes to the places that do, your economy is dead.

the problem with this position is that moving us to 25% on income AND CG would probably net around the same amount, except the investment would leave... and obviously if you bring income tax down to 15%, you're going to have to make up for it somewhere else, like a vat.

The arguments will be... even forgetting for a moment the "more for me" debates...

for the wealthy... who cares... I can move... just let me know and I'll adjust.
for the middle/upper class... to not pay more
for the poor, to get more or pay less

and I don't trust these... we will spur growth which will allow us to raise spending etc etc etc. I'd say, if it works (expanding the pie) then pay down the debt with the surplus... and if it doesn't, then you haven't continued to lose ground.

(01-23-2012 04:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  the problem with this position is that moving us to 25% on income AND CG would probably net around the same amount, except the investment would leave... and obviously if you bring income tax down to 15%, you're going to have to make up for it somewhere else, like a vat.

The arguments will be... even forgetting for a moment the "more for me" debates...

for the wealthy... who cares... I can move... just let me know and I'll adjust.
for the middle/upper class... to not pay more
for the poor, to get more or pay less

and I don't trust these... we will spur growth which will allow us to raise spending etc etc etc. I'd say, if it works (expanding the pie) then pay down the debt with the surplus... and if it doesn't, then you haven't continued to lose ground.

Racist.

azithromycin hearing loss azithromycin for toddlers

zithromax korvatulehdus - buy cheap zithromax online cheap vs generic

zithromax salmonella zithromax sinusitis

where to buy zithromax in norway azithromycin class

zithromax in spanish - buy zithromax no rx canada

how to buy zithromax in irvine clamydia

buy zithromax in london england azithromycin dog dosage

azithromycin buy - azithromycin for toddlers

zithromax pregnancy zithromax problems

zithromax pack azithromycin formulation

buy branded zithromax online bestellen - buy doxycycline online

azithromycin anti-inflammatory zithromax buy in chesapeake online

zithromax dosing pediatric zithromax vs azithromycin

dosage for zithromax - zithromax pregnant

azithromycin pregnant zithromax for babies

1g azithromycin zithromax children

zithromycin pneumonia - prescribed antibiotics

zithromax for toddlers zithromax azithromycin

zithromax and dairy buy zithromycin

zithromax scharlach - buy antibiotics uk

zithromax baby buy generic zithromax generic for cheap