Reply With Quote
On the flipside, it's just such a massive state. Everything is cheaper there, including property (perhaps not property taxes). Generally nice weather helps too, tbh...
i'm not anti hispanic. I had the blessing to grow up in San Antonio which truly has been multicultural for hundreds of years. It just is what it is. The statistics don't tell the true story.
On the flipside, it's just such a massive state. Everything is cheaper there, including property (perhaps not property taxes). Generally nice weather helps too, tbh...
BTW, the local americanized hispanics are the biggest abusers of the immigrant hispanics. It's not the gringos holding them down. You have the "local" making all the money and his 5 illegal tree trimmers making for money and and 'owing" the local for their job. Is what it is. You could audit my payroll or any other legit business owner in SA and skill for skill the hispanics make exactly what their gringo coworkers make.
I don't doubt it. A lot of those guys come from a culture of exploitation too, that's all they know until they eventually figure it out.
Feel free to present some alternative evidence.
Facts or GTFO.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=161
maximum rates column.
what does it say for 1994?
then look up the rate for 2014.
Knock yourself out, you evil .
I would be happy to have the inheritance taxes stay at historical levels, given how narrow the demographic is that is subject to it. 100% tax is not something I would ever be for, though.
That I would believe. I have seen similar, and it is a bit maddening.
By historical level I am assuming you were referring to the 1970's where the government confiscated 70% of estates over 5 million, correct?
That level of taxation just caused the creation of charitable foundations for the super wealthy and ridiculous life insurance policies for everyone else.
It also killed the small family farms. By it's very nature farming is asset intensive as one needs land and the expensive implements to work the land. A 70% death tax on those assets pretty much destroyed family farming.
have you got any support for that bold claim, or are you rolling commando, per usual?
One of the big changes pushing top layer of mgmt to kill labor in improve profits is that compensation was moved from salary to stocks. So mgmt decisions prioritizing stock price enriched mgmt, everybody else.
Another factor pushing CEOs to screw employees to enrich themselves (not build the company):
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.o...s-for-ceo-pay/
I have no desire to be adversarial, however, lets use a little logic and simple math here.
Lets say we have a relatively small 500 acre family farm in Iowa. We aren't talking about richers here. Hopefully most years if they get the rains right and after paying for fuel, fertilizer, etc. they make a modest profit the family can can live on.That farmland is valued at $20,000 an acre. At a minimum they are going to need a half million dollars of equipment just to have the basics to work the land. Just that modest farm land and equipment puts us at a 10.5 million valuation. You are advocating that the government seize 70% of the value of the estate over 5 million. That means that when one generation wants to pass the family farm down to the next generation a tax bill of 3.85 million dollars will be due and payable. Is that in fact what you are advocating?
"one generation wants to pass the family farm down to the next generation "
It's called "income" and it's taxable, AFTER $5M TAX-FREE. I'm really, really sympathetic to these abused, impoverished next generation. I'd would have loved to have $5M tax free from my parents.
When the financial sector, investors are interested in education, it ain't to improve education, it's to MAKE MONEY.
Murdock getting into education?
The principal running a network of NYC charters make $450K, vs a NYC public school principal making about $100K.
We can tell you are jealous Boutons.
The farm was purchased with savings left over after paying tax on income the first time. Now you want to tax the savings again.
ah, the old double taxation red herring. The children's $5M is THEIR revenue, their parents paid tax on their revenue. Everybody should pay tax on their revenue, right?
I suppose you are a hard-core Cons utional "orginalist"? Then you must know the FFs were dead set against primogeniture
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...unding_fathers
Glad to see Boo admit he is just ate up with jealousy.
The tax rate on most net capital gain is no higher than 15% for most taxpayers. Some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0% if you are in the 10% or 15% ordinary income tax brackets. However, a 20% rate on net capital gain applies in tax years 2013 and later to the extent that a taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the thresholds set for the new 39.6% ordinary tax rate ($406,750 for single; $457,600 for married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er); $432,200 for head of household, and $228,800 for married filing separately). For more information, refer to Publication 505, Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax.
There are a few other exceptions where capital gains may be taxed at rates greater than 15%:
The taxable part of a gain from selling section 1202 qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
Net capital gains from selling collectibles (like coins or art) are taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
The portion of any unrecaptured section 1250 gain from selling section 1250 real property is taxed at a maximum 25% rate.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html
You'd think an accountant would know what the capital gains tax rate is.
Provide some proof that the inheritance tax in the 1970's "killed family farms". What killed family farms was, to my understanding, large scale industrial agriculture that drove down the cost of production to the point where smaller farms can't compete.
If your beef with a tax is based on a flawed assumption, then one should set that aside in considering the impact. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
What killed family farms is the century+ urbanization, esp the farm kids moving to the city for better quality of life, jobs, money, lifestyle and the industrialization of farming by BigAg/BigChem/BigFood, NOT tax policy.
An accountant would know enough not to define "the" capital gains tax, or to simply speak about rates most generally applicable to most capital gains.
An accountant would also know that if a tax exemption applied to a non-material number of taxpayers or overall tax collected, it would any meaningful consideration of the economic impact of said exemption.
I guess if we want to talk about things we are experts on, maybe you could tell me what would a de able human being say "the" capital gains tax rate is?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6955041
You could also follow up by telling me what how a bloviating bag would reform "welfare", when he couldn't even define it, since we are talking about tax policy and how we should tax or spend.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6956024
Do tell.
Sweet, so the 2014 cap gains tax rate isn't 20% for all taxpayers.
Valuation is not the same as basis, nor is it the same as net worth (i.e. equity after subtracting debt). If memory serves there were also very specific exemptions (as there always are)
Incorporation, trusts, and all sorts of other things are available to shield family run enterprises from this tax.
Not really a valid argument against it in my mind.
FYI:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agd...tml/c2-70.html
The whole point of going to the lower rate in '86 was to have a fair across the board rate and eliminate all the shelters and dodges. So you are advocating going back to the higher rate and reinstating all the accounting tricks to avoid them?
So you would be ok, going back to the 1986 cap gains tax rates? I'm pretty sure that's similar to what BHO proposed in his most recent budget.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
