quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

It's THIS simple.....want a fair tax?

Here's how it works:

Everyone pays 5%...period.....(paid for entirely by the below).

Those that pay SSI tax (labor) should not have to watch those who don't earn their income hourly (increase in value in real estate/stocks/etc.)....not paying any SSI tax (which currently is in fact, the case).

ALL INCOME whether earned via labor/sale of stock/Real Estate/sock puppets....pays SSI on income earned in any fashion.

And to cut off SSI taxes at 130 grand or whatever it is now (near there) is ridiculous.

Up to $350,000.00 income (indexed), everyone pays SSI.

By doing so, you could cut the current rate from essentially 15% or so (I think it's currently 14.76%, split between employer and employee), down to 9% (or 6%)....fuck....put the new rate entirely on the employer....it'd still be cheaper for the employer...less than 10% of the employers would object because it'd be an automatic bump for their staff (without costing them a dime)....giving those that need a break (lower income types) a very nice (spendable...every week in their paychecks) bump and....at a top rate of 350K, it wouldn't hurt anyone at the top. Moreover....at 6% (paid for entirely by the employer) it would have LESS than zero effect on their income and indeed, increase their income (up to 350K) by well over 7% cumulative.

Get RID of Estate taxes!!!!!

State and Federal.

No Estate taxes AT ALL....unless of course, they (the inheritors) opt to sell...then....20% on the new asset value (Dad bought it for 200 grand....it's now worth $1,400,000. You pay 20% of the sale that ends up at 1.4 less 280K.....you still end up with 1.12 mill....not a bad deal, all things considered). And if they opt to keep the asset....no taxes (until of course...they opt to sell).

50% above 5 million is pure, unadulterated thievery.

Your parents humped their brains out and paid taxes on that entire asset...to force the next generation (whether a working farm or via stock in Apple Computer) is simply theft....some amount is appropriate to benefit the next generation and help out (and we should all be focused on those that follow, in some fashion) but....50% is NOT the appropriate number, and it shouldn't be forced on the generation that didn't earn it (and they likely doen't have a reasonable clue how to properly manipulate said asset) and, to force them to hold that asset only makes asset sales more valuable (and more profitable to the Treasury) as opposed to "oh shit....we have to pay 3 million bucks by January....WTF do we do now???".

WTF do they do now? They sell...at fire sale prices....which hurts the Treasury and only hurts the recipients all the more....only denigrating the values received (by the Treasury). Putting the recipients in a total financial panic.

Ultimately debasing the country's asset base via value received.

Thanks to this tax method.....GDP just rose by 1/3 of a point.

Next.....those that earn above the median, should be taxed at an additional 10% (net).

Above that (say....5 times the median) should be taxed at an additional 10%......30% tops (plus SSI at 350K or less).

The SSI change alone, would triple the SSI tax revenue while lowering the base rate to every taxpayer by 35 - 55%.

The rates would mandate that EVERYONE pays something (meaning that EVERYONE was in the game), while giving the poorest something they could actually spend...in their weekly paycheck...easily compensating for any increase via the 5%.

(You're welcome).

(If asked, I will not run).

So-called estate taxes are not estate taxes or death taxes. They are income taxes on the heir which is what they really are and should be subject to income taxes. They didn't even earn that money, it was given to them, so an income tax is very fair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

This confuses me....more please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Well, Des...except for the dollar ("basis") you're correct.
In inherited properties, the asset is inherited at the new (current value) basis....what it was worth on the day when the previous owner (Dad/Grampa) no longer had control which, as some may not know is...the second (death) when he relinquished control of said asset via his demise.
2 bucks....12 katillion.....none of the basis matters on inherited stuff (just went through it...got it all dialed in).
I spent 3 months trying to figure out the basis (what he paid)...in the end...the feds don't care what he paid...it's all about current value (what did I know?).
Basis doesn't come in to play. Ever.
Unfortunately, the inheritors will pay 55% (federal) over and above values that exceed 5 million (I think that's been indexed....not sure), and in some states (Washington is one) you also pay an additional graduated (up to 19.77%) tax on the first 2 million.
It is pure thievery.

Except that one of the things the President wants to change is that basis value. Inherited assets would carry the basis value from the now-passed to the inheritor. That's not current law, but he wants it to become current law.

Interesting....I hadn't heard that. No surprise eh?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

This confuses me....more please.

I think he may be referencing the unconstitutional situation which has existed between New York City and the state of New Jersey for quite some time.

Years ago, NYC decided that anyone that worked in NYC was going to pay their income tax (yes, the city has an income tax); including those who lived in NJ.

Governor Whitman, instead of going to the Supreme Court (like she should have) just taxed all NYC dwellers that worked in NJ. Instead of being mature and remembering that we fought a little battle over "taxation without representation" and handling it like someone who had taken an oath to protect and defend the citizens of NJ, she chose, instead to do a "tit-for-tat" right out of the sandbox play book.

So, in effect, you have people that are not allowed to vote in NYC, paying income tax to NYC and people who can't vote in NJ, paying income tax to NJ.

It's all facacta.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Well, Des...except for the dollar ("basis") you're correct.
In inherited properties, the asset is inherited at the new (current value) basis....what it was worth on the day when the previous owner (Dad/Grampa) no longer had control which, as some may not know is...the second (death) when he relinquished control of said asset via his demise.
2 bucks....12 katillion.....none of the basis matters on inherited stuff (just went through it...got it all dialed in).
I spent 3 months trying to figure out the basis (what he paid)...in the end...the feds don't care what he paid...it's all about current value (what did I know?).
Basis doesn't come in to play. Ever.
Unfortunately, the inheritors will pay 55% (federal) over and above values that exceed 5 million (I think that's been indexed....not sure), and in some states (Washington is one) you also pay an additional graduated (up to 19.77%) tax on the first 2 million.
It is pure thievery.

Except that one of the things the President wants to change is that basis value. Inherited assets would carry the basis value from the now-passed to the inheritor. That's not current law, but he wants it to become current law.

Interesting....I hadn't heard that. No surprise eh?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/013015-737288-obama-proposes-highest-estate-tax-rate-in-world.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

A national company makes say $1,000,000 in profits that pays a dividend of $50 per share. Theoretically it made an equal amount in each state so it would then be required to give you appropriate tax information to pay the taxes on what was made in each state. You would then be required to pay your share of taxes in that state based upon what you made in your dividend.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

A national company makes say $1,000,000 in profits that pays a dividend of $50 per share. Theoretically it made an equal amount in each state so it would then be required to give you appropriate tax information to pay the taxes on what was made in each state. You would then be required to pay your share of taxes in that state based upon what you made in your dividend.

Ken, I don't know that a "national" company necessarily has any actual "presence" in every State. If you were to get a dividend, I could see how you'd have to pay taxes to the state you lived in when you "earned" the money. You didn't earn it in multiple places. Even if you own more than one residence, your main residence would be your residence of taxation, imo. If I start a company and run it solely from my property, I make money in my State. Even if you buy my products, I'm not making any money in AZ. I'm still making it in OH. And, even if the case was made that sales occurred in AZ, so I have to pay AZ sales tax, I don't have to pay anything in any State I didn't have sales in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

A national company makes say $1,000,000 in profits that pays a dividend of $50 per share. Theoretically it made an equal amount in each state so it would then be required to give you appropriate tax information to pay the taxes on what was made in each state. You would then be required to pay your share of taxes in that state based upon what you made in your dividend.

Ken, I don't know that a "national" company necessarily has any actual "presence" in every State. If you were to get a dividend, I could see how you'd have to pay taxes to the state you lived in when you "earned" the money. You didn't earn it in multiple places. Even if you own more than one residence, your main residence would be your residence of taxation, imo. If I start a company and run it solely from my property, I make money in my State. Even if you buy my products, I'm not making any money in AZ. I'm still making it in OH. And, even if the case was made that sales occurred in AZ, so I have to pay AZ sales tax, I don't have to pay anything in any State I didn't have sales in.

I was using a hypothetical Not any actual company or simblence there of

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

A national company makes say $1,000,000 in profits that pays a dividend of $50 per share. Theoretically it made an equal amount in each state so it would then be required to give you appropriate tax information to pay the taxes on what was made in each state. You would then be required to pay your share of taxes in that state based upon what you made in your dividend.

Ken, I don't know that a "national" company necessarily has any actual "presence" in every State. If you were to get a dividend, I could see how you'd have to pay taxes to the state you lived in when you "earned" the money. You didn't earn it in multiple places. Even if you own more than one residence, your main residence would be your residence of taxation, imo. If I start a company and run it solely from my property, I make money in my State. Even if you buy my products, I'm not making any money in AZ. I'm still making it in OH. And, even if the case was made that sales occurred in AZ, so I have to pay AZ sales tax, I don't have to pay anything in any State I didn't have sales in.

I was using a hypothetical Not any actual company or simblence there of

So was I. lol I don't own a company, so you can't buy my products.

My point, however, is that you pay individual income taxes in the location(s) you make them. Businesses pay taxes where they make their sales. Fastenal (real company based out of Winona, MN) has employees all over the US. An employee in Toledo, Ohio doesn't have to pay any taxes on his/her wages to Minnesota, or any other State, unless those wages were in MN or another State.

National company. Not having to pay 50 State Income taxes simply because the company the earnings came from is a National company. To take that illogic even further, you'd also have to pay income taxes to every country a multi-national business does business in, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

A national company makes say $1,000,000 in profits that pays a dividend of $50 per share. Theoretically it made an equal amount in each state so it would then be required to give you appropriate tax information to pay the taxes on what was made in each state. You would then be required to pay your share of taxes in that state based upon what you made in your dividend.

Ken, I don't know that a "national" company necessarily has any actual "presence" in every State. If you were to get a dividend, I could see how you'd have to pay taxes to the state you lived in when you "earned" the money. You didn't earn it in multiple places. Even if you own more than one residence, your main residence would be your residence of taxation, imo. If I start a company and run it solely from my property, I make money in my State. Even if you buy my products, I'm not making any money in AZ. I'm still making it in OH. And, even if the case was made that sales occurred in AZ, so I have to pay AZ sales tax, I don't have to pay anything in any State I didn't have sales in.

I was using a hypothetical Not any actual company or simblence there of

So was I. lol I don't own a company, so you can't buy my products.

My point, however, is that you pay individual income taxes in the location(s) you make them. Businesses pay taxes where they make their sales. Fastenal (real company based out of Winona, MN) has employees all over the US. An employee in Toledo, Ohio doesn't have to pay any taxes on his/her wages to Minnesota, or any other State, unless those wages were in MN or another State.

National company. Not having to pay 50 State Income taxes simply because the company the earnings came from is a National company. To take that illogic even further, you'd also have to pay income taxes to every country a multi-national business does business in, too.

Yeah I would be crazy worse than insane. I don't advocate it. I do like the flat tax tho

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

An interesting thought to throw into the mix. What if we had to pay state taxes based upon where the money was made. A stock dividend/sale of a national company would then require us to possibly have to pay taxes in all 50 states. Loss to the state we live in, gain to the other states.

This confuses me....more please.

A national company makes say $1,000,000 in profits that pays a dividend of $50 per share. Theoretically it made an equal amount in each state so it would then be required to give you appropriate tax information to pay the taxes on what was made in each state. You would then be required to pay your share of taxes in that state based upon what you made in your dividend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Just being hypothetical Mr Rodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Just being hypothetical Mr Rodgers

Ok but even hypothetically there would be no such requirement upon any company providing anybody with such individual state tax requirements. That would be my responsibility and only in my state of residence.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Just being hypothetical Mr Rodgers

Ok but even hypothetically there would be no such requirement upon any company providing anybody with such individual state tax requirements. That would be my responsibility and only in my state of residence.

You'll have to go all the way back to where the hypothetical started to understand what he was talking about.