quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Her oft stated tax desire may have no relation to your comprehension, nor your disingenuity.
You state here for all our benifit her 'oft stated' tax desire, cuz I have not seen it oft or ever, nary nor never.  

quote:

eta- 2036 is 23 years from now.. thats a nice long time for your money to grow tax free.. and who is to say it wont be extended for another 20 years after that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Im shooting for reality here. Try it.

Then do you truly believe in your oft-stated tax desire?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, that isn't the point, either. Is Government going to come out and tell us that we don't need to make more than $1M/year in salary and benefits? There is supposed to be a limit on the authority of the Federal Government. There is no authority within the Constitution for the Government to put a cap on the amount of money you "need" for retirement. If they can tell you the cap is $3M, after which you lose the tax break, what's to stop them from increasing the tax level over and above removing the break? Or, lowering that cap #?
What is Government's next step in raising revenue if everyone that this effects stops saving more than $3M?

Sorry but you are using the ludicrous to try and make a point in the realistic.
The next step should be increase in taxes, reduction in spending, decrease the import deficit, and grow the GNP but all of that takes a lot of steps.
The government has the authority given to them by the people to do these things. I am not going to argue the right or wrong of it, as I am being specific to the point of a cap on tax deferment of IRA's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

eta- 2036 is 23 years from now.. thats a nice long time for your money to grow tax free.. and who is to say it wont be extended for another 20 years after that?

Residency isnt cut and dry 6 months.

As to the time length, who is to say they wont change it next year?

quote:


Essentially, it was as if the Federal Government was telling the Citizens that they weren't allowed to make a lot more than $2.54M/$2.3M a year.
{/quote]

Essentially, this is as if you are talking pure unadulterated horseshit.

Epic Fail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Essentially, it was as if the Federal Government was telling the Citizens that they weren't allowed to make a lot more than $2.54M/$2.3M a year.

Essentially, this is as if you are talking pure unadulterated horseshit.
Epic Fail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The premises were vacuous horseshit, why would that necessitate an educational and insightful rebuttal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Essentially, it was as if the Federal Government was telling the Citizens that they weren't allowed to make a lot more than $2.54M/$2.3M a year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
here is a crumb for you to ponder.  List me the citizens that made a couple mill and pocket change in 44-45. We need credible, hard data.   Then think about debt due to war, war profiteering and then come and apologize for saying something as fuckin stupid as that statement above, Essentially, as if............... 
No one owes any honest consideration to spouting geysers of stupidity. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

eta- 2036 is 23 years from now.. thats a nice long time for your money to grow tax free.. and who is to say it wont be extended for another 20 years after that?

Residency isnt cut and dry 6 months.

As to the time length, who is to say they wont change it next year?

6 months is the minimum amount of time according to the govt.. its up to the person (& their family if they have one) if they want to stay every single day there or not past that 6 m..

sorta unlikely that they will change it to a shorter amount of time since that would defeat the intent to get more investment and job creation in PR... and the past tax incentives have never been discontinued (those are the ones Microsoft & similar corps use to pay less US tax, btw) so imo no expectation this one will ever be shortened and could be extended, depending on the results..

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Yes, you are spouting that geyser of stupidity, and as usual nothing but vacuous asswipe but no credible citation of citizens who made two million plus in 1944 and/or 45.
So, its essentially as if you are telling us, that was a statement mad by you that could only be characterised by reasoned people as wholly fucking cretinous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
of 49 million returns.  But what were their effective tax rates, because the actual effective tax rate for that group is 20.8% if I remember correctly, but hell I would even give you 25%.  So, EFFECTIVELY, it is AS IF... (this is where you want to correct your sentence) taking into account that the congress was only slightly democratic and we were definitely less vituperative in politics and all feeling good with each other at the winning of the war and the act of 1944 that put us there was in response to the 'punitive excessive profits tax' cuz we wasn't looking to prosecute war profiteers. (it was good bait I tried to get you to take, but you wanted to go on and auger yourself in)...
So, it was a political move to take some bad taste away, but to insure that  the .00000005% (that is correct as a percent) of americans that had a pretty lavish and taxable income were not  prosecuted as 'war profiteers' and their real rate of taxation never approached even 30%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
yeah, that is inumerately wrong.   that is on the basis of AGI not actual income. so it aint 94% and it aint 74% and it aint even 34% because our actual income number is ?????? on those returns.  How much income was excluded?
Again, still with one or two quick looks we can see that the 91 or 94% number is total asswipe, if we have line 73 on page 100....
AGI 163,463 and total tax of 137,773 thats 84% or if you take it around those 101 numbers you are gonna be looking at a 66% give or take a couple of decimal numbers......so where is the 62.2 or whatever, nevertheless the Effective Tax rate is not anywhere near that, because we dont know gross.
That is as dishonest as saying 100% of my taxes go to welfare fraud. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Nope, cuz I dont see where nobody did, I dont see that number. I see a number on the paper that purports to say that, but I don't see a goddamn calculation that says that number from those figures.  And I dont see the gross. So 62% of what number?  62% of bare naked money that they cant hide?  or 62% of a dollar against a gross of a million?
Guy did a hell of a lot of tabulating and writing, good old C. B. Cole or whatever his handle was, but the numbers are not numerate in anyway I can see.
I pay 100% of my taxes.  That seems like alot, unless we know the actual numbers.
? - @ X 100% is not something to have a realistic conversation about.
It don't mean shit, essentially it is as if it is pure unadulterated horseshit, and it aint essentially is; is certainly and it aint as if; it is.