I like talking shop.
This isn’t a Q&A thread, but I will answer any questions anyone has that I can.
Otherwise, I just want to BS about things, and have a place to post this:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-20/buffett-rule-boomerangs-as-republican-tax-legislation
Time for the Dems to put up or shut up.
Republicans = give what you can under your own free will if you feel you don’t pay enough
Democrats = give what I tell you
In other news, for those effected by Isaac, the IRS has given you an extension.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I like talking shop.
This isn’t a Q&A thread, but I will answer any questions anyone has that I can.
Otherwise, I just want to BS about things, and have a place to post this:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-20/buffett-rule-boomerangs-as-republican-tax-legislation
Time for the Dems to put up or shut up.
Republicans = give what you can under your own free will if you feel you don’t pay enough
Democrats = give what I tell you[/quote]
This too me is a perfect example of how messed up our system is. I’m going to try and read this again in a minute, but I just couldn’t get past the part about the name. Who really and truly cares what the fucking name of the bill is? Seriously the name, we have real problems in the real world. I guess in fantasy land, aka, Congress you’ve got time for that garbage. What a load of garbage.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I like talking shop.
This isn’t a Q&A thread, but I will answer any questions anyone has that I can.
Otherwise, I just want to BS about things, and have a place to post this:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-20/buffett-rule-boomerangs-as-republican-tax-legislation
Time for the Dems to put up or shut up.
Republicans = give what you can under your own free will if you feel you don’t pay enough
Democrats = give what I tell you[/quote]
This too me is a perfect example of how messed up our system is. I’m going to try and read this again in a minute, but I just couldn’t get past the part about the name. Who really and truly cares what the fucking name of the bill is? Seriously the name, we have real problems in the real world. I guess in fantasy land, aka, Congress you’ve got time for that garbage. What a load of garbage. [/quote]
Eh… I wouldn’t say it is an example of our system being messed up, I think the complaining from the left over the name is an example of how stupid the electorate is. There are people who will stand behind them rejecting this (very good) idea because of the name, when it accomplishes just what the left wants. Well sorta what the left wants, they want to force you to pay more, not be free to by choice.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I like talking shop.
This isn’t a Q&A thread, but I will answer any questions anyone has that I can.
Otherwise, I just want to BS about things, and have a place to post this:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-20/buffett-rule-boomerangs-as-republican-tax-legislation
Time for the Dems to put up or shut up.
Republicans = give what you can under your own free will if you feel you don’t pay enough
Democrats = give what I tell you[/quote]
This too me is a perfect example of how messed up our system is. I’m going to try and read this again in a minute, but I just couldn’t get past the part about the name. Who really and truly cares what the fucking name of the bill is? Seriously the name, we have real problems in the real world. I guess in fantasy land, aka, Congress you’ve got time for that garbage. What a load of garbage. [/quote]
Eh… I wouldn’t say it is an example of our system being messed up, I think the complaining from the left over the name is an example of how stupid the electorate is. There are people who will stand behind them rejecting this (very good) idea because of the name, when it accomplishes just what the left wants. Well sorta what the left wants, they want to force you to pay more, not be free to by choice.[/quote]
Right it’s basically about semantics…and I think that is BS.
Otherwise I thought the article was good and the law is fine, but do we really need a law? Why can’t you just write a check and on the memo line (is that what it’s called? Haven’t written too many checks) just write, “to reduce the debt.” Shouldn’t that be enough? How much money will it cost use in salaries, supplies, etc… to make this a law that is supposed to reduce the debt?
You can go on-line and donate to the debt fund I believe now. This law just puts a line on the tax return.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You can go on-line and donate to the debt fund I believe now. This law just puts a line on the tax return.
[/quote]
Lord that’s even better. Congress is taking the time to create a law that simply adds a VOLUNTARY line to the various tax forms. What’s next, they gonna argue about steroid use in baseball?
But the IRS already had an account you could send money too?
[quote]orion wrote:
But the IRS already had an account you could send money too?[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You can go on-line and donate to the debt fund I believe now. This law just puts a line on the tax return.
[/quote]
Lord that’s even better. Congress is taking the time to create a law that simply adds a VOLUNTARY line to the various tax forms. What’s next, they gonna argue about steroid use in baseball?[/quote]
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
Yes, you can already do this.
You guys are missing the larger picture here.
This was a very slick political move, but I’m starting to get the feeling it is going to go over people’s heads based on the reaction this story is getting.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
But the IRS already had an account you could send money too?[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You can go on-line and donate to the debt fund I believe now. This law just puts a line on the tax return.
[/quote]
Lord that’s even better. Congress is taking the time to create a law that simply adds a VOLUNTARY line to the various tax forms. What’s next, they gonna argue about steroid use in baseball?[/quote]
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
Yes, you can already do this.
You guys are missing the larger picture here.
This was a very slick political move, but I’m starting to get the feeling it is going to go over people’s heads based on the reaction this story is getting.[/quote]
So what, Romney can hammer it home.
Its the perfect answer to “but, but, Warren Buffet said…”
[quote]orion wrote:
Its the perfect answer to “but, but, Warren Buffet said…”[/quote]
Correct. It is awesome, and I’ll kick in some $ myself.
The money goes right to the debt, not who know’s where. The money is given freely instead of taken. And now all these assholes that want to spout off about not paying enough, they can pay more.
So pony up Hollywood.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
But the IRS already had an account you could send money too?[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You can go on-line and donate to the debt fund I believe now. This law just puts a line on the tax return.
[/quote]
Lord that’s even better. Congress is taking the time to create a law that simply adds a VOLUNTARY line to the various tax forms. What’s next, they gonna argue about steroid use in baseball?[/quote]
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
Yes, you can already do this.
You guys are missing the larger picture here.
This was a very slick political move, but I’m starting to get the feeling it is going to go over people’s heads based on the reaction this story is getting.[/quote]
I get it. It’s a chess match and the Republicans just took a key player off the board. My point, although not eloquently put, is that this whole process shouldn’t be the game that its become. The Rs & Ds are about winning the game not about what’s best for America and I’m sick of it.
IRS has confirmed refunds will be slower this year according to Kiplinger.
This is a response to recent identity theft issues.
IRS.gov says 10-21 days. Plan ahead.
Have the Bush tax cuts expired yet? That will affect 2013 correct?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Have the Bush tax cuts expired yet? That will affect 2013 correct? [/quote]
yes, but how the tax rules change will largely depend on who wins the congressional races, and to a smaller degree who wins the presidency.
I believe the republican’s will hold the house no matter what the outcome, and if they can gain a majority in the senate I expect Bush era rates to remain for at least the next 24 months after 1/1/13.
If Obama wins he will push his “tax the ‘rich’” (which is basically tax the people that had high earnings this year) plans and eliminate the marriage penalty relief that Bush gave us.
If Romeny wins, I haven’t the slightest idea what the rule changes would be, but I expect a 1-3% tax savings across the board.
Keep in mind the AHA 4% tax on investment income for 200K+ filers kicks in for 2013. So, be sure to capture you LTCG before 12/31/12 to lock in 15% tax on those.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I don’t disagree with you on this point[/quote]
I’m glad you don’t disagree because that is, absolutely, the reason the credit exists.
It is the equivalent of your home state giving you a credit for taxes paid to a foreign state. Novel concept, I know.
I have no idea where reciprocation comes from. Either your home state offers the credit or it doesn’t. And while I haven’t worked with all 50 states, I have yet to come across one that has an income tax and doesn’t offer the credit.
What you are confusing, and the president was lying about, is an economic incentive that is the result of poor domestic policy and the behavior of the citizenry with actual tax laws and rules that give “breaks” or “subsidies” to companies that move over seas.
There is no gimme from the government that you get for globalization. The cost savings come from the fact it is cheaper to operate in a country other than America.
There are no breaks to reduce. That is the lie part.
Two points: 1) anyone that complains about globalization and buys Apple products is by far, the biggest hypocrite I can point to in this situation.
Globalization isn’t bad. The fact it costs you 35% of your profit to bring that profit back to America is the problem here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Keep in mind the AHA 4% tax on investment income for 200K+ filers kicks in for 2013. So, be sure to capture you LTCG before 12/31/12 to lock in 15% tax on those.[/quote]
So does that mean I should sell and immediately buy back the same stock so I’d only pay 15% instead of 19% (ie assuming the stock keeps going up, I will only pay 19% on 2013+ gains)?
Also, is there any strategy for selling stocks at a loss, or does that not matter at present?’
Thanks!
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
So does that mean I should sell and immediately buy back the same stock so I’d only pay 15% instead of 19% (ie assuming the stock keeps going up, I will only pay 19% on 2013+ gains)?[/quote]
Immediate buy backs change the rules, but I believe only on loss transactions. I’m not 100% sure on the subject. You should also run that by your financial adviser.
But yes, the gains you capture by selling in 2012 will only be taxed at 15%. The gains and other investment income in 2013 you have over the 200k (250k married) will be taxed an additional 4% to help pay for AHA.
So there is some value in accelerating any sales you were thinking about into 2012 and not waiting until 2013.
Keep in mind that QE3 bumped the market a touch recently as well, and who knows if that keeps things bullish, fades or remains the same.
But also keep in mind their very well could be a large sell-off looming if the Dems sweep the Whitehouse and Senate. The market reacts emotionally. So a lot fo people selling off to capture the 15% rate on the gains from early 2009, will trigger a larger sell off from those that chase the market. I’m not calling for a meltdown, but there is a possible flux and/or steady dip heading into 2013. Possible.
[quote]Also, is there any strategy for selling stocks at a loss, or does that not matter at present?’
Thanks![/quote]
I know a lot of people sold off heavy in 2008 & 2009 to lock in the losses from the melt down in 2008. But that was to keep the losses as carry overs, and then bought in at the new lower basis. Is there a benefit in this? Yes, but it really goes beyond my scope here.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
My only point is that there is absolutely currently a strong incentive to move operations out of the US and that there can subsequently be steps taken to reverse this trend and simultaneously raise revenue by introducing penalties or reducing breaks.[/quote]
…or we could reduce labor costs so that it is fiscally possible to keep, mainly, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. That won’t happen though, not with labor union lobbyist bending ears in DC. [/quote]
Brought this over here as to not derail the other thread as suggested.
I’m curious why, when talking about jobs outsourced, labor costs in the U.S. aren’t talked about. In my view labor unions = regulation = higher costs, which almost force industry out of the country.
We shouldn’t pay assembly line workers $0.25 an hour, but we also shouldn’t pay them the unrealistic salaries many have.
I remember reading an article years ago, and I’ll see if I can find it, where Ford workers had to report to a classroom because they just didn’t have work for them, but they still collected their 50k+ salary.
That is a cost of labor problem and a competitive disadvantage my American companies face. How do you propose they stay solvent without going overseas?