vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).
"It says that you are exempt ""as long as such interest income is not effectively connected with a United States trade or business"". So the interest is from money earned from doing business with/through AirBnb, a US company. So you will have to report it. Even if your bank doesn't send you a 1099-INT, you have to report it, unless it is under $0.49 because the IRS allows rounding."
Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.
Surprisingly enough, this one isn't actually all that complicated.  No, you will not be taxed twice. Dividends are paid by the company, which in this case is domiciled in Spain.  As a Spanish company, the Spanish government will take dividend witholding tax from this payment before it is paid to a foreign (i.e. non-Spanish resident) shareholder. What's happening here is that a Spanish company is paying a dividend to a Malaysian resident.  The fact that the Spanish stock was purchased in the form of an ADR from a US stock market using US dollars is actually irrelevant.  The US has no claim to tax the dividend in this case. One brave investor/blogger in Singapore even set out to prove this point by buying a Spanish ADR just before the dividend was paid.  Bravo that man! http://www.investmentmoats.com/money-management/dividend-investing/how-to-calculate-dividend-withholding-taxes-on-us-adrs-for-international-investors-my-experience-with-telefonica/
how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.
If you can deduct money that is reinvested in your business than would you invest more into your company to avoid giving it to the government at a higher tax rate? At a lower rate it allows for more profit to be extracted. It does nothing to encourage investment.
&gt; But so long as the incremental improvement to your bottom line is there, the investment is sound, with or without taxes.  wat  If E(ROA)&gt;0 it's a sound investment? Not at all.  &gt; any investment the company makes that improves their net income automatically means more money for the company  Where is this money coming from? If it's debt-financed it escapes corporate tax rate because interest payments are deductible. Is it coming from the company's retained earnings? We have less of that now because we hiked up the corporate tax rate.   Your argument also neglects the impact corporate taxes have on equity financing and corporate leverage.
Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont.  Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1
"It makes little sense from that perspective.  The owners are the ""very large"" consumers of public goods such as National defense, not the legal entity that the owners make in order to create wealth.    And you can't tax dividends any more than any other capital gains made within the corporation, otherwise the corporation would be stupid to ever disperse dividends instead of buying back shares.     Tax the rich their due share on the profits they made after investing, or just set up a progressive consumption tax that taxes the rich for what they spend.  I don't care.  Just don't over-tax people for doing things you actually want them to do, like re-invest."
But virtually all Americans pay some form of tax, whether it's sales, payroll, state income, or property tax.  I'm glad you mentioned this.  When you say something like Romney only paid 14% taxes, I will point you to this as well.
It is double taxation. The same income is taxed twice.  But as to the core of your argument, starting from a baseline of zero I agree. But we aren't starting over .. there is 100+ years of income tax history and almost 250 years of state/local governments creating the services required for local residents.  It's been amazing how a lil bit of federal control has caused the conservative movement has forgotten they brought the 10th amendment to life with Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida.
Pennsylvania is one of the states that divide the land up in to thousands of jurisdictions all of which have the power to tax.  Where you live (or work) is located in either a county, city, township or borough. They can tax you based on either your income, your property. You can also be taxed by the school district which can encompass multiple jurisdictions. You should get local tax help to make sure that all the appropriate taxes are being covered.
The tax rates are correct numbers 24.7% for top 1% and ~30% (averaged) for bottom 80%.  If you can't see the disparity issue; then, not much further I can do.    I guess see you on the other side.  Until then, enjoy life.
Where the United States increasingly cracked down on personal expenses masquerading as business expenses, many jurisdictions would be happy just to see the money flow through and sit in their banks briefly. Tax policy is different now than it was then. Many things that would have worked then wouldn't work now. The IRS is more aggressive about insisting that some payments be considered income even if the organization writes the check directly to someone else. It's unclear what would happen if United States tax rates went back to the level they had in the fifties or even the seventies. Would tax evasion become omnipresent again? Or would it stay closer to current levels. The rich actually pay a higher percentage of the overall income taxes now than they did in the forties and fifties. And the rich in the United States pay a higher percentage of the taxes paid than the rich in other countries with higher marginal rates. Some of this may be more rich people in the US than other countries, but tax policy is part of that too. High income taxes make it hard to become rich."
Tell you what, I live in Norway.  Everyone can look up at least the declared taxable income of everybody, including his coworkers, his boss, the CEO, the Bishop, the cleaning lady etc..  Same in Switzerland as far as I know.  Sweden maybe as well, don't know.    No increased levels of bitterness around here.  Rather high salaries though, but that's probably more related to being a very rich country.  (I personally don't even care enough to look but then I'm in a rather individual payment structure.)
"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other ""bad"" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces ""harmonized"" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000.
Your chart and your claim don't match. You're looking at one marginal tax rate and saying that its historical change doesn't impact overall federal revenues. This is true on the surface, but you're only looking at one aspect of the overall picture.  Saying that federal revenue doesn't correlate with tax rates is disingenuous. An across the board cut or an across the board increase will both have significant effect. Likewise an increase to the top marginal tax rate by itself would have an impact as long as there were no corresponding cuts or increased expenditures to wipe out the impact.  A budget is a budget whether it's a great big one like the federal government's or a small one like a household budget.  Revenues and expenses need to match in order for the budget to balance. Increasing tax rates increases revenue from everyone within the affected tax bracket. It makes an impact.
There is no such thing as double taxation. If you pay tax in the US, you CAN claim tax credits from India tax authority.  For example, if you pay 100 tax in USA and your tax liability in India is 200, then you will only pay 100 (200 India tax liability minus 100 tax credits on foreign tax paid in the USA).  This is always true and not depending on any treaty. If there is a treaty, the tax rate in the United States is set on the treaty and you CAN claim that final tax rate based upon that treaty.  If you operate an LLC, and the income is NOT derived from United States and you have no ties with the US and that LLC is register to a foreign person (not company but a real human) then you will not have to submit tax return in the US... I advice you to read this: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98277,00.html
No, it does not work in those countries. It produces billions of deficit every single year and is responsible for unimaginable sums of money going down the drain somewhere in the administration. Those systems are already crumbling, despite confiscatory tax rates.  I don't think they are. I'm sure we both agree that pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to pay for your stuff is immoral.
"&gt; Seven U.S. states currently don't have an income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.   So to be clear, you were talking about just income tax in your original comment? Or do those states have no other forms of tax whatsoever? I am still confused because you just said ""state tax"" in your original comment and did not specify a specific type of taxation like ""income tax"" or ""property tax"" or ""business tax"" or ""sales tax"" within the state."
Just to be clear, I've been in the industry, specifically in government and regulatory affairs, seven years.  In the US, there is generation, transmission, distribution, merchant function/retail function, and government impositions (fees, taxes, environmental regulations, etc), *just like presented in the image.*   In my experience, attributing approximately 50% to T&amp;D and 50% to everything else is pretty accurate (in fact, T&amp;D costs are often higher than all the others). I'm sure our overall rates are lower (depending on location -- Hawaii's rates are astronomical), but I don't think these percentages are that off.
"&gt; The top 1% pay more than 50% of all taxes in the US.  [False](http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/15/how-much-do-the-top-1-percent-pay-of-all-taxes/), like all proponents of ""the rich pay plenty of taxes already"" crowd your stat only looks at income tax, the most progressive tax we have and the one the rich generally avoids by using capital gains."
It’s not misleading at all.  People making the highest incomes already pay the vast majority of income taxes.  Something like 40% of Americans pay zero net federal income tax.  These people have ZERO skin in the game and yet they think they should have a seat at the table demanding more!  The entitlement is sickening.  The current tax regime already soaks the rich.  You can play all the mental gymnastics you want, but you can’t change the facts.
If working in NY - you pay NY taxes. If living in NJ - you pay NJ taxes. If NJ taxes are lower than NY taxes - you lose the difference by paying NY taxes vs paying NJ taxes if you have an option of having the same work and the same salary in NJ. Pretty simple, really. Generally, salaries in NY are a bit higher to compensate for that.
In Virginia the maximum tax rate on income is 5.75% which is the same as the capital gains rate. http://www.tax.virginia.gov/income-tax-calculator
This is spot on. For years Ireland has been taking flack from all around the world about their 12.5% tax rate but when you take into account all the deductibles and special arrangements other places have they're not too much higher than Ireland. Just Ireland is more transparent, it's the same tax rate for everyone and compliance work such as audit is cheaper.
&gt; But sure, if you want companies to stay in the US and customers to pay higher prices to compensate for those higher taxes...  But they don't. Across the board; prices in the US are much lower than they are in every other developed country. Partly because of economies of scale, partly because the posted tax rate != the effective tax rate.
This would be no different than asking if you can live in one state and earn a paycheck, then move to another state with a lower tax rate before your tax bill is due so you can save on your taxes for that income. Answer -- No The tax on lottery winnings is based on the state where the lottery was held, because for legal purposes that's where the winnings are considered to have been earned for taxation purposes. Also, changing where you live after earning money does not change your tax liability at all.  You still owe the state where the money was earned the tax that is due. I hope this helps. Good luck!
What fact?  &gt;It's true that some Americans don't pay federal income tax. But virtually all Americans pay some form of tax, whether it's sales, payroll, state income, or property tax.   &gt;Over 60% of those who don't pay income tax are working; they pay payroll tax, which goes to support Social Security and Medicare. Another 22% of those who don't pay income tax are the elderly; most of them don't work.   &gt;In fact, only about 8% of Americans pay neither federal income tax nor payroll tax, because they are unemployed, are students, or are disabled.   &gt;What is missing from all this talk about tax is the fact that although the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, middle-class people actually pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes. True, federal income tax rates are progressive, with rates going to 35% for the top earners. But deductions and special treatment of capital gains reduce actual tax rates for the top earners. So what we end up with is upper-middle-class taxpayers paying the highest actual percentage of their income, over 31%, according to a 2010 study by the group Citizens for Tax Justice.  http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/ghilarducci-mcgahey-romney/index.html
It sounds like you do. You earn money in NC, so that's where it is going to be taxed first.
If you're a US citizen/resident - you pay taxes on your worldwide income regardless of where you live. The logic is that Americans generally don't agree to the view that there's more than one country in the world. If you're non-US person, not physically present in the US, and provide contract work for a US employer - you generally don't pay taxes in the US. The logic is that the US doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over that money, you didn't earn it in the US. That said, your employer might withheld tax and remit it to the IRS, and you'll have to chase them for refund. If you receive income from the US rental property or dividends from a US company - you pay income tax to the US on that income, and then bargain with your home tax authority on refunds of the difference between what you paid in the US and what you should have paid at home. You can also file non-resident tax return in the US to claim what you have paid in excess. The logic is that the money sourced in the US should be taxed in the US. You earned that money in the US. There are additional rules to more specific situation, and there are also bilateral treaties between countries (including a US-Canadian treaty) that supersede national laws. Bottom line, not only that each country has its own laws, there are also different laws for different situations, and if some of the international treaties apply to you - it further complicates the situation. If something is not clear - get a professional advice form a tax accountant licensed in the relevant jurisdictions (in your case - any of the US states, and the Canadian province where you live).
By in large they are. I've worked in this industry. Inversions work because the US has CFC tax and the highest tax rate in the world, 35%. This means that any money made by the company in any part of the world is subject to US tax less tax paid locally.   E.g. Burger king in Dublin pays 12.5% locally and 22.5% to the US.  The company inverts to a country that doesn't have CFC then transfers all the non-US companies to the other jurisdiction.  Now what also tends to happen is income stripping such as intra-group, inter-company loans with the interest stripping earnings. That or intellectual property. However a company can only do that where the new group is made up of 80% other co and 20% existing co, at a minimum. This doesn't happen too much.  Have a look at this article by a top Irish law firm: http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/April2014_SpotlightOn.pdf
"Income code 09 is dividends, so yes - it is the same as line 1 of the US form 1099-DIV. 1a or 1b however depends on whether the requirements for qualified dividends are met. If they're met - its 1b, if not - 1a. These are treated and taxed differently. See here on what are the qualification requirements. Note that Canada has a tax treaty with the US making Canadian corporations ""qualified foreign corporations""."
It also depends on where you work. If you move your home and your job then the date you establish residency in the new state is the key date. All income before that date is considered income for state 1, and all income on or after that date is income for state 2.  If there is a big  difference in income you will want to clearly establish residency because it impacts your wallet. If they had the same rates moving wouldn't impact your wallet, but it would impact each state. So make sure when going from high tax state to low tax state that you register your vehicles, register to vote, get a new drivers license... It becomes more complex if you move your home but not your job. In that case where you work might be the deciding factor. Same states have agreed that where you live is the deciding factor; in other cases it is not. For Virginia, Maryland, and DC you pay based on where you live if the two states involved are DC, MD, VA. But if you Live in Delaware and work in Virginia Virginia wants a cut of your income tax.  So before you move you need to research reciprocity for the two states. From Massachusetts information for Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income, Exemptions, Deductions and Credits Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from   sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: a few questions later: Massachusetts residents and part-year residents are allowed a credit   for taxes due to any other jurisdiction. The credit is available only   on income reported and taxed on a Massachusetts return. Nonresidents   may not claim the taxes paid to other jurisdiction credit on their   Massachusetts Form 1-NR/PY. The credit is allowed for income taxes paid to: The credit is not allowed for: taxes paid to the U.S. government or a   foreign country other than Canada; city or local tax; and interest and   penalty paid to another jurisdiction. The computation is based on comparing the Massachusetts income tax on   income reported to the other jurisdiction to the actual tax paid to   the other jurisdiction; the credit is limited to the smaller of these   two numbers. The other jurisdiction credit is a line item on the tax form but you   must calculate it on the worksheet in the instruction booklet and also   enter the credit information on the Schedule OJC. So if you move your house to New Hampshire, but continue to work in Massachusetts you will owe income tax to Massachusetts  for that income even after you move and establish residency in New Hampshire.
Good time to mention the US is also the only country (besides Eritrea) to tax citizens on their worldwide income *regardless of their residency.* And yes, this is very strongly enforced against Average Joes who happen to have dual citizenship but have lived in Canada or UK or what not for the past 30 years. Through FATCA they've coerced global banks to hand them account data on all US citizens.  Who knew a country borne out of a tax protest against an empire would become the most imperialist tax regime in the world?
Your federal taxes in US include the tax which Indian government wants back from you under the treaty with US government. Some countries have treaty with US where all the money person earns in US can be reclaimed at the end of the financial year i.e no money goes to the country of citizenship. However, Indian citizens working in US are not liable for 100% reclaim on their federal tax.
Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.
I was specifically talking about property tax which doesn't increase that much with income. But state and local income taxes ratio makes a lot of sense since there are still lots of people that depend on a salary at 1million$ AGI.
The technical answer is defined by the laws of state you live in but most (all?) states with a sales tax have some form of use tax. Where if you buy something in another state for use in your home state you are technically liable for sales tax on it regardless of whether the merchant charged you tax on it or not. I don't think many people actually pay the use taxes, and enforcement generally seems rare.
Great, that means less idiots clogging up the lines.  Why are your panties in a bunch? All american profits still get taxed like normal. Now tell me Lib, why does the US get to double dip on taxes for money created outside of the states?  Edit: That wasn't including the excess tax to repatriate that money.
No he's arguing for a lower US Corporate tax rate specifically on overseas earnings. Because companies are earning overseas and not taking it back to the US because of our double taxation.   He absolutely does not want higher taxes