vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia.  Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located.  If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state.  Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual ""$'s"" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US."
"A few thoughts: You said, To me it makes sense that if he accidentally put his own money in when he wasn't supposed to, he could just take it out and pay the tax on it and be fine. In this case, he would be putting his own after-tax money in, and wouldn't be able to deduct it, so the act of putting it in and taking it back out in the same tax year would be as if the transaction never occurred at all. He would not have to ""pay the tax on it"". As for this question: Is there any penalty to his employer if they contribute to an HSA on his behalf, knowing that he is not eligible, and that the money will be an excess contribution? It's good that your son is prepared to treat it as regular income and pay the appropriate taxes. However, the employer should be the one doing that. They should be treating it as regular income and taking out FICA and paying their end of FICA too. If they aren't doing that, technically they are breaking the law. The employer really shouldn't be making the contributions at all, and if they ever bothered to correct this, this article suggests that the employer may be legally allowed to drain the HSA account and take their money back out of it, but only for the same tax year. Apparently they can do this without your son's consent. If that's true, it may make sense to withdraw all money from that account immediately as soon as the money arrives, since they cannot take the money back if it is no longer there. Once the money leaves the HSA account the employer has no choice but to change it to income and if they don't, your son must declare it as such (which it sounds like he is prepared to do). This doesn't really answer your question of whether or not the employer can be penalized- I would assume yes, but not too badly. The worst case scenario for them would probably be just having to pay all the back FICA on those funds if they aren't doing so already. Maybe an interest penalty as well. All that being said, I'd recommend talking to an accountant.
"&gt;SS is not an investment. It is a Tax. Learn the difference. Thus you pay for it with the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). It is not an investment, you do not have an account with your money, it has always been a pay as you go plan, just like medicare, funds for schools, and all the other programs. SS is collected like a tax, but if it is infact a tax, why can I opt out of it? Come on, you really aren't trying to win an arguement about SS by saying its a ""tax"" and not a ""investment"". That's seriously the weakest bullshit, who the fuck cares the symantics of how its ""collected"".. The arguement is still the same, with no USA no SS. It is, therefore, a ponzi by definition. &gt;The US government wrote the laws that specify exactly who can opt out. Most people cannot just opt out because they don't meet the criteria. Again you're wrong. Joining and quitting Obtaining a Social Security number for a child is voluntary.[26] Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program (although, under normal circumstances, FICA taxes must be collected anyway). Although the Social Security Act itself does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States,[27] the Internal Revenue Code does generally require the use of the social security number by individuals for federal tax purposes: The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate], be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.[28] Importantly, most parents apply for Social Security numbers for their dependent children in order to[29] include them on their income tax returns as a dependent. Everyone filing a tax return, as taxpayer or spouse, must have a Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) since the IRS is unable to process returns or post payments for anyone without an SSN or TIN.
"This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K.  Yes, you pay taxes upfront.  All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules).  This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever.  Contributions can be funded past age 70.5.  Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties.  All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties.  For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions.  This is like getting paid for retirement saving.  These funds are ""locked"" up until age 59.5, with exceptions.  All contributed funds and all earnings are ""untaxed"" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars.  The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity."
&gt;old investors  SS is not an investment. It is a Tax. Learn the difference. Thus you pay for it with the [Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax).   It is *not* an investment, you do not have an account with your money, it has *always* been a pay as you go plan, just like medicare, funds for schools, and all the other programs.  So you fail again on all counts.   &gt;And what part of the constitution says the US government should collect some of my wages and save it for me for later?  Since it is a tax, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 covers it pretty well. And the Supreme Court has held that the two mentions of promoting the general welfare also allow taxation for promoting the general welfare.  You might want to learn about what the Constitution actually says and more importantly *how that is interpreted by law* instead of what you think it says.  &gt;You do know, some people have opted out of SS? Even the US government will not take the fight to court.  The US government wrote the laws that specify exactly who can opt out. Most people *cannot* just opt out because they don't meet the criteria. Again you're wrong.
I have a little experience with this.  My home state of Wisconsin was on this list until 2011. The thing to remember is that these states simply do not recognize the HSA.  What this means is that there are no state income tax advantages to the account, and no state tax penalties, either. Here are the implications: When you invest in a taxable account, your broker in many cases keeps track of cost basis for you.  However, when you invest inside an HSA, your HSA custodian will generally not keep track of any of this, because it is not normally needed.  Therefore, you need to keep track of any cost basis yourself, and when you sell, calculate the capital gain or loss on your state return. In my opinion, the HSA is a good deal even if your state does not recognize it.  The tax-free savings/investing is a great deal, even if only on your Federal taxes.  The state return will be a little more complicated, but the savings you get on your federal return are worth it. In my situation, our family spends the money in the HSA on medical expenses fast enough that we don't invest it in anything other than an interest-bearing savings account.  Therefore, we didn't have to worry about capital gains inside our HSA, and only had to add contributions and earnings to our state income.  I am very glad that our state now recognizes the HSA.
"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security.  This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the ""standard"" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US."
"Would I only have to pay regular taxes plus the excess contribution   tax on any contributions? Yes, you'll pay regular taxes plus the excess contribution taxes on the contributions until you withdraw. So what would be your gain in doing this? The whole point in HSA is to use pre-tax money for medical expenses, and you're not only going to use post-tax money - you'll pay extra tax for doing that (6% for each year the contribution remains in the account). Are you trying to get the ""employer match"" in this way? Maybe just ask for a raise instead? Would this cause problems for my employer in any way? Not sure, but it might. Is it possible to simply receive funds in my HSA even though I am not   eligible, and then transfer them to his HSA to avoid any penalties? No, HSA is a personal account. You can pay for dependents, but you can't move money between the accounts. You can roll over to your own account. See the IRS publication 969 for more details."
Can you make use of an HSA (health savings account) or a medical FSA (flexible spending account)? Depending on your medical coverage, one of these may be available to you.  Buying a house usually does the trick, between property tax and interest, it's not tough to have quite a bit in deductions. Of course, you need to want a house in the first place.
"Yes, your tax bracket is 25%.  However, that doesn't mean that your take home pay will be 75% of your salary.  There is much more that goes into figuring out what your take home pay will be. First, you have payroll taxes.  This is often listed on your pay stub as ""FICA.""  The Social Security portion of this tax is 6.2% on the first $118,500 of your pay and the Medicare portion is another 1.45% on the first $200,000.  (Your employer also has to pay additional tax that does not appear on your stub.)  So 7.65% of your salary gets removed off the top. In addition to the federal income taxes that get withheld, you may also have state income taxes that get withheld.  The amount varies with each state. Also, the 25% tax bracket does not mean that your tax is 25% of your entire salary.  You step through the tax brackets as your income goes up.  So part of your salary is taxed at 10%, part at 15%, and the remainder is at 25%. The amount of federal income tax that is withheld from your paycheck is really a rough estimate of how much tax you actually owe.  There are lots of things that can reduce your tax liability (personal exemptions, deductions, credits) or increase your tax (investment income, penalties).  When you do your tax return, you calculate the actual tax that you owe, and you either get a refund if too much was taken out of your check, or you need to send more money in if too little was taken out."
Typically labor is a company's largest expense. So, when a company receives tax cuts that doesn't translate to more hiring. Long term, if the company expands it might, but it could also choose to invest in a better or different products, maybe more efficient business processes, or invest in overseas operations. Additionally, labor has a diminishing value... just because we could hire more people to make more things doesn't mean we should.   Side note: In many states, the largest employers are the state/local governments (schools, public services, etc), and healthcare providers.  This tax cut is great for people that are already invested, or high income earners because it lowers the overall tax brackets and aligns capital gains to those. So say I had a million dollars invested and earned a yearly 10% dividend return, I'd earn 100k in dividends and pay 25% as income tax. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/07/13/what-will-the-trump-tax-cuts-mean-for-your-wallet/  However, something like 50% of all Americans are invested in the stock market. Only the top 10% average investments close to a million in investments (example above)... and 38% of all investments are owned by the 1%... Source: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation  Tax cuts, while popular, wouldn't ever help stimulate consumer spending, esp. considering the amount of consumer debt that exists (~1 Trillion?). What these tax cuts would do create more debt for tax payers.
Maryland treats income from pensions and annuities in the same manner that the federal government treats such income. Consequently, pensions and annuities can be subject to Maryland's income tax. The resident booklet for Maryland income tax filers states on page 4: Line 1d. Enter on line 1d the total amount of pension, IRA, and annuities reported as income on lines 15b and 16b of your federal Form 1040, or lines 11b and 12b of your federal Form 1040A. Line 1 of Maryland's tax return represents total taxable income, before deductions, exemptions, and adjustments. Line 16b of federal Form 1040 represents the taxable portion of your FERS annuity. Consequently, the federally taxable portion of your FERS annuity is also subject to Maryland's state income tax. The taxable portion of FERS annuities should be recorded on the 1099-R you receive. If it's not, IRS pub 721 records how to calculate the taxable portion of FERS annuities. Maryland does, however, allow filers to exclude up to $29,200 of the taxable portion of their pension income in 2015 from taxable income if: a. You were 65 or over or totally disabled, or your spouse was totally disabled, on the last day of the tax year, AND b. You included on your federal return taxable income received as a pension, annuity or endowment from an “employee retirement system” qualified under Sections 401(a), 403 or 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. [A traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, a simplified employee plan (SEP), a Keogh plan, an ineligible deferred compensation plan or foreign retirement income does not qualify.] You mention receiving SS disability, so you may be eligible for that exclusion. Regarding what kinds of disabilities qualifies for those exclusions, Maryland states that: To be considered totally disabled, you must have a mental or physical impairment which prevents you from engaging in substantial gainful activity. You must expect the impairment to be of long, continued or indefinite duration or to result in your death. You must attach to your return a certification from a qualified physician stating the nature of your impairment and that you are totally disabled.
"This is why California tax code is even more messed up than the Federal - they take the Federal and then add some. Or remove. Or mix up. Whether your brokerage will send 1099 or not is up to the brokerage. Its a Federal requirement. California may require them to send it out for CA residents, or may not. They may adhere to the FTB, or may not. It doesn't matter to you. You'll have to keep track of the interest and dividends received, cost basis for the securities, etc etc., just as any other brokerage account. You cannot rely solely on the information on the 1099 anyway, since it doesn't include many things you have to take into account for your Federal tax return as well, wash sales (inter-brokerage) being the most obvious example. As to what happens when you're 65 - you'll have to keep track, again, of all the taxes paid, and track your California basis in the account, and your Federal basis in the account, and they will not be  the same. Reconciliation time again when you get there. What a mess. If you move to another state - the taxes you paid to CA are ""lost"".  Similarly, if you move in to California, all the gains prior to moving in are not taxed by California. Whatever happens after - is taxed by CA as if it was a regular investment account."
It matters to taxpayers and this country because the Federal Reserve's obligations are guaranteed by them.  Taxpayers don't support fully covering Wall Street's bad bets from the Financial Crisis, which is precisely what QE and current monetary policy are aimed at doing.
"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit.  Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order.  Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees.  This is another ""step function."" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit."
Students at college employed by the college are exempt from the FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare).  You are not exempt from federal and state income taxes, but if you are a part time employee making a small amount of money, you probably aren't projected to be paid enough between now and the end of the year to trigger the withholding.  If you are concerned that your tax burden for the year will require you to send in money at tax time next year, you can estimate what your taxes will be, and if you determine that you will owe too much, you can fill out a new W-4 form with your HR department and request that additional tax be withheld.
"The interesting thing about an FSA is that you have access to your total annual election immediately.  After electing to put $200 per month toward your FSA, you can go have a $1,500 surgery on January 3rd and pay with your FSA funds.  Then you can leave the company on February 1st, and not owe the company anything. I understand that you don't like that this is the answer, but it is.  The employer is on the hook for the full elected liability of an FSA plan as of the first day of the plan year.  The employer is also paying admin costs that aren't passed to the employees.  You contest that this arrangement could leave current employees picking up the bag for departed employees, but there is no employee liability.  FSA plans run at a net cost the the employer (I'm sure there are outlier exceptions however). I disagree with your premise that  ""Employees generally dislike that FSA plans are Use-it-or-Lose-it, and also that there appears to be an obvious alternative that would be preferable [...] The employees that dislike the rules of FSA accounts don't fully understand the nuances and surely assume that FSA is a synonym for HSA.  Tons of employers offer their employees FSA plans and they are very well received.  You can fill full prescriptions off of a debit card on the third day of the year before you've even contributed anything. HSAs are great (I have one), but they require enrollment in a HDHP and you can only spend the funds currently available in your account.  These are two huge limitations addressed by FSA plans.  You can have a $0 deductible platinum plan with a $2,000 out of pocket max and an FSA debit card for virtually tax free healthcare.  The caveat being if you don't use your full FSA election you give it up. In fact, my biggest gripe with the FSA/HSA discussion is that anyone feels the need to claim that ""HSA funds don't expire at the end of a plan year"" as though it's something other than a personal savings account.  An FSA is a spending account (or arrangement) which is an entirely different animal.  It would be like claiming that IRA funds don't expire, as though they might somehow."
&gt;$1160 per month, lets say you only have one kid.  &gt;Oh, wait, taxes are taken out. You really only have about $1,000 to work with.  To be fair with your calculation, with $1,160 a month, you're not subject to federal income tax and most likely no state income tax, *especially* with a child.  That adds an extra $1,900 to the calculation.  Plus you'll get a $1,000 child tax credit from the government.  I'm not saying the extra $3,000 is enough to live on, but that calculation above leaves a bit out.  Edit: Brainfart - I forgot about Social Security / FICA.  In most years it's around 7.65%, which would be about $1,000.