vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Owing taxes to two or more levels of government isn't double taxation. It's a feature of the American union. I'm not for this bill in general, mostly for the timing and the loss of the highest bracket, but both the state and federal governments have to generate revenue, and basing rates on pure incomes with a few loopholes as possible is the most progressive way to do it. By owing taxes unadjusted for other taxes paid, there's more incentive for states to lower local taxes and to balance state programs with federal programs, and for state reps to more fairly redistribute federal transfers instead of targeting states with (usually artificially) low local taxes and fewer state programs (usually Republican).
According to the Colorado form CY104PN, Colorado taxes income earned while working in or being a resident of the State of Colorado. Assuming you never set foot in the State of Colorado, I read it as if you will only be liable to pay taxes in the State of New York (on all of your income, of course). You can get a more reliable opinion from a Colorado-licensed CPA.
It IS affecting our bottom line though. The rich have been taking more of the pie by suppressing wages while also getting tax cuts for decades. There's no reason that the super wealthy should be paying less tax (as a percentage of income) than Americans in the bottom tax brackets. That's a large part of why American infrastructure is crumbling, the top earners (who couldn't earn that much outside the system) aren't paying their fair share.  And don't even bother bringing up that top earners pay the most dollar amount of tax because that's exactly how it's supposed to work in a progressive system but paying the most in tax doesn't necessarily mean they're paying enough. The percent payed in tax is supposed to go UP the more you earn, not down.
"Here is the first google result for ""USA worst states for business"" and a result from [CNBC 2014](http://www.cnbc.com/id/101769584)  1. Rhode Island  2. Hawaii  3. West Virginia  4. Alaska  5. Connecticut   Illinois is a top 3 tax state along with New York and California but taxes are not the only thing to take into account unless you are a Tea Party supporter."
I bet the poor pay more of their family income on food and rent too! Injustice!  What was the point of this? We were talking about net taxation, not some ratio of gross income on a per family basis. The bottom 40% of American are net beneficiaries of taxes anyway.
Yeah because paying millions a year in taxes is somehow less than than paying the nothing the poor pay. This constant belief that services should cost a percentage instead of a fixed rate that everyone pays is a joke. There is nothing equal about going into a McDonalds lining everyone up based on income then making one guy pay for everyone else because he was more successful. Then calling it equal or fair, which it isn't.
Yes that is not an unusual number. In some states the state tax rate is fairly flat, and unless you are highly paid the social security and medicare taxes are also flat. The big issue is the federal number. Several things can make make the federal taxes for the early paychecks larger than normal. later checks will include these pretax amounts which will reduce the taxable income, and the taxes. Though the net check will get smaller. Keep in mind that the size of the checks your first year are impacted by the fact that most recent graduates start in the summer. The tax tables assume that each of the paychecks you receive will be essentially the same. For those recent graduates the 1st real paycheck dwarfs the average paycheck for the first part of the year. This can put you in a higher bracket than you should be, and result in a large refund when you file in the spring.  You can adjust your withholding numbers after a few checks to counterbalance this. Of course the numbers will need to be changed back in year two to to avoid under withholding.
That is really in contravention to 50 years of conservative/Republican orthodoxy - that local control is better at understanding the needs of local citizens. It's also not so easy to pick up and move to a lower tax state - family, friends, culture, public ed system and opportunities for advancement are the better where we are.  The truth is that as a rate payer in the top 10%, my household's tax increase will be used to subsidize the top 1%. If we move anywhere, it will be ex-pat. The opportunities are there for us .. and tbh we have seriously talked about it.
Generally this gets corrected when you file returns for both States -- one owes you some refund, and younowe some money to the other. Multistate tax returns are their own special kettle of worms, so you might want to consider hiring a pro to straighten this out -- their software has some tools personal packages don't.
"Get fucked with that idiocy mate. You can cut the data seven ways to Sunday. &gt;""Americans absolutely confirm they believe America is the land of opportunity and that people should have equal opportunity if they have the skills,"" said Diana Elliott, research officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project, in an interview. ""The data fly in the face of what Americans have believed and what they say they believe in our polling work."" &gt;Pew found that economic mobility is largely an accident of birth. Currier points to the fact that 66 percent of people born in the lowest two income levels remain there as adults, and exactly 66 percent of people born at the highest two income levels stay there as adults, a phenomenon called ""stickiness at the ends."" http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf &gt;In particular, previous analyses of economic mobility in the United States and other industrialized nations reveal that the United States has less, not more, mobility than its northern neighbor. That is, one's family economic background is more likely to influence one's economic outcomes in the United States than in Canada. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/chasing-the-same-dream-climbing-different-ladders &gt;One way to think of the estimated elasticity of children’s income with respect to their parents’ is to ask how much of a given income advantage observed in the parental generation is preserved in the children’s generation. Miles Corak exem- plifies this for the difference observed in the United States for families with children under the age of 18.15 The top fifth of such families have about 12 times as much income as the bottom fifth. If the intergenerational persistence of income was equal to one, that income advantage would be transferred in whole to the next generation. That is, the children of the richest fifth would have 12 times as much income as the children of the poorest fifth.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Nearly all income tiers above $100,000 paid higher shares of total income tax in 2015 than they did in 2000.  &gt; Effective tax rates - calculated as the total income tax owed divided by adjusted gross income - also rise with income.  &gt; In 2013, the 3.6 million corporations that reported net income on their returns owed corporate income tax equal to 15.2% of their total pretax profits after all credits were applied, according to our analysis of IRS data.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74vkkn/who_pays_us_income_tax_and_how_much/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~223924 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **income**^#2 **taxes**^#3 **rate**^#4 **deduction**^#5"
&gt;a set fraction of the mean income, distributed to everyone whether or not they have other income.  Seems fair to me. I would also re-tool tax brackets so instead of being based on income, they'd be based on money eared relative to the national mean. That way the brackets are naturally dynamic.
It's possible, but I doubt it. You have to consider federal income tax, state income tax, state sales tax, local sales tax, property tax, FICA, utility taxes, telecom taxes, and all the little government fees as well to figure the total tax burden.   It's really hard to calculate, but I doubt the total is below the peak for the middle class.
"But when you focus just on taxes on work, as the OECD does in a new report out this morning, the U.S. starts looking a little less like a low-tax paradise. The total ""tax wedge"" -- which measures ""the difference between labour costs to the employer and the corresponding net take-home pay of the employee"" -- was 31.7 percent of labor costs for the average single U.S. worker with no children in 2016, higher than in 10 other OECD countries.  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-11/why-the-u-s-overtaxes-labor   https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html"
"&gt;No they pay less  Except they don't.  Just look at the tax brackets.  It's progressive.  The more you make, the higher your tax rate.  10% $0 to $9,275 $0 to $13,250  15% $9,276 to $37,650 $13,251 to $50,400  25% $37,651 to $91,150   28% $91,151 to $190,150   33% $190,151 to $413,350   35% $413,351 to $415,050   39.6% $415,051 or more   See how the % increases with increased income?  That's called a progressive tax system.  Can you say ""progressive""?"
You will have to pay your taxes in the UK not USA. For tax purposes it is the company's tax residency not where the server is located. You are just hiring a server in USA. Take for example a CDN being used for your same service then would you pay taxes in 300 different countries if you use Akamai? Does not work that way.
"Absolutely.  You can trace all of it back to Reagan.  His awful Tax Reform Act of 1986 made corporate profits from operations in foreign countries tax exempt, unless and until the corporations chose to ""repatriate"" those profits [i.e. bring them back to the U.S.], in which case they were subject only to a sharply reduced tax.  This provision created the huge impetus for U.S. corporations to move their operations, and their jobs, overseas.  Reagan initiated the huge increase in income and wealth inequality."
So how is it that American citizens working overseas get taxed, but American companies holding profits overseas don't? Or foreign companies making profits within the US for that matter. I don't really think we should be protectionist, but I do think corporations should be paying a fair share of taxes needed to support infrastructure, social and legal framework.
"Depends on the State. In California, for example, you pay a franchise tax of $800 every year just for having LLC, and in addition to that - income tax on gross revenue. But in other States (like Wyoming, for example) there's no taxes at all, only registration fees (which may still amount to ~$100-300 a year). IRS doesn't care about LLC's at all (unless you chose to treat is as a corporation). You need to understand that in the US we have the ""Federal Government"" (IRS is part of that) and the ""State Government"" that deals with business entities, in each of the 50 States. Since you're talking about Italy, and not EU, you should similarly be talking about the relevant State, and not US."
I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however. California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California). Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison.
Using your figures, a couple making $172,000 each earn enough to be in the 1%. So that is even less than I had originally stated.  I couldn't find any hard data about personal incomes in the USA since everything seems to be intertwined with household earnings, but I did for Canada. There, household income was around the same $350K mark to be in the top 1% and around the same $170,000 to be in the top 1% for personal incomes.  Given that, I think we can assume the wealth distribution is fairly close between countries, therefore I stand by my statement that a sub-$200,000 income will put in you the top 1% of earners, though you would need an equally successful partner to be in the top 1% of households.
&gt; This data is 4 years more recent:  &gt; https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html  Income tax again.  Surprise, surprise.  &gt; Haha, OK- let's see the numbers on property, corporate, estate, or capital gains. Surely the 99% pull their fare share of those.  Nope, [they pay more than their fair share](https://itep.org/whopays/).  *The bleak reality is that even among the 25 states and the District of Columbia that have taken steps to reduce the working poor’s tax share by enacting state EITCs, most still require their poorest taxpayers to pay a higher effective tax rate than any other income group.*
you're a moron.  Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, the top marginal rate was 95%.  A progressive income tax like this is justified on two grounds: the wealthy have benefitted most from our system, and they are the best able to pay.  With the revenue under the tax code in the 1950's, Eisenhower was able to afford a huge infrastructure project, building the U.S. interstate highway system.  the wealthy assholes and their Republican crooks in Congress have destroyed the progressive income tax and thereby sharply reduced federal government revenues and federal government ability to pay for anything.  The progressive income tax, as it existed under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, should be restored to allow America to become great again.
Can I Send the money back to my personal account of my mother/father in India? Yes you can. Do I need to pay any tax here in US or my parents back in India? There is no tax in India to your parents as it's treated as gift and is tax free between close relatives. In US you would need to pay gift tax if amount is more than USD 16000 a year. See other questions on this site for gift tax rules in US.
You will most likely pay around 30%, between standard income tax and payroll taxes. That is a good place to start. If you live in a state/city with income taxes, add that to the mix.
"I largely agree with you; but there's *no way* to make a true apples-to-apples comparison, because we've never had a ""flat"" across-the-board tax rate, and we never will.  And obviously, in the degenerate cases of taxes at 0% and 100%, revenue drop to zero.  Given that, the closest we can come to evaluating the potential effects of Trump's proposal is to look at what happens when major shifts in tax policy have occurred in the past; and since 1943 (when something approaching our modern tax structure first solidified)... The short answer to that is, ""nothing at all happens"".  The *explanation* for that is a more interesting issue (though it boils down to ""if you tax X, people will Y instead""), but the implications for fiscal policy are both fascinating and terrifying:  Effectively, if the government spends more than 15-16% of GDP, *regardless* of how they structure taxes, they're spending against the deficit."
"(I'm expanding on what @BrenBarn had added to his answer.) The assumption of ""same tax bracket in retirement"" is convenient, but simplistic. If you are in, for instance, the second-lowest bracket now, and happen to remain in the second-lowest bracket for retirement, then Roth and traditional account options may seem equal — and your math backs that up, on the surface — but that's making an implicit assumption that tax rates will be constant. Yet, tax brackets and rates can change. And they do. The proof. i.e. Your ""15% bracket"" could become, say, the ""17% bracket"" (or, perhaps, the ""13% bracket"") All the while you might remain in the second-lowest bracket. So, given the potential for fluctuating tax rates, it's easy to see that there can be a case where a traditional tax-deferred account can yield more after-tax income than a Roth post-tax account, even if you remain in the same bracket: When your tax bracket's tax rate declines. So, don't just consider what bracket you expect to be in. Consider also whether you expect tax rates to go up, down, or remain the same. For twenty-something young folk, retirement is a long way away (~40 years) and I think in that time frame it is far more likely that the tax brackets won't have the same underlying tax rates that they have now. Of course, we can't know for sure which direction tax rates will head in, but an educated guess can help. Is your government deep in debt, or flush with extra cash? On the other hand, if you don't feel comfortable making predictions, much better than simply assuming ""brackets and rates will stay the same as now, so it doesn't matter"" is to instead hedge your bets: save some of your retirement money in a Roth-style account, and some in a traditional pre-tax account. Consider it tax diversification. See also my answer at this older but related question:"
"The fair tax is a proposal to replace the US income tax with a sales tax. Pros of Fair Tax:  It's a large change to the way the United States currently does things. The ""Fair Tax Act of 2011"" is H.R.25 in the US House and S.13 in the Senate. The full text of the bill is available at the links provided. There are some fairly large consequences of implementing a fair tax.   For example, 401ks and Roth IRAs serve no benefit over non-retirement investments.   Mortgages would no longer have a tax advantage.  Luxury items would get far more expensive."
"Yes, it will be taxable in the US. You will report your worldwide income, and will be able to take credit for any Indian tax paid. However, the portions that are tax-free in India will be fully taxable for you in the US. Keep in mind, in addition to the taxes, the FBAR requirements and the FATCA forms you may need to be filing as well. Failure to file (regardless of if any tax is actually owed) will trigger a $10K penalty. I suggest you have a US-licensed EA/CPA (tax adviser) to help you with your US tax return. Keep in mind that a ""regular"" American tax preparer knows very little of the specific requirements for foreigners and may land you in trouble. Similarly, the ""off-the-shelf"" tax software or tax preparation outlets (like H&R Block) are ill-suited for foreigners in the US. It would be best to talk to a EA/CPA who is also familiar with Indian financial terms and Indo-US tax treaty."
States have made sales tax more confusing by expanding some categories and shrinking or eliminating other categories. In days of old there were taxes on items, and specific taxes on other small categories such as fuel and cigarets . In many states there were taxes implemented state wide, and in other cases they only applied to a specific city or region. As time went on taxes could be raised to bring in more money for the state or local government, but these tax increase were seen as unfair to the poor. So now the states are modifying and tweaking the tax rates. Some items are tax free, some have a low tax, and some are at the full tax rate. This can get confusing because the type of store can also play a factor. A bag a chips from a grocery store can be treated  differently than a bag of chips from a hotdog stand. Some states have also added special taxes on snack foods. In general, purchases they want to encourage (staples from the grocery store) are tax free or low tax, items they don't want to encourage (snacks) are fully taxed. You can also be sure that they will treat luxury items as fully taxed. A new frontier of taxation are ones designed to tax people who don't live there. They have added taxes on restaurants and  hotels. Since they are paid by tourists, the people most likely to pay them don't have a voice in setting the rate.  States are now wanting to tax services as a way to make up shortfalls in taxing.  Don't expect consistency from state to state, or year to year.  Oh by the way that penny tax was for something that cost 17 cents or less, unless that item had a lower tax rate. The receipt should clearly identify the taxable items, and their tax level.
Canada doesn't tax non-residents on income earned/incurred outside of Canada. So, your sister should start with this page to determine the residency status. If she is indeed determined to be non-resident - she should look here to see her obligations. If all she earns she earns outside of Canada - her obligations will be very little, if at all. This is similar to almost any other country in the world, with the notable exception of the United States of America. US citizens are taxed regardless of their residency status, everywhere in the world on worldwide income (unless tax treaty says otherwise).
First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government.  All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live.  Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries.  Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws.
Okays, so the prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our income levels. Why should taxes be any different?  Surely they should be set by the benefits we receive from the community as measured by the market? That's what LVT is and does.