vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
***tldr; companies FTP to recognizes profitability and opportunity costs of divisions as well as use it for overseas tax breaks.*** Side note: Politically speaking, people who know how this works are pissed off about it in the U.S. (don't worry though, most politicians on both sides don't have a clue). We have high corporate tax rates relative to other countries and IRS loopholes allow this kind of thing (lobbying $$). It's also why, economically, you can't just raise ***corporate*** tax rates to increase domestic tax reciepts as more companies will just implement this process (it's complicated to do properly). Also, please don't say 50 years ago tax rates were higher and raising taxes increased receipts. The fact is most companies couldn't even FATHOM doing this 50 years ago, no less even 20. edit: some clarification in wording"
Fast forward to 1970, where our $10,000 CPI adjusts to $15,975 and median household income is now $6,186: 14% on first $500 15% from $500 to $1,000 16% from $1,000 to $1,500 17% from $1,500 to $2,000 19% from $2,000 to $4,000 22% from $4,000 to $6,000 25% from $6,000 to $8,000 The highest marginal tax rate has dropped 23% to 70% from 91% and our median American is paying a maximum marginal tax rate of 25%. Skip forward to 2010, where our $10,000 CPI adjusts to $91,504 and median household income is now $49,445. 10% on the first $8,375 15% from $8,375 to $34,000 24% from $34,000 to $82,400 28% from $82,400 to $171,850 33% from $171,850 to $373,650 35% above that The highest marginal tax rate has dropped another 50% from 70% to 35% and a total of 62% from the 1950 rate. Of course, this is all skewed because the more income you make the better able you are to shelter income from taxes. A family making median income is unlikely to be able to take significant advantage of tax shelters."
Although I am not a tax professional, and in this case you would be better off with a professional advice, my understanding (at least of Arizona, New York and California individual tax regulations that I've been dealing with) is that you only pay taxes in the state in which you're domiciled.  Lottery winnings are payed by States/State-run corporations and as such sourced to the State that pays it. Buying a ticket in SC links you to the lottery run in that State, even if you live in another. You'll be claiming your winnings in SC, not in NC, and the winnings will be sourced to SC, not NC. As such SC will be taxing them. NC will be taxing them as well, since you're NC resident.
A bit over a decade later, when it was first instituted it was initially set at 3%, but applied only to a select category of goods; subsequently the rate was increased (to 4%, then 5%, then with the addition of various county and municipal ""sales taxes"" to 6% and higher), and more critically, the goods and services that are subject to the tax has increased as well (many of them already with ""hidden/buried"" excise taxes -- so a large portion of the sales tax is actually a ""tax on a tax""). When you realize that as wealth increases, the average expenditure on taxable goods tends does NOT tend increase in anything like a directly proportional manner (i.e. while a person making $50k a year, may pay more than 2x the total sales tax than someone making $25k a year {simply because a big part of the $25k a year goes to ""basic necessities"" of food, rent, etc}, and it is even possible that the person making $100k a year pays a simple 2x in sales tax of the $50k person... but the $1M a year is HIGHLY unlikely to be paying 10x the sales tax as the $100k a year person) then you begin to realize the way that the ""regressive"" form of those taxes work -- basically ""hobbling"" the middle class and preventing it from reaching ""upper"" middle class status. Now to be ruthlessly blatantly forthright, it is NOT simply a matter of blaming the ""rich"" -- because the lion's share of those ""taxes"" were and are being used to ""redistribute"" money to an ever increasing number of non-working people (either retirees, or ""disabled"" former workers, etc) -- the vast majority of which were things ""demanded"" by the general population. Hence the TANSTAAFL reality.
We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example. insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life."
Well not over 50%. I would want a very very simple flat rate tax (say around 25-30%) with a high personal allowance (say around $25k) and no tax breaks etc. This seems to be the fairest. Low incomes pay the least and the rich are taxed fairly but not to the extent they feel the need to avoid it.
Yeah but people have been renouncing their citizenship. Also most of these companies like Apple these are domiciled in Nevada and then internationally in Ireland. Like there's no way to get 50 states to agree on a state income tax so it's a race to the bottom state-wise. And then federally they just move offices to Dublin and domicile there.
Yeah good point about the 15%. I was thinking about short term where it's taxed at ordinary income. I do agree something has to be done I just don't know what because they have the whole system balanced. As soon as you introduce one change they figure out a loophole around it. It's screwed up
This page and this page on the ATO website provide some information on tax rates. They're rather lengthy and there's a few exceptions, but essentially, your entire foreign income, even if held overseas, is taxable. Australians are taxed worldwide.
Currently certain money back policies are tax free and a vast majority are taxable. There are revised guidelines that would govern which policies are tax free. At a broad level the rule is that the sum assured under the policy should be 10 times the premium paid. There is no distinction of single premium or yearly. Hence certain policies of single premium are taxable. Further there is a TDS also in place from this year. This article gives a good overview. You should consult the documentation of your specific policy and check with your insurance company or CA.
This answer will be US-centric but hopefully most of the information will be applicable to other jurisdictions: Generally speaking:
In general you will take home more in the US than in Canada. There are so many variables that is is impossible to provide a comprehensive answer that will cover all bases: so here are a few hand-waving statements. Two example calculator web sites for Canada and the US (chosen somewhat at random through Google, show that making $50,000 of either currency for the upcoming tax year in Canada you would expect to pay about $9,100 and for the US $5,900.  Missing there are the state taxes, however, which also vary wildly. The deductions, adjustment and credits in both countries can really add up, so if you have specific questions, you should consult a tax specialist. Similarly, both countries provide various tax sheltered investment structures that change the game somewhat over the long term.
The question is whether the assessment is in line with surrounding homes. If my 1500 sq ft house on 1/4 acre is assessed far higher than a similar sized house/land nearby, I'd have a case. +/- 10% can be for age/quality, but 25% or more, I'd investigate. mhoran is right, values for different purposes need not align. A start would be to use a service like Zillow which offers property tax information, as well as house sizes. Let us know what you discover. Welcome to Money.SE
"I don't live in Pennsylvania and I don't know anything about this particular tax, but just the name says that it is a ""local"" tax. TurboTax covers federal and state taxes, not local taxes. Many places have city, township, and/or county taxes that you are required to pay in addition to state and federal taxes."
Banks and credit card companies are taxing everyone.  Why is it that people go ape shit over government taxes that actually (at least sometimes) provide services when the banks tax us and keep all the money?  How much money is two percent of almost every transaction?
You should add it to all the other income and continue paying taxes as you would on your Irish salary. That is true for both the US and the Irish sides of the equation. In case you didn't know - your Irish earnings are taxable in the US, since the US taxes all of your income. Your Amazon.com earnings are taxable in Ireland since that's where you earned it. You can use the FEIE/FTC as appropriate on your US tax return to reduce your tax liability, but all of your income should be reported.
But they aren't, your number fails to compare the US to any other countries in 2013. My numbers do compare the rate in the US to other countries over four different years.   Edit: also, it is funny that the rate cost rise in the US has increased since we passed the afordable care act... hmmm....
And many would argue that tax policy can help GDP when it builds stability and infrastructure (while states like KS seem to show the opposite to be true). Lets do another comparison, and see if we can get even more apples to apples. Lets find a couple of states the sit right next to each other, have very similar economies and demographics, but very different views on taxes and infrastructure. How about: WI and MN, KS and MI, NH, and ME, and OR and ID. Conservative with very lenient tax policy, an emphasis on freedom and reduced government: WI, KS, ME, and ID. Liberal states with emphasis on infrastructure, and social services: MN, NH, OR, MI. In all of the above examples, the liberal states exceeded the conservative states in job growth, and GDP growth. This doesn't mean the liberal state exceeded the national average - in the KS/MI and MN/WI examples, both states lagged the national average. However, in both examples the liberal state faired better. People could argue it is in-spite of the increased taxes, or they could try to find minute differences in the economies. Those states are pretty close, and yet the liberal states exceeded the conservative states. This can be seen on a global scale as well. It is almost as if people need a safety network, and stability before they are able to produce. It is hard to concentrate on innovation and invention while you are worried about being able to buy groceries, pay for that big surgery, or make sure your kids go to a good school. They have even seen this play out in commercial markets. [Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) is one of the most successful freeware programs in the world - despite the fact that it pays its ""employees"" absolutely nothing. When they interviewed the participants, they found that the one common thread was basic needs. As long as their basic needs were being met, the most important thing to them was that they were part of something bigger and were contributing to society. &gt; My high school spent tens of thousands of dollars on Macbook Pros and iPads the same year they started having these ""big"" paper shortages. I agree - straight dollars do not equate to good education.
Irrelevant to the question. Regardless what is used for the tax base, we would still have the same debate but with much larger anti-taxation sentiments.   Supply side Jesus either works or doesn't and shifting the federal revenue sources to the income taxes does not change it.
In cases like this you should be aware that tax treaties may exist and that countries are generally willing to enter into them. Their purpose is to help prevent double taxation. Tax treaties often times give you a better tax rate than even being a resident of the countries in question! (For instance, the Italy to US tax rate is lower than simply doing business in many United States)  This should guide your google search, here is something I found for Germany/Spain http://tmagazine.ey.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2011G_CM2300_Spain-Germany-sign-new-tax-treaty.pdf It appears that the dividend tax rate under that treaty is 5% , to my understanding, the income tax rates are often multiples higher! I read that spain's income tax rate is 18%  So what I would do is see if there is the possibility of deferring taxes in the lower tax jurisidiction and then doing a large one time dividend when conveninet. But Germany isn't really known for its low taxes, being a Federal Republic, the taxes are levied by both the states and the federal government. Look to see if your business structure can avoid being taxed as the entity level: ie. your business' earnings are always distributed to the owners - which are not germany citizens or residents - as dividends. So this way you avoid Germany's 15% federal corporate tax, and you avoid Spain's 18% income tax, and instead get Spanish dividends at 5% tax. Anyway, contact a tax attorney to help interpret the use of the regulations, but this is the frame of mind you should be thinking in. Because it looks like spain is willing to do a tax credit if you pay taxes in germany, several options here to lower your tax footprint.
"In the context of this thread... the state level.  In the context of your first comment; I would say the city level. But if you're comparing Baltimore and Booneville (wow, that's actually the name of the largest city in Owsley County Kentucky?) it's still apples and oranges. And much of that county is outside of any city limits...  In the context of your ""Government is not your nanny"" comment, well those are all at the national level... So look at per-capita spending for national programs that cover both areas equally (e.g.  Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare maybe?). Be careful citing overall welfare numbers that vary by state though (like food stamps or other welfare programs).  So, what point are you trying to make? The data needs to fit that argument. Total wealth? Taxes paid at the same level (state / federal / city / county)? Amount spent on education? Median household income compared to cost of living?"
"Assuming my math is correct and that I'm not missing something about Roth investments, it appears to me that either option will work out exactly the same if you will be in the same tax bracket in retirement. This is true only if your average tax rate in retirement is the same as your current marginal rate. I'm surprised none of the answers mention this since it is the crux of your question! If you can deduct an IRA against your income taxes, it is almost always better option than the Roth equivalent. Marginal rates should not be compared to average rates or you will form all sorts of inaccurate conclusions. ""If you are in a lower tax rate in retirement traditional is better"" really means, ""if your average tax rate in retirement is lower than your current marginal rate, traditional is better"" - which for the overwhelming majority of Americans is the case. Consider the following. Let's say your intend to contribute $1000 in one year (making $2k) and withdraw it the next that is your only income in that year. Your tax brackets look like: This is quite simplified but for this purpose will illustrate precisely why comparisons like you are making are very misleading. In this case you can put $1000 in and pay no income tax at all (because you deduct it). You then withdraw $1000 the next year. The first $500 you withdraw you pay no taxes on and the next $500 has a tax rate of 15%, for a total tax of of $75. However - this is a tax against your entire withdrawal of $1000, so your average tax rate (this is important! average is different than marginal) is only 7.5% and you are left with $925. In this case you can only contribute $850 to the IRA because you are taxed against the money at your marginal rate (15%). When you withdraw it, you don't pay any taxes and are left with the entire $850 $850. This is less than the above, because you are taxed the whole amount at your previous marginal rate. If however your tax rate in retirement was 30% for everything above $500, only then are the two scenarios equal.
It relies on the fact that [Irish tax law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland) does not include US [transfer pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing) rules. Specifically, Ireland uses [territorial taxation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Taxation), and hence does not levy taxes on income booked at subsidiaries of Irish companies that are outside of the state. In the late 1980s, [Apple Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Tax_practices) was among the pioneers in creating this tax structure. &gt; --- ^Interesting: [^Double ^Irish ^arrangement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement) ^| [^Criticism ^of ^Facebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook) ^| [^Corporation ^tax ^in ^the ^Republic ^of ^Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland) ^| [^Abbott ^Laboratories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Laboratories) ^| [^Facebook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&amp;message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjzsh40) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&amp;subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&amp;message=%2Bdelete+cjzsh40)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less.
As an American living in Canada, you don't get it.  The USA wants all of us expats to pay taxes twice. No other country but one does that.   If the USA would follow the rest of the world and not tax profits again after being taxed abroad, these companies wouldn't leave.  We could be having a better conversation here, but it's meaningless buzzwords of patriotism and boycotting.   Burger King will have growth and profit internationally. It makes more sense for them to focus on that. If they end up with 20% of their profit from the USA, why would they pay 120% taxes?  Obviously it's not quite as simple as that, but you get the general idea. The last thing our politicians want is us talking about eliminating double taxation. Just as you can't be tried for the same crime twice, you should not be taxed twice. When BK pays local taxes in whatever country they're in, whether it's lower or higher than the US is irrelevant. Taxes have been paid. End of story. Doesn't matter if it's a lower rate or creative accounting. It's done.
"There is *some* merit to it, in that [federal gross receipts are largely uncorrelated with tax rates](https://i0.wp.com/wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/top-federal-personal-income-tax-rates-tax-receipts-2014-02.png).   There are two somewhat perverse consequences of that fact - First, raising taxes **doesn't** raise revenues, meaning we can't actually pay for ""moar free stuff from Uncle Sam!"" merely by adding an offsetting tax increase.  And second, raising taxes on group-X (ie, the rich) to make them pay their ""fair"" share flat-out *doesn't work*, it's effectively just kicking them in the balls because we grudge them for having more money than we do.  Now, as to whether or not lowering taxes really encourages companies to hire more and pay better - That's an entirely separate issue from whether or not it's revenue neutral from the perspective of the federal government.  Fortunately, we have a recent historical example - Reagan did exactly that, which ushered in a period of corporate greed and erosion of workers' rights not seen since the end of the days of the Robber Barons.  So on the front-end, Trump's not wrong; on the back end, he's trying to sell us unicorn farts."
"You asked about the challenges. The transition itself is the biggest one. For people to get used to the tax at the register vs at their paycheck. For a great number of people to find new work. I don't know the numbers, but anyone involved with personal income taxes would be out of work. Sales tax is already part of the process in most states, bumping it to a federal tax wont add too much in overhead.  I make no moral judgment, but consider, most prostitutes and drug dealers are avoiding income tax, but they still are buying the same goods in stores you and I are. This proposed tax reduces the collection noncompliance, and brings more people into ""the system"".  Another factor some may not like is the ability to affect behavior by picking and choosing what to promote, via deductions, such as home buying or charity."
As long as tax cuts for the rich and increases in the military budget are considered sacrosanct; while universal education and healthcare are considered luxuries the deficit will increase.  For their taxes Europeans get free education for life through graduate school, a healthcare system that American's would want if they were allowed to know it existed, child care, clean streets, a justice system that has the lowest recidivism rate in the world and a stable middle class.  For our taxes, Americans get parasitic billionaires and fighter jets that can't fly in the rain.
They seem to agree in part with the opinion author on the suggested fix.   David Leonhardt(NYT Opinion Author) wrote:   &gt; Different policies could produce a different outcome. My list would start with a tax code that does less to favor the affluent, a better-functioning education system, more bargaining power for workers and less tolerance for corporate consolidation  Whereas they wrote:  &gt;Third, despite the rise in means-tested benefits—including Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit, created in 1975 and expanded in 1986 and the early 1990s—government redistribution has not enhanced income growth for low- and moderate income working-age Americans over the last three decades. There are clear limits to what taxes and transfers can achieve in the face of such massive changes in the pre-tax distribution of income like those that have occurred since 1980. In our view, the main conclusion is that the policy discussion should focus on how to equalize the distribution of primary assets, including human capital, financial capital, and bargaining power, rather than merely ex-post redistribution
If we count down from the top, this small percentage of your income probably falls wholly within a bracket (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely in the same bracket), so the entire contribution is at the same rate -- your marginal rate, the rate you cite as your tax bracket. However, when you withdraw in retirement, it is likely that every year, the retirement account withdrawals account for a large percentage of your income, maybe even half or more. If we count down from the top, this large percentage of your income probably crosses into lower brackets (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely to be in different brackets), so the withdrawal is partly taxed at one rate, partly taxed at another. So if your tax bracket is 15% in the Traditional case, it's likely that your withdrawal is taxed partly at 15% and partly at 10%. So in this case, the average tax rate on the withdrawal is lower than your ""bracket""."
This is complicated but I think I know what you mean. I guess it would depend on how the UK would be broken down into states. I mean we have states the vary in population from Wyoming to California. But the article the OP is referring to was written in response to income inequality in the UK. So I guess the fact that depending on how we break the UK down it could rank high or low makes the authors point, there is also a lot of income inequality in the UK.