vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"It depends on the rules in the specific places you stay.  Specific places being countries or states.   Some states may consider pension payments to be taxable income, others may not.  Some may consider presence for X days to constitute residency, X days may be 60 days in a calendar year whether or not those days are continuous.   It doesn't matter so much where your mailbox or mail handling service is located, it matters: You may owe taxes in more than one place.  Some states will allow you to offset other states' taxes against theirs.  Some states in the US are really harsh on income taxes.  It's my understanding that if you own real estate in New York, all of your income, no matter the source, is taxable income in New York whether or not you were ever in the state that year. Ultimately, you can't just put up your hand and say, ""that's my tax domicile so I'm exempt from all your taxes.""  There is no umbrella US regulation on this topic, the states determine who they consider to be residents and how those residents are to be taxed. While it's possible you may be considered a resident of multiple states and owe income taxes in multiple states, it's equally possible that you won't meet the residency criteria for any state regardless of whether or not that state has an income tax.  The issue you face, as addressed in @Jay's answer, Oklahoma will consider you a resident of OK until you have established residency somewhere else."
"If you have a huge disparity in incomes, ""maybe"".   If you make roughly in the same ballpark, **Noooooo!**   The ability to file separately and have one partner (the higher earner) itemize and claim all the home-related deductions while the other takes the standard deduction is one of the greatest (middle-class) loopholes in modern tax law.  When married, even if filing separately, you have to both itemize or both take the standard deduction.   You just need to take care that the person itemizing has provably contributed *at least* the amount they claim toward the house.  So have one of you write the checks for the mortgage and property tax, and the other pay for everything else, and it'll probably come out roughly even over time.  Going back to my first line, the US tax code seems to be designed around the stereotypical Donna Reed 1950s household, with a single earner.  The closer you are to equal, the bigger the marriage tax **penalty** gets."
Bahamas receives almost all of their income from producing nations that have strong tax policy.  Without that incline what do they have?   And Saudi and Qatar are both nations with some of the largest income inequality problems, and staggering problems with education, poverty, and care for the average worker.  Both countries also greatly supplement their labor with very cheap immigrant labor that are there almost on slave contracts. [I lived in the Middle East for almost 3 years] Not exactly good examples of the benefits of the free market...
"&gt;Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to.  Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the ""fairness"" of taxation.   The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him.  You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works.  If you want to ""tax the rich"" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%."
But this leads to states competing and losing out in general.  If they were to pick based on price and merits of location they'd end up paying taxes somewhere in the US if they wanted to come at all.  I just don't like when states compete to undercut each other like that.
Yes but your janitor make 100k because he is in NYC. He would make a lot less elsewhere.   That said is ludicrous that the country should cater to NYC issues. NYC should fix its issues instead.   Cost of living differences are the big equalizer among states and areas. I mean I'd love to live in NYC but cannot afford to. So you move to somewhere where you can realize your other goals. If for the janitor NYC living is the  dominant goal then he gives up the tax breaks for the higher income.  You can debate if this is a fair trade or not. But the trade off existence is not automatically bad.
All else being equal I wouldn't object to zero capital gains tax. Except not all else is equal. The differential between earned income and capital gains is enormous. This is more than enough to drive huge sums of money out of incomes and into capital gains. Private equity funds provides the simplest and most legal means of accomplishing this. There are more legally questionable methods, though not challenged at this time, involving carried interest. Let's say an employer has $1 they can choose to pay an employee or divert it into capital gains. If the effective tax rate that employee pays is 40% that leaves 60 cents going to that employee and doesn't even count the other cost of that employee through unemployment insurance, etc. If they divert it then at the top rate it becomes 85%. So, even without other cost considerations that becomes a 25% surcharge on treating it as wages. More than enough incentive freezing out wages as much as possible in favor of capital gains. Which is occurring on a large scale. So let's get back to the issues faced by granny selling her house. You say it's unfair for granny to pay 35% as opposed to 15% on the capital gains. Yet is it any more unfair than granny paying 35% on her earned income all those years she paid for the house? Wouldn't she be much better off if all those years she paid less on her earned income, at the expense of paying more on her capital gains, all with essentially the same overall federal tax receipts? So in essence you are arguing that she should be screwed less on her one time capital gains in favor of screwing her many many times that amount over the years leading up to that sale. Ouch. So let's look at the difference between capital gains and income at the investor level. You have a wage earner that gets out of bed every morning and works at the beckoning of someone else daily. We'll suppose they are it the 35% tax bracket, under $400k. Is it more fair to charge them 35% than it it the person who invested their money and gets their paycheck while watching I Love Lucy reruns?
Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!
Grass is always greener at the other side of the hill.  Tax is only a small proportion of your costs. you could easily set up a small company in a so called tax haven. But are you willing to emigrate? If not, will the gain in less taxes cover the frequent travel costs? Even if you would like to emigrate less tax might be deceiving.  I recently had a discussion with a US based friend. In the US petrol is way cheaper then in Europe. THere were many examples in differences, but when you actually sum up everything, cost of living was kind of the same. So you might gain on tax, but loose on petrol, or child care to just name some examples  For big companies who think globally it makes sense to seek the cheapest tax formula. For them it does not matter where they are located. For us mortals it does.
I'm pretty sure his secretary pays a higher rate, not higher amount.   The argument they're following the law and if you don't like it change it really kills me. When you spend money lobbying for a change to the tax code how can you then claim you're just following the law?  It's ridiculous there are 7 tax brackets below &amp;450K yet only one above it. I know families right on that line, work closer to a million and some that blow that away. They live completely different lives and should not be paying the same top tax rate on earned income.
http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/june/income-redistribution-policy-economic-stimulus/  http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-savings-rate-by-income-level-2013-3  I mean it's not like I pulled this outta my ass. It's common knowledge at this point. There's a reason offshore tax havens are a problem, and that reason isn't poor people using them.  There're lots of things they can do with their money. As a bonus, this also doesn't account for the fact that higher income individuals are more likely to take vacations/business trips outside the US and spend their money in another country.
You're right about FICA (I forgot it is calculated on gross income and not Adjusted Gross Income). State tax rate in that bracket still should be nominal or zero depending on the state. Sales tax... things cost what they cost.  &gt; Regardless, 70% of minimum wage isn't enough to cover a car, a child, a good vacation, a serious health care problem, an aging parent, or a modest retirement.  Social safety nets are impossible to address via a minimum wage. You could make the minimum wage $30/hr and some people will still become bankrupt by our ridiculous healthcare system. Why not lobby for single-payer healthcare and a universal basic income like $1000/mo/adult and $500/mo/child?
So how do we get the money from the people that did not earn it, to the people that did earn it without the government redistributing it?  I think you may be thinking that I am saying everyone should always be equal when I am saying that we need to have a more proportional income distribution which, if done correctly, would make things way more equal than they are now.
exactly...and this isn't even just theory...we have hard examples of higher tax rates NOT translating into higher tax receipts:  While we had crazy top income rates in the past per this: http://t-a-x.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/1.png  we saw that didn't translate at all into higher actual $ receive by the govt: https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/taxrevenuepercentGDP.png
"Fwiw, I don't actually put much credit in the laffer curve, but just like to point out that the argument that it justifies tax cuts is predicated on being above the peak rather than below.  I'll also point out that the biggest expansions of the US economy happened under a top marginal rate of 90%. That rate was basically only on income higher than what 99.9% make. Of course explaining marginal tax rates to most people fails. If you say ""were lowering rates but adding more brackets at the top end. (90, 99, 99.9, 99.99 %ile, for instance). Or even doing something like ""lowering tax rates, but all personal income is taxed the same"" and possibly ""dividends are taxed at the income tax rate of the individual, but are deductible from the corporate income""."
According to the US government a percent of your income from all over the world, whether or not any part of it happened in the US.  You sold a burger made of US meat on a US bun in a US city?  Yeah pay taxes to the US on it.  You sell a burger made of Canadian meat on a Canadian bun in a Canadian city?  You should pay Canadian taxes.  In a reasonable world you should pay US taxes on a single burger and Canadian taxes on a single burger.  In the real world you pay Canadian taxes on a single burger and US taxes on two burgers.  Unless of course you keep your Canadian income overseas and never bring it to the US.  Though you'll have to deal with a million articles about how you are hiding money from the US gov in overseas tax havens.
Taxation is theft. So you are right there is no fair share of theft. And you are right we don't hold our state to the same standard as we would any other gang that demands a cut of your income. But you want to hold people that we voluntarily do business with to a higher standard than those that steal from us?
If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax."
What do you propose a fair share should be?  They pay nearly $900 million per year in income taxes. Their effective rate is reduced due to them paying higher taxes in years prior, plus they lost money and can deduct that as well.   Not to mention, they are double taxed as a corporation and payroll taxes are not part of that $900 million, so they're paying even more than that.   Part of what makes the US awesome is an environment that helps business grow. What do you think will happen when a business pays let's say 20% on revenue generated in other countries and then another 20% tax on that revenue here?  Either companies will move to a country with a lower tax rate or they pull back on global trade. Both are bad for the economy.
From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa
So if some 3rd world country with 0 infrastructure offers a better tax environment, we should just join them in the race to the bottom?   I'm not saying our tax code isn't fucked up, but whatever is happening in the tax code that makes these inversions possible needs to be fixed.
Tax liability in US: You would need to determine if you are a resident alien or non resident alien. Resident alien are taxed normally as per US citizens. For the annual remuneration you have quoted it would be in the range of 25%. Refer http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm  To determine if you are resident alien or non resident alien, you need to be present for certain period in US. There is also an exemption even if you meet this you can still be treated as non resident alien if your tax home is outside US [India in this case] Refer to the link for details to determine your category, the durations are for number of days in financial year, hence it matters when you are in US and the exact durations. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html Also note that if you are assessed as resident alien, even the income from India will be taxed in US unless you declare there is no income in India. Tax liability in India: The tax liability in India would be depending on your NRI status. This again is tied to the financial year and the number of days you are in country. While the year you are going out of India you need to be away for atleast 183 days for you be considred are NRI. So if you are treated as Indian resident, you would have to pay tax in India on entire income. In the worst case, depending on the period you travel and the dates you travel, you could get classified as citizen in US as well as India and have to pay tax at both places. India and US do not have a dual tax avoidance treaty for individuals. Its there for certain category like small business and certain professions like teacher, research etc.
"Given your clarifying comment that you're asking about the length of stay rather than AirBnB in particular, I'd say there is a decent chance there will be tax differences.  The difference is unlikely to be in income tax, but many cities have local ordinances that impose transaction taxes on short stays.  For instance, the town where I live has a ""transient occupancy tax"" for any paid stay of less than 31 days. Unfortunately, because these taxes are often levied by individual cities, it's hard to know whether one applies in your case.  One town may impose no tax while the town right next to it does impose a tax.  You'll have to look at what your local laws are.  This could be easy if your town has a nice comprehensive website about local laws; if not you may have to do some deeper research. In any case, you should definitely look into it, since there could be penalities if there is a tax and the city finds out you're not paying it.  As AirBnB has grown in popularity, many municipalities have begun to crack down on AirBnB renters who try to make money without paying taxes like a regular motel (as well as conforming to other laws, e.g., running a business in a neighborhood zoned residential)."
&gt; 73% of Americans were in the ‘top 20%’ for at least a year  Well, sure.  [The top 20% currently begins at $92,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States).  All an American needs to do to qualify for that 73% is sell their house with ~50% equity at some point in their life since the IRS considers that income.  Great logic of this article: liquidate your primary investment and \*poof\* you're wealthy.  Even [the authors of the study cited in this article say](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/01/hirschl-research-finds-many-join-1-percent-few-stay-long):  *“It would be misguided to presume that top-level income attainment is solely a function of hard work, diligence and equality of opportunity,” they write. “A more nuanced interpretation includes the proposition that access to top-level income is influenced by historic patterns of race and class inequality.”*
Apparently it's based on either the address of the seller or vendor or your shipping address; from the AccurateTax.com blog post Destination and Origin Based Sales Tax: ... a few states have laws that are origin-based, where products that are shipped to the customer are taxed based on the location of the business itself. As of this writing, these states are Most states use destination-based sales tax, which defines the source of the transaction to be the destination at which the product will eventually be used, or the address to which the product is shipped. ... The following states [and districts] operate on a destination-based model at the time of this writing: The page Do I Charge Sales Tax or Not? from about.com seems to (somewhat) clarify that if the business is located in a state (or other jurisdiction) with an origin-based sales tax, then they will charge you the sales tax for their state and, presumably, not the sales tax for the state of the shipping address.
If you cut taxes on the 1% highest earners, that incentivizes everyone else to become high earners! Since all that's needed to enter the 1% is to become wildly successful upon the backs of others, we can expect that between 48 and 49% of the country to become 1% of the top earners with these and other incentives.  All people really needed was additional incentives to becoming rich beyond their wildest dreams!
In the EU prices on consumer-focussed sites* are quoted inclusive of VAT. In the USA prices are  quoted exclusive of sales tax. Consumer pricing is usually driven at least partly by psychological concerns. Some pricepoints are more appealing to certain types of buyers than others.  The Euro vs dollar exchange rate has fluctuated a bit over the years but it's generally averaged somewhere around 1.2 dollars per Euro over the last decade. VAT has varied around 15%-20% in most cases. Put these things together and the same headline price points are generally appropriate in both the USA and the Eurozone. OTOH the Brisith pound has been worth substantially more than the dollar or the Euro. So it makes sense to have a lower headline price in the UK. * B2B focussed sites often quote prices exclusive of VAT, you need to be aware of this when comparing prices.
Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012  In general, states with rolling conformity will follow this change. States with specific date conformity will continue  to follow the date of conformity currently in effect and will not follow the change. A few states may have their own  QSBS rules and will not conform to or be impacted by this provision of the Act. The chart that follows summarizes  these principles as applied to the enumerated states:  STATE: QSBS Exclusion Conformity:  California statutes refer to the IRC QSBS provisions but modify and limit their  applicability, and would not be impacted by this provision of the Act. However, California’s provisions were ruled unconstitutional in recent litigation and the California Franchise Tax Board has recently taken the position that gain exclusions  and deferrals will be denied for all open tax years. Florida Florida does not impose an income tax on individuals and therefore this provision of  the Act is inapplicable and will have no impact.  Illinois Due to its rolling conformity, Illinois follows this provision of the Act.  Because New York effectively provides for rolling conformity to the IRC, through  reference to federal adjusted gross income as the state starting point, New York  effectively follows this provision of the Act.  Texas does not impose an income tax on individuals
Yeah, very true. The income and wealth inequality in the US really is something else... You know, some people sure do deserve compensation for all they do - but not to the point of crippling the rest of the population, in my honest opinion.
If your payroll payments are the same each period, you will generally have the same net pay per period.  Some things that can cause variations: If your employer puts special payments in a specific paycheck (such as a quarterly or annual bonus, or a vacation payout) this can increase the percentage held from that specific paycheck.  The IRS publishes lookup tables, and your payroll system should withhold the amount in the lookup table.   If you get a raise midyear, your new payroll withholding rate may increase based on the gross pay amount.   http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf
Your source doesn't support your point.  I don't have a problem paying taxes for services we all use - you do. Charging fees for police &amp; courts is a libertarian notion.  As sourced in my previous post, no current tax rates need to be changed to pay for UH. We just need to remove corporate subsides. As a whole, America would save about 10% of GDP yearly by converting to a UH in this fashion.   If you can't honestly debate the sources or ideas I've put out and insist on circling back around to these ideological positions regardless of how often they get blown up - then I think we've made all the progress we're going to.