vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so.
Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to   individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form   requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and   what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form   1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.
As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue.  Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues.  Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.
"If you bought them, you can sell them.  That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called ""wash sale"" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year.  There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes."
"#1  The Affordable Care Act is not a gift to anybody except the insurance and drug industries.   It actually saves the federal government and employers money by giving employers a semi credible ""RFOTA"" to lay off or cut the hours for their ""overpaid older workers"" &lt;/sarc&gt; For the government money is saved by shifting families and low paid workers out of expensive government programs like SCIP and Medicaid into hugely profitable individual private insurance plans of lower actuarial value. That effectively shifts the burden to the states and sick people.  Why no discussion about the earth-changing implications of exponential growth in technology on employment?  We need to fund education substantially better or we are soon going to be a nation of largely unemployed people."
"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her ""income"" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability."
Buffett says the rich aren't taxed enough after he's already made and paid taxes on his income.  The real problem is he can put his fortune in a Trust and avoid the inheritance tax.  This puts his $75 billion in a non-taxable trust fund, and instead of $40 billion going to the government to pay for job training for the poor, a program he said he supports, it goes into a non-taxable trust.  His kids get to sit on the trust board and draw multi-million dollar salaries for dolling out millions to Asian countries.  He's a hypocrite and isn't really interested in helping the country that made him rich.
"&gt;You understand the purpose of insurance, right? It's ok to tax the rich but not ok for them to cash in on insurance?  You understand that no employees pay for this ""insurance"" right? The rich employees don't pay for this benefit, the employers do.   That being said, this is not something that is an easy question to answer. One one hand if someone is out of a job then the black and white answer is ""yes"" they are absolutely allowed to use these benefits. The other hand if this person has the ability not to utilize these benefits because they were able to create a savings(either by investments or simply saving) then why would they need to use it? I think that using this specific benefit should be a last resort, Not one to use because you don't want to use any of your money. Not that im saying this happened but again, if someone is making this kind of money, one would think they should have the wherewithal to have an emergency savings fund for this exact situation.   There is nothing inherently illegal about this, however it is, IMO, morally questionable."
All Ontario and B.C. registrants would need to update their accounting and point-of-sale systems to accomodate the change in rate and new point-of-sale rebates for the implementation date of July 1, 2010. The harmonization of the sales tax in Ontario and B.C. may affect the filing requirements of registrants outside of these two provinces. Registrants will report their HST according to their current GST filing frequency. As a result of the harmonization, there will be changes to the rebates for housing and public service bodies. More information will be released as it becomes available. Visit the CRA web site often, at www.cra.gc.ca/harmonization, for the most up-to-date information on the harmonization of the sales tax and how it may affect you. [...] Last, I found some very detailed information on the HST here: NOTICE247 - Harmonized Sales Tax for Ontario and British Columbia - Questions and Answers on General Transitional Rules for Personal Property and Services. Chances are anything you want to know is in there."
Is it liable for taxation in India? Taxation does not depend on whether to transfer money to India or keep it in GCC. It depends on your tax status. In a given Financial year; 1st April to 31st March, if you are outside of India for more than 182 days, your are Non-Resident Indian, NRI for tax purposes.  If you are NRI, income earned outside of India is not taxable in India [even if you transfer the funds to India]. If you are not an NRI, you income in GCC will be taxable in India [Even if you keep the money in GCC]. We both send our salary into a friends account in India and then transfer an amount to our own accounts This is an incorrect practise, If you are NRI, you should not be holding a Savings account, it should be converted into NRO and you can if you want open an NRE account. For your friend where you are transferring money, if there is an income tax audit, there would be quite a few questions asked and your friend has to establish and keep records that this is not GIFT, but more of a convenience agreement.
But if in fact those exchange rules do not apply and it is just considered a sale followed by a purchase, then you would need to report each exchange as a sale with that asset's basis (probably $0 for the initial one), and proceeds of the fair market value at the time, and then that same value would be the basis of the new asset you're purchasing. Using a $0 basis is how I treat my bitcoin sales, though I haven't dealt with other cryptocurrencies. As long as all the USD income is being reported when you get USD, I find it unlikely you'll run into a lot of trouble, even if you technically were supposed to report the individual transactions when they happened. Though, I'm not in charge of IRS enforcement, and I'm not aware of any high-profile cases, so it's hard to know anything for sure. Obviously, if there's a lot of money involved, you may want to involve a professional rather than random strangers on the Internet. You could also try contacting the IRS directly, as believe-it-or-not, their job is in fact helping you to comply with the tax laws correctly. Also, there are phone numbers at the end of Notice 2014-21 of people which might be able to provide further guidance, including this statement: The principal author of this notice is Keith A. Aqui of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). For further information about income tax issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Aqui at (202) 317-4718"
"The bill proposed to ""Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up ""insourcing"" labor back into the U.S."" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below. Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45. However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%.
You can receive money directly into your savings bank account. It is perfectly legal. FYI the Bank as part of regulation would report this to RBI. As the funds are received for the services you have rendered, You are liable to pay tax on the income. The income is taxed as professional income similar to the income of Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc. If you are paying your colleagues, it would be treated as expense. Not only this, you can also treat any phone calls you make, or equipment your purchase [laptop, desk etc] as expense. The difference become your actual income and you would be taxed as per the rate for individuals. It's advisable you contact an accountant who would advise you better for a nominal fee [few thousand rupees] and help you pay the tax and file the returns. With or without accountant It is very important for you to record all payments and expenses in a book of accounts.
"The point of a business is to make a profit. End of story. And, they do pay a fair wage, especially compared to the other mass market competitors, which are not Trader Joe's or Costco. Due to the vastly larger number of items per store they need a different labor model, part of which is paying them less than Costco.  Did you ignore where I said in rural areas they actually are one of the better and better paying low skill employers? Their profit per employee is just under $6,000, while for Costco it is over $18,000 per employee. ""Plenty of profit"" is not a good measure. According to your criteria, Costco should be paying their employees a lot more since they have a much larger profit per employee.   And, no, low skill employees who are easily replaced are generally not going to get paid a lot of money. That is market forces in action.   https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/13/what-do-wal-mart-and-target-pay-their-workers.aspx  http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2011/05/target-vs-walmart"
The middle class attack continues...    Nevermind that all that tax money goes to salaries, then returns in taxes, and eventually trickles back up to the wealthy in product purchasing, interest, etc, etc.  That is too long term thinking for short term America. We have forgotten that people need to have money to spend it.  This just sucks more money out of the economy and [again slows the velocity of money](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V) which is at some of the lowest levels since it was tracked. Money is being hoarded and that helps noone in a consumer economy, not even the wealthy.  The check engine light is on in the American consumer economy and noone cares about fixing it or taking it in for repairs.
"&gt;... _why the fuck are the executives getting paid instead of existing obligations being at least partially funded_?  Well, first of all, how do you define ""executive,"" and how do you differentiate between executives who had a hand in ruining the company, and those that didn't?   Are you going to withhold the salary of the executive responsible for boring securities compliance, just because you're mad at the strategic business planning?  Second, ""executives"" tend to be flexible, mobile, and have ""fuck you"" money. Turn off their salaries, and they'll just leave.   I know Reddit has this fantasy where executives don't do anything but golf and drink all day, but you can't run a company with an empty C-Suite.   Top management walking out the door would grind everything to a halt - *including* the pension plans and severance you're worried about."
Little pisses me off more than knowing I worked my ass off for shitty employers for decades to enrich lazy rich fuckers who have continuously turned the screws of oppression on me.  They need to pay.  Why would additional tax breaks inspire an uber rich person to make legitimate investments in the greater economy if they already have so much cash they don't do anything but inflate the stock market?  Stupid economics.  When a person with needs has money they spend it on needs until their needs are met and bolster the economy.  The majority with constant worry about money with no hope for relief in sight while richies get preferential treatment is mean and cowardly economics.  Does anyone really wonder why there is so much hatred, violence, suicide, addiction, disenfranchisement...?
"I'm not familiar with the law and taxes in India but can provide guidance based on general accounting and tax principles. You are right that receiving money as a loan is not income and isn't liable to income tax. Therefore i suggest you actually formalise this loan through a written contract with your friend. The contract should include all the usual elements of a loan: amount, interest (even if preferential or zero), principal, term, consequences of default and currency of loan. You can then simply state the purpose of transfer as ""Personal Loan Agreement"". If you have such a document and are questioned by tax authorities you can easily show that the inward remittance is from a loan and should therefore be treated like any commercial loan for tax purposes. As long as you disclose the debt in your tax return (if required in India) and your friend discloses any interest received as income i think you'll be above board and won't be liable for any income tax. To make sure, you might be better off having a quick consultation with an accountant or tax specialist in India to advise you and draft the loan agreement."
The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out.
"The Dutch tax office is pretty decent, although slightly overburdened. Don't expect a lot of help, but they're not generally known for making a lot of problems. Digital copies are fine, for instance. They will send you your first VAT notice. You probably would have known if your company would have been incorporated, so I'll assume you're just trading as a natural person. That means you still have to file VAT returns, but the business income is just filed annually as ""other income"".  For the VAT part, you'll need to invoice your customers. Keep a copy of those invoices for your own bookkeeping, and keep track of the matching customer payments. Together these form the chief evidence of your VAT obligation. You also have a VAT deduction from your purchases (it's a Value-Added Tax, after all). Again, keep receipts. The usual VAT period is 3 months, so you'd pay VAT 4 times a year. But if you would pay less than 1883 euro, you might not need to pay at all and just need to file annually The income part is easy with the receipts you had for VAT purposes anyway. Dutch Tax Office, VAT, in English"