vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://larrysummers.com/2017/10/22/one-last-time-on-who-benefits-from-corporate-tax-cuts/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The analysis from Hassett, chief of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, relies heavily on correlations between corporate tax rates and wages in other countries to argue that a cut in the corporate tax rate would boost returns to labor very substantially.  &gt; The authors include no corporate tax detail, no recognition of the impact of the tax proposal on asset prices, and no treatment of the budget consequences of tax cuts.  &gt; The newest boldest bit of claim inflation regarding the tax bill comes from the Business Roundtable: &amp;quot;a competitive 20 percent corporate tax rate could increase wages sufficient to support two million new jobs.&amp;quot; This would, coupled with job growth projected even in the absence of a corporate rate cut, take the unemployment rate well below 3 percent! I would be very interested to see the underlying analysis.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78551e/summers_one_last_time_on_who_benefits_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~233281 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 **corporate**^#2 **rate**^#3 **cut**^#4 **investment**^#5"
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cato.org/publications/research-briefs-economic-policy/do-corporate-taxes-hinder-innovation) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Are these two objectives at loggerheads? Does changing corporate tax policy also affect future firm innovation? Such debates have become particularly prominent today when many governments face a trade-off between austerity - which requires more attention to government balance sheets - and future growth.  &gt; My administration released a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation.  &gt; Given the tax deductibility of R&amp;D expenditures and the existence of R&amp;D tax credits, as well as the plethora of sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that some firms adopt, many policymakers doubt that raising the corporate tax rate actually hinders innovation in the real world.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6l4vtd/do_corporate_taxes_hinder_innovation/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~158649 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 **innovation**^#2 **corporate**^#3 **firm**^#4 **change**^#5"
&gt;*The U.S. economy should aim to increase output, measures should be put in place such as corporate tax and income tax reductions,*  How about raising taxes on rich people and cutting taxes on poor people? How about raising the minimum wage? How about increasing government spending?  The solution given is just conservative [Grover Norquist Starve the Beast](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Starve_the_beast) boilerplate, and has been enacted since the early 1980s. It hasn't worked.
They're wrong. The IRS instructions (pub 969) specifically say: To be an eligible individual and qualify for an HSA ... You [must] have no other health coverage except what is permitted under Other health coverage, later. So no, he is not eligible for HSA if he keeps your coverage. Here's what the same IRS Publication 969 has to say about the excess contributions (contributions in excess of what is allowed): Generally, you must pay a 6% excise tax on excess contributions. See   Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (including IRAs) and   Other Tax-Favored Accounts, to figure the excise tax. The excise tax   applies to each tax year the excess contribution remains in the   account. You may withdraw some or all of the excess contributions and not pay   the excise tax on the amount withdrawn if you meet the following   conditions. You withdraw the excess contributions by the due date, including extensions, of your tax return for the year the contributions were   made. You withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in “Other income” on your tax return for the year   you withdraw the contributions and earnings. The 6% excise tax is on top of any other tax (like the regular income tax) that he has to pay on the money.
It doesn't because Obama has zero plans to raise corporate taxes. It fact his last proposal was to lower the rate 6 percent.   This CEO is a greedy fuckstick concerned about paying a few percent more per year on his personal income tax.
This is how the government maintains a steady stream of income while also drawing interest on your tax dollars. Toward the end of the tax year, Joe's company has to send him a W-2 form in the mail. This happens by January 31. This form details how much money Joe made during the last year and how much federal tax was withheld from his income. This information can also be found on Joe's last paycheck of the year, but he'll need to send the W-2 to the IRS for processing purposes. At some point between the time Joe receives his W-2 and April 15, Joe will have to fill out and return his taxes to one of the IRS service and processing centers. Once the IRS receives Joe's tax returns, an IRS employee keys in every piece of information on Joe's tax forms. This information is then stored in large magnetic tape machines. If Joe is due a tax refund, he is sent a check in the mail in the next few weeks. If Joe uses e-File or TeleFile, his refund can be direct-deposited into his bank account.
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? I know it's almost never that easy but really, if working 40 or 80 or even 100 hours per week doesn't deserve the same break how do you justify it for the person who simply purchased their future income? Labor is after all hired to help produce capital goods. How is their contribution to those capital goods not part and parcel to the capital gains? Even with these issues I still wouldn't have such a problem if markets, including wage and capital ratios, acted independently of these effective tax rates. But that notion is absurd, even if doing so require some illegal maneuvers. Which in many cases do not. So yeah, I find your argument to be specious and quiet arbitrary at every level.
The most depressing here in the UK is that several different think tanks have come out and categorically said that the by far the most effective tax policy is a very simple flat tax rate and high personal allowance (i.e. the threshold before you get taxed).   Getting rid of all the tax allowances and other complication would massively streamline the system and there would be huge savings. The system would be fairer and would generate more cash. However, this will never happen because it will perceived as tax break on the rich, when in reality it would be a tax increase because of the lack of tax breaks.
If you withdraw all (or most) of your pension 25% is tax free but the rest is treated as income upon which you will pay income tax at the usual UK rates. Withdrawing a lump sum to buy property is therefore unlikely to be 10% per annum as you'll spend years making up lost ground on the initial capital investment. If your pension is a self invested personal pension (a SIPP) you could buy property within the pension wrapper itself which would avoid the income tax hit. if you don't have a SIPP you may be able to convert your pension to a SIPP but you would be wise to seek professional advice about that. The UK government is also introducing an additional 3% stamp duty on properties which are not your first home so this may further impact your returns. This would apply whether you withdraw your pension as cash or buy the property within a SIPP. One other alternative to an annuity in the UK is called drawdown where you keep the money invested in your pension as it is now and withdraw an annual income. This means your tax bill is reduced as you get to use your annual allowance each year and will also pay less higher rate tax. The government provides more details on its website.
"He is actually arguing for higher taxes.  When he talks about ""competitive"" taxes, he means that US taxes are too low, which is why we can't fix our infrastructure, and why we are failing to make other investments that corporations depend on for growth (like research and standards development).  http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/20/investing/jamie-dimon-higher-taxes-meet-the-press/index.html"
You've just pushed the problem off to trying to figure out the market value of property, not to mention that property values are subject to bubbles. I don't particularly worry about the problems that would cause the government, but it makes it really hard on businesses (and people) that now have to pay a lot more than they budgeted for.   Property taxes are a useful thing, and serve an important purpose, but you don't want to bet budgets on them alone. Diversification is important in all kinds of investments.
You can find Wall Street Financial Analysts and Distinguished Research Professors of Economics to stake any position on the spectrum of economic theory from marxist to anarcho-capitalist. That is one of the ways that you can know that economics is not science. Physicists do not disagree about gravity.  History (and logic) show that when govt. raises taxes in aan uncertain economy that wealth will be stck into safe investments and if there is a threat of confiscation (and there will be), then wealth will hide.
You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp  This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.
The particularly hilarious part was the conclusion:  &gt;What is to be done about it? The answer is that if the world is facing such an enormous glut of savings then they have to be taxed as fast as possible to prevent they imbalances they create. So we need higher corporation taxes. We need withholding taxes on dividends and interest going to tax havens. We need capital gains taxes at rates as high as income taxes. We need an investment income surcharge to increase tax rates on unearned income to match those including national insurance on earnings. And we need effective wealth taxes. Plus a continued crack down on tax havens, of course.  &gt;And I mean we may need all of these. The world cannot afford for its wealthy people to become US$57 trillion richer in the next five years. That would be a disaster for us all, including the wealthiest. So action is needed urgently. And now. We can’t wait for things to get ugly.
Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.
I know everything I need to know about you.   You are in favor of a tax system that doesn't apply to you.  You don't think on a macro level of the inherent effects it would have on the market,  people's 401k's, investments,  and property values.    You think short term. No thought on the viability or future health of investments.   They don't apply to you,  so why would you care?  You care because you are a self serving narcissist that deems it acceptable to raid other people's prosperous endeavors.  You have selfish interests in the guise of altruism.
Most individuals do not need a personal financial advisor. If you are soon entering the world of work, your discretionary investments should be focused on index funds that you commit to over the long run. Indeed, the best advice I would give to anyone just starting out would be: For most average young workers, a financial advisor will just give you some version of the information above, but will change you for it. I would not recommend a financial advisor as a necessity until you have seriously complicated taxes. Your taxes will not be complicated. Save your money.
Sounds like a poorly written piece at best... The way you make money with a mortgage, if you're careful and/or lucky and/or patient, is to use that loan to make leveraged investments. If the return on the investments is higher than the interest on the loan, you win. Of course if the investments don't do well you can lose money on this deal... but at current interest rates it isn't that hard to make a profit on this arrangement, especially if you can get the tax deductability helping you.
How about if we lower taxes on the bottom two brackets and increase taxes on the top two brackets? Right now it's 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. But wouldnt it be better if we change it to 8, 13, 25, 28, 35, 38 percent?   The poor are the ones who spends most of their money on sale taxes than compared with any other brackets and the more money the poor have the more they will spend which will lead to more growth in the economy
Like most software it's about what you put in to them. We use ProSeries software which is like TurboTax but $4500 with no questions.   I would do your taxes on online and then have a professional do them. You then can ask any questions you may have to better understanding of what's going on. Only take copies of your documents because some unprofessional places will try to keep them.  Do this each time something big changes in your life, you have a baby, buy a house or start a business.  May cost more but could save you thousands in the long run.  I have been doing taxes professionally for 7 years.
Of course you can accept gold as payment.  Would anyone pay in gold? Would it have tax consequences on your federal taxes? These additional questions are off-topic on this site about personal finance.
It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments).
"Thinking about the business overall, your ""profit"" would be: Since this is a sole proprietorship, the taxes are going to depend on your marginal tax rate. If you file jointly, your income will determine what your marginal tax rate is.  If you file separately, there likely wouldn't be any tax on that income since it's less than the standard deduction, but you lose benefits of filing jointly (combined exemptions, etc.) So think about how much she would charge, what expenses are involved (before taxes), what the taxes would be on that profit, and what the ""opportunity costs"" are - is it worth time away from the kids/hobbies/etc. for that hobby? How much should a hobby business make to make it worth the effort of charging for such services? That would fall in the ""expense"" section.  Are you talking about the actual costs (tax prep, etc.) or just the hassle of collecting, accounting, etc.  Certainly those are a consideration but it's harder to quantify that.  If you can come up with some sort of cost then certainly it would fit in the overall value equation. I'm not sure using additional Social Security benefits as a gauge is helpful, since you wouldn't see those benefits until you're of retirement age (according to SS) and a lot can happen between now and then."
You can cut taxes and not impact the rich by playing with numbers, deductions that dont apply to them. From what I've read the newest proposal from GOP will only cut taxes for the rich by removing some taxes only they pay and actually increases taxes on middle class since it removes common deductions like property tax
Instead of a simple buy signal, you need to be able to rank your investments from strong to weak on the buy scale and sell the weaker investments that you already own to buy the stronger investments that you have received signals from.
Social contract is what makes a society work.  I don't see how it is rooted in theft.  If an individual doesn't want to honor it, I suppose the proper thing to do is to leave and find a place that better suits them.  One story I've read of people renouncing their US citizenship was about expatriates who can't afford to pay US taxes on top of local taxes.  I can empathize with a situation like that.  At least they're not trying to have it both ways by not paying taxes and remain US citizens.
&gt; The solution now? That is difficult. I would say that the solution now would be to raise revenues through corporate taxes and similarly increase government spending on investments aimed at stimulating the economy. Use this time to invest in the much needed infrastructure maintenance and upgrades that the USA needs. These need to be fast-tracked into action and I would therefore consider fixing infrastructure as more important than installing new infrastructure.   Thats fine and dandy, but it would never ever pass congress.  Im canadian myself, but i know Australia as a strong economy, and at least you dont count on USA for 70+% of your exports like us &gt;&lt;
Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return.  I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary.
A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%). Buying ""riskier"" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make. I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals. If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go. And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more. People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well. Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one. The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake. No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%. It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant. Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average. You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described. If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud).
In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king.  Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash.  Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key.  Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector.   Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy.  The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved.  Build up the rainy day fund.