vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).
In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional."
"First - Welcome to Money.SE. You gave a lot of detail, and it's tough to parse out the single question. Actually, you have multiple issues. $1300 is what you need to pay the tax? In the 25% bracket plus 10% penalty, you have a 65% net amount. $1300/.65 = Exactly $2000. You withdraw $2000, have them (the IRA holder) withhold $700 in federal tax, and you're done.  All that said, don't do it. Nathan's answer - payment plan with IRS - is the way to go.  You've shared with us a important issue. Your budget is running too tight. We have a post here, ""the correct order of investing"" which provides a great guideline that applies to most visitors. You are missing the part that requires a decent sized emergency fund. In your case, calling it that, may be a misnomer, as the tax bill isn't an unexpected emergency, but something that should have been foreseeable. We have had a number of posts here that advocate the paid in full house. And I always respond that the emergency fund comes first. With $70K of income, you should have $35K or so of liquidity, money readily available. Tax due in April shouldn't be causing you this grief. Please read that post I linked and others here to help you with the budgeting issue.  Last - You are in an enviable position, A half million dollars, no mortgage, mid 40s. Easily doing better than most. So, please forgive the soapbox tone of the above, it was just my ""see, that's what I'm talking about"" moment from my tenure here."
Will I have to pay Income Tax/Capital Gain Tax in India for the full amount or 50% of the amount. Assuming you were the owner of the plot, you have to pay capital gains tax on the full amount. Current at 10% without indexation and 20% with indexation. Rest of amount will be used to purchase property in India. If you are re-investing the money into capital assets, you are not liable to pay Capital Gains for the amount invested. This is applicable only for first 2 houses. Consult a CA. What is the procedure to transferring the money to him. What declaration in have to give to the Bank (any Forms to fill) Under the liberalized remittance scheme you can transfer upto USD 1 Million per year. A CA certificate is required declaring the purpose and giving certificate that taxes are paid. Please contact your Bank or CA to guide further.
Yes, you can do what you are contemplating doing, and it works quite well. Just don't get the university's payroll office too riled by going in each June, July, August and September to adjust your payroll withholding! Do it at the end of the summer when perhaps most of your contract income for the year has already been received and you have a fairly good estimate for what your tax bill will be for the coming year. Don't forget to include Social Security and Medicare taxes (both employee's share as well as employer's share) on your contract income in estimating the tax due. The nice thing about paying estimated taxes via payroll deduction is that all that tax money can be counted as having been paid in four equal and timely quarterly payments of estimated tax, regardless of when the money was actually withheld from your university paycheck. You could (if you wanted to, and had a fat salary from the university, heh heh) have all the tax due on your contract income withheld from just your last paycheck of the year! But whether you increase the withholding in August or in December, do remember to change it back after the last paycheck of the year has been received so that next year's withholding starts out at a more mellow pace.
The key for you  this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years.  The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly  taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual.  Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax   for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to   see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase   your withholding or make estimated tax payments.  General rule.    In   most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the   following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and  Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014   adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are   married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of   your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014   return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.
"Taxation is only theft if you believe that you are the undisputed ""owner"" of the money the government collects as a tax.  I argue that the concept of ownership only has meaning in the context of what property rights your fellow man is willing to respect.  If, like me, you believe that taxes are a financial obligation that you must pay to participate in society, then the government has every right to collect those taxes from you.  I'm sure you can imagine a set of rules by which the money actually belongs to you, but if you're the only one who wants to play by those rules, those rules don't matter a hell of a lot."
&gt;marginal 2% extra in taxes  This is gibberish.  You aren't even using the term 'marginal' in the correct context.  That aside, 2% extra tax solves what exactly? 2% extra of which tax?  Be honest, you pulled that number from absolutely nowhere.  Am I wrong? Let's see that source that shows '2% extra' of some unknown tax is going to solve an unstated problem. All without toooooootally screwing over the teachers pensions, mom and pops and the rest of the lenders that expect you to pay back the money they lent to you.  You are doing nothing more than trying to justify theft of someone's money because you don't want to pay them back. Your debt is someone else's problem, right?
Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).
He has said it many times in the past and even said so. Idk why you think posting it out of context is accomplishing anything different. According to Elon, the tesla stock price shows where tesla could be in the future, hence 'higher than we deserve right now'. Which those were the choice of words of the interviewer anyways, not elon.
House rent allowance:7500 House Rent can be tax free to the extent [less of] Medical allowance : 800 Can be tax free, if you provide medical bills. Conveyance Allowance : 1250 Is tax free.  Apart from this, if you invest in any of the tax saving instruments, i.e. Specified Fixed Deposits, NSC, PPF, EPF, Tution Fees, ELSS, Home Loan Principal etc, you can get upto Rs 150,000 deductions. Additional Rs 50,000 if you invest into NPS. If you have a home loan, upto Rs 200,000 in interest can be deducted. So essentially if you invest rightly you need not pay any tax on the current salary, apart from the Rs 200 professional tax deducted.
"You don't ""need"" your refund to be as small as possible, but you usually would want it to be as small as possible. The reason people say you should aim for a small refund is that getting a big refund means you paid more in taxes than you had to.  This means you gave away money that you could have done something else with.  You get the money back later as a tax refund, but you lost the ability to use it during the time the government had it. For instance, if as you say you are getting a $1000 tax refund, that's $1000 that you are giving to the government over the course of the year.  At the end of the year, you get it back, so you end the year with $1000.  If you instead kept the money, (by paying only exactly as much tax as you owe throughout the year) you could invest it somehow, so that by the end of the year it could potentially have grown to, say, $1050.  Thus at the end of the year you would have $1050 instead of $1000. Ideally you would have zero refund and owe zero extra at the end of the year.  However, since it is often difficult to make things work out so exactly, people often say you should aim for a small refund. Assuming you are in the USA, if your income is only $9000 you will likely not owe any federal income tax at all, so you could claim exemption from withholding and avoid paying any tax ahead of time.  You could check this when you file your taxes by seeing if the refund you get is equal to the total of taxes withheld from your paychecks over the course of last year."
I don't think you're stupid, evil, bad or anything like that.  I'm sure in fact that you are an intelligent, nice person who only wants the best for everyone.  I just think that you are in a willful mannor refusing to understand the difference between insurance and healthcare.  It's not that you are incapable, it is that you simply refuse to do so.  You are doing so to justify making the bad guy out of an industry whose goal is to make health-care accessible to as many people as possible by spreading out the cost of health-emergencies over time, which is mis-directed anger.  I fully appreciate and understand that most health-care is payed for via insurance.  However, this is entirely an artifact of business-tax deductions which make it cheaper for individuals to accept part of their compensation in the form of health insurance benefits.  Health care and insurance aren't intrinsically inseparable, they are bound together in the US due to the tax code.    So what you should be arguing for is the removal of business health-care tax deductions, and direct financial assistance for the poor.  This would make insurance and healthcare a more competitive market, which would in turn drive costs down, and by giving the money directly to the impoverished more of the benefit would reach them, rather than creating some huge bureaucracy that it has to be filtered through first.  But instead you are choosing to vilify a industry for not handing out free health-care, which is misguided at best.
Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals.  IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars.   Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code.  Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k).  Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now.  Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later?  Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion.  Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance.
"The Finance Buff discusses why the Roth 401k is often disadvantaged compared to a Traditional 401k in the article The Case Against the Roth 401k, including the following reasons (paraphrased): Contributions to the 401k come from the ""top"" of your highest tax bracket rate but withdrawals fill in from the ""bottom"".  For example, suppose you are in the 28% tax bracket.  Every marginal dollar you contribute to the Traditional 401k reduces your tax burden by .28 cents.  However, when withdrawing, the first $10,150 of income is tax-free (from standard deduction and exemption, 2014 numbers; $20,300 for married couples, joint filing).  The next dollars are at the 10% tax bracket, and so on.  This is an advantage for the Traditional 401k only if you earn less when withdrawing than you did when contributing, a reasonable assumption. Avoid High State Income Tax. There are many states that have low or no state income tax.  If you live in a state with a high income tax, paying tax now through the Roth 401k reduces the benefit of moving to a state with a lower income tax rate. Avoid triggering credit phaseouts. Many tax credits (e.g. student loan interest, child tax credit, Hope credit, Roth IRA eligibility, etc.) begin phasing out as your income increases.  Contributing to the Traditional 401k can help you realize more of those credits when you starting running up against those limits. As described in the article, if these items don't apply, contributing to the Roth 401k can be a valuable component of tax diversification."
"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the ""mega-rich"" are hedge fund managers ""who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate."" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes.
"&gt;  The other big difference between Gen X and the surrounding generations, in regards to retirement, is Social Security. The Baby Boomers will have Social Security for most of the rest of their lives; it's funded, and it won't be a problem. Millenials have mostly come of age knowing that's a joke. Gen X, on the other hand, grew up and worked at least part of their lives under the assumption that Social Security, while having problems, would at least provide some help. However, with the way the economy and government is going, it's very possible that won't be a guarantee without major adjustments (decreased payout, increased retirement age, etc), so they're going to be taking it there as well.  Add in the fact that the [FICA taxation rates changed dramatically over a 3 decade time span](http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html).  Boomers, especially the *early* contingent, were able to earn money for decades at *relatively very low* (&lt; 10%) FICA tax rates, and only faced the higher rates when many were already earning well above the ""cut off""; meanwhile most of GenX have effectively paid +14% on ALL of their earnings for their entire working lives, from the day they left high-school or college.  *About the only ""benefit"" that GenX gets out of all of this, is that it is WE who will be able to write the ""epitaphs"" and the final history about the Boomer Generation (and it isn't going to be a ""love fest"").*"
"From your description, the taxes may have been withheld incorrectly. You were most likely a nonresident alien during your entire stay. ""Teachers and trainees"", which include anyone on J status who is not a student, are ""exempt individuals"" (exempt from the Substantial Presence Test) unless they have already been an exempt individual during any part of 2 of the prior 6 calendar years. So if you haven't been in the U.S. as an F-1, J-1, etc. for at least 6-7 years before you came on J-1 this time, the first two calendar years of your time on J-1 this time does not count towards the Substantial Presence Test. You said you were there for 18 months. That stretches over either 2 or 3 calendar years. The first two calendar years of it would be exempt from the SPT; even if it stretched into a third calendar year, an 18-month period could not stretch for more than 6 months into a 3rd calendar year; so even in that case you would still not meet the Substantial Presence Test for the 3rd year. Since you do not meet the Subtantial Presence Test during any of those years, you were a nonresident alien for all of those years (unless you decided to file jointly with a resident spouse or something). Nonresident aliens on J-1 are exempt from FICA taxes (Social Security tax and Medicare tax) for employment as a researcher that you were authorized to do on your J-1. They should not have withheld FICA taxes from you. You should have informed them at the beginning when you initially noticed that they did, because it is a huge pain to get it back afterwards. For FICA taxes withheld in error, you can first ask the employer to refund them; and, if that fails, get a written statement of their refusal and then file Form 843 and Form 8316 with the IRS. However, given that IRS is very underfunded these days, expect it to take a long time to hear back if you ever hear back."
"As usual, you're again wrong :""http://askville.amazon.com/opt-out-Social-Security-system/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1338366""  and [here](http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2011-04-27-opting-out-of-social-security_n.htm) and [here](http://dailyreckoning.com/opt-out-of-social-security/) and [here](http://www.crown.org/library/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=690) and.... well, about everywhere shows you to be wrong again. Google finds this quite easily.  So although there are a few classes of people who can opt out, the average person, and the vast majority of Americans, *cannot opt out* since they do not meet the criteria.  Most people *cannot* opt out of SS since they *are required by law* to pay FICA by the IRS, as stated in the wall of text you copied without understanding.  &gt; **Seriously, you need to learn how to use google asshole. Stop looking like an idiot and posting blatent lies.**  How's that ignorance feel now? :)"
"&gt;Exactly. People don't seem to realize that a lot of the things they take for granted as being provided by the government were more than adequately provided by private charities until the government stepped in and 'fixed' things.  Or that -- absent things like a 15.3% FICA tax (and all of the other taxes that have been added or increased substantially during the past couple of decades) -- which people could simply afford to save up and pay for themselves (or help friends, family, etc).  Currently private charity is significantly restrained because there is so much taken away (from the lower &amp; middle class wages) via taxes -- so quite literally, they already ""gave at the office"".  &gt;This is why the founding fathers hated democracy  Yes, they were well aware of (and VERY wary of) the possibility of the ""tyranny of the majority"" and the inefficiency/corruption that would tend to happen via governments."