vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The Cayman Islands has an income tax enacted, it is just currently 0%.  It raises revenues from its tourism, import duties, and business registration.  It is part of the UK commonwealth and therefore enjoys the military protection of that federation, but doesn't have to spend on it. But unlike the US, the UK does not have an umbrella federal income tax on its overseas territories, so the Cayman Islands doesn't have to pass that down to its citizens nor do its citizens/residents have to be encumbered by one. It was not taxed by the King when it was first incorporated (hm, might need to fact check that). They also didn't go to war with the king over some small tax, so they got treated differently than some other North American colonies you might think of. The Cayman Islands is not the only government that raises revenues this way. Delaware also has a 0% income tax and raises the majority of its revenues on business registration (and perpetual franchise taxes on those businesses), allowing it to spare its citizens from passive income taxes. But unlike a US state, a citizen or business in a UK overseas territory does not have federal regulatory overhead, making it more attractive as a worldwide financial center.
That period was also significantly less regulated as measured by the size of the federal register. As of 2013, there is 18x as much regulation as in 1950 ([source](https://www.mercatus.org/video/visualizing-growth-federal-regulation-1950)).  Additionally, the middle class didn't pay taxes in the 90% bracket and the rich most likely didn't either as the rich tend to receive the majority of income through capital gains or other passive income.   The top capital gains rate was significantly less--25% starting in 1942--than the top rate for ordinary income during the post-war period.  Edit: spacing
It's the percent of your gross income put into savings. You make 60000/year, and save 6000, that's 10%.  You can certainly say that you paid 10000 in tax so you really saved 6000/50000, or 12%, if that will make you feel better, but the saving rate is typically based on gross income.
Taxation of the rich is slightly different than laws about a lot of the things you mention.   I'm not gay and have nothing against gay getting married (and getting the same rights as other married couples)  I don't use drugs, but have nothing against legalizing drugs (it has worked wonders in Portugal the last 10-15 years)  What I DO find strange is, that rich people are NOT expected to pay the same _percentage_ of their income as poor people .. regardless of the amount they end up paying.
&gt; Also, wtf did the rich people do to deserve to be punished?  When America thrived from the 40s-60s the top marginal tax rates were in the 70%'s. The rich still got rich. Then they lobbied it down to the 30%s, doubling their take at our expense.
Years before retirement isn't related at all to the Pretax IRA/Roth IRA decision, except insomuch as income typically trends up over time for most people.  If tax rates were constant (both at income levels and over time!), Roth and Pretax would be identical.  Say you designate 100k for contribution, 20% tax rate.  80k contributed in Roth vs. 100k contributed in Pretax, then 20% tax rate on withdrawal, ends up with the same amount in your bank account after withdrawal - you're just moving the 20% tax grab from one time to another.   If you choose Roth, it's either because you like some of the flexibility (like taking out contributions after 5 years), or because you are currently paying a lower marginal rate than you expect you will be in the future - either because you aren't making all that much this year, or because you are expecting rates to rise due to political changes in our society.  Best is likely a diversified approach - some of your money pretax, some posttax.  At least some should be in a pretax IRA, because you get some tax-free money each year thanks to the personal exemption.  If you're working off of 100% post-tax, you are paying more tax than you ought unless you're getting enough Social Security to cover the whole 0% bucket (and probably the 10% bucket, also). So for example, you're thinking you want 70k a year.  Assuming single and ignoring social security (as it's a very complicated issue - Joe Taxpayer has a nice blog article regarding it that he links to in his answer), you get $10k or so tax-free, then another $9k or so at 10% - almost certainly lower than what you pay now.  So you could aim to get $19k out of your pre-tax IRA, then, and 51k out of your post-tax IRA, meaning you only pay $900 in taxes on your income.  Of course, if you're in the 25% bucket now, you may want to use more pretax, since you could then take that out - all the way to around $50k (standard exemption + $40k or so point where 25% hits).  But on the other hand, Social Security would probably change that equation back to using primarily Roth if you're getting a decent Social Security check.
Income Tax would only be levied on the 10% commission that you earn and not on the total amount kept in the Escrow Account.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/994323/economists-say-the-ultra-wealthy-dodging-taxes-far-more-than-we-think/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Economists Annette Alstads&amp;aelig;ter, Niels Johannesen, and Gabriel Zucman have taken the data from the two leaks and combined them with unusually detailed income and wealth records in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark to estimate the size and scope of tax evasion. &gt; The economists&amp;#039; surprising finding: The top.01% of the wealthy in these countries evades about 30% of their respective personal income and taxes, compared to the average evasion rate of 3%. These findings complicate two arguments commonly made by defenders of the status quo: One, that tax evasion is a relatively uncommon practice among the very wealthy highlighted by extreme cases, and two, that tax evasion among lower-income earners-working under the table or failing to declare tips, for example-is more pernicious than the use of offshore banks. &gt; The researchers think that the results will likely show more tax evasion among the ultra-wealthy in more unequal countries, like the United States. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6etje2/economists_say_panama_papers_and_swiss_leaks_show/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~134702 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."
It would make sense to refuse a raise when it pushes your effective marginal 'tax' (including reduced benefits) above 100%.  The working poor (family of 4, 20K-40K in the US) often face marginal rates above 100% when you consider the phase out of various government benefits (EITC, insurance, housing,etc.)  You can see the research here and here.
[90% of their income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Bahamas) is from services.  And 80% of that income is from the US..... Do some research.    Still waiting for this no tax, no government utopia which works *so well* (yet there doesn't seem to be a good example of in existence...)
"We'll, he provides some figures on the burden on lower income households.  It kind of makes sense.  Even if both middle class households and lower income households consume the same relative amounts of ""sinful"" goods, there will likely be a higher burden on the poor.  It's exasperated by the high tax rate on those goods. The only way to remove that higher burden is for the poor to ""consume less vice"" than the affluent.  That's an awkward position to hold.  It doesn't make sin taxes bad public policy.  They're an effective tax strategy that can be dedicated to helping provide other necessary social services.  But, they can be regressive and push other values at the same time."
"I'm not. it's going to backfire and here's why.   if you raise wages they will lose their section 8 housing and Medicaid.   if they're not on either it will still affect people in the area because if you raise wages you raise the price of goods and services, taxes go up, cost of living goes up, and they're back at square one.   this whole idea of ""I deserve more because I live here"" needs to get tossed. Nothing in life is handed to you so why the fuck would a decent job fall out of the sky?   get with it...."
Who would lose their jobs?  Sure some jobs that can only exist at $7 an hour would disappear, but when the lower and middle class hav emore disposable income, consumer spending would go up, creating jobs in other areas.    Basically you would take money from the rich to put it in the hands of people who spend the money, stimulating the economy.  This increases the prosperity of the nation.
But has inflation went up ? The only reason jobs would be lost would be if the cities economy couldn't absorb the inflation .  Since you are now increasing the incomes of every one at the bottom , the city will likely be able to absorb the inflation . The question really is have the people at the bottom increased there spending power over all  and have there been winners and losers for example maybe servers are doing better but retirees and others on a fixed income worse .
"&gt;""You didn't lose your job, you just had temporary employment."" Same as back in the late 1990's (when unemployment was really low) -- a lot of people got jobs they really weren't qualified for; and were paid far more (at least on a scale relative to their co-workers) than they were really worth. The sad thing about that is that they came to *believe* they were truly worth that amount of money. The same with houses. My home (bought in late 2000) increased in ""estimated market value"" by 75% (i.e. to 175% of it's previous sale price when I bought it) -- and the ""bubble"" around here wasn't anything like it was in other regions of the US; and of course, now it has (ostensibly) sunk back down to very nearly the price I paid for it. The problem (for a LOT of people) with that is that -- even if they didn't buy during the peak bubble years -- they refinanced or HELOC'd based on that higher estimated value, and so ended up basically removing (and then spending) the lion's share of equity that they had built up in their house. For others, it was much the same as the late 90's employment -- they came to ""believe"" that their house was worth XX% more -- and they have difficulty ""letting go"" of that illusory estimated market price. So they are experiencing the ""wealth LOSS effect"" just as they once experienced a ""wealth effect"".
Do you have a clue of what would of happened to you if you had some serious condition and at some point you lost your job? Insurers would deny you insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and you would be left out to dry.   Now maybe you aren't as unfortunate as having a serious health condition, but no new bill will make everything better for everyone.
&gt;eventually, the US will lose money until the point where production in the US is cheap enough to bring it back.   Not if they raise taxes.  I recently saw a mention of a research job in psychology that came to a conclusion more or less like this: given the choice of getting $100,000 while their neighbor got $250,000 and the alternative of each getting $50,000, most Americans chose the second option.  They'd rather get less for themselves rather than let their neighbor get more than they did.   That's why so many Americans favor higher taxes on the corporations. It doesn't matter if the corporations become unable to invest in more jobs, the important thing is not to let the corporations make money easily.
&gt;If businesses cannot turn a profit while paying for a healthy minimum wage, they are bad for the economy and deserve to die.  Tell that to all the minimum wage workers that would lose their jobs and deny most of them the ability to get back on the jobs ladder at all.  Also tell that to the taxpayers that now have to pay 100% of their social burden, instead of maybe 20% in the minimum wage job situation.  The sentiment you express is absolute, unabashed economic violence against the poor and the taxpayer.  Both lose in your proposal.  You should be ashamed of yourself.
&gt;and unfortunatley, keeping unemployment low is directly at odds with increasing productivity.  That is a good point.   Up until now, the loss in manufacturing jobs has been generally offset by the increase in service jobs. If service jobs start becoming more automated - then I think we'll have to become a society in which more and more individuals become entrepreneurs/self employed to generate income.    We're already seeing this to some extent - just have to browse r/entrepreneur.   * People trying to monetize blogs/websites/vidoes * Creating new products/services  * Using new technology to do something new (cloud based mobile apps) * Crowd sourced funding * Peer to peer lending  The internet is allowing individual people with a entrepreneurial spirit to fulfill their goals.
We need more info to give a better answer, but in short: if you assume you will make $0 in other employment income next year, there is a HUGE tax benefit in deferring 50k until next year. Total tax savings would probably be something like $15k [rough estimate]. If you took the RRSP deduction this year, you would save something like 20k this year, but then you would be taxed on it next year if you withdraw it, probably paying another 5k the year after. ie: you would get about the same net tax savings in both years, if you contributed to your RRSP and withdrew next year, vs deferring it to next year.  On a non-tax basis, you would benefit by having the cash today, so you could earn investment income on your RRSP, but you would want to go low-risk as you need the money next year, so the most you could earn would be something like 1.5k @ 3%. The real benefit to the RRSP contribution is if you defer your withdrawal into your retirement, because you can further defer your taxes into the future, earning investment income in the meantime. But if you need to withdraw next year, you won't get that opportunity.
Many examples in Europe and other countries have shown once you break that barrier people will go to extreme lengths to avoid it. So much so back in the 80s in the UK tax rates over 75% were imposed, needless to say when they reduced it to 40% they actually got more money.   Ultimately it does more harm than good to the economy and means well paid jobs leave the country and go elsewhere. The exact same thing is happening right now with the French moving to London.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930
When you withdraw money from an RRSP account, it is added to your current year's taxable income. It does not matter what year the money was previously deposited in. If you deposited money into an RRSP this year and withdrew the same amount of money, then the net effect is that you have $5000 RRSP contribution and $5000 extra income, and the two effects should cancel out. The only remaining effect is that you wasted $5000 of contribution room which can never be regained. The exception to this rule is that after 90 days, you can withdraw funds from an RRSP for the HBP and LLP without adding to your taxable income.
Specifically, many people found out they lost their job because their pass would to open the gate to get in to their office building. These people were then diverted to a separate queue, and at the front of that was someone from HR telling them that they were no longer needed.
&gt;Of course there will be a net loss in jobs.  If you draw your box around the fast food industry only, then yes.  However, if you draw your box around the entire US economy, it's not so clear cut.  We have absolutely no idea what jobs will come in the future.  Every single time an industry has been wiped out, from polar ice delivery to horse carriage manufacturing, new industries have risen to take their place.
Not necessarily. If you have a family you may be less likely to leave your job because you depend on the income a lot more than if you were single or without kids. When you are responsible for the well being of others you will think twice before quitting your job or slacking off.
There are jobs for all those people - especially with lower corporate income tax. If your addicted to drugs or alcohol - you must take responsibility for your actions and not expect someone who didn't get addicted to bail you out - that only encourages addiction. There are plenty of jobs and it's very simple to apply - just walk up to someone and say I would like to do that job. No excuses.
If the work is done in India, then the income arising out of it, is taxable when received by you, and not when it come into India ...
"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that.  Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion ""don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so"" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the ""don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all"" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds."
I am suggesting that, on a macro level, a wage increase of 2% would offset a 1% increase in unemployment.   More spending power equals more demand, and more demand creates jobs. While hard in the short term, Bob's job will come back but with a higher wage.    If your goal is that no one lose their job, capitalism is not the economic system for you.
There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the   average worker. People retiring today will be among the first   generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they   receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new   analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who   have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they   will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that   will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by   The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary):  10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if   there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an   impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing   shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most   young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax   Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return   on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than   they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old   two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500.   That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what   workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes   in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by   financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old   worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently   pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement   benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question?
You say that like they won't hide money if we tax them more.  We had much higher tax rates from the New Deal to the 80's and that's when we saw the middle class grow.  Tax rates go down, money leaves the system, middle class goes away.  Automation is destroying more and more jobs and will continue to do so.   I'm all for lowering the corporate tax rate to attempt to encourage wage increases.  Somehow I doubt it will work.  Until it does.  Just gotta keep taxing the 0.1% since they have 80% of the wealth.
&gt;The assumption that most of the jobs will be automated doesn't necessarily imply that automation leads to job loss.  That's the problem. Apparently, it does. Every job can be replaced with a new software. Again, short-term there it might not be noticable, but in few decades, there is a high possibility of most jobs being replaced. But this is not the question, the question is, how would businesses make money in case everyone was replaced with a software.
Simply NO, you can NOT be put in prison for unpaid debt in America!! However, if you commit a crime to earn wealth, you can be put in prison for that.
It will take a bit of sacrifice.  First, I'd review spending. Between you and all your family, try to separate the 'needs' from the 'wants' and cut out 75% of the 'wants.' Second, there's almost always part time work that can help raise extra money. Even if it's a small fraction of your current hourly pay, every bit you and your family can throw at that 30% debt will help get rid of it and help you get to the point when you can refinance the mortgage.
Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.