vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; They deprive the US of valuable income which has been earned through infrastructure, defense, education, etc  It doesn't. The main reason it exists is that the US double dips on taxes. The whole point of these inversions is to deal with how the US treats foreign income. Company still pays US taxes on business done in the US: ie., using US infrastructure. That doesn't change. If the company is head quartered in the US then the US expects the company to also pay taxes on foreign income -- ie., income that can't be referenced back to US infrastructure/education/etc. The company has already paid taxes in the foreign country, but the US feels the need to double dip. This double dipping is very much a US thing. It just makes moral, fiscal, and logical sense for them to do the inversion. The US government should have no rights to overseas money. The reason the move to Canada is simply that Canada, like pretty much all capitalist countries, doesn't tax foreign revenue.   You Americans really really need to look at your tax system. Speaking as a Canadian business owner who deals with US clients, it's just insane. It's easier to deal with the Chinese tax system in my experience.
No it is not required to create a trade account or a current account. If the payment is via Paypal, as per Indian laws, it would automatically get credited to your savings account in 7 days.  You would still need to declare this as income and pay tax accordingly.
The issue is that they aren't leaving, they're using a loophole to avoid paying corporate taxes even though their revenue, operation, manufacturing, and logistics base is still primarily within the United States.  Your argument is not based on any economic or financial principle but primarily out of some outrage at a non-existent statist strawman.  I'm sure you've really showed them and hurt their non-existent feelings.
If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (""convenience yield""). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia."
"I can't tell if you're just very stupid, young, or trolling.  You insist that if we don't like taxes we can just, ""go to Somalia."" WHICH IS NOT TRUE. Even if I did simply want to stop being American and live in Somalia I still have to pay taxes.  If it was totally free to leave you'd have a point - that I'm opting in to being here after the fact by not leaving. But that's just not the case. There is a real cost to leaving and renouncing citizenship and thus there is an aspect of being under duress to this ""agreement"" you claim we make.  Edit: Do you seriously not understand that these are exit taxes that I am talking about and not your regular income/property/whatever taxes?"
&gt; They already have the benefit of barely paying taxes.  I agree that the poor don't pay a fair share of taxes but that's because they don't get a fair share of income.  As soon as someone with modest skills and a full time job can afford a modest life with health care and retirement, I would support raising their taxes.
The prices we pay for goods and services is set by our level of income because we have a huge choice of price levels from luxury to economy class and DIY. This was true of rent and mortgage payments before the real estate bubble. There is still some choice though from a tiny house or trailer to a mansion. None of these are one set demand decided by someone else as with land value tax. Many people like where they live and want to stay there. Those people create a cross generational community. Land and homes must be affordable and we should have as much freedom about what we do with our homes as possible.
"&gt; Also as a 1099 worker you are still subject to income tax and jail time if not paid.  No shite shirlock.  &gt; That's the part of this you don't fucking get. If I don't give the government my money I get kidnapped and thrown into a fucking cage.  The part that *you* don't get is that it is as it should be. You live in this country. And whether you like it or not, you benefit from the stability, structure, and network that taxes built in this country. *And* you *should* go to jail if you don't pay those taxes.   You are like a little kid, born into a good home, with good parents, and has all his basic needs met but whines about his chores with cries of ""but, I didn't *choose* to be *born*...""  Don't worry.... When you grow up, one day you will grow the balls to leave."
Your pension and you are two separate entities legally.] However, in your case, what you're proposing is that the company should effectively make a loss paying into your pension: it's going to end up with more costs than revenue. So, there won't be any immediate tax saving because there wasn't revenue to pay corporation tax on in the first place. You also won't save tax because the loan will be made from previously taxed income or whatever. However, there will be a tax loss that can be carried forward and offset against future profits, so if you expect the company to make money in future to repay the loan, you might end up saving some corporation tax. You can also sometimes carry a tax loss back one year, so if your company had profits last year you could get some corporation tax back immediately. The repayment of the loan itself won't be subject to income tax as it's not income. So unless you can carry the loss back, you won't get any immediate tax relief by doing this, but it might give you a way to carry forward your annual allowance to future years, i.e. use it now and get the tax advantage later. However, the annual allowance can already be carried forward by up to three years, so this is only worthwhile if you expect that future revenue to repay the loan to arrive more than three years later. Also, this is only worthwhile if you'll continue to max out the annual allowance for paying into your pension in future years, otherwise you might as well just make the pension payment using that same revenue in future years. However, even if this beneficial tax-wise, I'm not sure if it's actually allowed; this might be viewed as an artificial transaction to avoid tax, and that could lead to HMRC disallowing the future tax relief. You might need to ask HMRC or an accountant about that. If you do make the loan, make sure it's clearly documented so you can show in future why the repayment shouldn't be treated as income.
Agreed which is why an income tax is a bad idea.  Personally I'm in favor of property taxes as a way to fund government.  It is a much more objective measure and easy for the government's to confiscate if taxes remain unpaid.
"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for ""unincorporated"" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the ""expedited development package"" which generally has a ""processing fee"" involved. This is something you make up ie. ""What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote"" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone."
Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4. The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland. The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in. If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them.
&gt; The issue is that they aren't leaving, they're using a loophole to avoid paying corporate taxes even though their revenue, operation, manufacturing, and logistics base is still primarily within the United States.  They're obeying the law to the letter. Whose fault is it that you don't like the law? The company's, or the government's?
"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a ""dependent"" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an ""emancipated minor"", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400.
Sure, they might. But they might just owe their overseas subsidiary so much that they never make money on paper in the US thus pay no tax at all. The funny thing is these tricks that make them not pay taxes here keep happening, if only congress would stop fellating the rich then you might be right.
If you timely requested an extension of time to file your individual income tax return and paid at least 90 percent of the taxes you owe with your request, you may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, you must pay any remaining balance by the extended due date. If both the 5 percent failure-to-file penalty and the ½ percent failure-to-pay penalties apply in any month, the maximum penalty that you’ll pay for both is 5 percent. If you file your return more than 60 days after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax. You will not have to pay a late-filing or late-payment penalty if you can show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time. If the IRS owes you a refund, April 15 isn't much of a deadline. I suppose the real deadline is April 15, three years later - that's when the IRS keeps your refund and it becomes property of the Treasury. Of course, there's little reason to wait that long. Don't let the Treasury get all your interest.
That Economist quote only offers a very weak argument.  It doesn't argue from anything fundemental, it just says they think corporations borrow too much and the tax-code should remove this insentive to borrow.  That's an arguement based on a feeling and weak.   There's absolutely a logical consistency to allow a deduction for interest at the corporate level and not dividends.  As mentioned, interest is an expense to a financier, dividends are distributed residual income.
I think it's safe to say that removing the deduction will do a lot more than hurt the housing market. Consumer discretionary income will decrease and most likely hamper the growth in the economy we have seen since 2008. Seems like shitty policy to move when republicans are also trying to cut corporate taxes.
The Medicare deduction you see is a tax, not a monthly premium you are paying for your own Medicare coverage.
"Article admits the ""subsidies"" are tax breaks.  Every business takes deductions to ensure they get taxed on income, not revenue.  These breaks aren't subsidies.  If you want to talk about subsidies, then look at renewables. That $7500 refund a rich Tesla buyer gets from the taxpayers is a subsidy."
"the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest.  particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.).  and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are ""rich"" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows.  while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client."
One of many things to consider is that in the United States student loan interest is tax deductible. That fact could change the math enough to make it worth putting A's money elsewhere depending on his interest rate and income bracket.
Debt = satan's work. Also the tax deductibility of interest = voodoo nonsense, so it should never be considered. If people actually understood this deduction they would probably be up in arms for evading taxes. Not to mention accretive pressures on management of a covenant burden. Clearly satan's work.
Rent deposit returned to you is not an income. Its your money to begin with. The homeowner is taxed on taking it and can expense the refund, but for you - there's no taxable event. ATM rebate is what it is - rebate. A cash discount over the money paid. Basically - the bank refunded you a fee you paid (ATM rebate is a refund of the ATM fee you paid to a third-party ATM operator). Again - your money. The ATM operator and the bank both have taxable income/deduction, but its not your problem. You - just got your money back. No income, no taxable event. Neither should appear on your tax forms, and similarly nor should credit card points, cash rebates, frequent flyer miles, etc. All are in fact either a refund of your money paid or a merchant discount to you, not an income.
The state and local tax deductions (including property taxes) disproportionately benefit the rich ([88% of the benefit is to those with AGI &gt;$100,000](https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-tax-deduction-primer/)).   Cutting SALT would be a progressive reform. However, it would reduce the subsidy for state and local taxes, so there is a trade off.
"As best as I can understand, your payout is based on your AIME, which   is also capped at that same $118,500, so Trump's payout should also be   equivalently small, exactly proportional to this cap Not sure what you want from Bernie here, but that is correct. Is it accurate to say that Trump will be paid by social security as   though his actual income was $118,500, rather than his full income? Assuming Trump does pay that much (depends on how much of his income is actually subject to the FICA/SE tax), yes, it is accurate. However I believe what confuses you is the point Bernie Sanders made about people getting the same benefit while being rich. Bernie's point was that Trump and the likes don't need the social security income, while they're still getting it. Social Security is designed (at least theoretically) to be the safety net for people of age who cannot provide for themselves, thus it is not supposed to be ""you get what you paid"" system. This is a political discussion though. Social Security system, by definition, is based on a major principle of any socialist society: we as a group should support those who cannot support themselves. Thus, Bernie's point is that we shouldn't support Trump (and the likes) at all since they don't need that money. But they should still pay the tax to allow supporting those who do need, but cannot pay in."
"&gt;Yes, they are. Ridesharing is just a term for Unmarked taxi booked through app.  No.. Ride sharing is when you share a lift with someone, traditionally it's when someone is going somewhere and they offer space to others too (And that's quite popular where it exists).  Uber is a minicab company in that you book a vehicle and it take you somewhere, in the UK at least, it's regulated and licensed in the same way (as opposed to black cabs which are licensed and regulated differently and can be flagged down).  &gt;I have no issue with that, since ""Government regulated taxi"" is so awful in almost every city on earth, that ridesharing has improved safety and convenience.  That may be true in parts of the US and some other places, but it's really not the case in 'almost every city on earth'. I've lived in quite a few and visited many others and frankly Uber is at best on a par with taxi services, especially given that having an app to book is no longer unusual, where it does better is in places where regulation is essentially a protectionist mess (which is more an exception than the norm)."
"Uber absolutely is a taxi company, in the UK taxi model.  Uber are doing with an app what every British minicab company has been for decades doing with a phone call.  I appreciate that Uber are ""regulation busting"" in the US, or presenting themselves as such, but when the dust settles a deregulated market is a race to the bottom (as the British minicab industry long has been)."
For DACA Immigration Attorney, contact Immigration Law Group, PC (ILG) at 1300 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 525, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-416-1789. ILG is a Washington, D.C. law firm which practices exclusively in US immigration law. ILG represents a wide variety of clients from around the world. Call today to arrange an in-person consultation or get more information at http://www.immigrationgroup.com/CM/Custom/DACA_deferred_action.html
I swore off mcds back in 2002 have not had it since ex eat for breakfast but even places like chicken a FIL have them beat.  Shitty food made by shitty people, sorry but the people at chick a FIL  are much nicer and it improves the experience a lot
&gt;it will be supplanted by another ride-sharing company.  Uber is essentially a transnational minicab company at its heart, it isn't really a ride-sharing anything, someone doing ride sharing well could absolutely eat significantly into uber's space, but probably not supplant it (And Uber is doing a whole slew of things now too..).
Our subway pass is literally called an Orca card.  The native american orca art is all over the city, and you walked past several whale watching tours on your way to the aquarium.   You're either a bit oblivious or remembering what you want to on this one.
It's possible that a particular policy change would flip a company from profitable to unprofitable. It is even more likely that broader economic cycles put you out of business. Or a competitor gets a major business advantage. Or you make a bad management call.   Our government is set up to encourage moderate decisions through majority rule. The president has a lot of power for one man, but without congress he's got real limits. Even with congress, the filibuster means that the minority has some real teeth against extreme bills. This idiot is saying hey we weathered 4 years and grew under Obama including 2 of a democrat majority congress, and the worst recession in 80 years, but ANOTHER 4 years, well we just don't know.
"I have never seen anything that suggest it's illegal to charge ""fair"" interests on loans, personally or commercially.  Even CRA has long allowed the use of properly written ""promissory notes"" as the proof for personal loans between individuals, as long as the rates are consistent with their current ""subscribed rate"" (think bank's prime rate, if you don't want to having to look it up on CRA site). Loan Shark is someone or some entity that charges significantly higher interests than the rates posted by FI's.  We are talking about 30+% versus the bank's 10%.   Yes, we can argue the FI's are acting like Loan Shark when it comes to credit card interest rates, but that's another discussion."